Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OpenCL Is Coming To The GIMP Via GEGL

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    So let's look at what you are attempting to say with these links:

    1.) Hollywood forks gimp to meet their needs
    2.) hands forked version to gimp-developers (on a silver platter no less)
    3.) tries working with them
    4.) gets fed up with the attitude displayed towards them
    5.) does their own thing regardless

    Remember, it is never the responsibility of downstream to merge changes.

    So how does this discredit my previous statement outside of the time involved? And this time, put some feeling into your insults!

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by yogi_berra View Post
      So let's look at what you are attempting to say with these links:
      Your list above that I'm skipping in this reply is just another utter bullshit done on purpose to bring even more trolling to a civil discussion. You are not learning, and clearly you are not interested in facts. Seriously, grow up.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by prokoudine View Post
        You start investing time into support of architecturally wrong code, you have less time for the right thing, so you end up with people not using your software, because it sucks. The amount of downloads Cinepaint got over last 4 years the builds of stable GIMP for Windows get in mere 2.something days (check download stats at Sourceforge). Users are intelligent enough to know what's good for them. Yes, Cinepaint doesn't get as much attention as GIMP, but could it be because it has a retarded UI and a feature set from ten years ago at best?

        Let's face it: on a purely technical level both Cinepaint and GIMP/GEGL projects have issues. But one of them is alive and the other one is dead no matter how many times project "lead" promises a new release "soon, very soon, maybe next week".
        I agree with some of what you say here, but....

        That's funny ~ 'a feature set from ten years ago' ~ and yet Gimp doesn't support many of the higher end formats that CinePaint does and has for years. how paradoxical. So I suppose, depending on one's perspective, the same could be said about gimp? CP's UI isn't all that exciting, but it does the job and doesn't get in the way.

        CinePaint isn't for the average user, so where is the logic in comparing it to Gimp downloads??? CP wouldn't have the downloads that gimp does (but that should be painfully obvious). it's design goals are much different, and It's targeted at a few very specific groups. Those editing touching up higher quality images that Gimp does not support - think photographers, not hobbyists who think gimp is a viable alternative to Photoshop, which is certainly is not true today (maybe in the future though)... and more importantly CP designed is for people editing film / animation (flipbook feature). ** there goes 98% of the downloads for CP, that would have existed if it was actually comparable to Gimp, in the way you are trying to compare them.

        Looking at SourceForge for an indicator of it's user base is silly. The last update was 2008, and was CinePaint 0.22 - but if you look at almost ANY modern distro - do they package 0.22?? hell no! - most use 0.25 (Ubuntu, Suse, Arch, Fedora, etc). so clearly, sourceforge is not a good source, so to speak.

        CinePaint is popular among those who require it's very 'specific' feature set, there is no Gimp vs. CinePaint perspective. People who use CP, probably also use Gimp (like myself). CinePaint is essentially vaporware because many of the issues you have pointed out in this thread, but for some users - it is still very useful and provides things that gimp doesn't and will NOT, until at least 3.0 (whenever that happens).

        just my 2 cents
        Last edited by ninez; 08-21-2011, 02:22 AM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by ninez View Post
          CinePaint isn't for the average user, so where is the logic in comparing it to Gimp downloads??? CP wouldn't have the downloads that gimp does (but that should be painfully obvious). it's design goals are much different, and It's targeted at a few very specific groups.
          That's a rather valid point. Please note, however, that GIMP is targeting the hi-end market segment either (not there yet, but getting there).

          Originally posted by ninez View Post
          Those editing touching up higher quality images that Gimp does not support - think photographers, not hobbyists who think gimp is a viable alternative to Photoshop, which is certainly is not true today (maybe in the future though)... and more importantly CP designed is for people editing film / animation (flipbook feature). ** there goes 98% of the downloads for CP, that would have existed if it was actually comparable to Gimp, in the way you are trying to compare them.
          The animation related difference is solved via GIMP GAP project which has flipbook, bluescreen etc. For years already it's just the high bit depth that made all the difference. And painting tools in GIMP are far more sophisticated these days, with even more changes coming in 2.8.

          Originally posted by ninez View Post
          Looking at SourceForge for an indicator of it's user base is silly. The last update was 2008, and was CinePaint 0.22 - but if you look at almost ANY modern distro - do they package 0.22?? hell no! - most use 0.25 (Ubuntu, Suse, Arch, Fedora, etc). so clearly, sourceforge is not a good source, so to speak.
          And that's another problem with that project. Latest release source code was indeed 0.22. Source code for 0.23 and 0.24 wasn't even released, though binary builds exist! As far as I can tell 0.25 is either code from CVS or Kai-Uwe's unofficial Git repository (which is kinda the only reason one could argue whether Cinepaint is dead or alive). BTW, Ubuntu 11.04 doesn't have Cinepaint.

