Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Krita 5.0 Beta Released With Better Performance, UI Polishing

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
    RomuloP
    Senior Member

  • RomuloP
    replied
    Originally posted by rabcor View Post
    I just tried it myself, just now, i didn't test it very extensively, didn't even plug in my tablet, but I just fired it up, used the default airbrush (which has instant preview), set it to 1000 pixels and reduced the opacity and dragged it around to see how it performed at 8k x 8k canvas. (I also tried 13k x 13k canvas but that was just plain unusable).

    ...
    Sad to hear about, I have none of your problems, seriously, if you feel slow downs with the pixel engine (airbrush), there must have something weird going on as it is a lot more performant and optimized than the smudge engine, that at the moment is not multi-processed. I simply use fedora with KDE. Maybe this is why it is so fast for me, don't know.

    Anyway, I still cannot understand your problem I don't get a single bit of banding at sane zoom levels at 16 bits:



    About your 400% zoom examples, you cannot get 100% rid of banding on raster tools, neither Photoshop (well, at least not without a 10 bits or more monitor or beyond, but it happens to be the case of Krita too, even so distributing 8 bits images would boil this advantage):



    In this video banding is discussed in a reasonable depth on Photoshop, but obviously even when he state "there is no banding" it is pretty visible there still at such high zoom levels that the banding is still there. Krita achieves the same result in 16 bits and so I suggest you go in search of more hybrid solutions that mix vectorization or something else. You will not get rid of banding at 400% zoom in raster tools. You can make it less stronger with noise but at this level of zoom you will start seeing the noise, at this level, pixels are too much big even in a huge canvas.

    At 16 bits krita does as well as photoshop or any other raster tool I've seen. If banding start bothering because of downsampling, I end adding a very transparent noise layer before the conversion, and it is done.

    Sure, not quite automated as Photoshop, but I prefer this fine grain control as it is not on all art types that such banding will show and I would not like a auto noise addition polluting my images. But I agree at some level, a dithering option in the pixel engine would be welcomed to those that work in 8 bits, also adding a "dithering" option on color space conversion dialog would be very welcomed too.
    RomuloP
    Senior Member
    Last edited by RomuloP; 25 August 2021, 03:17 PM.

    Leave a comment:

  • Mavman
    Senior Member

  • Mavman
    replied
    Originally posted by oiaohm View Post

    There is ways of automating most of this. First time getting the automation setup up and right is a total nightmare.
    Not that my work requires this, but on a personal level i would be very interested in knowing what software you use to automatize the "faking" of such complex sceneries.

    The few "projects" (between commas because it was not work, but personal challenge/hobbies), i've done where i've had such details into consideration were done mostly "by hand"... if i recall right it was in my Gimp days (i don't touch photoshop for years now)

    Leave a comment:

  • oiaohm
    Senior Member

  • oiaohm
    replied

    Originally posted by Mavman View Post
    Who's your costumers, man??? Arkham Asylum patients?!?! LOL Have you consider changing profession?! LOL
    Yes the level I am talking about yes you do end up threatening to quit quite often particularly when they give you insanely short time frames like 4 hours to do they job because they decided to change the front cover 4 hours before printing presses have to run with a really complex replacement..

    Originally posted by Mavman View Post
    Yes, i've used parts from a second or third photos in a first to obtain better visual results... but 20 merged into one? Unless you're doing somekind of "composition poster", I can't think of any example where that could happen to me!!! Ever!!!
    If that's not the case, the kind of detail attention needed would be incredibly high. Why would anyone would even ask for something like that?
    Composition poster for movies/events and front covers ofmagazines and the list goes on. Yes the photos you will be asked to merge in some of these cases only some of them you took with your own gear if you lucky if you unlucky none of the 20 photos are yours. So dealing with their miss calibration as well.

    Originally posted by Mavman View Post
    Man, you should really consider a supermarket job or something cause if not, you'll soon be in the cuckoos' land.
    Having your example in consideration - i'm an amateur for sure!!! I would actually speculate almost everyone is.
    Really the 20 way merge is not that hard after you have done it a few times and if you are in fact getting enough hours to-do the work. Yes the first time you do it the job is a true complete nightmare. Including like 500+ attempt failures. 20 images into 1 that look right is the high level pro that the first time you do it is complete nightmare and tool breaking.

