Slashdot Mirror
Film Gimp Project Renamed to CinePaint
ubiquitin writes "To avoid confusion with the GIMP, the Film Gimp project has renamed itself to CinePaint. The project is essentially a legitimate fork of GIMP, and is focused on image manipulations for moving pictures." We've mentioned Film Gimp several times lately; it'll be even handier as programs like Cinelerra and Kino grow more polished.
I agree, Cinepaint is the best. FrIMP ? ;-)
Very popular slashdot journal for adul
CinePaint? Not exactly a creative name. Out of the names mentioned as candidates in the press release, Film-Fu is easily the funniest. But I guess being funny isn't exactly what they wanted to achieve for "the most popular open source tool in feature motion picture work" ...
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
Hard to believe GIMP has a topic of it's own, despite the fact this is the first story in the topic for over a year (see here), when overclocking (which I'd love to filter without removing hardware!)/individual BSD's/P2P (including the RIAA/MPAA/*AA)/and so on don't have topics!
Does this mean the developers have to park further away now?
Scooby-Doo, Harry Potter, Cats & Dogs, Dr. Dolittle 2, Little Nicky, Grinch, Sixth Day, Stuart Little, Planet of the Apes, Showtime, Blue Crush, and The Fast and the Furious II.
This is really cool. I used to think it was just another Open Source project where someone creates a SourceForge website and then abandons it two months later after no code is written.
31 people regularly point & click my G-spot
Legitimate as in not violating the licensing terms of the original project. For example, if CinePaint was a closed-source product, it would be an illegitimate fork. Bastard GIMP.....
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
I mean, how much credibility do you expect from the outside world by giving your project a cutesy name like "GIMP"? Last time I checked, that was a slang term for a cripple, and a not-very-nice slang term at that.
Maybe "Cinematic Layout Imaging Tool" might have been more in keeping with the spirit of cute acronyms.
Why fork?
Are there features going into CinePaint that aren't valid for GIMP? And the other way around?
It seems like both projects might benefit by staying more tightly coupled.
Too bad for the GIMP.
A lot of people had been hoping to see a backporting and/or merge between these two versions. This sounds like the architecture's going to be mainly irreparable.
Some people would really like to see deep color channels and stronger tools for doing compositing work on movie frames.
The more that digital cameras offer 12bpc RAW mode, the more the OSS world is lacking until GIMP can handle them well. Color corrections can and should be done with more bits, to avoid losing fine color integrity.
[
I agree with them. CinePaint is definitely a much more professional sounding name than FilmGimp was and also more than the other suggestions.
:P
If it had a name like FilmStudio, it would sound to me like an amateur effort (My First Film Studio?!?!), which we know it is not and would not have the success it will most certainly have in the future.
Well I like it anyway
Arc
physically challenged film
The project is essentially a legitimate fork of GIMP
Good, because you know how bad the "support" costs can get when you fork illegitimate chil... errr.... projects.
an example of a rogue fork is the spork.
Second path, which seems to have been discarded by CinePaint people, is pushing the GEGL library ignoring old code, make small test apps, and then merge with GIMP. A more parellel aproach.
For GIMP people all is like in the past, no new hands helping, either with current project or with libraries for future one. For CinePaint they get a quick solution, but maybe a dead end. :(
Oh, well...
Is everyone on Slashdot a moron?
I was sure you posted something higher up implying that you actually had a clue as to what this program was. Obviously not. Film GIMP (sorry CinePaint) is 'a free open source painting and image retouching program designed to be more suitable for film work than GIMP or Adobe Photoshop.' (from the web site). It is a paint program, designed for editing and retouching individual frames in a movie, not a video editing tool. It is aimed at film studios, not at people like you. If you think iMovie would cut it in these situations then you are mistaken.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I was reading this article and I saw the icon for the gimp, you know the weird looking dog creature. Well anyways it freaked me out when I saw its freaking eyes move! I kinda got scared... DAMN MOVING GIF FILES!
keanmarine.com
To avoid confusion with MS Paint, the CinePaint project has renamed itself to Film Gimp.
boldly going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse
Did anyone notice that the icon for gimp is ANIMATED (his eys move) is this me, or is this the FIRST animated gif on slashdot??
Live for the present, learn from the past, and dream of the future!
A functional fork, to coin a term, is different. At my company, we have several different version of our client software, all of which does basically the same thing in different contexts. We organize this by placing most common functionality in a shared library, and using different code for each context (email integration, web client, desktop client, et cetera.) The codebases have enough different functionality that different code should be used, with common stuff in its own sandbox.
This is a good way to go. It encourages the core code to be put into a generic library. Having a GIMP for single images and a GIMP for sequential images will move the developers to code in a way that maximizes reuse. They're not (really) competing with each other, so there's nothing to lose by sharing. And they'll each have their own space to work in, without having a poorly-overloaded interface for both single and sequential images.
Or, they could not share code, and it could suck. But the incentive is there for sharing, and the architecture of both systems would naturally improve.
"Whatever happened to fair use?"
-- Duff-Man
In a case such as this where the project name changes, what happens to the CVS module name? Does it change as well? Is everyone required to re-pull the source from a new name? And finally, how is the history preserved?
After all GTK stands for GIMP Toolkit.
It's ludicrous for anyone outside the project to suggest a wholesale change from C/GTK+ to C++/QT. It's the people who work on the project who actually have to work with the code and it makes sense for them to work with what they are most familiar and comfortable with.
You will certainly not get "Better maintenance" or "rapid development" if you disenfranchise your developers. The "cool platform" and "more acceptance due to QT/KDE" just reek of KDE fanboy garbage.
If any of these theoretical reasons were practically significant then there'd be no need for a request to port GIMP. People would _want_ to use QT and Krita (or whatever) would be a significant app already.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Gimp is a name subject to ridicule, at least now I can use something that dosen't sound lame.
Obvious question:
How do you encode your mp3's?
Like what I said? You might like my music
They Kan't