Slashdot Mirror
First Look at GIMP 2.4
Liam30 writes "Newsforge (ed: part of the OSTG family) is running a story that gives a first look at the next version of GIMP." From the article: " A major update to the GNU Image Manipulation Program (GIMP), widely regarded as the leading free software raster image editing program, is scheduled for this month. The 2.4 release is expected to include a number of new features and enhancements to existing features ... The first thing most users will notice about 2.4 is the addition of three new tools to the palette: the Align tool, the Foreground Extraction tool, and a new 'Simple' Rectangle Selector. The Align tool lets you vertically and horizontally align image layers -- a task you had to perform manually before. You can align an image to any edge or the center, specify an offset in any direction, and adjust vertical and horizontal alignment separately."
For a while, I've had fairly negative views on GIMP. Sure, it's powerful, but it still lacks what Photoshop has out of the box, and it's got some fairly abstract configurations. But taking a look at SOIX and all, it's really going to push up against Photoshop. But now GIMP has to stop adding little features like simple rectangle select, and start adding more features like SOIX and superseeding PS to get it out there onto the commercial market.
I'll subscribe to Slashdot when I see a month without a dupe, a typo, or an article the "editors" didn't read.
http://micke.hallendal.net/archives/2005/10/gtk-ma cosx.htmli mp-on-os-x/
http://gimpfoo.de/2005/10/06/an-early-glance-at-g
Ok, ok, it's not quite there yet, but there seems to be a lot of progress lately.
SIOX is machine vision; this kind of algorithm has been developed before, but I don't know about the relationship between SIOX and previous methods--maybe the Berlin guys improved on prior work, or maybe they just didn't know about it.
Still lacking in anything over 8bit *sigh*. Granted you have Cinepaint and PS "which is still gaysauced in 32bit imo" geting better but their still isn't that many paint or image editing applications out their. You have IFX's Amazon Paint along with a few others but not a wide selection. Only reason I seem to complain is I've latched onto ILM's OpenEXR. I've coded quite a few tools for working with OpenEXR. The whole working in a channelless enviroment is a godsend in the film compositing world I live in. Still nice to see another open source app maturing and growing. Some nice new features I'm sure users will like.
Please do not put this article in the Linux section: GIMP can target several platforms (and deserves a widespread adoption IMHO).
For perfect circles use the oval tool while holding the shift key.
Technically speaking all graphics packages are based on "8 bit" technology. An image on a computer is made up of (usually) 4 channels .. red, green, blue and alpha. Each channel contains a greyscale image .. with 256 levels of greyness. 256 levels = 8 bit.
The format you describe is the standard, but there is also a higher-quality standard where each channel is 16 bits. This is supported to some extent by many graphics packages; certainly Photoshop has had fairly decent 16-bit channel support since Photoshop CS.
So the GP's question makes perfect sense: does GIMP now support 16-bit channels?
Well, it's RGB CMYK conversion that's patented, not CMYK per se. Pantone+Hexachrome can't be supported in the GIMP either because of patent issues.
You're probably talking about Gtk-Qt theme engine.
Centering is done by pressing the CONTROL key.
Circles are obtained by pressing the SHIFT key.
The selection can be moved by pressing the ALT key.
Be aware that the CONTROL and SHIFT keys are also used to ADD and SUBSTRACT the selection instead of replacing it. However, the ADD/SUBSRACT is decided when the mouse button is pressed so for example if you want to create a centered circle then
(1) press the mouse button at the center (without SHIFT and CONTROL)
(2) press CONTROL & SHIFT
(3) adjust the radius (while holding CONTROL+SHIFT)
(4) release the mouse button (while still holding CONTROL+SHIFT)
That may seem difficult but that is quite simple once you get used to it.
SVG is primarily a vector graphics format--kind of like a PNG or JPEG, only that you can scale it up without seeing pixels. Another way of looking at it is that it is roughly equivalent to Adobe Illustrator files. SVG can also be used for animation, like Flash, but that's not its main purpose in life, at least not in the short term. Right now, SVG is being used more and more for icons, user interface elements, diagrams, figures, and other static images.
I think they are more than well aware that people want 16 bits per channel support. Too bad there's been too many hurdles on their way. You probably want to go for the FilmGimp/Cinepaint for 16bpc.
Also there'll be still no trace of color models other than 8bitRGB/Gray/Indexed. They were supposed to develop a whole new framework for colorspace management and port the GIMP to it, but apparently all of the developers who knew anything about colorspace stuff choked to death when they tried to pronounce the name of the framework, so the project's been in limbo for years. Man, I'd kill for L*a*b.
But at least they'll get good CMS stuff! I think GIMP already uses littlecms, just there's no GUI for it, but sweet that it's coming in next release =)
"How is it being used for icons? Is there a window manager that uses it or is it being used as a file type in graphics editing?"
e =1
Gnome 2.4 ->
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/gnome2.4.ars/3
ZetaOS 1.0->
http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=11251&pag
Actually, that's not it's real problem. The fact it has the power to be a web design application, computer art tool and photo editing application is exactly why is it so successful and THE tool for design professionals. There absolutely is no other tool to touch Photoshop, simple as that. Ask any one of several million Photoshop using professionals.
