simultaneously add multiple layers to layer group

[sedmont]

Is there a way to simultaneously put multiple layers into a layer group, instead of having to individually put each layer into the layer group?

Thanks for any assistance.

[rich2005]

(06-30-2023, 12:18 AM)sedmont Wrote: Is there a way to simultaneously put multiple layers into a layer group, instead of having to individually put each layer into the layer group?

Is this to create a set of 'empty' layers or is it for previously 'filled' layers (say from an animation) ? 
Is it from separate (source -> destination) images or within the same image ?

[Ofnuts]

Just uploaded ofn-move-copy-layers that will do this to my script collection. If your group is empty, you have to add a dummy layer in it to act as a target, and then remove it after the move.

[sedmont]

To explain my question about how to move multiple layers (image and text layers) simultaneously into a layer group, here's more context about what I am doing:

I have a 140 page document with resolution 300 x 300 ppi. I need to turn it into a 304 x 304 ppi doc. So here's what I'm doing with each page of that 140 page doc: Each page is made of multiple layers (text layers, png layers), at 300 x 300 ppi. So I create a 304 x 304 ppi template, a single black layer. Then I go to a page doc from the 140 page, 300 x 300 ppi book and put the multiple 300 x 300 ppi layers in that page doc into a layer group, then move the layer group over to the 304 x 304 ppi image (the single black layer). Then I save that as a 304 x 304 ppi page in the new 304 x 304 ppi book. Then I create a new 304 x 304 ppi black layer, go to another page in the 140 page, 300 x 300 ppi book, collect the layers on that page into a layer group, move the layer group over onto the new 304 x 304 ppi black layer. I need to do this process 140 times, once for each of the 140 pages (i.e., 140 images, each made of multiple layers of text and png files) -- transfer 300 x 300 ppi layer groups to 304 x 304 ppi backgrounds. But putting multiple layers (sometimes more than a dozen) into a layer group takes time if one must move each layer individually into the layer group. I wonder if there is a quicker way to put multiple layers simultaneously into a layer group.

Thanks again for assistance.

[Ofnuts]

Ah, a good old XY problem.

Why don't you just use Image > Print size to set the image definition of you original image to 304PPI?

And this "304PPI" value tells me you may be trying to solve an even deeper problem, which would lake this an XYZ Problem...

[sedmont]

Ofnuts, thank you for your reply.

I initially tried going to "Image" and clicking on "scale image"  for one of the 300 x 300 ppi pages. I put 304 into the resolution boxes and put the exact page dimensions I needed into the width and height boxes.  Then I clicked "scale" and got a warning that I would be creating a file that would take up almost twice the space on my hard drive that the original document was taking up. I clicked "scale" anyway, and gimp froze, and my computer almost froze.  So I shut down gimp, and re opened Gimp to try a different method.

The different method: I created a 304 x 304 ppi black background single layer document. Then I put all the layers from a 300 x 300 ppi page into a layer group and then and dropped the layer group onto the 304 x 304 ppi black background.  Then when I saved the result, it only slightly increased the hard drive space used by the 300 x 300 ppi page. The layer group that I moved from a 300 x 300 ppi doc to a 304 x 304 ppi doc will have a slightly smaller size on the page, but not enough different to matter to me.

Why am I doing this?  Because at 300 x 300 ppi, I cannot get the exact page dimensions I need (7.625 inches by 10.250 inches).  I can only get 7.623 x 10.250 or alternatively 7.627 x 10.250.  At 300 x 300 ppi, I cannot get 7.625 width.  Seems to have to do with the size of a single pixel, which is evidently 4/1000 of an inch.  So changing width of the page even by a single pixel causes page width to jump between 7.623 and 7.627.  Can't get 7.625.  But when I have a res of 304 x 304 ppi, I CAN get a page width of exactly 7.625.  I guess that has to do with common denominators and common factors or something. 

But I have to do this process 140 times (there are 140 pages to do), and each page tends to have multiple png and text layers, so I'm wondering if there is a quick way to get a bunch of layers simultaneously into a layer group, instead of having to put one layer at a time into the layer group.

[Ofnuts]

(06-30-2023, 03:50 PM)sedmont Wrote: Ofnuts, thank you for your reply.

I initially tried going to "Image" and clicking on "scale image"  for one of the 300 x 300 ppi pages. I put 304 into the resolution boxes and put the exact page dimensions I needed into the width and height boxes.  Then I clicked "scale" and got a warning that I would be creating a file that would take up almost twice the space on my hard drive that the original document was taking up. I clicked "scale" anyway, and gimp froze, and my computer almost froze.  So I shut down gimp, and re opened Gimp to try a different method.

This should have worked. It looks like you put the "304" at the wrong spot or used the wrong unit and Gimp scaled the image 304x or something. If you image is X pixels wide at 300DPI, scaling it up for 304DPI is 1.3% increase, so a 2.6% file size increase... The size in pixels that you have in the dialog before you press enter shouldn't be much bigger than the initial size.

