Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Graphics The Gimp Technology

GIMP Resynth vs. Photoshop Content Aware 269

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the in-this-corner dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GIMP Resynth vs. Photoshop Content Aware

Comments Filter:
  • Even so... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Bourdain (683477) on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @09:00AM (#32096784)
    ...Why not have some test samples for in a more practical situation?

    All of the samples on the site clearly can't "fool" anyone
  • I'm sure... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AcquaCow (56720) <acquacow@hotmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @09:00AM (#32096790) Homepage

    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:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @09:09AM (#32096874)
      Wait till you hear from pseudo-professionals who would trash GIMP at any given opportunity. Clearly, GIMP was ahead of PS on this so called revolutionary concept, but nobody made a big fuss about it. And then hell broke loose when PS announced it - the earlier thread on it was full of multiple orgasms by the same 'professionals'.
      • by OzPeter (195038)

        Wait till you hear from pseudo-professionals who would trash GIMP at any given opportunity. Clearly, GIMP was ahead of PS on this so called revolutionary concept, but nobody made a big fuss about it. And then hell broke loose when PS announced it - the earlier thread on it was full of multiple orgasms by the same 'professionals'.

        [Puts on pseudo-intellectual trolling suit, with built in PS orgasm attachment]

        Yeah .. but can the GIMP do it on 16 bit or CMYK Images?!?!??!!? ;-)

      • Re:I'm sure... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Alphathon (1634555) on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @09:49AM (#32097334)

        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).

        • by tixxit (1107127)
          I'd definitely agree. First photo editing software I used was Jasc's Paintshop Pro. It was dead simple and everything seemed intuitive. Then I tried Photoshop. Compared to Paintshop Pro, it was a UI nightmare and I gave up on Photoshop pretty fast. GIMP wasn't any better; I only really gave GIMP a chance when I had pretty much stopped using Windows.
          • by mwvdlee (775178)

            I actually find Paintshop Pro very close to Photoshop. In fact most graphics applications are quite exchangable, user-interface wise. Except Gimp, but I understand even they have a reasonable decent user interface these days.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by NeoSkandranon (515696)
          That's certainly part of it in the professional world.

          I've logged way more hours (as a hobbyist) in GIMP than I have in photoshop.  I still dislike it mostly for the window management (which i've heard is better or at least changeable recently, but I haven't had a reason to go check) but a lot of other things (eg the file saving process) strike me as clumsy.

          On a non-UI note, I wish it'd use multiple cores the way Lightroom (and I presume photoshop) happily will.
      • by geordie_loz (624942) on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @09:58AM (#32097446) Homepage
        Look, it's clearly a case of the open source community failing to innovate and just copying the competition. They're getting so desperate now that they even resorting to copying features from propriety software a couple of years before they appear..
      • by dsoltesz (563978)
        I'm a Photoshop user who is also pro-GIMP - I don't use it much, but I do evangelize the GIMP, Inkscape, and many other FOSS/FAIB software. I personally don't use a lot of these tools because I need more advanced tools, but I recognize both their usefulness for casual users and the benefit they serve as gateway drugs to the FOSS world.

        I had an orgasm or two when I saw the PS video when it came out. I had another when I discovered the GIMP has a similar plug-in.

        Well. I spent maybe an hour getting and in

      • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

        Wait till you hear from pseudo-professionals who would trash GIMP at any given opportunity. Clearly, GIMP was ahead of PS on this so called revolutionary concept, but nobody made a big fuss about it. And then hell broke loose when PS announced it - the earlier thread on it was full of multiple orgasms by the same 'professionals'.

        Suddenly I am reminded of Opera and FireFox.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by zwei2stein (782480)

      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

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by biryokumaru (822262)

        It is plugin. As such, you have to know it exists in order to get it.

        I even know it exists, what it's called, where it's website is, and I still have no idea how to download or install it. I've been using Arch Linux for several years, I can build packages, I can do ./configure or ./autogen.sh installs, I'm not retarded. I admit I haven't done much looking into it, but I have no idea how the plugin system works on Gimp, and it certainly isn't intuitive. I would say the barrier to entry for this functionality is even higher than you suggest.