It focuses directly on exactly what was designed for - image creation and editing - and does it extremely well.
For those that just can't let go of Windows 3: Deweirdifiyer plugin for GIMP.
Writing 32bit imaging tools (and I have been doing that for a couple of decades)
Then I'm sure you'll be aware that CinePaint (used to be called Film Gimp) does 16-bits per channel (64-bit RGBA).
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
That 'SIOX' object selection stuff looks really really cute; you have to wonder if it would come in useful for machine vision/AI as well.
SIOX was developed for echalk.
And echalk is developed by people of the AI-working group at the CS department of the FU Berlin.
And that working group is also behind the successful robot soccer team FU Fighters who are currently World Champion in the small-size league of Robocup and vice-champion in the middle-size league.
So it wouldn't surprise me if parts of it are already in use for "machine vision/AI"..
GIMP is an Image editor (Image Manipulation Program, afair), not a diagram creator.
However I do agree that there is a need for shapes often. Mostly there is a need to tweaking selections, paths, etc.. Much like you do in a vector drawing program (e.g. Inkscape - wonderful program, btw!).
But then I have to agree with your trolling a bit. Many new users find the GIMP very confusing simply because it forces them to change all their habbits. There aren't any shape tools, changing size of the brush isn't strait-forward (it isn't visible to new users).
An advice to the GIMP creators would definately be to make it more user friendly towards newcommers and improve startup time. Another thing is the much questioned window-hell they have. I am one of those users who just hate it. I know there are plugins for this, but they are unstable and extremely bad quality (i've tried).
Without an entire virtual desktop to work on, the GIMP is a drag to work with, since minimizing it takes ages wasting productivity time.
No, cinepaint uses(or can use) 32-bit per channel (128-bit RGBA). But that's overkill if you're just sticking the heads of people you know onto porn images if you ask me.
Two words: Layer effects. May not be that important for photo editing, but without them doing any kind of web graphics/interfaces is huge PITA.
Many people do not use the GIMP because of the interface issues. It is useless for people to learn another interface. The reason many people do not use GIMP, the reason I do not use GIMP is sheer laziness, I do not feel like learning another interface.
h tml-5243http://plasticbugs.com/?page_id=294>
So, Scott Moschella made this modification. He isn't a programmer, he just is a GIMP user. It's called GIMPShop. A conversion that just rearranges the menu's to Photoshop style. Linkage for your pleasure... Gimpshop is available for Windows, Solaris/Sparc, Linux (detailed instructions), Debian, and RPM's. GIMPShop runs native under Mac.
ahref=http://plasticbugs.com/?page_id=294rel=url2
Color depth. GIMP will not do anything on a 48 bit color image. How to get around it? Use other software.
Features working in SVN include:
* CMYK
* OpenEXR
* 16 bit/channel RGBA images
* Many more filters
* Painting with watercolors
* Adjusting brightness and contrast with curves
yeah, I don't understand why people have such a hard time with that...
It's annoying when people try to use the "GNU image MANIPULATION program" to create illustrations... Same with photoshop. To people who ask me simple things like how to draw basic shapes in photoshop, I ask why they don't use illustrator. And to people asking those questions in GIMP, I point them to Inkscape (disclaimer: I have never used inkscape, so I can't vouch for its usefulness).
although photoshop added shape tools (mostly worthless, imo) relatively recently, there's really no reason for GIMP to follow. Unless, of course, they're trying to clone photoshop.
...spike
Ewwwwww, coconut...
You won't see any difference between 8, 12 and 16 bit per channel images with most cards.
This is 99% true for image VIEWING programs.
However for image MANIPULATION programs (like the GIMP) it's a very different story.
Say for example you have a photograph that is underexposed such that the brightest pixel is 25% gray. For the sake of argument let's deal with a grayscale image (or just one channel of an RGB image).
On a histogram all the 'bars' for this underexposed picture will be bunched up the left side, occupying the first 25% of the graph. If you want to fix it, you would normally spread out the histogram so that the bars span the whole graph (ie whites appear white instead of 25% gray). Since our shades were originally bunched up we only have a quarter of the possible number of shades available to us. Now if you only have 8 bits per channel there will only be 255/4=64 possible shades of gray in your picture, and banding effects will be very apparent. This will be apparent in the histogram since there will be distinct gaps between each bar.
Try it again with 16 bits per channel, hey let's do even 12 bits per channel. Our total number of gray shades is now 2^12=4096. Divide that by 4=1024 shades to spread out. You can downsample that to 256 shades and still get a full 24-bpp image with no banding. The histogram will now be a continuous solid shape with no gaps (unless any were present in the original image).
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
http://www.blackfiveservices.co.uk/separate.shtml