Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Krita 5.0 Beta Released With Better Performance, UI Polishing

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

  • mppix
    replied
    Originally posted by oiaohm View Post

    inkscape is a different beast being 100% vector graphics focused. Krita is raster graphics that can work with vector graphics. Gimp and photoshop also raster graphics that can use vector graphics in different places but these places are limited.

    Mind you Krita level of vector graphics support is good enough to get it recognised as a usable vector graphics editor but that is not its core engine. Krita I think is the only one that in fact stands in the middle between vector graphics and raster graphics that is a editor for both.

    Krita being a odd ball here does make it hard to compare at times. Like should krita be compared to adobe photoshop/gimp or should it be compared to adobe Illustrator/inkscape... or should it be compared to both groups. I would say both groups because krita does sit in the middle.

    Yes some of the reason why Krita is seams feature count equal to gimp when its not is the fact the vector side of Krita is developed out more.

    In vector features Krita is weak to inkscape and illustrator and in the raster graphics features krita is weak compared to gimp and photoshop. But for a person doing drawing work not having to change tools and have a good mix of raster graphics features and vector graphics features makes Krita a good tool. In total feature count krita is weak to both gimp and inkscape but is this important.

    Having the most features is not the most important thing. Have the right mix of features is a very important thing to productive.

    This is why it so hard to compare krita. You cannot really say krita has the most feature not compared to gimp/inkscape. But there is also no other software in active development really like Krita that walks the middle line between being raster graphics editor and being vector graphics editor.

    Also Krita is also 2d animation software. Again krita not a massive heavy feature version of that either.

    Krita kind of the 2d version of early blender where where its not really the best class in one particular area but its good enough all areas that it alone would let you get your work done. When you have to be changing software a lot it does disrupt your creative process. Items like this seam very feature rich users because they are a fusion of tools even when they are in fact very light on in features but the features the user has is the ones they will be using more often.
    You have not arguments from me
    I really like Krita, it is just not the most specialize tool for anything (and that is both, a critique and compliment!)

    Leave a comment:


  • oiaohm
    replied
    Originally posted by mppix View Post
    I guess we should compare krita to inkscape not gimp then.
    inkscape is a different beast being 100% vector graphics focused. Krita is raster graphics that can work with vector graphics. Gimp and photoshop also raster graphics that can use vector graphics in different places but these places are limited.

    Mind you Krita level of vector graphics support is good enough to get it recognised as a usable vector graphics editor but that is not its core engine. Krita I think is the only one that in fact stands in the middle between vector graphics and raster graphics that is a editor for both.

    Krita being a odd ball here does make it hard to compare at times. Like should krita be compared to adobe photoshop/gimp or should it be compared to adobe Illustrator/inkscape... or should it be compared to both groups. I would say both groups because krita does sit in the middle.

    Yes some of the reason why Krita is seams feature count equal to gimp when its not is the fact the vector side of Krita is developed out more.

    In vector features Krita is weak to inkscape and illustrator and in the raster graphics features krita is weak compared to gimp and photoshop. But for a person doing drawing work not having to change tools and have a good mix of raster graphics features and vector graphics features makes Krita a good tool. In total feature count krita is weak to both gimp and inkscape but is this important.

    Having the most features is not the most important thing. Have the right mix of features is a very important thing to productive.

    This is why it so hard to compare krita. You cannot really say krita has the most feature not compared to gimp/inkscape. But there is also no other software in active development really like Krita that walks the middle line between being raster graphics editor and being vector graphics editor.

    Also Krita is also 2d animation software. Again krita not a massive heavy feature version of that either.

    Krita kind of the 2d version of early blender where where its not really the best class in one particular area but its good enough all areas that it alone would let you get your work done. When you have to be changing software a lot it does disrupt your creative process. Items like this seam very feature rich users because they are a fusion of tools even when they are in fact very light on in features but the features the user has is the ones they will be using more often.

    Leave a comment:


  • rabcor
    replied
    Originally posted by RomuloP View Post

    With instant preview I've already worked with 500 pixel size smudge brushes and almost no lag. Still not took my time to test 5.0 but my eyes are glowing for this 'paint thicknes' among new engine features, its almost real oil there

    Yeah, almost no lag at 500 pixel size brushes is not good enough for me, I mean sure, most of the time you don't have to work with brushes that big but usually in the beginning of a painting you do, especially when working at large resolutions, sometimes it's nice to go even all the way up to 1000 pixels to lay down a base for whatever you're gonna be painting on top of it, and sometimes you're just using weird niche techniques that work better with large brush sizes, there's all sorts of possible reasons but 'almost no lag' is not good enough for me. An even just slightly lagging brush is an awful experience to me.

    But I really should check it out because it's been idk 2 years maybe since I last gave it a shot, hopefully it's a bit better now. Those new brush engines look freaking incredible, they're starting to encroach on corel painter's territory now which is awesome.

