Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Krita 5.0 Beta Released With Better Performance, UI Polishing

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

  • rabcor
    replied
    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.

    And lastly I hoped they fixed that god awful gradient rendering issue where using more than one stroke to shade something with a soft brush (or airbrush) resulted in hideous visual artifacts making smoother rendering styles actually impossible (I recall the issue wasn't present in 16 bit mode and that there was someone working on this, but I mean this thing was a huge dealbreaker for me and the reason I actually stopped using krita in the first place, it was just below my bottom line at that point)

    Krita's always been so close to being this super awesome program for so many digital art workloads but there have always been little things (I say little but of course I know they're big problems to solve when you're in the actual code of it, they just seem little because they're a small handful of issues that are very easy to point at and explain) like this dragging it down, these pesky little bugs and performance issues that have kept it as a niche program, I may seem a bit entitled to want more out of a free and open source program, but I mean if nobody comments about what they hate about it, how would the devs ever know what needs to be improved?

    Just a few things that need fixing and improving to make the program viable to a much larger amount of artists... I really hope to see this program succeed more than it already has.
    rabcor
    Senior Member
    Last edited by rabcor; 18 August 2021, 10:52 PM.

    Leave a comment:

  • oiaohm
    Senior Member

  • oiaohm
    replied
    Originally posted by RomuloP View Post
    There is no one that ever did such a count,
    This is absolute wrong. The training manuals made by the course teaching krita and gimp some of them have in fact done full feature counts. Funny enough is you can see the difference just in number pages. A book covering all the features of gimp is 3 times thicker than a book covering all the features of krita. The book covering all gimp features in thickness is closer to a book covering all the photoshop features in a particular version.

    Gimp in feature count is not just a little bigger than krita. Its a lot bigger by almost a factor of 3. As a person using the gimp and krita they can appear the same. Do consider those training manuals do end up covering features you would never find other wise in gimp. General usage Krita you will come into contact with over 95 percent of its features.

    Gimp has a higher feature count but those features are not of the same quality. Yes if you compare quality built features Krita does have more features. About 1/4 features of gimp are properly developed out where almost 100 percent of Krita features are fully developed out.

    RomuloP find where to get counts of number of features is kind important to work out developers numbers vs features metric. Lot of people miss how often those writing training courses end up doing program feature counts. I will give you would not have thought were to find the count. Yes a lot of people presume the feature count is not done because places like Wikipedia and reviews don't publish it.

    Leave a comment:

  • mppix
    Senior Member

  • mppix
    replied
    Originally posted by RomuloP View Post
    There is no one that ever did such a count, and I'm pretty sure both tools can do the same fundamental thing, as well as simpler tools like MyPaint. simply put, not even layers would be necessary to get things done, so all this "GIMP get to do the same thing all those features you pointed doo but..." kinda not make it to me. Even if someone get to the insanity of hating itself so much to go there and count all the functions and both does not have the same rigorous number of features, to me, both are similar sized in terms of feature.
    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • RomuloP
    Senior Member

  • RomuloP
    replied
    Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
    Even when you total up all those feature its lower...
    There is no one that ever did such a count, and I'm pretty sure both tools can do the same fundamental thing, as well as simpler tools like MyPaint. simply put, not even layers would be necessary to get things done, so all this "GIMP get to do the same thing all those features you pointed doo but..." kinda not make it to me. Even if someone get to the insanity of hating itself so much to go there and count all the functions and both does not have the same rigorous number of features, to me, both are similar sized in terms of feature.

    Leave a comment:

  • oiaohm
    Senior Member

  • oiaohm
    replied
    Originally posted by RomuloP View Post
    This is not quite true... both are plenty feature rich, being Krita just not for image manipulation (feature more people are familiar with and may miss), they only tend to follow different routes. Krita offers much less filters and batching features, sure.. But at same time its layering has more feature, offer more non destructive manipulation features, more sophisticated color manipulation, tools for basic vectorization, tools for 3D normal map painting, HDI painting, composition, rasterized animation, more blending modes and more brush engines that in general are more flexible, basic CMYK and this is just what come to my mind.
    Even when you total up all those feature its lower feature count with Krita than what comes in gimp out the box. Lower feature count does make doing the interface simpler but it also means you are not splitting your developer time as much.

    Being less feature rich does not mean the software cannot have some great features. Also does mean krita being less feature rich has been able to spend more time per feature getting them right. Some of GIMP problem is how feature rich it is and how low in developer personal for all those features. Yes this is some of photoshop problem as well.

    Its a bit of a problem people see that photoshop is very feature rich they they have to compare to something that is equal feature rich that results in them missing items like Krita because on paper its less feature rich and look at gimp. But the tighter focus of Krita has resulted in the features it does have being done really well and that is because it was not insanely over-ally feature rich so more developer time has gone into each feature. The tigher focus do leave Krita with some large area weakness.

