Krita 5.0 Beta Released With Better Performance, UI Polishing

[RomuloP]

I don't just wanna reply that you should re-read my original post a second time, but you clearly misunderstood everything yet again... I mean it's not like it was written in a confusing manner I stated everything clearly, even gave screenshot examples of it...

But I didn't know u could convert individual layers to 16 bit, that might be a usable workaround for the artifacting issue, but it wouldn't solve the performance issue, my solution for that is just using another program :P currently I'm using paintstorm.

No problem, if it does not catch to your needs the best thing to do is use other tool, was trying to see if there could exist a solution for your Krita problem, sad that it does not help. I've already worked with Paintstorm, It is a great tool, just not enough, I've found their brush engine to be a bit shy despite big, and their texturization solutions are bit too much similar, at the time I got myself switching with Artrage too much. I still use Artrage sometimes but I think that with the current impasto tools I will be able to sit only in Krita for everything to the slim to the most texturized.

[RomuloP]

https://www.ssla.co.uk/digital-image-processing/
Signal processing is a very broad field. Digital image processing that photoshop, krita, gimp... all fall into happens to be a subfield of signal processing just specialist in images. So anything that does Digital image processing can fall under signal processing..

So your define of signal processing has to be wrong because signal processing is a huge catch all term.

But not every signal processing example is a photo edition example, this is my point. So, I don't think I'm wrong, but you can disagree.

Yes there are short movies out there that the only production tool used was photoshop. This explains why VFX functionality is drifting into photoshop.

As there exist photos that are purely edited on Krita and this does not make Krita a photo editor. Still nonsense to me.

This is next problem Photoshop is a VFX tool. Is it photoshop top VFX tool you are going normally make a movie the answer is normally no. https://creativecloud.adobe.com/disc...with-photoshop

almost everything in the media industry is a VFX tool, this is why I see no sense in discussing Photoshop out of its primary purpose as photography manipulation, because it is there that it feets well, as is in concept art that Krita fits well for VFX.

RomuloP really your does not make it X logic does not hold up.

Welcome to the art and media subject, it is not a question of logic, it is my opinion, you can disagree, dislike, find it ilogic, whatever, to me Photoshop is a good photo editor and a median panacea in the rest what is not enought to me as Krita is not enough to me as a photo editor. If I need anything else I will go to another tool as I did for painting, where I find it to be the correct and a better tool to me, and if I would work in a VFX project, I would use the correct tool for the task I would do, a painting tool for the concept art, a visual effects tool for visual effects a rendering tool for rendering and there it goes. But art is art and people can make whatever they want, like in the kitchen analogy, you can cook rice and everything in a microwave, not may way though.

[rabcor]

I think I understand it now, sorry for the misunderstanding, you have bad performance even in 8 bits and even badder performance in 16 bits float, so it is really unworkable in 16 bits float even if it is perfectly fine, if I understood. I've thought of some things you can try are:

1 Have you tried 16 bits integer? It's faster for me than float and very near to 8 bits in my case. Unless you are doing HDR I don't se a use for the float version.
2 You can try Rámon Miranda's airbrush pack, but I think they will be a bit too much sandy for your needs.
3 Only convert the offending layer(s) to 16 bits integer/float, what will ease RAM and allow fast 8 bits in other tasks/layers.



I don't think homogeneous environment stacking is a good example, honestly those kind of tasks are very simple. I don't see this really as any pro task and personally I find this to be as easy and fast to be done in both the 3 software with same quality. Not that I think Krita is better than GIMP for photo, but those are so trivial tasks that they are automatized in many places... scientific astrometry already automated those tasks a long time ago, it is not like you needed a human there or sophisticated math to do this. I'm pretty sure many modern smartphones already automatically use those technique to overcome hardware limitations too.

oiaohm example is better because it is really not easy to stack images with relevantly different hardware origin, perspective, light source, focus, exposure, etc, a common task in VFX, matte painting, etc. But I just don't see much sense in discussing this because even Photoshop alone is far from being enough for those tasks.

I don't just wanna reply that you should re-read my original post a second time, but you clearly misunderstood everything yet again... I mean it's not like it was written in a confusing manner I stated everything clearly, even gave screenshot examples of it...

But I didn't know u could convert individual layers to 16 bit, that might be a usable workaround for the artifacting issue, but it wouldn't solve the performance issue, my solution for that is just using another program :P currently I'm using paintstorm.

[oiaohm]

Yeh but being photoshop a Frankenstein or not, it does not make VFX or signal processing as photo or image edition field, just more nonsense as calling Krita a photo editor, in my view.

https://www.ssla.co.uk/digital-image-processing/

Signal processing is a very broad field. Digital image processing that photoshop, krita, gimp... all fall into happens to be a subfield of signal processing just specialist in images. So anything that does Digital image processing can fall under signal processing.