        • Re:I'm sure... (Score:5, Informative)

          by jedidiah (1196) on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @09:38AM (#32097184) Homepage

          > I even know it exists, what it's called, where it's website is, and I still have no idea how to download or install it.

          I use Ubuntu. There was a package for it. All I had to do was run apt-get.

          This is probably just a "script" and can be dropped into the appropriate place if you don't have a proper package.

          Plenty of PS stuff exists as plugins. Does that mean they don't exist either?

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by dancingmilk (1005461)

          You claim to know where the website is... The FIRST PAGE of the website gives install instructions, source download, and RPM/DEB packages.

          Why do people complain when they are too stupid/lazy to take 5 seconds to read 1 page? Honestly if you can't be bothered to read 2 lines of text to learn how to install something, you probably should be using Photoshop anyway.

          • by pz (113803)

            You claim to know where the website is... The FIRST PAGE of the website gives install instructions, source download, and RPM/DEB packages.

            Why do people complain when they are too stupid/lazy to take 5 seconds to read 1 page? Honestly if you can't be bothered to read 2 lines of text to learn how to install something, you probably should be using Photoshop anyway.

            That, most people are better off using Photoshop, would be exactly the point the GP was implicitly trying to make. Calling the GP stupid and lazy does no one any good: it makes you look rude, makes the GP feel bad, and lowers the tone of discussion. Seriously, no one benefits from that, and everyone in the open source community suffers.

            People generally do not like to listen to criticism, and often miss the real message when faced with a complaint like, "I don't know how this works." The real message isn'

        • Re:I'm sure... (Score:5, Informative)

          by Daengbo (523424) <daengbo@nOspam.gmail.com> on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @10:17AM (#32097726) Homepage Journal

          It's in the AUR [archlinux.org] as a package for Arch. I don't even use Arch and it took me thirty seconds to find this. It's the very first page when you Google for "arch linux resynthesizer." [tinyurl.com] You want to be 1337 "cause I use Arch?" Learn to Google.

      • Re:I'm sure... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Rogerborg (306625) on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @09:39AM (#32097196) Homepage

        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:I'm sure... (Score:5, Informative)

          by Zaiff Urgulbunger (591514) on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @10:17AM (#32097730)
          I installed it pretty easy under Ubuntu (9.10):
          $ sudo apt-get install gimp-resynthesizer
          However, when I first tried using it, I was using the Filter->Map->Resynthesize... menu option which kind of works, but isn't so great. I had to google to find a good explanation of how to use it. What you should do is:
          1. Install as above,
          2. Select area of image to remove,
          3. Use Filters->Enhance->Smart remove selection...

          And to be clear about this - it is fucking awesome. Seriously! I'm not usually _that_ impressed with things (I'm far too old!), but this goes into total witch-craft territory, it is *that* good!

          If anyone has managed to install this plugin under Windows, I'd like to know the instructions for doing so (not for me... it's for my *friends*... honest!!!).
          • by Sir_Lewk (967686)

            Same thing in Fedora more or less (yum install gimp-resynthesizer). Really folks, this is no harder to install than anything else...

            And yeah, this approaching that "sufficiently advanced technology" level for me. It's practically downright creepy.

          • If anyone has managed to install this plugin under Windows

            resynthesizer.exe - c:\Program Files\GIMP-2.0\lib\gimp\2.0\plug-ins\
            ( path may differ based on exact GIMP install location )

            It should then be available under Filters > Map > Resynthesize...

            There's also shortcuts available from Script-Fu > Enhance > Smart enlarge... / Smart remove selection... / Smart sharpen...
            But the results out of those can be a bit iffy (output in general can be a bit iffy, but I do prefer the manual control).

      • by tibman (623933)

        isn't almost everything in GIMP a plugin? I don't have gimp on this machine to look, but why isn't this plugin shipped with GIMP?

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Vintermann (400722)

          The author writes on the plugin's page that he doesn't have time to maintain it any longer, and is looking for someone to take over. Apparently it was a thesis of some sort and now it's done (sad fate of much interesting academic software).

