Ofnuts said: "So, got news for you . You don't even need to use a new layer, just make a selection around thee path."
Yeah, That's how the strategy first became apparent to me, I was experiencing really long waits trying to bucket fill a small area on a really large canvas, and found the use of a selection box to contain the work area, did away with the long wait. So, I tried it with paths, and was very impressed with the improvement. (it's amazing (to me) the impact this has on Gimp's "grabbiness" for resources.
Going the step further, (with the floating layer as a work area), made the process seem easier (to me) to explain here.
Plus, the way I've been using it most, I've got this really large city map that features rivers running through it. And I've been plotting the rivers on a transparent floating layer, and erasing the path in the areas where the river flows "under" a bridge, before pasting the path layer to the base image .
I've been voyeuring the claimed image "size" as reported at the bottom of the Gimp main work window, and what I've typically been observing is for an 80 MB *.png file, it loads claiming a 2.2 gig initial file size. But after plotting only one path (directly) on that image, the claimed value skyrockets to 3.2 gig. But If I instead plot that path as outlined earlier, the claimed image size only goes up about a hundred MB.
The disparity is mesmerizing. Gimp must be extremely aggressive in reserving resources for certain operations?
Yeah, That's how the strategy first became apparent to me, I was experiencing really long waits trying to bucket fill a small area on a really large canvas, and found the use of a selection box to contain the work area, did away with the long wait. So, I tried it with paths, and was very impressed with the improvement. (it's amazing (to me) the impact this has on Gimp's "grabbiness" for resources.
Going the step further, (with the floating layer as a work area), made the process seem easier (to me) to explain here.
Plus, the way I've been using it most, I've got this really large city map that features rivers running through it. And I've been plotting the rivers on a transparent floating layer, and erasing the path in the areas where the river flows "under" a bridge, before pasting the path layer to the base image .
I've been voyeuring the claimed image "size" as reported at the bottom of the Gimp main work window, and what I've typically been observing is for an 80 MB *.png file, it loads claiming a 2.2 gig initial file size. But after plotting only one path (directly) on that image, the claimed value skyrockets to 3.2 gig. But If I instead plot that path as outlined earlier, the claimed image size only goes up about a hundred MB.
The disparity is mesmerizing. Gimp must be extremely aggressive in reserving resources for certain operations?