OpenCL Is Coming To The GIMP Via GEGL

[devius]

You probably don't follow Inkscape's development closely. Head over to inkscape.org, I have some news there for you

Holy crap!! At long last!! Inkscape is so painfully slow right now... and it's sad to see it only use one core of my quad-core system. Can't wait for that 0.49 version. I thought that performance work wouldn't appear until version 0.50. Good news indeed.

BTW, I do follow Inkscape's development and news, although not that frequently. A couple of weeks ago I read about some optimization work being worked on, but I was under the impression that it would take some time to materialize.

[prokoudine]

Holy crap!! At long last!! Inkscape is so painfully slow right now... and it's sad to see it only use one core of my quad-core system.

LOL

Can't wait for that 0.49 version. I thought that performance work wouldn't appear until version 0.50. Good news indeed.

Actually there is a PPA with nightly builds for Ubuntu users, if you're interested.

BTW, I do follow Inkscape's development and news, although not that frequently. A couple of weeks ago I read about some optimization work being worked on, but I was under the impression that it would take some time to materialize.

As a matter of fact, the guy who works on performance in Inkscape had OpenCL based SVG filters in plans, but had to postpone it. He is still interested, though. We'll see how it works out

[yogi_berra]

The people who actually patched GIMP to make FilmGIMP which later became Cinepaint were the very same people who later started GEGL to do everything properly (i.e. not like in FilmGIMP/Cinepaint). But sure, you know better about silver plates and whatnot. Facts are soooo boring, aren't they?

So Rhythm & Hues and Sony Pictures Imageworks are supporting GEGL, BABL, etc.? Or are you confusing your easily verifiable facts?

Also: a working solution, no matter how ugly the code, is better than vaporware, when? Always.

[prokoudine]

So Rhythm & Hues and Sony Pictures Imageworks are supporting GEGL, BABL, etc.? Or are you confusing your easily verifiable facts?

Easily verifiable. You nailed it. Actually this is what you should have done prior to posting ? studying facts. You could, for example, go and check who and when worked on both FilmGIMP and GEGL. And you could find a mail from one of the R&H folks to gimp-developer@ from early December 2002 where he wrote about the R&H's perspective on both projects. Instead you seem to be holding a personal grudge against GEGL without having any clue about facts and you can't let go of it. Well, good luck spreading bullshit

[yogi_berra]

EAnd you could find a mail from one of the R&H folks to gimp-developer@ from early December 2002 where he wrote about the R&H's perspective on both projects. Instead you seem to be holding a personal grudge against GEGL without having any clue about facts and you can't let go of it. Well, good luck spreading bullshit

You could post links, but lets face it you enjoy flaming rather than having a civil conversation about vaporware.

[prokoudine]

You could post links, but lets face it you enjoy flaming rather than having a civil conversation about vaporware.

You mean a civil conversation is when you bullshit people instead of relying on facts and everyone nodes in agreement? I don't think so Yeah, I could post links, but how would bringing you facts "on a silver platter" possibly teach you to do research? I can help you to get started though.

Commit log for HOLLYWOOD branch
Commit log for GEGL
gimp-developer@ list archive for December 2002 (mail from Jonathan Cohen)

Let me know if you have problems understanding whose exactly the joint “People doing a 16 bpc version of gimp” account was that features in both GIMP and GEGL logs.

The fact is, FilmGIMP/Cinepaint was, is and will be a crippled solution. R&H team started to redo it properly with GEGL, and even the new team led by Robin started to redo everything properly with Glasgow (and failed). That's because engineers don't fall for crippled solutions, even if you personally expect them to waste time doing the opposite.

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".

Note that I wouldn't have to write any of that if you had skills to do a very basic research. it's really amazing how easily people who can't let go of their fav project failure distract other people from discussing a project that's alive and well.

[yogi_berra]

Commit log for HOLLYWOOD branch
Commit log for GEGL
gimp-developer@ list archive for December 2002 (mail from Jonathan Cohen)

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!

[prokoudine]

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.

[ninez]

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

[prokoudine]

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).

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.

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.

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.