    Originally posted by Mavman View Post
    you would have to have in consideration different light points of origin, shadows, reflexes, perspectives, colors and so many other things
    There is ways of automating most of this. First time getting the automation setup up and right is a total nightmare. Even so still has a lot of processing time.


    Leave a comment:

  • Mavman
    Senior Member

  • Mavman
    replied
    Originally posted by oiaohm View Post

    Please note being in the amateur area of photo work is not a bad thing it means you are not having customers asking for horrible things like merging 20 photos taken on different days by different cameras and make them absolutely look like they were taken by 1 camera at exactly the same time.
    WT...?!

    Who's your costumers, man??? Arkham Asylum patients?!?! LOL Have you consider changing profession?! LOL

    I mean, i would say it's pretty normal to normalize colors from a photo-shoot so that they all look like being taken under the same conditions. Also, for a specific photo-shoot i would use 2/3 cameras at most but always from the same model...

    but what you describe... man, that's crazy!

    Yes, i've used parts from a second or third photos in a first to obtain better visual results... but 20 merged into one? Unless you're doing somekind of "composition poster", I can't think of any example where that could happen to me!!! Ever!!!
    If that's not the case, the kind of detail attention needed would be incredibly high. Why would anyone would even ask for something like that?
    I've had access to forensic studies over faked photography (no, please, don't even dare to think about that TV-CSI sh!t!!! ) and to have a well done job you would have to have in consideration different light points of origin, shadows, reflexes, perspectives, colors and so many other things...... with 20 images messed together... well, lets just say i'm already having awaken-nightmares with it.

    Man, you should really consider a supermarket job or something cause if not, you'll soon be in the cuckoos' land.
    Having your example in consideration - i'm an amateur for sure!!! I would actually speculate almost everyone is.

    Leave a comment:

  • rabcor
    Senior Member

  • rabcor
    replied
    Originally posted by RomuloP View Post

    I recommend you to do this, because mostly it will depend on the brush and adjustments made to it, I've not take my time to move from 3.x upward as I tend to prefer solid builds, but I think that it is a good time to move to 4.x. I've taken some hours to play with 5.0 and got impressed with performance evolution, here is my experience with smudge brushes at 1000 pixels on a 6.9k x 9.9k canvas, sort of A1 300 ppi and instant preview on:

    I just tried it myself, just now, i didn't test it very extensively, didn't even plug in my tablet, but I just fired it up, used the default airbrush (which has instant preview), set it to 1000 pixels and reduced the opacity and dragged it around to see how it performed at 8k x 8k canvas. (I also tried 13k x 13k canvas but that was just plain unusable).

    My conclusion was simply that all my biggest reasons for not using Krita are still there.

    The soft brush gradient artifacting is still there, u can get rid of it with 16 bit mode (then u just get banding instead which is acceptable, but in 8bpc on other programs like photoshop or paintstorm I get neither of those effects, or well, I may get some banding but it'll be so little it won't be noticable unless I'm explicitly looking for it) but I shouldn't need to do that, besides 16 bit mode means you get a performance hit which is counter productive for my other issue which is the performance.

    Was it actually fast enough usable? Yes, I suppose it was fast enough to be usable, but my results weren't as good (smooth) as yours, are you maybe using krita on windows with DX11 or something? Or is it just brush engine tweaks? Anyhow, yeah, sure it is fast enough to be usable, but not fast enough to be enjoyable, in fact some of the default brushes were slow even if they were as small as 80px (their default size setting), and I'm not sure if I'd call those 'usable' I'm not on a weak pc either, I have an i7 and an rtx 2060, admittedly both mobile (e.g. on a laptop) but I am running krita with prime-run so it should even be running on the gpu (I actually tried running it without but I didn't notice a performance difference, maybe it's just using it by default or maybe it is incapable of using the dedicated graphics at all? Everything is just software rendered, is that the problem?)

    Anyhow I can show you what I mean about the artifacts.