          Originally posted by ninez View Post
          CinePaint is popular among those who require it's very 'specific' feature set, there is no Gimp vs. CinePaint perspective. People who use CP, probably also use Gimp (like myself). CinePaint is essentially vaporware because many of the issues you have pointed out in this thread, but for some users - it is still very useful and provides things that gimp doesn't and will NOT, until at least 3.0 (whenever that happens).
          And that's a rather valid point as well except the aforementioned animation bit

          What I'm saying, essentially, is that today it makes little to no sense arguing (and especially trolling) about history. We know that the GEGL plan hasn't worked the way it was supposed to work, and the FilmGIMP/Cinepaint plan hasn't worked either. What matters is presence and future. There is the first real GEGL-based tool (Cage transform) coming in 2.8, and at least two more GEGL based tools are coming in 2.10 (interactive version of iWarp and seamless paste, plus unified transform tool is in works since a couple of weeks). There's no way back, only forward.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by prokoudine View Post
            That's a rather valid point. Please note, however, that GIMP is targeting the hi-end market segment either (not there yet, but getting there).
            And i will be excited when that happens

            Originally posted by prokoudine View Post
            The animation related difference is solved via GIMP GAP project which has flipbook, bluescreen etc. For years already it's just the high bit depth that made all the difference. And painting tools in GIMP are far more sophisticated these days, with even more changes coming in 2.8.
            GAP, in my personal opinion doesn't really have as good of a workflow as flipbook in CinePaint. (i have used it many times). It's not that i don't think it's a good tool, i just find using CinePaint to be much quicker and straight forward. If I have a folder of photos - i just load them up, edit them all, save and i am done. simple, fast, no fuss. That being said, i am also fully aware that GAP is actually more powerful.

            I agree, gimp's tools are getting better all the time. I've been running Gimp from GIT, it's coming along

            Originally posted by prokoudine View Post
            And that's another problem with that project. Latest release source code was indeed 0.22. Source code for 0.23 and 0.24 wasn't even released, though binary builds exist! As far as I can tell 0.25 is either code from CVS or Kai-Uwe's unofficial Git repository (which is kinda the only reason one could argue whether Cinepaint is dead or alive). BTW, Ubuntu 11.04 doesn't have Cinepaint.
            Interesting, the last version of Ubuntu I checked out, still had it ~ but i don't use Ubuntu - not my cup of tea... Im an Archer (Archlinux). The code i am referring to is from CVS ~ there is no official release, but it is what is typically packaged. This is becuase 0.25 is the most stable version of CinePaint - and while some distro's may be dropping it, Arch for instance updated very recently. Suse has also done a nice job of packaging it (they and Redhat probably have some customers, that are still using it professionally (in enterprise) i would imagine - so there are people, who want to keep it around, for now.

            Originally posted by prokoudine View Post
            And that's a rather valid point as well except the aforementioned animation bit

            What I'm saying, essentially, is that today it makes little to no sense arguing (and especially trolling) about history. We know that the GEGL plan hasn't worked the way it was supposed to work, and the FilmGIMP/Cinepaint plan hasn't worked either. What matters is presence and future. There is the first real GEGL-based tool (Cage transform) coming in 2.8, and at least two more GEGL based tools are coming in 2.10 (interactive version of iWarp and seamless paste, plus unified transform tool is in works since a couple of weeks). There's no way back, only forward.
            I agree with you. - but for me, anyway. CinePaint has been useful for a long time, and IS 'currently' still valid and very useful - do i see it being relevant 5yrs from now? of course not. I also don't understand why others are in disagreement/trolling/giving you a hard time over the history. From what i know, and from the 'factual infomation' you have posted - I would tend to agree with you. You seem quite knowledgeable on the subject, and i've enjoyed your posts.

            and trust me, I'll be absolutely stoked when Gimp is up to the task - i would love nothing more, than to never have to invest money into Photoshop ever again... and will be even more happy, when i am not required to run a graphic suite in a VM, for when i need 'real powertools', not found in Linux (yet)

            Comment


            • #36
              they should create an usable user interface with usable features, instead of opencl support

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by ninez View Post
                GAP, in my personal opinion doesn't really have as good of a workflow as flipbook in CinePaint. (i have used it many times). It's not that i don't think it's a good tool, i just find using CinePaint to be much quicker and straight forward. If I have a folder of photos - i just load them up, edit them all, save and i am done. simple, fast, no fuss. That being said, i am also fully aware that GAP is actually more powerful.
                Interesting. I'm not what you might call an avid flipbook user (read: I'm talking out of my bum), so I think I might try compiling Cinepaint again and doing a side by side flipbook comparison.

