Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> houghi <houghi@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>I got as far as the following:
>>gimp -i -d -b "(script-fu-fuzzy-border \"foo.png\" RUN-NONINTERACTIVE
>>\'(100;100;100) 100 0 16 0 0 0 1)" -b '(gimp-quit 0)'
>> batch command: executed successfully.
<snip>
> You are using the batch mode to execute a scheme script
> that operates on a previously loaded image. The scheme
> script was written be a menu option available for
> interactive users, and does nothing to load such an
> image. Note that "foo.png" is not an image, it is a
> *file*, and the "script-fu-fuzzy-border" function
> requires an image for the first argument. (I can't
> relate argument list in the example command above to the
> argument list required by script-fu-fuzzy-border.)
So what you are saying is that it won't work. Bit strange, because other
things that I do that way WILL work.
> To use the "script-fu-fuzzy-border" function in batch
> mode you need to first execute the required gimp
> functions to load an image by reading one from a file.
OK and how do I do that?
> That could be done with prior -b options specifying one
> or more gimp functions that would accomplish whatever is
> required to have gimp in a state that allows
> 'script-fu-fuzzy-border' to work.
OK and how do I do that?
> Or, the most likely way to accomplish that is to write a separate
> script that calls all of the functions in order, and use that in the
> command line with the -b option rather than having -b options for each
> function needed.
OK and how do I do that?
> That is generally true of *every* function available via
> the batch processing. It is either a script written to
> be executed as a batch, or it needs one to be used.
OK and how do I do that?
> If I remember right there was mention in this thread
> previously of the best example available on the the WEB
> for how to do that, which is the one that does Unsharp
> Mask.
Must have missed it. Looke d again and apparently missed it again.
> In addition, the two Unsharp Mask example scripts for
> use in batch mode have another characteristic that needs
> to be addressed as part of the learning curve for
> writing batch mode scripts. The simple one is just
> that, too simple!
Indeed. That is the reason I am asking here for some help.
Also the fact that the unsharp is not very cool to use as an example.
Would be nicer to use something that makes it look better and has much
more things going on, like the fuzzy border or the coffee stain.
> It loads one file, applies USM, and writes the file back
> to disk. Two problems... you just lost your original
> file, and if the applied USM is not exactly correct, you
> had better have backup! That of course can be handled
> manually outside of the gimp script, but you do need to
> know about it and avoid working on unique image files that
> are not backed up.
Wel, for me personally not an isssue. It should indeed be handled, but
in a seperate explanation. First the 'edit everything' and then the 'but
perhaps you do not want to overwrite your file' part
> The second problem is that the script does only one
> file, and that means gimp must be loaded for every file
> the script is executed on, which makes it horribly slow
> for any number of files larger than a handful. Usually
> a large number of files is the exact reason a script is
> written, so that is an im****tant deficit.
Again, start with one and then add the multiple file info later,
> What it means in simple terms is that the "simple"
> script is good for learning, but it is not of much value
> for production. The second variation, which will
> operate on multiple files as specified on the command
> line, is the one use as a starting point to build your
> own batch scripts.
I think the sample script is lousy for learning. I have read it many
times over the years and I have not learned anything.
I am still unable to make a simple working oneliner. Some work, others
don't and I have no idea to see how. The GIMP do***entation is pretty
big, but there are only a few lines on scipting.
And what is even more frustrating is that it al worked in 2.2
So even though I apriciate what you wrote down, I am no step further
into getting it workable.
houghi
--
Theologians can pursuade themselves of anything. Anyone who can wor****p
a trinity and insists that his religion is a monotheism can believe
anything -- just give him time to rationalize it.
Robert A. Heinlein, JOB: A Comedy of Justice
|
