1 Sep
2011
1 Sep
'11
11:47 p.m.
On 08/31/2011 07:45 PM, Toby Thain wrote:
I hear you there. But what about getting just a human-usable version
of the image, without all the metadata? The original discussion here
was comparing the non-losability of film-based images (which is a farce
anyway, as negatives do deteriorate over time no matter how well-kept
they are) which won't have all that metadata anyway. If the "flattened"
image isn't present in a particular PSD file (is it possible for it not
to be?) is it at all possible to "get there from here", as it were?
-Dave
--
Dave McGuire
Port Charlotte, FL
Is it at
least the case that someone can "see the damn image" (which
is usually the end point of digital imaging anyway) even if a lot of the
metadata, layering, etc etc aren't usable?
Unless the "flattened" (composited) image is baked in, then you can see
most of the constituent parts (e.g. image layers, masks) but you can't
see what the whole would actually look like. Which is why my tool is
really aimed at scavenging what can be scavenged
( http://telegraphics.com.au/svn/psdparse/trunk - there's a very fast
command line converter to Gimp XCF in there, too).
As for metadata, some of the structure of it is documented, but detailed
interpretation is another matter. Again -- this speaks to a desire to
hinder competition& interoperability. If the Gimp knew exactly how to
render a PSD, then this would probably eat away at Adobe's extortionate
licensing :)