GIMP Resynth vs. Photoshop Content Aware 269
aylons writes "Just after Adobe released videos showing off the content-aware feature of Photoshop CS5, the GIMP community answered by showing the resynthesizer plugin, which has been available for some time and can do a similar job. However, are they really comparable? (In original Portuguese, but really, the images are pretty much self-explaining.) Compare them side by side removing the same objects from different kinds of images. Results do vary, but the most interesting part may be seeing the different results and trying to understand the logic of each algorithm."
Even so... (Score:4, Insightful)
All of the samples on the site clearly can't "fool" anyone
I'm sure... (Score:5, Insightful)
I saw that site a few weeks ago when folks were going gaga over PS's "new" feature (GIMP Resynth has been around for a few years now)...
I'm sure Adobe has seen it, I'm sure Adobe took the time to try and make theirs better.
The question is the Adobe implementation worth the cost of PS, or is the GIMP plugin "Good enough"
That really comes down to the consumer though. I think it is "Good enough" for my needs...I can easily touch-up anything it does that I disagree with.
-- Dave
Re:I'm sure... (Score:3, Insightful)
For consumer, for all practical purporses Gimp plugin does not exist and PS wins by having feature that Gimp does not.
Why?
It is plugin. As such, you have to know it exists in order to get it. Even worse, you might not even know what you are looking for if you actually look for that function. You can not just discover it while "playing with filters" and your best shot is asking on some forums ("UTFG" being mostl likely reply) if you do not just use clone tool by hand (something a lot more intuitive and going to provide much better results anyway).
Content UN Aware FIll (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'm sure... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bingo, we're into Drake Equation territory here.
Hell, even if you do know about it, good luck actually using it. After 15 minutes of apt-get fiddling and chanting mantras, I'm still unable to get the damn thing working in GIMP 2.6.7. For a feature whose primary purpose is to save you time, it sure could do with an FONT OF GOD sized install guide that explains how to (actually) get it working.
Re:It's GPL, so merge it (Score:3, Insightful)
Then people will say, "Look how Gimp quickly put together a crappy imitation of Photoshop's content aware!"
It's a lose-lose situation now, unless Resynth gets much better and offers results at least as good as Photoshop's in every situation, which is probably not going to happen anyway: since the algorithms have different strong points, each will be better in a different situation.
Re:I'm sure... (Score:0, Insightful)
Ah yes, the classic open source fanboy response. If something is difficult to use in any way, you are "stupid". Hilarious.
Re:I'm sure... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the main problem most "pseudo-professionals" have with GIMP is familiarity. I myself use OpenOffice.org regularly and the transition from Microsoft Office was extremely simple - download it and start using it. The same is not true of GIMP since it's UI is so different than Photoshops. These "pseudo-professionals", almost certainly have a long history with Photoshop, so understand how to do things using it's UI, but likely don't even know where to start with GIMP and write it off as useless. It is closed minded, but certainly understandable on a professional/semi-professional level. Blender seems to suffer the same problem, since it's UI is vastly different than any other 3D program I've tried (although since there are more available than in the photo-editing world no one program has a "monopoly" on the UI so it's not quite as bed).
Most FOSS doesn't tend to have this problem because it either does a specific task that has no industry standard UI, Emulates the industry standard UI (like OpenOffice.org) or is so simple that it makes little difference how the UI is designed as long as it works (things like 7-zip for example - its function is to open and create archives. You don't have 100s of filters and tools to use so everything can be put into a couple of menus and not be confusing).
Re:Moot point (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the 'prosumers' I've seen dismiss Gimp just repeat stuff they've read on Slashdot, knowing that it makes them look +5, insightful. They're probably as lazy when it comes to learning new tools as they are when it comes to independent thought.
Re:Moot point (Score:4, Insightful)
It's one of the great differences between proprietary software and open source software. If Gimp is indeed still 8 bit, it may be because the developers have found that that 16 bit color is not a great advantage to image editing. Meanwhile Adobe has found that 16 bit color is a great advantage to selling copies of photoshop.
Re:Moot point (Score:3, Insightful)
It still it, mostly because switching the engine over to something else is a fuckton of work, but it's finally underway. There is no question about 16-bit being useful, and I'm looking forward to the day when GIMP finally supports it. Meanwhile I'll make sure to do most of my adjustments in Ufraw. However I suspect many 'prosumers' and too many professionals don't have a good grasp of what exactly the limitations of 8-bit are and when 16-bit actually makes a difference. Computer graphics in general and digital photography in particular are technically heavy disciplines, and while one can get around without a good understanding of that things refusing to learn just because you're an 'artistic type' is a dead end. A person who is as good as you on the artistic side of things and has a good grasp on the technical side will always be your superior.
Re:Moot point (Score:4, Insightful)
Most professionals, who have narrow yet deep specialization in particular field, are very very reluctant to learn new tools. Yet always keep an eye on them.
No we're not. We're happy to learn a new tool, especially when it saves us time/energy. That's why apps like ZBrush, Mudbox, 3D Coat, Modo, etc manage to find a market. Double bonus if it's cheap or free. The problem isn't reluctance, it's lack of time. And when an app goes out of it's way to be counter-intuitive, it's frustrating, especially when that change has no obvious benefit. (Look up ZBrush 2's history for a peek into why somebody would bother to accept BS like that.) Both the GIMP and Blender suffer from this problem to a maddening level. However, Open Office and FireFox are great examples of the other end of the spectrum. FireFox, in particular, is familiar enough to IE users but provides more functionality. GIMP's differences aren't 'quirks'.