(06-30-2023, 03:50 PM)sedmont Wrote: The different method: I created a 304 x 304 ppi black background single layer document. Then I put all the layers from a 300 x 300 ppi page into a layer group and then and dropped the layer group onto the 304 x 304 ppi black background.  Then when I saved the result, it only slightly increased the hard drive space used by the 300 x 300 ppi page. The layer group that I moved from a 300 x 300 ppi doc to a 304 x 304 ppi doc will have a slightly smaller size on the page, but not enough different to matter to me.

So you are just using the same pixels with a 304 DPI definition. This is the same as Image > Print size, that I mentioned above, just a lot slower to do.

(06-30-2023, 03:50 PM)sedmont Wrote: Why am I doing this?  Because at 300 x 300 ppi, I cannot get the exact page dimensions I need (7.625 inches by 10.250 inches).  I can only get 7.623 x 10.250 or alternatively 7.627 x 10.250.  At 300 x 300 ppi, I cannot get 7.625 width.  Seems to have to do with the size of a single pixel, which is evidently 4/1000 of an inch.  So changing width of the page even by a single pixel causes page width to jump between 7.623 and 7.627.  Can't get 7.625.  But when I have a res of 304 x 304 ppi, I CAN get a page width of exactly 7.625.  I guess that has to do with common denominators and common factors or something. 

But I have to do this process 140 times (there are 140 pages to do), and each page tends to have multiple png and text layers, so I'm wondering if there is a quick way to get a bunch of layers simultaneously into a layer group, instead of having to put one layer at a time into the layer group.

Now, lets look at this calmly...

1. You are worrying about an error of 2 thousands of an inch on a 7+ inches image.  This is a 0.025% error... Have you ever wondered about the dimensional accuracy of your printer?
   
2. To correct this you are either resizing the image (your first solution), which means interpolating pixels, which means adding other errors, or using a different definition which is (and I m quoting you here): "slightly smaller size on the page, but not enough different to matter to me.", so you are fixing the 0.025% error that seems very important to you by introducing a 1.33% error that you don't consider o be a problem...
   

Is it really worth the hassle?

By the way, this could be of interest: Image size in Gimp

[rich2005]

This is Amazon Publishing templates, which are based on Adobe Illustrator, a vector application.

Quote: can only get 7.623 x 10.250 or alternatively 7.627 x 10.250. At 300 x 300 ppi, I cannot get 7.625 width.

Gimp is a pixel (raster) editor so @ 300 pixels-per-inch (ppi) 7.625 inches = 2287.5 pixels and of course you can not have half a pixel it gets rounded up and you get 2288 pixels. This is insignificant, a 0.02 percent difference. Leave your work as-is.

Too late now but you should have started off with a ppi value that is a match with 7.625" 200 ppi works (1525x2050 pix) so does 400 ppi (3050x4100 pix) but image size / quality is up or down.

Example of scaling. You will lose text layer properties. https://i.imgur.com/Qegas1j.mp4

Quote:I have to do this process 140 times (there are 140 pages to do), and each page tends to have multiple png and text layers, so I'm wondering if there is a quick way to get a bunch of layers simultaneously into a layer group, instead of having to put one layer at a time into the layer group.

Putting layers into a layer group. There are scripts for this. Some references here: https://www.gimp-forum.net/Thread-Layer-...2#pid21052

Example using the saulgoode script: https://i.imgur.com/ViXhPPh.mp4

A note on output. You probably want a PDF. The best way is start and finish using DTP such as Scribus where text and images are embedded. Gimp will make a PDF but it will be large, it is a bitmap in a PDF wrapper. A smaller PDF made using command line ImageMagic and your 140 pages exported as jpegs. ..But that is another story...

[sedmont]

Why I am doing this.  

For a few months I have been submitting to kdp files at 7.623 x 10.250 inches (even though for a 7.5 x 10 inch trim with bleed, kdp requires 7.625 x 10.25, not 7.623).  I have been hoping such a tiny sizing discrepancy (1/500th of an inch) did not matter. But over the last few months, half the proofs kdp has sent me have had a white strip along one or another edge of the pages, though the pages are supposed to be black to the edge.  Because I've been incorporating only 0.123 inches of bleed into the width dimension, whereas kdp stipulates 0.125, I thought maybe that slight error was screwing up their printer.  Someone at kdp said the size error, though tiny, is the problem causing half the proofs to have white strips on edges.  I doubt that is actually the problem. More likely the problem is just low cost printing operation at kdp.  You get what you pay for.  But at any rate, at least now if a proof comes with a white strip along the edge, I can rule out that a minute sizing discrepancy confused the printer or caused the printer to make faulty adjustments. 

Thanks for pointing out those scripts.