    8 Bit: Performance aceptable but not enjoyable:

    16-Bit Integer: Performance barely acceptable (solves one problem, exacerbates another problem):

    16-Bit Float: Performance completely unusable:


    Method to achieve results: Just take the default airbrush, put it to 1000px, reduce opacity to 25% (u can use mouse or tablet, idc), then draw little circular shapes (doesn't need to be accurate circles) to get a gradient, then toss in a few haphazard vertical or horizontal strokes for good measure, maybe even smooth the gradient out a bit afterwards too with more circular stokes if u want, doesn't matter, u still get the same results.

    I found it interesting that the artifacting seems to re-appear in 16-bit float even if it's limited to only normal banding in 16-bit.

    You can try this in almost any other program but you will not get those artifacts, you may even not get the banding.

    Here's a very old attempt at comparing this same issue between programs, although in this case I tried to make a distinct sphere in all of them, I even used the exact same technique to make the sphere along with the default airbrush for all three programs.

    God it's from 2017, time flies...

    But yes, it's from 2017 and the devs still haven't fixed it, I have brought it up I think at least twice on their dedicated forums, not doing it a third time, although you seem like you might be an active member there so if you feel like it, feel free to share those screenshots around. Maybe 3rd time would be the charm huh?

    And lastly on performance improvements of version 5... I tried with the latest stable 4.x version before installing 5, and what I found in my test case was that the performance improvements were so negligible I actually wondered if performance hadn't regressed a little bit .

    Anyhow ultimately my conclusion is that for me, personally, Krita is just not good enough. Yet. The artifacting that prevents the kind of clean rendering I'd like to practice, and the subpar performance at high resolutions is the limiting factor for it.
    rabcor
    Senior Member
    Last edited by rabcor; 25 August 2021, 12:24 AM.

    Leave a comment:

  • oiaohm
    Senior Member

  • oiaohm
    replied
    Originally posted by Mavman View Post
    https://forum.kde.org/viewtopic.php?t=125962

    That is regarding the (proprietary) AdobeRGB and ProPhoto profiles alternatives
    No that is choose one or choose alterantive. "Space invasion" is not this yes there is photoshop equal feature.
    https://www.gimp.org/news/2019/01/02...-gegl-in-2018/
    Space invasion. GIMP used to have the sRGB color space hardcoded into all processing. This couldn’t work for everyone, and we introduced some changes to support any RGB color spaces in 2.10. Space invasion is the next step towards that goal. The ‘master’ git branch of GIMP now allows taking an image that’s originally in e.g. ProPhotoRGB, processing it in a different color space (e.g. CIE LAB), and the resulted image will be in ProPhotoRGB again, with all color data correctly mapped to the original space / ICC profile. This isn’t yet polished and thus not read for prime-time use. Most of the work was done by Øyvind Kolås and Michael Natterer.
    This here is one of the unnamed nightmare features of photoshop. I wrote here photoshop could be a lot slower at processing batch work due to excess colour space transformations this is linked to the feature to allow many colour spaces in a single image in photoshop and to reduce developers need to write plugins that properly support all color spaces. Yes having many plugin in photoshop that says I must be X color space and you are using a different leaded to horrible. Photoshop is not smart lets say you use 8 plugins in at batch process that say must be AdobeRGB and your image sRGB or anything else Photoshop will do Space invasion transformation every plugin call yes both get transformed ways yes this is why at times batch processing with photoshop basically grinds to a halt and has massive memory requirements as like you image gets duplicated *2 the number of the plugins forcing this you are using.

    Photoshop you can in fact been using multi color spaces in the same processing line just photoshop is idiot at doing it so bad in fact it will be running you out of system resources. Yes each layer in photoshop can be a different icc as well. This is why some PSD files don't open in gimp or krita. Yes gimp is in the process of supporting this multi colour profile in a single image nightmare.

    Remember photo work you make take multi pictures of a subject then stack them and these may be from different cameras with different icc profiles.

    Now when you are creating a new image from scratch choosing a single color space is fine. When you are doing photo work and you are merging multi photos into one that are from different icc spaces choosing one is not as easy. Remember almost all conversions from color space to color space are lossy as in you are losing data.

