Wine 6.15 Released With More PE Conversion Work, More 32-bit To 64-bit Thunks

[Myownfriend]

Did you try DDG?

DuckDuckGo?

This is what I found with a quick search. Also, the G'MIC plugin.

Thank you! But G'Mic was the plugin I mentioned before. I wound up using to Median all the layers together. The issue was that it also has an auto-align feature that wasn't auto-aligning my photos at all. That's when I went looking and eventually found Hugin Tools because I heard it can do auto-alignment. Downloaded that and couldn't find the feature until I heard that installing Hugin also gives you some terminal tools, one of which does auto-alignment. After using that, it made new images which I brought into Gimp in order to Median and/or Average with G'mic.

[ssokolow]

It never hurts to throw in -nvi options (--dry-run, --verbose, --itemize-changes) to make sure it is doing what you want. Particularly if you are using the delete options...

Huh. I knew to use the first two, but I was unaware of --itemize-changes. Thanks.

[sdack]

Can't wait until the day that one of these says "Creative Cloud now works through Wine."

Just spent a day trying to do image stacking in Gimp and figured out that it doesn't have that feature. In the end, I tried out several different programs and plugin that allowed me to do auto-image alignment via the terminal which made align copies of all the photos, then I imported those into Gimp before I was finally able to use the plugin to Median everything together. Photoshop and Illustrator are the last things that I need to keep a Windows install around for.

I am not sure what it is you are doing, but it sounds familiar to me. You might want to look at the hugin-tools, which provide a command called align_image_stack that will align and rotate images, i.e. for creating an HDR image, and the enfuse command to combine multiple images into one based on various factors such as exposure and contrast.

https://packages.debian.org/bullseye/hugin-tools

https://packages.debian.org/bullseye/enfuse

I have been using these to automate the creation of HDR images from my camera. No more fiddling with image stacks in GIMP. Instead do I now just run a script over hundreds of pictures and get it all done within minutes.

Here a small example with commands:



On the left are five pictures at different exposure levels, and on the right is the output.

align_image_stack --gpu -C --align-to-first --use-given-order -d -i -g 1 -c 2500 -a /dev/shm/tmp-8. CRW_0495.png CRW_0493.png CRW_0494.png CRW_0496.png CRW_0497.png
enfuse -d 16 --blend-colorspace=IDENTITY --saturation-weight=0 --exposure-width=0.1 -o /dev/shm/hdr-8.png /dev/shm/tmp-8.*.tif
convert /dev/shm/hdr-8.png -normalize -sharpen 1x5 final-8.png

The align_image_stack command aligns and crops the five images to match each other perfectly (using the GPU for speed). The enfuse command blends these five aligned and cropped images into one with an emphasis on their exposure. And the last command performs a normalisation and sharpening for a slightly better output.

The result is a picture where the grass and the clouds have their brightness modified and the tree line still keeps its details. It makes for a more dramatic cloud cover, but also simulates better how the human eye and the brain perceive the world opposed to how a camera sees it.

[arun54321]

What software applications (not games) do you use Wine for?

Are you satisfied with Wine or do you think it works poorly?

What are you missing in Wine?



You can donate to fund the development of GIMP.
https://www.gimp.org/donating/

No amount of money would fix gimp. It's an inferior software compared to photoshop.

[uid313]

No amount of money would fix gimp. It's an inferior software compared to photoshop.

But GIMP doesn't need to be Photoshop, nor does it need to be better than Photoshop or even as good as Photoshop.
GIMP doesn't need to cover 100% of the functionality desired by the most pro users. It can still be valuable on its own even while being inferior compared to Photoshop. If GIMP supports 90% of what most non-pros asks of it, then that is great too.

[oiaohm]

No amount of money would fix gimp. It's an inferior software compared to photoshop.

https://expertphotography.com/gimp-vs-photoshop/

This is not exactly the case. There are places where photoshop is in fact inferior to gimp. Batch processing is one of those case if gimp can do the job it will be the fastest option by a large margin that like 10 times faster to complete at times. This is like where gimp spent 6 min conversion and photoshop is stuck for a hour doing the same thing.

The reality here is photoshop is not perfect tool either. The reality here is gimp is light storage and ram requirements and configurable that make it really good for batch processing. Gimp also some some unique functionality photoshop does not have.

Some of the pro courses have started teaching both photoshop and gimp because both have their advantages and disadvantages. I personally use a combination of krita and gimp and darktable. Some ways with photo work I don't think a single tool will ever be able to-do everything well.

There are different trade offs some features end up harming batch processing time and ram usage stack enough of those in tool is now not useful for batch processing.