      • I knew about it ages ago when I first got into Gimp. Like Firefox, if I'm told it has plugins then I look for them. Would you argue that Adblock is at some sort of disadvantage for not being included in Firefox?
      • by Ksevio (865461)
        A while back I decided to try this out on Windows. Well the first step was to find a version that would be compatible with windows, then I had to get a mirror, figure out the install location, research why it wasn't the latest version, download a newer version from another site, research why it wasn't working (was sampling from the top left corner only), find a fix, modify script files to include the fix, and finally it was working. While I did find it really cool once I had it working, it's not the easy
    • Most of the professionals and 'prosumer' types I've talked to about the Gimp dismiss it instantly because it can only do 8-bit color, or something of the sort.
      • Re:Moot point (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MrHanky (141717) on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @10:02AM (#32097514) Homepage Journal

        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.

        • by V!NCENT (1105021)

          Hero! _O_

      • by arose (644256)
        How many of them actually take advantage of higher color depths in a meaningful way?
        • Re:Moot point (Score:4, Insightful)

          by BetterSense (1398915) on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @10:25AM (#32097846)
          It doesn't really matter. They will buy photoshop and diss Gimp as long as they THINK it's an important feature, regardless of whether it actually is at all.

          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.
          • by hitmark (640295)

            so they buy (or maybe pirate) to feel pro?

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by arose (644256)

            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.

            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

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by spitzak (4019)

              Damn right, people are completely unaware of exactly what increasing the number of bits in a fixed-point format will do. They are assigning magical properties to it. It does nothing except make the problems a bit smaller and harder to see, possibly hiding them until it is too late and they bite you.

              If you are using 16 bits on modern processors you should be using half floats, representing the linear value of the color (ie double the value makes the image twice as bright or doubles the exposure). Using integ

          • 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.

            Or maybe they just don't want to rip apart most of the code base and all of the supporting functions to make it work because it's not 'fun'.

          • by V!NCENT (1105021)

            Photophiles!

    • by MBGMorden (803437)

      The "good enough" problem is a bit unique for GIMP though (not exclusively related to this plugin, but in general). MOST people can get by fine with image editors that are FAR simpler than either GIMP or Photoshop in their everyday life. On Windows I like Paint.NET - a program that's install file is a whopping 3.5MB. I'll admit though that with the newer version that comes in Windows 7, for quick stuff I'll often use regular Windows Paint. At home on Linux I still use GIMP, but that's just because I hav

      • Re:I'm sure... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by arose (644256) on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @10:47AM (#32098166)

        Maybe once they straighten out their UI issues it'll get better. GIMP has been around seemingly forever - people have criticized the UI from the start, and it's STILL never been addressed.

        People will find a new pet issue to criticize. What most of them really mean is "I don't care, I don't want to try anything new", but that doesn't sound good, so they will always find a new issue as long as GIMP isn't a carbon copy of the latest version of Photoshop. For the record, there are no serious UI issues beyond it being unfamiliar, there is a ton of minor ones, but to see them you actually have to spend some time with the program, so unsurprisingly they are not the target of much criticism.

        • Re:I'm sure... (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Animaether (411575) on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @03:42PM (#32103354) Journal

          For the record, there are no serious UI issues beyond it being unfamiliar, there is a ton of minor ones, but to see them you actually have to spend some time with the program, so unsurprisingly they are not the target of much criticism.

          If 'some time' is more than 10 minutes.. sure.

          I use The GIMP. A lot. Almost exclusively, in fact. My secondary editor? Picture Publisher 5.0a from 1995. It's 16bit. No, that's not the color bitdepth - that's the "Was made for Windows 3.x" bit. Only reason is because it still does some things better/faster. (Tertiary is a toss-up between several.. actually, if IrfanView would count as an 'editor', it'd be 3rd).

          I'm familiar with its interface, I'm familiar with how it differs from Photoshop, I simply moved the floating dialogs around on the screen with a big central window to get a more familiar feel.. no problem.

          But it still only took me 10 minutes to realize there's a -huge- UI-related workflow issue with The Gimp...
          No. Unified. Transform tool.

          In The Gimp, you may:
          A. Scale
          B. Rotate
          C. Shear
          D. Distort (called the Perspective tool, but as each corner point is independent, I'm not too sure about that term).