    These are not fun or easy features to implement. "Space invasion" is one of the more recent ones gimp is picking up. But I can go into older features that Krita does not have that are specialist to photo work. These are not feature people with a single camera doing single shot photo work most of the time. These are features you need when you are dealing with multi cameras photos or multi shots from the same camera and are needing to merge them. Yes your cameras icc profile can in fact change based on lighting and aperture and focus and lens and filter.

    Please note being in the amateur area of photo work is not a bad thing it means you are not having customers asking for horrible things like merging 20 photos taken on different days by different cameras and make them absolutely look like they were taken by 1 camera at exactly the same time.

    Leave a comment:

  • Mavman
    Senior Member

  • Mavman
    replied
    Originally posted by oiaohm View Post

    Really he was right.

    Not exactly. You did not really explain why.
    Well, i understand your point... and i don't have enough time to go into "deep talk" right now (sorry... work time!) but i'll still maintain that I have yet to find (in that amateur corner where I work XP) something that limits my photo edition in krita and I'll leave this link to a discussion - with more links in it - regarding color profiles.
    It's, at least, an interesting read.

    https://forum.kde.org/viewtopic.php?t=125962

    That is regarding the (proprietary) AdobeRGB and ProPhoto profiles alternatives
    Mavman
    Senior Member
    Last edited by Mavman; 24 August 2021, 05:00 PM.

    Leave a comment:

  • oiaohm
    Senior Member

  • oiaohm
    replied
    Originally posted by Mavman View Post
    I REALLY like your deduction capabilities!!! LOL XD
    Really he was right.
    Originally posted by mppix View Post
    Apprechiated :P
    Not exactly. You did not really explain why.

    http://www.eci.org/lib/exe/fetch.php...x3_v300_en.pdf

    Lot of people are not aware of this when you are working with digital photos since 2006 it has been generally recommend not to use CMYK until you have to. There is a reason the sensors in camera work in RGB not CMYK and your screens work in RGB not CMYK so going to CMYK too soon results in excess transformations so slowing down your productivity. Going to CMYK too soon has adverse effects in photo processing.

    There is a difference between drawing and photo work. Drawing work you may want to go to CMYK early. Gimp has a lot features that really do suit RGB processing pipe lines of photo that Krita does not have.

    There are weakness in gimp that need address like "Space invasion" project. Yes "Space invasion" project in gimp is very different lets just support CMYK. Its so that you can have a image in one colour space do transfer-formations in a different colour space and return to the same colour space you started off with seamlessly.

    There is a catch here pros are aware there are 4 common RGB colour spaces. The most common that people know sRGB
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:C...comparison.svg Yes they have very different colour profiles.

    Yes if you have prophoto RGB and you go to CMYK you have throwing out a lot of data. Yes Krita also does have issues dealing with mixed colour space.

    Some of the reason photoshop with be slow snail doing things is excess transformations from one colour space to another.

    Photo processing has a lot more complexity than drawing. Photo processing need a hell load features and some of those are nasty complex. Drawing need drawing engines that is a different beast.

    Yes you can use krita to lightly process photos. But some of stuff that gimp can process these days krita not going to be able to. Yes items photoshop can process at this stage gimp cannot. Yes this is batch processing not user input.

    The number of features need for photo work is lot. Yes those have a lot of theory as well. Would it be possible for Krita in future to pass gimp in features yes.

    Mavman like or not there are a lot of pro photo production work that krita falls on it face with that gimp is able todo. Not anything against Krita its not not built for it. Even gimp is not fully built for all pro photo production cases yet. Now drawing krita with its drawing engines is well ahead of gimp. UI of krita is simpler but it also has less feature to worry about.

    All software has it weakness. Just because it works for you to do a particular task does not mean a bit of software is suitable for the general version of that task where you could get anything. The general task of pro photo production handling is one mega nightmare. Yes there is no bit of software on the market that is general all rounder for pro photo production work.


    Leave a comment:

  • mppix
    Senior Member

  • mppix
    replied
    Originally posted by Mavman View Post

    I REALLY like your deduction capabilities!!! LOL XD
    Apprechiated :P

    Leave a comment:

  • Mavman
    Senior Member

  • Mavman
    replied
    Originally posted by mppix View Post
    ...put you in the amateur corner...
    I REALLY like your deduction capabilities!!! LOL XD

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X