Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GIMP 2.10 To Be Fully Ported To GEGL Core

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

  • GIMP 2.10 To Be Fully Ported To GEGL Core

    Phoronix: GIMP 2.10 To Be Fully Ported To GEGL Core

    GEGL in GIMP is finally going to be going full-speed. For GIMP 2.10 the open-source imaging program's core will be 100% ported to GEGL, the Generic Graphics Library...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTA4ODk

  • #2
    You forgot to mention something....

    You forgot to mention this: AMD's Paying For Some Open-Source OpenCL Love

    This should make for some noticeably better performance, if people have the right graphics cards.

    Comment


    • #3
      I think a complete port to GEGL should deserve a release of its own.. A lot of companies would at least consider it important and a big enough feature to give it its own version I think. Perhaps they should consider a 2.10 in 6 months then?

      Comment


      • #4
        So is the plan that GEGL replaces Cairo in the future or has it a different purpose than the Cairo library

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Fenrin View Post
          So is the plan that GEGL replaces Cairo in the future or has it a different purpose than the Cairo library
          Cairo is a library for drawing on your screen or another output device (PDF, printer, etc.).

          GEGL is a framework for manipulating (raster) images?including support for non-destructive editing, very large images that don't even fit in memory, various bit depths (even mixing them), efficient implementation of filters & effects, etc.

          So totally different things...

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by JanC View Post
            ...
            ok, thanks for the explanation.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Azpegath View Post
              I think a complete port to GEGL should deserve a release of its own.. A lot of companies would at least consider it important and a big enough feature to give it its own version I think. Perhaps they should consider a 2.10 in 6 months then?
              http://wiki.gimp.org/index.php/Roadmap
              Looks like it will be GEGL, layer masks on layer groups, GSoC projects, and internal work.
              This is the basis for 2.9/2.10, FWIW. But 6 months? I doubt that.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Ibidem View Post
                But 6 months? I doubt that.
                http://www.chromecode.com/2011/02/wh...eased-yet.html says: "The second reason is that we develop features directly on the main branch. [...] There is almost always a feature on the main branch that is incomplete. [...] The solution to all our problems is the same. We need to begin developing big features on feature branches and merge them to the main branch when they are ready." So they identified their problems, and if they manage to change their development style accordingly they hopefully can put out releases much faster, and a 2.10 six months after 2.8 doesn't seem that far-fetched.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Ibidem View Post
                  You forgot to mention this: AMD's Paying For Some Open-Source OpenCL Love

                  This should make for some noticeably better performance, if people have the right graphics cards.
                  GPUs usually provide a significant speedup, but having a multi-core CPU is enough to take advantage of OpenCL.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Why AMD for Gimp? Please explain

                    Any reason why AMD should be preferred?

                    Here an old announcement from the Nvidia developer site: "NVIDIA has chaired the industry working group that defines the OpenCL standard since its inception and shipped the world?s first conformant GPU implementation of OpenCL for both Windows and Linux in June 2009."

                    I've been using Nvidia cards for many years and I'm very happy with their closed-source drivers - in my systems they simply work(ed). I particularly like the long-term support for old GPUs, so I can continue using my ancient graphics adapters with the latest Linux distro.

                    I'm going to buy a PC and graphics card this week. Is there any good reason I should lean towards AMD/ATI who have had a less than optimal track record - at first no Linux support, now yes, even open source support, but not for all GPUs, old stuff is not being supported, who knows what the next quirk will be?

                    I'm open to suggestions.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X