          Pick any one - but only one.
          No, you can not scale down -and- rotate*. You can scale down - and then you can rotate. Two operations - twice the filtering. In fact, you'd probably want to rotate first, and -then- scale, just so the rotation operation has more data to work on for a higher quality result.
          ( * unless you want to get crackin' with a calculator and determine the new corner pixels and use the Distort (perspective) transform. )

          Apparently it's on the list for 2.8 - so here's hoping.
          ( I'd point to the gui.gimp.org topic on the unified transform tool, but that site is - once again - blank. )

          Ideally it would never actually put anything into pixels until you requested it to be (so that a layer scaled down to 10% and then back up by 1000% would simply yield the original image give-or-take some float precision errors), but that's much further away and not really UI/workflow related.

      • Does Paint.NET support the option to drag a ruler from the edge of the image onto the image to create a guide?

    • This is it. A lot of people will say Gimp can't do print catalogues and all sorts of high end stuff that the vast majority of people don't use which makes it irrelevant. A company that needs those things can easily afford PS and imo Gimp isn't really going after them.
      • The problem is, Photoshop sucks, too. It's the best tool out there for what I do (photorealistic painting and compositing for film), but it's not very good. The whole layer paradigm simply sucks, many features are nice-but-not-quite-thought-out, and overall the devs seem to spend way too much time bringing in new nifty tools, resulting in bloat and a lack of focus. I'd love to like Gimp, but it's not even as useful as PS for me (try painting an 8k frame with any reasonable brush size) and sadly there is abs
        • it's not even as useful as PS for me (try painting an 8k frame with any reasonable brush size)

          Are you using a 1-pixel brush spacing or something?

    • by mwvdlee (775178)

      PS had similar features (i.e. the healing brush and similar tools) since CS3 I think.
      Nonetheless, neither the old nor the new tools on both PS and Gimp seem to be useful for anything but a quick preview before doing it correct manually.

      These tools are good for removing small details in a much larger picture. Other than that, they fail simply because they can't invent new content, they can only make it look like the surrounding area.

      Trying to remove a penguin from a cup when there's nothing in the surroundin

    • Re:I'm sure... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Ian Alexander (997430) on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @12:22PM (#32099946)
      In addition, Adobe is probably maintaining their version. From the GIMP resynthesizer website [logarithmic.net]:

      8/10/2009: I haven't really been keeping up with API changes in the GIMP, or with emails people send me. If you emailed me and I haven't replied, I'm sorry. If you want to take over as maintainer of this project, email me. Other emails will probably continue to sit unread in my inbox.

      That would be as of August last year...

  • by Culture20 (968837)
    It should be named content Un Aware. It's not aware of what's behind the hole, so it's extrapolating. Even in this image: http://blog.ultradownloads.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Rua-do-Aljube_Blog2.jpg [ultradownloads.com.br] where CS5 is touted to have completely replaced the sign pole on the right, the car now has two lion symbols, identical shadows, tiles seem to fall off the church roof, a tree trunk is the wrong color, and there is something that looks like steam coming from the antenna. Neither of the effects looks
    • by JamesP (688957)

      Yes, it removed the lamp

      But in the case of PS it was replaced by a multidimensional portal to another world or something like it.

      Gimp replaced it with a vertical sidewalk or a tree made of concrete

      So, either way PS wins \o/

    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      You don't need a slider bar, all you need is to select larger or smaller regions. Start with the larger region, then work your way down to smaller ones until it looks like a real image. You didn't think it was going to do the work for you, did you? This ain't CSI. I tried out resynthesizer when this story broke and found it to be pretty darned useful if you use it in this way; I assume CS5's feature is similar in practice.

    • Even in this image: http://blog.ultradownloads.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Rua-do-Aljube_Blog2.jpg [ultradownloads.com.br] where CS5 is touted

      "Even" in the image preceded by "4 - Pushing the bar. Now, let's get heavy. Removing a post of an urban image, where the background changes several times in the selection "?

