[Klug-general] gimp rotation sequence layers duplication

[Mike Evans]

I like your thinking Tom.  Actually it might even work using the 
transparent pixel, which is what it generally pads with - if you had a 
rule that it is OK to throw transparent pixels away so that you don't 
need to enlarge the image to keep them, only to keep non-transparent ones.

One thing though: James is probably better off going with the solution 
John recommended, starting with the original image and adding 15 to the 
rotation amount each time.  The reason for this is that rotating an 
image will require some interpolation of pixels to get back onto the 
grid of pixels.  If you then rotate that there will be interpolation of 
the interpolation and so on, causing progressive degradation of the 
image.  Unless that is something wanted for artistic effect it would be 
better to start from the original each time.

On 06/02/16 07:57, Thomas Edward Groves wrote:
> Thinking about this one:
> if the Gimp had the concept of a 'virtual' or 'nonexistent' pixel
> that is one on which NO operation was to be carried out
> then it could pad out rotations with such and avoid this kind
> of mess.
> Of course that would mean a new file format.
> Hmm.
> Probably not going to happen.
>
> Tom
>
>