    Leave a comment:


  • RomuloP
    replied
    Originally posted by khnazile View Post
    The inability to open older *.kra files is a major downside of future release. I believe some people would refuse to update because of this.
    Where you got this from? I Installed the beta here to test this as it is a important point to me but had no problem opening old, even very old file.

    Originally posted by mppix View Post
    I guess we should compare krita to inkscape not gimp then.
    To me anyone can compare any of the three with each other, but I understand why people compare krita with GIMP. Both work on raster, GIMP can be used to paint and Krita also have some capability to edit photos, it is normal that people get to compare them.

    Leave a comment:


  • usta
    replied
    Originally posted by xpris View Post
    OpenColorIO 2 is finally supported or still not?
    I have just fixed the FindOCIO.cmake so it started to at least compile (withOUT OCIO support ) whenever you have OCIO 2.x on your system. ( Before that patchit even couldnt compiles )

    Next milestone is to add 2.x support.
    Last edited by usta; 19 August 2021, 12:19 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • mppix
    replied
    Originally posted by RomuloP View Post
    Yeah... I am.
    I would be surprised if a painting tool would be better in photo edition than a tool for this purpose.
    And I disagree on what it is about, if this was the case, C or C++ would be both more feature rich painting tools and photo editors. I believe that many like GIMP and Krita interface better than C and C++ too.
    I guess we should compare krita to inkscape not gimp then.

    Leave a comment:


  • khnazile
    replied
    The inability to open older *.kra files is a major downside of future release. I believe some people would refuse to update because of this.

    Leave a comment:


  • RomuloP
    replied
    Originally posted by rabcor View Post
    Oh please for the love of god tell me there are some serious performance improvements, last time I tried using Krita it just wasn't ready for modern day digital artist's ideal work resolutions and large brushes were basically unusable. Instant preview fixed a lot of the speed issues but it just wasn't enough.
    With instant preview I've already worked with 500 pixel size smudge brushes and almost no lag. Still not took my time to test 5.0 but my eyes are glowing for this 'paint thicknes' among new engine features, its almost real oil there

    Leave a comment:


  • RomuloP
    replied
    Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
    This is absolute wrong...
    No it is not... Any book closely following features only, will be slim, for both programs. GIMP books go deeper on techniques, because this is how photo edition works... That does not map well to software feature and there is nothing like this in painting, mostly because painting is not much procedural as photo edition. Also some books go on about mapping processesses from Photoshop to GIMP exactly for the same reason, there is more exact science around photo edition than painting, but this does not tell a thing about features simply because most of the things Krita is about, is quality of life for painters.

    I also disagree about your perception of Krita general usage or even artistic usage, but I also disagree on your definition of what may be a feature or or feature measurement probably, so it will be pretty hard we ever come to an agreement even if you come with numbers here.

    Originally posted by mppix View Post
    U serious?
    This is about capability, not number of menu items.
    You can professionally edit a photo in gimp (plenty do) - but not in krita.
    I still like Krita's interface better.
    Yeah... I am.
    I would be surprised if a painting tool would be better in photo edition than a tool for this purpose.
    And I disagree on what it is about, if this was the case, C or C++ would be both more feature rich painting tools and photo editors. I believe that many like GIMP and Krita interface better than C and C++ too.

    Leave a comment:


  • rabcor
    replied
    Originally posted by tildearrow View Post
    Good job! Krita is the closest match to Photoshop, even if it is painting-oriented.
    It feels more complete than GIMP.

    I just wonder why does this program get less publicity than GIMP...
    It doesn't. In the open source community? Maybe, I don't know. In the art community, the one that's actually relevant to the program? GIMP is barely a blip on the radar anymore because everyone knows Krita is simply better than GIMP at almost everything that's relevant to digital artists.

    Also to the people saying that Krita has less features than GIMP or is worse than GIMP For photomanipulation? That's just misinformation, I imagine most of the people saying it are people who heard it somewhere, and they probably heard it from people who always just used GIMP; then learned abotu Krita, tried it for all of 10 minutes and decided they preferred GIMP because they already know where everything is in GIMP (You know, the same way people who stick with windows prefer windows because they know how to use it and learning to use linux would be a lot of work for them); and so when they couldn't find a feature from GIMP in Krita they assumed it wasn't there and ragequit, but the thing was probably there all along just named something different.

    The way I see it as someone who has used both programs quite a bit, everything GIMP does Krita does better, I did not dive too deep into the photomanipulation aspect of things however so I might actually be wrong about this, I acknowledge this, but Krita is actually very decent for photomanipulation, it's not on photoshop's level, not by a longshot, but neither is GIMP.
    Last edited by rabcor; 18 August 2021, 10:59 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X