                Originally posted by Geri View Post
                they should create an usable user interface with usable features, instead of opencl support
                This kind of mentality is quite dangerous. When you have a team that is too small, start doing just one thing, and lots of other users immediately begin to yell. There are plenty of vocal people who think UI changes are not as important as high bit depth support, and there are extremely vocal people who think that all GIMP needs is proper CMYK support. So what you get really is actual work on UI and laying foundation for the future like this OpenCL project.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by prokoudine View Post
                  This kind of mentality is quite dangerous. When you have a team that is too small, start doing just one thing, and lots of other users immediately begin to yell. There are plenty of vocal people who think UI changes are not as important as high bit depth support, and there are extremely vocal people who think that all GIMP needs is proper CMYK support. So what you get really is actual work on UI and laying foundation for the future like this OpenCL project.

                  Well, lets see. If i have a team that is too small, i use pure logic. I simply wrote down all the serious problems wich is affect my software, i point on the most heavy problem, and fix that. Currently, gimps biggest problem is that the gui is impenetrable, serious graphics arts are laughing of the unmanageable apperance.

                  And istead of trying to get rid on this, developers of gimp adding opencl support - wich is needed around 0,01% of the users...

                  Imho this is the attitude wich is dangerous.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Geri View Post
                    Currently, gimps biggest problem is that the gui is impenetrable
                    Really? Desktop publishing folks think it's lack of CMYK support. Photographers want 16/32bit, LAB and and adjustment layers. How do you know it's you who is right and everybody else is wrong?

                    Originally posted by Geri View Post
                    And istead of trying to get rid on this, developers of gimp adding opencl support
                    Try reading the article again, this time — with attention. Only one GSoC student is working on OpenCL, and his mentor isn't even a GIMP developer. The other folks work on UI, better tools and better painting features, just like you wanted them to.

                    Originally posted by Geri View Post
                    wich is needed around 0,01% of the users...
                    Which is needed by pretty much everyone who has a decent GPU and needs fast processing of images.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      fast processing of the images needs normal multicpu support, not mytchical librarys originated from cthulhu.

                      i will read the article again tomorow, now i go sleep

                      btw i know really lot artists from deviantart, and a lots from 3d graphics industry (lot means over 100)... but i will not try to paste they oppinions here from gimp, mostly from the apperance, probably the forumengine itself would even block some words out

                      at least, opensource community should not ignore the facts.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by prokoudine View Post
                        Interesting. I'm not what you might call an avid flipbook user (read: I'm talking out of my bum), so I think I might try compiling Cinepaint again and doing a side by side flipbook comparison.


                        This kind of mentality is quite dangerous. When you have a team that is too small, start doing just one thing, and lots of other users immediately begin to yell. There are plenty of vocal people who think UI changes are not as important as high bit depth support, and there are extremely vocal people who think that all GIMP needs is proper CMYK support. So what you get really is actual work on UI and laying foundation for the future like this OpenCL project.
                        Are you a GIMP developer?

                        Best/Liam

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Geri View Post
                          they should create an usable user interface with usable features, instead of opencl support
                          See, I'd actually argue that the kind of developer working on OpenCL support is exactly the kind of developer you'd rather NOT have working on the UI.

                          That could be horribly unfair to this developer (sorry), but often people with those kinds of interests aren't very interested in the UI, and correspondingly aren't very good at it. Things could always get worse!

                          It's a mistake to assume that OSS projects can simply hire people and assign them to the areas you would like work on - they have to attract people who are interested in doing it for free.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by liam View Post
                            Are you a GIMP developer?
                            Oh, I'm more in the news writing and community tracking department. Few actual developers have accounts at Phoronix, but I have no idea how often they come to visit. The OpenCL student was in this thread some days ago for sure

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                              That could be horribly unfair to this developer (sorry), but often people with those kinds of interests aren't very interested in the UI, and correspondingly aren't very good at it.
                              Sometimes when I'm in the office I pick up the phone because nobody else's around to answer calls, and 50/50 the person who gives the call assumes I know every single fact about the company and the products It looks like our friend here is one of such people

                              IMO, it doesn't make a lot of sense to demand people knowing everything. Engineering is engineering, but IMO it's always best to have people who know really much about something than a little about everything.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                                See, I'd actually argue that the kind of developer working on OpenCL support is exactly the kind of developer you'd rather NOT have working on the UI.

                                That could be horribly unfair to this developer (sorry), but often people with those kinds of interests aren't very interested in the UI, and correspondingly aren't very good at it. Things could always get worse!

                                It's a mistake to assume that OSS projects can simply hire people and assign them to the areas you would like work on - they have to attract people who are interested in doing it for free.
                                ofc you have right, i am not speaking ecsactly from this developer, i am sure he is very smart and skilled!
                                instead, i am speaking from the gimp itself.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X