    All the feature you list of Krita the reality is gimp can do it all but with different level of horrible some really bad UI. Some like CMYK is there but you will use X and now things will go wrong because that bit of the code base is not CMYK ready. Most people miss than you can turn non destructive editing on in gimp then different filters and feature just stop working sometimes crash if you use them by mistake.

    Gimp is insanely feature rich but lot of those feature are not 100 percent complete due to lack of developer time and this is directly linked to being feature rich. Krita is feature poorer but those features are close to 100 percent complete.

    The reality here being the most feature rich bit of software is not always a good thing sometimes being feature rich is the very thing ruining the quality of the software and slows down addition of new features due to splitting developer time too much.

    Leave a comment:

  • rmfx
    Senior Member

  • rmfx
    replied
    Good to see the improvements. Still very far from Affinity Photo in terms of performance and polish but so far, my favorite open-source image editor.

    Just tried GIMP 2.99.6, it looks like a big improvement over the 2.x series (not hard at the same time, the workflow was a disaster).

    I wish the best for both projects.

    Leave a comment:

  • RomuloP
    Senior Member

  • RomuloP
    replied
    Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
    This is correct. To be exact Krita is in fact less feature rich...
    This is not quite true... both are plenty feature rich, being Krita just not for image manipulation (feature more people are familiar with and may miss), they only tend to follow different routes. Krita offers much less filters and batching features, sure.. But at same time its layering has more feature, offer more non destructive manipulation features, more sophisticated color manipulation, tools for basic vectorization, tools for 3D normal map painting, HDI painting, composition, rasterized animation, more blending modes and more brush engines that in general are more flexible, basic CMYK and this is just what come to my mind.

    Leave a comment:

  • oiaohm
    Senior Member

  • oiaohm
    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...
    There is a reason.

    Originally posted by mppix View Post
    I use both. Krita is _not_ more complete/powerful than GIMP but it is more intuitive
    This is correct. To be exact Krita is in fact less feature rich. I end up having to add G'MIC to Krita to expand functionality. In fact even provide functionality that gimp will give you out box without G'MIC.

    https://docs.krita.org/en/resources_...python-plugins
    Even when you start attempting to customise krita there is a lack of user build scripts and extended functionality as well.
    https://shotkit.com/gimp-plugins/

    Yes when you look at gimp plugins these are lot more developed on the gimp side.
    https://github.com/draekko/gimp-pspi
    When I say user work gimp does have the means to use some photoshop plugins. So a person who has invested money on photoshop addons may not loss all of those going to gimp but will going to krita.

    So yes gimp has interface that can be totally horrible buts massive amount of functionality included and what you can add.

    In features that the software can do Gimp is a closer match to photoshop than krita. In interface friendlyness Krita beats photoshop and gimp for drawing tablet work and a lot of general work as well.

    tildearrow feeling more complete and being more complete is two different things. Reality here when I have my drawing tablet out there is no way I am going to be using gimp as it just not good at it compared to Krita. But when it comes to true functionality gimp is lot more complete than krita. Of course I do wish this will change with time as I do like the krita interface a lot. Scary point there are things that gimp does better than photoshop particularly batch processing.

    Photoshop, gimp and krita all have their weak-points. Krita bigest weak point is the out the box filters and the lack of built out addon functionality. Gimp biggest weakpoint is it interface and this is part not the nicest UI and part the amount of functionality in fact stuffed in it so its really been in need of a lot more UI work. Photoshops biggest weak point is the thing can be down right slow stuff you can have done almost instantly with krita or gimp you can be waiting ages for. For how well funded photoshop is its performance has always been a what the. Yes following low performance Photoshop interface at times is just as good as gimp at getting you totally lost due to odd UI choices.

    Course focused on drawing/artwork generation these days will commonly have krita as one of the taught bits of software these days. Course focused on mass production work will common have gimp include yes the bach process speed cannot be ignored. Those courses would most likely have Photoshop in their as a all round and for accessing resources from the adobe cloud. Yes photoshop being a allrounder not exactly perfect at anything but not absolutely useless at any task thrown at it. Of course working on a budget photoshop is first to go.

    Leave a comment:

  • xpris
    Senior Member

  • xpris
    replied
    OpenColorIO 2 is finally supported or still not?

    Leave a comment:

  • lumks
    Senior Member

  • lumks
    replied
    Originally posted by tildearrow View Post
    I just wonder why does this program get less publicity than GIMP...
    Because it's main focus is painting, not image manipulation and the later is that what most people want to have. Like you wont find ballon tours if you look for flights.

    I wish someone would step up, fork gimp, start to get the community on board with financing the work and never look back. Just like krita did.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X