      You expected flawless results from the "push the bar", "heavy" challenge? *sigh*

      • by Culture20 (968837)

        You expected flawless results from the "push the bar", "heavy" challenge? *sigh*

        I was talking about the one case where the impossible almost happened. At a quick glance, in the CS5 frame, that sign post is missing. It did better in that case then with most of the others except the car and human in the first picture. There are obvious flaws in the CS5 algo; taking small things like the lion symbol and copying them in new places when a simple blend parallel to the adjacent lines would have been much better. It's obviously an algorithm designed for the chaos of nature rather than the

        • There are obvious flaws in the CS5 algo; taking small things like the lion symbol and copying them in new places when a simple blend parallel to the adjacent lines would have been much better. It's obviously an algorithm designed for the chaos of nature rather than the line-heavy world of man.

          It's an automated "stamp tool". It's a first iteration of it, so we'll have to wait for revisions before it offers more options, but we'll always have to go in and do touch-ups if we want to go near perfection.

          I just think that it did a pretty good job at a glance, but yeah, if you nitpick, there's plenty to pick at.

    • It does a reasonable job of guessing the content based on a single image. For better results, you'd want one of the tools which uses scene descriptors formed from image derivatives to find matching segments in a huge library of images and paste them together, using some sort of Poisson blurring to mix the edges in. I have seen this demonstrated, but I forget the name of the tool which was used. I do recall that it used a library of 2.3M images of northern Mediterranean towns for its example data set, and re

    • For the record, I'm getting results from gimp-resynth that are similar to the CS5 results. I just used "Free select tool" [aka lasso] to quickly select *around* the outside of the pole -- being careful not to select anything within the pole -- and then used "Filter->Enhance->Smart remove selection..." and it does a pretty good job. One thing I have noticed with Resynth is that if you undo it and then reapply it (NOT redo), then it'll probably look a bit different from the first attempt, so there's a r
      • Yup. I tried that too. The result can be observed here: http://j.imagehost.org/view/0164/resynth [imagehost.org]

        Note: I'm as far away from being a graphics crack as the next guy, but at least a basic understanding of your tools is useful. I created this image quick and dirty with the GIMP resyth. And I certainly can draw ugly pictures in CS5 to prove that GIMP is superior. Such comparisons are completely meaningless though.

    • The notion behind Content Aware fill is to sell PS to managers who don't want to hire an art department. The videos will make people think they can click a button to fix all of the problems in their crappy images. Knowledgeable PS users understand there's never going to be a button for "fix it". There's no way a couple of clicks will replace what an hour of work by someone who really understand the software.

    • by Ksevio (865461)
      That looks like the bug in resynthesizer where it samples the content from the top left of the image instead of around the selection. The script needs modifications to get it to work correctly.
  • This seems like a useful plug-in to merge with GIMP, and it's GPLv2.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Steve Max (1235710)

      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.

      • FWIW, I've tried resynth and the "pole" picture [ultradownloads.com.br] looked pretty much the same as CS5 when I tried it, so I'm guessing the author of TFA made a poor selection. I've also previously tried the image from the CS5 promo video [youtube.com] with the woman sat on the park bench and I got almost much identical results.

        The only area where I'd say Gimp lags is (1). the UI isn't as easy [both for this plugin, and more generally], and (2). the plugin only makes use of a single CPU core.

        I don't know if CS5 make use of multiple core
  • Plugin vs built-in (Score:5, Informative)

    by gaspyy (514539) on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @09:30AM (#32097072)

    I can't speak for everyone who uses PS and/or Gimp, just for myself.

    The real news was not the ability to do this kind of interpolation, but the fact that's built-in and integrated in the workflow.
    For Photoshop, Alien Skin Image Doctor has been available for years (2002 maybe). What matters for me is that I no longer need to use a plugin and I can use this smart fills in several scenarios, including as a brush to remove fine things like wires.

    The same goes with another new feature in PS CS5, the new selection tools. There were at least 2 or 3 plugins (like Fluid Mask) that could do tricky selections, but now it's built-in.
    Same with the new lens corrections, no need for PTLens anymore, I can even profile my own lenses using the new lens profile creator from the labs.

    I don't want to sound like I'm defending Adobe here, I used to hate them. For 10 years I've been using Corel Photo-Paint (from v3 to X3) plus a few others including The Gimp. In the end I realized that despite its shortcomings, PS really is the best tool for the job. When you're under pressure to deliver, small differences add up.