So your define of signal processing has to be wrong because signal processing is a huge catch all term.

This is next problem Photoshop is a VFX tool. Is it photoshop top VFX tool you are going normally make a movie the answer is normally no.

https://creativecloud.adobe.com/discover/article/an-award-nominated-short-animation-made-with-photoshop

Yes there are short movies out there that the only production tool used was photoshop. This explains why VFX functionality is drifting into photoshop.

Photoshop is a very big Frankenstein item. I would expect krita over time to pick up more VFX functionality as well because again krita is used by some people to make complete animated movies without leaving krita so this will lead to wanting VFX functionality inside krita(this is just the expect-able feature creep) . Is this going to be 3d VFX functionality that another matter.

RomuloP really your does not make it X logic does not hold up. The problem here is this is not really black or white answers. Instead its shades of grey in most cases. Like it correct to say Photoshop is a VFX, signal processor and photo editor because in reality it is. Now is photoshop the best VFX no its not is it the do everything signal processor no it not. Just because something is a poor VFX functionality or signal processor functionality does not magically make it not those things.

This is also why makes working what functionality is required good photo editor. Yes remember photo editor is meant to be a subset of digital image processing, VFX is also a subset of digital image processing that overlay photo editors of functionality.

[RomuloP]

Yes RomuloP a lot of people still use the 2 series of fitsliberator with photoshop to use other plugins as well. There are many plugins for photoshop that are specialist to the astrophotography field.

Yeh but being photoshop a Frankenstein or not, it does not make VFX or signal processing as photo or image edition field, just more nonsense as calling Krita a photo editor, in my view.

[oiaohm]

Those fields are much more on the signal processing area than image edition anyway, Photoshop is not the right tool and photo editors or painting tools at last were the focus here.

https://www.prodigitalsoftware.com/AstronomyToolsActions.html

Nothing like being repeatedly wrong historically.

https://noirlab.edu/public/products/fitsliberator/ Yes we have specialist processing that is fast these days.

Historically fitsliberator started out as a photo-shop plugin right up though the 2 series. 3 series standalone application in 2010 with finally Linux support in 2021.

Yes RomuloP a lot of people still use the 2 series of fitsliberator with photoshop to use other plugins as well. There are many plugins for photoshop that are specialist to the astrophotography field.

Reality like it or not photoshop is very much a kitchen sink tool a lot like blender for 3d. Not perfect at everything but in fact able todo everything.

There is a reason why photoshop is falling out of favour astrophotography.

https://docs.gimp.org/2.10/en/gimp-image-precision.html

Notice the 32 integer per channel support. Photoshop own engine wants to work in 16 bit and photoshop in fact lacks 32 bit integer support. People using 32 bit float under photoshop have different plugins and things not work.

astrophotography handling is one of the areas where specialist tools with gimp is winning over what use to be specialist tools and photoshop. This is a missing feature of krita that it does not have a 32 integer per channel option yes this is also a missing feature of photoshop so this feature for those that need it turns out to be a win for gimp.

Depending on the field and the required processing features photoshop can loss to gimp so can krita. Yes so your response is kind of right that Photoshop current is not exactly the right tool for astrophotography. The core reason why Photoshop is not the right tool for astrophotography any more is limitation in engine and poor processing speed. Yes the photoshop engine limitation of lacking 32 bit integer processing per channel also applies to krita.

Gimp is doing a lot of hard image processing foundation work that interesting enough krita and photoshop don't have. Gimp plan that was worked out 2010 for where gimp need go to did a lot of research on what core engine features would be required and in some areas this is starting to pay off with market share in some areas as these features are starting to come standard.

[RomuloP]

This really depends on what you are doing. The field I am coming from is not astrophotography.

Those fields are much more on the signal processing area than image edition anyway, Photoshop is not the right tool and photo editors or painting tools at last were the focus here.

[oiaohm]

Well, no, it is not 'default procedure', astrophotography is not even a common photography field, and for sure doing such tasks in astrophotography manually in a photo editors is not default procedure with programs like Starry Landscape Stacker and others. But I can see an amateur wasting time manually stacking even 3x it instead of 10 for ~20% less noise (it if the images he or she takes are usable for gains beyond 10 image stacking)... Even cameras firmware focus stacking hardly go beyond 8 images, optimal results are quickly achieved with not much images for this particular case. As I said, bad examples.

This really depends on what you are doing. The field I am coming from is not astrophotography.

Again, my answers are about why you stack large numbers of pictures nothing more. However, I'll add that it is fairly clear that you are not active in either fields nor care about it. Please try to read - I only take credit for what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.
Thank you.

