After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 778946 - RGB normalized range 0-100.0 Vs raw bit value
RGB normalized range 0-100.0 Vs raw bit value
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 770054
Product: GIMP
Classification: Other
Component: User Interface
git master
Other All
: Normal normal
: 2.10
Assigned To: GIMP Bugs
GIMP Bugs
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2017-02-20 10:02 UTC by cngrimm
Modified: 2018-01-01 20:54 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Attachments
0 to 100.0 values in the color dialogue. (28.25 KB, image/png)
2017-02-20 10:02 UTC, cngrimm
Details

Description cngrimm 2017-02-20 10:02:47 UTC
Created attachment 346245 [details]
0 to 100.0 values in the color dialogue.

RGB being displayed as normalized 0 to 100.0 completely destroys your ability to copy 8bit (0-255) values for use in many things from web development to game programming (which I and I'm sure many other people rely on). A losses includes losing the ability to fine tuning colors in pixel art to align to bit constraints. 

I can see some value in having it normalized. 

However I can see a lot of user frustration coming from this decision if it's the only RGB color picker readout available. 

So at the very least please allow the user to switch between modes.
 
Allowing a choice between 0.0 to 1.0 || 0.0 to 100.0 and also a mode that correlate directly to raw int values for the chosen color precision mode would be the best solution. And would be helpful for expanding it's usability for copy-paste/transcribing between an even wider selection of tools, engines and applications.
Comment 1 Michael Natterer 2017-02-20 10:39:28 UTC
Providing various formats (like when picking colors) is on the TODO
for 2.10.
Comment 2 cngrimm 2017-02-21 01:32:12 UTC
(In reply to Michael Natterer from comment #1)

okay thanks for the info/clarification.  Hopefully the ability to use 0-255 returns sooner rather than later :)
Comment 3 Michael Natterer 2018-01-01 20:54:50 UTC
This has been addressed in bug 770054. Not finished, but this part is fixed.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 770054 ***