  • by Bearhouse (1034238) on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @09:51AM (#32097372)

    Seriously, it's a very useful tool to get the gist of things.
    More amusingly, it come up with gems like this, (FTA):

    The circus is armed: who is better at cutting the world?

  • \begin{linguist}
    I love loanwords and phrases
    \end{linguist}

  • by guidryp (702488) on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @10:25AM (#32097838)

    I know this is off topic, but I am not going to bother joining a GIMP forum.

    I installed GIMP (windows) yesterday. I wanted to downscale some images and do a light USM, but GIMP downscaled images came out looking over-sharpened before I even got to the USM step. I know downscaling does make images appear sharper if the original was a bit soft.

    But this is compared to downscaling in other programs. GIMP output looked over-sharpened with artifacts.

    I could find no setting that indicated it was doing any USM on scaling, so I promptly un-installed GIMP, since it can't do something this basic without degrading the image.

    • by arose (644256) on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @11:04AM (#32098446)
      Which algorithm did you use for scaling? Cubic interpolation simply doesn't do this, Sinc does, it works great for upscaling and rotation, but stick with Cubic for downscaling.
    • by Mr. DOS (1276020)

      Did you try a different scaler? There are several different scaling algorithms available (Linear, Cubic, Sinc) and they all behave differently.

      • by guidryp (702488)

        I did. Maybe there was a strange interaction with the source image.

        I re-installed and am trying it today on other images (I don't have the original from yesterday, it was just wallpaper and after resizing, I ditched the original).

        I haven't seen any strange results yet.

  • It always amazes me that the websites for wonderful FOSS projects can be so damn ugly.

    The Resynthesizer website [logarithmic.net] is a great example. It's not so much the site itself I find ugly, but the logo.
    They make a Gimp plug-in for crying out loud, they should be able to whip up something more appealing.

    I get that programmers just don't care about their website or logo, only about coding the actual software.
    But that kind of attitude is keeping some FOSS projects from becoming popular with the general population.

    At
    • by ianare (1132971)

      8/10/2009: I haven't really been keeping up with API changes in the GIMP, or with emails people send me. If you emailed me and I haven't replied, I'm sorry. If you want to take over as maintainer of this project, email me. Other emails will probably continue to sit unread in my inbox.

      Here is your chance to shine !!

  • Doodads are great (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Sheik Yerbouti (96423) on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @11:15AM (#32098676) Homepage

    I am a proponent of FLOSS and I want the gimp to be great. But it does not matter until Gimp gets the basics right. Until the underlying pixel engine of Gimp can give Photoshop's pixel engine a run for it's money then the gee wiz features don't mean squat for anyone trying to do real work. Bottom line get back to me when the gimp can do full 16 bit per channel images throughout the entire program as quickly and efficiently as Photoshop can.

    This is one of the biggest problems with FLOSS the volunteer programmers go and work on the neat gee wiz stuff because that's whats more fun and easier. Getting people to do the hard unsexy stuff just does not happen in a timely fashion. The number of people who are good enough at the engineering to build a really solid pixel engine are quite rare. And the number of those people who are willing to do that in their free time gratis appears to be even more rare. I say this in a goading manner because I want someone to take up the challenge.. someone that can really make that happen.

  • I smell FUD... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by FreakCERS (517467) <cersNO@SPAMgeeksbynature.dk> on Wednesday May 05, 2010 @11:35AM (#32099052) Homepage
    My Portuguese isn't exactly good (working on it), so I can't tell if this is explained in the article, but as I've used resynthesizer before, I noticed that their results looked far worse than what I usually experience. I've only tested one image, but there GIMP performed *much* better than what that blog would let you believe. I resynthesized the same area in the large picture, so for comparison, look at the original compared to this - then contrast to the small version supposedly done by gimp in the bottom right corner: Original [ultradownloads.com.br] My attempt [geeksbynature.dk] (warning: 2.7MB, saved as PNG to avoid further artifacts).
  • When it doesn't open all its windows on the desktop (of course now all the linux zealots are going to tell me its the OS' fault not the program - no guys, fix it or stop bugging me about trying it)

Their idea of an offer you can't refuse is an offer... and you'd better not refuse.

Working...