There are a few reason why you stack images please note you may be doing more than 1 at once.
1) to extend focus range. Stopping at 10 is not always the case. If you are doing a image for a book cover that same something really close than like many more items different distances away to get each of those items in focus might be a different picture and to get the transitions in focus might be a different picture. This case camera is locked down and does not move. Yes for a particular education book cover it was 40 picture merge with 40 different focus settings. Doing the stitching of that is a hell of a work out. This is really how many pictures are required to get everything in focus. There is a reason why most stop at 8-10 in firmware. Unless you are taking in controlled lighting the time from the first frame 8-10 frame starts getting to too much lighting change.

2) noise reduction. This is where you are taking the same photo at the same focus repeatedly and then merging them. Yes even with computerized alt-azimuth and a telescope getting past 10 is generally not possible with earth based astrophotography the slight changes in the atmosphere between the first photo and the last start bringing the altered light problem also you start running in items moving in frame drawing lines you don't want. Yes there is a reason why Hubble has been able to do out to 50 that because of no atmosphere and being able to get a fairly clear line to space with no sats and junk in the way.

3) Collaging images. This is what you are doing for book and Magazine covers and posters and so on. Yes there are different forms of Collaging. 2 major ones
3a) images that don't have to look to be 1 image. These you can boarder and so on. These are simple.
3b) the nightmare collage where all the images have to look to be one image even that they start life as individually taken images. This is the one where you need light angle correction. Light angle correction to do it right ends up needing picture to 3d model to make 2 lightmap 1 to subtract the current light from the current image 1 to add the light back to the image from the wanted angle these get merged to produce a single alteration lightmap that effectively moves light angle by computer processing. This is specialist to this for of collaging work.
Be it 3a or 3b with Collaging there is no real upper limit here on how many pictures you could be merging.

Krita and gimp is not design as a complete collaging tool. Photoshop does in fact have many features to help you do collaging of images particular the 3b type.

astrophotography is different to the field I come from but i do understand it. astrophotography you cannot make a 3d model from you picture the subject are too far away so you cannot use light source to calculate shape of object this . Yes a lot of people incorrectly think astrophotography is where you push the limited of layering images.

One images of the Cern Large Hadron Collider is in fact 50 source images layered for focus and quite a few more are in the 40 count from there. Remember these was taken in a totally light controlled environment with zero movement. The result is a pictures with hell load detail in focus.

noise reduction generally stops at 10 on earth. As past 10 the nose coming from the changing environment and items moving earth results in making more errors removing the noise. Yes this was found early on with astrophotography some of the early attempts at atmospheric noise removal where they attempted 20 to 30 merges results in a worse image than the any individual image out the set. There is a point of no return with noise removal that attempting to remove noise is in fact adding noise so ruining the image.

Collaging images the most insane recorded that I know of is a remade lost/badly damaged school photo of 200 students. Yes there was a stack of individual pictures on that day that damaged picture was taken. Yes 203 individual pictures make (3 extra pictures was the background, foreground and the plate card). This was done for a school reunion for 50x4 meter poster. This I would absolutely call a big job particularly with all the light correction need so that looks right and the final product poster.

[RomuloP]

Again, my answers are about why you stack large numbers of pictures nothing more. However, I'll add that it is fairly clear that you are not active in either fields nor care about it. Please try to read - I only take credit for what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.
Thank you.

So they are bad examples because you took Mavman statement out of its context around photo editors, whatever. Anyway they are bad examples even out of context, Focus-Stacking does not need this amount of captures and whatever be the time you have to do the job, dividing for optimal exposure in 10 images with computerized alt-azimuth will do much more for noise-canceling than dividing it in 20, but I admit it is not common and goes beyond hardwares like EOS Ra, Anyway it is as trivial as not moving your camera with softwares like Starry Landscape Stacker, pretty much basic.

[mppix]

Well, no, it is not 'default procedure', astrophotography is not even a common photography field, and for sure doing such tasks in astrophotography manually in a photo editors is not default procedure with programs like Starry Landscape Stacker and others. But I can see an amateur wasting time manually stacking even 3x it instead of 10 for ~20% less noise (it if the images he or she takes are usable for gains beyond 10 image stacking)... Even cameras firmware focus stacking hardly go beyond 8 images, optimal results are quickly achieved with not much images for this particular case. As I said, bad examples.

Well, again, you are interpreting way too much into my comment(s). Anyhow
- astrophotography is common enough that Canon (probably the most profit oriented camera manufacturer) has repeatedly issued specialized DSLR (and now mirrorless) cameras, e.g. the EOS Ra - they don't do that for any other field;
- yes, many will use dedicated software tools (when did I talk about software?)
- yes, you need as many as possible long-exposure shots with tracking for best results. This is non-trivial nor is it trivial to stack such series except in the most basic cases. The earth is moving, you know.

Again, my answers are about why you stack large numbers of pictures nothing more. However, I'll add that it is fairly clear that you are not active in either fields nor care about it. Please try to read - I only take credit for what I wrote, not what you think I wrote.
Thank you.