Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
ofn-engraving
#11
(06-13-2019, 10:05 PM)Krikor Wrote:
(06-13-2019, 06:59 AM)Ofnuts Wrote: I think that what happens is that your path is so "dense" that you get only one layer. In other words, stroking the path with your minimal line width already male tje resulting image darker than the maximum darkness. Can you confirm by setting the Result to Keep layers and counting the layers that have been created?

Edit: problem and cause confirmed: fix uploaded soon, in the mean time, don't do that Smile

I could not reproduce the same conditions again. Although you tried to use the same settings. With this I got only a new layer generated, with the mask layer totally white and the image very dark and dense.

I've never used it before with the Layers option, I thought there would be as many layers as the number of steps used by inbetweener-02, but there's no such correlation, and with those layers the filter gets even more interesting!

Apparently everything is okay, just do not create such a dense mesh.  Blush

Thx Ofnuts.

The way the plugin works is that creates a layer per line width and strokes the complete path on it. Then it adds the initial image as a mask to each layer, and thresholds the mask to have a given layer show where the initial image has the same luminosity.
Reply
#12
Updates the scripts, added a check for the pathological case in the code and a warning in the doc.
Reply
#13
(06-14-2019, 02:28 PM)Ofnuts Wrote: Updates the scripts, added a check for the pathological case in the code and a warning in the doc.

Quote:Note: a compination of a wide minimum width and a tight path coverage can make the script fail (one single layer is created before reaching minimum luminance).
Using the updated version in 2019-06-14 of the script.

I used path-waves, with all intermediate lines interpolated with path-inbetweener, 25 steps.
The script ran smoothly, created 25 layers, but displayed a window with a warning.
   
I believe that as I better explore the script settings, I will learn to avoid unexpected results.
   

Thx Ofnuts
Reply
#14
Can you share the XCF (just before you call the script) and the script parameters?
Reply
#15
Hmmm. Previous fix wasn't that good... Just uploaded a better one.
Reply
#16
(06-14-2019, 09:05 PM)Ofnuts Wrote: Can you share the XCF (just before you call the script) and the script parameters?

Sorry to respond so late, but only now I could visit the forum.
I do not have any files related to the previous image.
I have the XCF in the previous position executing the script for the image below.
   
Link: https://drive.google.com/open?id=11Bqm4g...Sw1QxI7QZb

(06-15-2019, 10:48 PM)Ofnuts Wrote: Hmmm. Previous fix wasn't that good... Just uploaded a better one.

I ran the .XCF which generated the same error windows earlier, now using the version updated on June 15 (yesterday).
   
No problem, set ups defaults. I just changed to keep layers.
I'll play some more with this new version of the script.
Thx Ofnuts!
Reply


Forum Jump: