When I mask out part of an image in Variations and attempt to apply a
filter to the rest, the effect is quite clearly visible in the nine
preview images, but double-clicking on the central square to apply the
curently selected filter no longer seems to have any effect at all,
however extreme the effect I attempt. The hourglass comes up, and at
the end of the calculation the preview picture resets to its original
display and the main 'view' is unchanged.

This is on an ARMX6 - I know Variations is an unfinished application and
has some bugs in it that I've hit before, but I'm sure break-up filters
used to take effect on previous computers. (I've just tried the
Pointillist function, and that works exactly as expected.)

--
Harriet Bazley == Loyaulte me lie ==

Profanity is the one language all programmers know best.

In article <a4568f3b5a.harriet@bazleyfamily.co.uk>, Harriet Bazley
<harriet@bazleyfamily.co.uk> wrote:
> When I mask out part of an image in Variations and attempt to apply
> a filter to the rest, the effect is quite clearly visible in the
> nine preview images, but double-clicking on the central square to
> apply the curently selected filter no longer seems to have any
> effect at all, however extreme the effect I attempt. The hourglass
> comes up, and at the end of the calculation the preview picture
> resets to its original display and the main 'view' is unchanged.

This won't solve your problem but...

Your clear instructions made me want to try it using Variations
(0.14d.39) on my ARMX6 (RISC OS 5.29) and Filter(Break-up)/Pointillist
options appears to work correctly on the thumbnails/main image with a
mask applied to it. The thing that really confused me is that the
effects are overlayed over the mask instead of the unmasked area
- probably me doing something wrong!

I seldom do much image editing nowdays but if I do I use !PhotoDesk
which many years ago after a long learning cuve worked reasonably well.
I vaguely remember I had difficulty in the way !Variations did things.

> This is on an ARMX6 - I know Variations is an unfinished
> application and has some bugs in it that I've hit before, but I'm
> sure break-up filters used to take effect on previous computers.
> (I've just tried the Pointillist function, and that works exactly
> as expected.)

Richard

In article <5a3be2085bbasura@invalid.addr.uk>, Richard Ashbery
<basura@invalid.addr.uk> wrote:

> I seldom do much image editing nowdays but if I do I use !PhotoDesk
> which many years ago after a long learning cuve worked reasonably well.
> I vaguely remember I had difficulty in the way !Variations did thin

I tend to use !Composition combined a bit with !OpenVector and !ArtWorks
and !DPingScan as needed. But in general I'm wanting composition as the
main purpose to assemble a graphic.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 23 Oct 2022 as I do recall,
Richard Ashbery wrote:

> In article <a4568f3b5a.harriet@bazleyfamily.co.uk>, Harriet Bazley
> <harriet@bazleyfamily.co.uk> wrote:
> > When I mask out part of an image in Variations and attempt to apply
> > a filter to the rest, the effect is quite clearly visible in the
> > nine preview images, but double-clicking on the central square to
> > apply the curently selected filter no longer seems to have any
> > effect at all, however extreme the effect I attempt. The hourglass
> > comes up, and at the end of the calculation the preview picture
> > resets to its original display and the main 'view' is unchanged.
>
> This won't solve your problem but...
>
> Your clear instructions made me want to try it using Variations
> (0.14d.39) on my ARMX6 (RISC OS 5.29)

Ah - that's clearly it.

I had 0.14d.27 and have just tried downloading a fresh copy of "0.41d
(5-Feb-2008)" from the website; it still says it was last updated on
the 5th of February and there are no further changes listed in the
change log, but the application now reports itself as 0.41d.38 (I don't
know where you found your .39).

And version .38 *does* apply the filter as displayed in the preview.
The version changes may well have been a bugfix for hardware
compatibility issues, as I'm fairly sure the features worked OK on
earlier hardware, and thus weren't deemed worthy of a full new version
number (but it's confusing; I'd assumed I had the latest version).

> and Filter(Break-up)/Pointillist options appears to work correctly on
> the thumbnails/main image with a mask applied to it. The thing that
> really confused me is that the effects are overlayed over the mask
> instead of the unmasked area - probably me doing something wrong!
>
No, it always does that - 'mask' seems to be a misnomer, since it
defines the area where changes are applied rather than where they are
masked out. The manual confirms that this is the intended effect.

I generally find myself using Invert mask all the time.

--
Harriet Bazley == Loyaulte me lie ==

Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.

In article <bd4bfe3b5a.harriet@bazleyfamily.co.uk>, Harriet Bazley
<harriet@bazleyfamily.co.uk> wrote:
> On 23 Oct 2022 as I do recall, Richard Ashbery wrote:

> I had 0.14d.27 and have just tried downloading a fresh copy of
> "0.41d (5-Feb-2008)" from the website; it still says it was last
> updated on the 5th of February and there are no further changes
> listed in the change log, but the application now reports itself as
> 0.41d.38 (I don't know where you found your .39).

I can't remember but I'm glad you've fixed it.

> And version .38 *does* apply the filter as displayed in the
> preview. The version changes may well have been a bugfix for
> hardware compatibility issues, as I'm fairly sure the features
> worked OK on earlier hardware, and thus weren't deemed worthy of a
> full new version number

I think that's likely.

> (but it's confusing; I'd assumed I had the
> latest version).

> > and Filter(Break-up)/Pointillist options appears to work
> > correctly on the thumbnails/main image with a mask applied to it.
> > The thing that really confused me is that the effects are
> > overlayed over the mask instead of the unmasked area - probably
> > me doing something wrong!
> >
> No, it always does that - 'mask' seems to be a misnomer, since it
> defines the area where changes are applied rather than where they
> are masked out. The manual confirms that this is the intended
> effect.