[Myownfriend]

I am not sure what it is you are doing, but it sounds familiar to me. You might want to look at the hugin-tools, which provide a command called align_image_stack that will align and rotate images, i.e. for creating an HDR image, and the enfuse command to combine multiple images into one based on various factors such as exposure and contrast.

I actually wound up finding out about that after my last post. There were some cases where it re-aligned things well for me, and in other cases G'mic needed to do another alignment afterwards.

In my case I'm experimenting with stacking for noise reduction and super resolution, so I'm bring DNGs into Darkpixel to convert them to 16bpp PNGS, then using Hugin to auto-align them, then I bring those images into Gimp where they're auto-aligned again by G'mic and then G'mic is used to blend them. It's a waaay more annoying process than with Photoshop but it works well enough for what I'm doing right now.

https://expertphotography.com/gimp-vs-photoshop/

This is not exactly the case. There are places where photoshop is in fact inferior to gimp. Batch processing is one of those case if gimp can do the job it will be the fastest option by a large margin that like 10 times faster to complete at times. This is like where gimp spent 6 min conversion and photoshop is stuck for a hour doing the same thing.

That's the only advantage on the list and that's decent sized list.

But GIMP doesn't need to be Photoshop, nor does it need to be better than Photoshop or even as good as Photoshop.
GIMP doesn't need to cover 100% of the functionality desired by the most pro users.

I agree that it doesn't need to be better or even as good, it would be nice if it was, but I don't need it to have all the AI, 3D, or the animation features of Photoshop. The issue is that it it lacks A LOT and the usability is terrible. The little things that I mentioned on the last page of the thread go a looong way toward making Gimp more usable. For a graphic designer, the fact that Gimp is free might not justify it over Photoshop if using Gimp means that all the little things they do will take much longer.

The image stacking thing that I'm talking about is something that can be very useful for landscape, panoramic, macro, astral, and low-light photography as it allows you to either stitch, average, or median the photos together to get larger resolution images and/or noise reduce the images. Photoshop got support for auto-aligning and auto-blending in CS3.

Smart layers and adjustment layers are two other features that Gimp doesn't have which are really useful for non-destructively resizing and applying adjustments to one or more layers. Photoshop has had support for both since CS3.

Pixel grids are useful for sprite art and as far as I can tell, Gimp doesn't have them. Photoshop has had them since CS4.

By far the biggest disadvantage for Gimp on that list is the lack of CMYK support. That's 100% essentially feature for anybody who does print. Photoshop got support for CMYK in version 2!

Gimp is 23 years into development. I understand that Photoshop has had a lot more money and 8 additional years of development over Gimp, but the most recent release of Gimp is less usable than a version of Photoshop from 14 years ago.

[ssokolow]

In my case I'm experimenting with stacking for noise reduction and super resolution, so I'm bring DNGs into Darkpixel to convert them to 16bpp PNGS, then using Hugin to auto-align them, then I bring those images into Gimp where they're auto-aligned again by G'mic and then G'mic is used to blend them. It's a waaay more annoying process than with Photoshop but it works well enough for what I'm doing right now.

How much of that needs to be tuned on a per-image basis? GIMP and G'MIC are both scriptable. (I wrote a Python-Fu script to set up the layer schema I use for experiments in colourizing line art and copy a "Color to Alpha"'d copy of the source image into one of them with a single click.)

Google didn't turn up any relevant project named Darkpixel though. Did you mean Darktable?

[Myownfriend]

How much of that needs to be tuned on a per-image basis?

The stacking process needs each image to be scaled, rotated, and translated so that stuff matches up so it's a giant pain in the ass to do manually especially with like 10 or more images. When there's some means to auto-align them then it can save hours. After that nothing needs to be tweaked.

Google didn't turn up any relevant project named Darkpixel though. Did you mean Darktable?

Yea, I meant Darktable. I keep calling it Darkpixel for some reason. And even then, that was wrong because I actually used RawTherapee because Darktable couldn't read my DNGs lol

[oiaohm]

The stacking process needs each image to be scaled, rotated, and translated so that stuff matches up so it's a giant pain in the ass to do manually especially with like 10 or more images. When there's some means to auto-align them then it can save hours. After that nothing needs to be tweaked.

https://discuss.pixls.us/t/hdr-photography-with-free-software-luminancehdr/746

I don't do a lot of HDR images. But the odd ones I have need to-do Luminance hdr has done the job good enough. Yes that thing is open source using the hugin auto align.

I do wish there was was a way todo it in G'Mic, https://gmic.eu/ Do note G'MIC-Qt gives very broad solution coverage.

Sticking to open source tool set does have its issues. Yes sometimes finding the right tool takes a while. But thing thing I have found is generally when you have found the right open source tool to perform the task you need it running rings around photoshop/lightroom in performance doing the same task.