> I generally find myself using Invert mask all the time.

It still overlays the effects on the so-called mask. If you were a
!PhotoDesk user and then discovered !Variations you would be left in a
thoroughly confused state. Having said that there are lots of useful
and unusual effects, it's reasonably fast and reliability seems good
too.

Richard

On 23 Oct 2022 as I do recall,
Richard Ashbery wrote:

> In article <bd4bfe3b5a.harriet@bazleyfamily.co.uk>, Harriet Bazley
> <harriet@bazleyfamily.co.uk> wrote:
> > On 23 Oct 2022 as I do recall, Richard Ashbery wrote:

[snip]

> > > The thing that really confused me is that the effects are
> > > overlayed over the mask instead of the unmasked area - probably
> > > me doing something wrong!
> > >
> > No, it always does that - 'mask' seems to be a misnomer, since it
> > defines the area where changes are applied rather than where they
> > are masked out. The manual confirms that this is the intended
> > effect.
>
> > I generally find myself using Invert mask all the time.
>
> It still overlays the effects on the so-called mask.

Yes - so I have to remember, having masked out the desired area,
subsequently to invert it so that the now-un-masked area gets ignored as
I'd originally meant. :-D

--
Harriet Bazley == Loyaulte me lie ==

If your feet smell and your nose runs - you're built upside down.

In article <bd4bfe3b5a.harriet@bazleyfamily.co.uk>,
Harriet Bazley <harriet@bazleyfamily.co.uk> wrote:
> Ah - that's clearly it.

> I had 0.14d.27 and have just tried downloading a fresh copy of "0.41d
> (5-Feb-2008)" from the website; it still says it was last updated on
> the 5th of February and there are no further changes listed in the
> change log, but the application now reports itself as 0.41d.38 (I don't
> know where you found your .39).

My copy reports as 0.41d.45 (5-Feb-2008)

Just downloaded from
http://compo.iconbar.com/variation.htm
and that is the latest!

--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Torrens. News email address is valid - for a limited time only.
You must use the full News+number@Torrens.org as in the From address.
http://www.Torrens.org for genealogy, natural history, wild food, walks, cats
and more!

On 30 Oct 2022 as I do recall,
Richard Torrens (News) wrote:

> In article <bd4bfe3b5a.harriet@bazleyfamily.co.uk>,
> Harriet Bazley <harriet@bazleyfamily.co.uk> wrote:
> > Ah - that's clearly it.
>
> > I had 0.14d.27 and have just tried downloading a fresh copy of "0.41d
> > (5-Feb-2008)" from the website; it still says it was last updated on
> > the 5th of February and there are no further changes listed in the
> > change log, but the application now reports itself as 0.41d.38 (I don't
> > know where you found your .39).
>
> My copy reports as 0.41d.45 (5-Feb-2008)
>
> Just downloaded from
> http://compo.iconbar.com/variation.htm
> and that is the latest!
>
Which is even weirder as I have now looked again and my version
(downloaded from the above address I think) is now reporting itself as
0.41d.46! Apparently the software is constantly evolving....

Edit: if I run Variations and immediately open the info box, it
displays 0.41d.46 - if I close the info box and then reopen it, it
displays 0.41d.45. Curiouser and curiouser.

http://www.bazleyfamily.co.uk/variations041d46.jpg

--
Harriet Bazley == Loyaulte me lie ==

The attacker must vanquish; the defender need only survive.

In article <92c2783f5a.harriet@bazleyfamily.co.uk>,
Harriet Bazley <harriet@bazleyfamily.co.uk> wrote:

> Edit: if I run Variations and immediately open the info box, it
> displays 0.41d.46 - if I close the info box and then reopen it, it
> displays 0.41d.45. Curiouser and curiouser.

I see this as well.

Richard Darby.

--

Richard Darby.
website: http://www.rjdarby.co.uk
Do not reply to this address all mail is deleted.
Reply to: <my first name> at <my domain>

In article <92c2783f5a.harriet@bazleyfamily.co.uk>,
Harriet Bazley <harriet@bazleyfamily.co.uk> wrote:

[Snip]

> Edit: if I run Variations and immediately open the info box, it
> displays 0.41d.46 - if I close the info box and then reopen it, it
> displays 0.41d.45. Curiouser and curiouser.

Exactly the same behaviour here. Both dated 5-Feb-2008

> http://www.bazleyfamily.co.uk/variations041d46.jpg

--
_____________________________________________________________________

Brian Jordan
RISC OS 5.28 (16-Dec-20) on Raspberry Pi
_____________________________________________________________________

In article <5a3f915b28brian.jordan9@btinternet.com>,
Brian Jordan <brian.jordan9@btinternet.com> wrote:
> In article <92c2783f5a.harriet@bazleyfamily.co.uk>,
> Harriet Bazley <harriet@bazleyfamily.co.uk> wrote:

> [Snip]

> > Edit: if I run Variations and immediately open the info box, it
> > displays 0.41d.46 - if I close the info box and then reopen it, it
> > displays 0.41d.45. Curiouser and curiouser.

> Exactly the same behaviour here. Both dated 5-Feb-2008

> > http://www.bazleyfamily.co.uk/variations041d46.jpg

FWIW. To add to the...Whatever...

I get the same result here running it on VRPC-DL and RISC OS 6.20

However, Quit Variations, then manually kill the PCA support module,
then re-run Variations, the Icon bar menu-Info will again show
the 0.4ld.46 legend.

Maybe that where the problem is.

Dave

--

Dave Triffid