Slashdot Mirror


GIMP's Next-generation Imaging Core Demonstrated

brendan0powers writes "GIMP developer Øvind Kolås gave a public demonstration of the Generic Graphical Library (GEGL) on Friday at the Piksel 06 festival in Bergen, Norway. GEGL has long been slated to replace the core image processing framework of the GIMP, bringing with it entirely new data models and operations — but development had languished to the point where many critics had written the project off entirely." Linux.com and Slashdot are both part of OSTG.

21 of 482 comments (clear)

  1. It's about time by Salvance · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's rather amazing that after years GIMP hasn't been improved to a point where it is a serious contender for graphic designers and photo editors. I love using open source products where I can, but GIMP has always seemed subpar. Maybe I'm underestimating the difficulty of creating such tools, or am just too used to Photoshop. I can't wait to check it out!

    --
    Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
    1. Re:It's about time by ben+there... · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I see that a lot. But hardly ever with any real examples of what it is missing that you need for professional graphics work. I'd love to hear specifically what is missing, as I'm sure the devs would too. Is it just the color management for print design, or something else?

    2. Re:It's about time by Frumious+Wombat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, there's 16-bit color support, non-destructive image editing (adjustment layers), CMYK and good profiling tools for RGB (lightjets) devices. Text mode could do a better job kerning as well (the third German example on their screenshots web page illustrates the issue), and some of the tools need a little polish. Maybe the problems will go away with 16-bit color, but it tends to posterize images easily if you do harsh curves adjustments.

      From over here, I'd like to see the X11 dependence on the Macs go away. Pitch the GTK base and use QT, which is already efficiently cross-platform on Macs, Linux, and Windows.

      As for the interface, so be it. If the other issues are fixed, the interface can be learned quickly enough. I used to use it for web images, and still have a certain fondness for 0.54, which ran on our SGI workstations. Maybe someone can ressurect that code-base and issue it as LIMP (Light Image Manipulation Program).

      --
      the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
    3. Re:It's about time by Cinder6 · · Score: 5, Informative
      From over here, I'd like to see the X11 dependence on the Macs go away. Pitch the GTK base and use QT, which is already efficiently cross-platform on Macs, Linux, and Windows.
      I'll agree there shouldn't be an X11 dependency on Macs, but I think the odds of the GIMP, of all things, being ported to Qt are rather slim. After all, it's the original source of GTK.
      --
      If you can't convince them, convict them.
    4. Re:It's about time by creepynut · · Score: 4, Funny
      Pitch the GTK base and use QT, which is already efficiently cross-platform on Macs, Linux, and Windows.
      Yes! Let's have the GIMP pitch the GIMP Toolkit for QT. :)
    5. Re:It's about time by fossa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Linux is a vastly superior name than GIMP. The word GIMP could easily offend some. Linux is a made up word. I've installed GIMP on many a windows users machine as a free image editor, and depending on who it is I feel uncomfortable calling it by name. Sure, it's probably not the biggest reason for the lack of popularity, but I don't think it's insignificant. libcaca is another one. Cool library, but seriously, libcaca? And the Do Whatever the Fuck You Want License? The name has honestly made me less interested in the library, as lame and irrational as that is. I don't paint my walls dissonant colors; I don't want my apps with unsightly names.

    6. Re:It's about time by springbox · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I don't know what the problem is. The WTFPL is pretty straight forward:

      DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
      Version 2, December 2004

      Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar
      22 rue de Plaisance, 75014 Paris, France
      Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified
      copies of this license document, and changing it is allowed as long
      as the name is changed.

      DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
      TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

      0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO.

      When free means completely free!

      I wouldn't be too concerned about the name if the software does something useful

    7. Re:It's about time by the_olo · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'd love to hear specifically what is missing, as I'm sure the devs would too. Is it just the color management for print design, or something else?


      Let's try:



      • Support for various additional color spaces in addition to grayscale and RGB, e.g. CMYK, LAB, HSB. I'm not speaking about the color chooser, which AFAIR lets you pick colors using CMYK already. I'm talking about the image being stored in memory (and on disk in .xcf) and processed using particular color space representation, e.g. for CMYK the image is stored with 4 channels (look at them like color planes) representing the intensity of Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and blacK pigments in a subtractive model (RGB on the other hand, is additive). Some color corrections are done most easily when working in LAB color space Read some books by Dan Margulis to get an idea.
      • Support for color separations (including various settings like dot gain, black point compensation, additional spot colors beside CMYK) and color management is an essential feature for any professional wanting to print the results of one's work and have them match the screen representation.
      • Support for 16-bits or more (32-bit, floating point etc.) per channel for color spaces, integrated through all the workflow (possibly from the camera RAW files, through all the color curve corrections, levels, filters, hue mappings, up to the output file) so the dynamic range is high and minimal information is lost during colors / tones manipulation
      • adjustment layers
      • needs lots of usability fixes, like:
        • panning with a single keypress + mouse drag (one cannot simply press space and pan around the image with the mouse)
        • ability to scroll the image window beyond the image border regardless of zoom level (GIMP doesn't let you scroll beyond the image's edge which is quite irritating)
        • more GUI manipulation flexibility - ability to reorganize the whole UI into single MDI window similar to Photoshop or Corel PhotoPaint; but not at the expense of usability - it should be extremely hard to reorganize the GUI unintentionally (no tear-off toolbars like in MS Office - it's a usability disaster)
        • support for "workspace themes" - named sets of window positions, docker layouts, and so on. There should be 2 predefined themes available: "GIMP standard" and "Photoshop-like" - this would help the photoshoppers make the switch and do their first steps in GIMP.

  2. Krita by barkholt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They need to get this integrated before http://www.koffice.org/krita/ runs them over :)

    --
    - barkholt
    1. Re:Krita by archen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Krita is already set to run them over, it's just a matter of time. The application has gone to a crash prone app with a barely useful featureset, to fairly stable with a modest featureset in a very short timespan. And it seems like it's just gaining more momentum as it goes on. For now development will probably slow as everyone works hard on porting to KDE4, but make no mistake that this app is the graphical interface many have been begging for on Linux. Many of us use the Gimp because there's no other option (or we don't feel like using photoshop in wine), but there will soon be a point where the gimp is going to end up a rather orphaned application as far as their userbase goes. With QT being cross platform, I might even be a bit conserned if I were Corel - the {now} owners of PaintShop Pro.

  3. The difference between The Gimp and Excel.. by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ever tried to do basic drawing in The Gimp? Like, say, drawing a circle? Ask any Gimp developer why this is such a bitch and they'll tell you something like: The Gimp is an image manipulation program, not a drawing program, go use Inkscape or something if you want to draw circles. What's this got to do with Excel? Well, Excel is a spreadsheet program. It's ment for making reports or doing accounting or playing "what if" games with money. About 10 years ago the developers of Excel went and did a survey of what their customers were using Excel for. Turns out the vast majority of people were using Excel to make lists. Shopping lists. Laundry lists. People to Kill. That sort of thing. Did the Excel developers say "hey, Microsoft Word has better support for making lists, go use that!" .. no, obviously. What they did was study the way people use the software and make it better for what they are doing. They made it so you could hide the cell lines when you print and so you can print the numbers of the cells if you want. They made it so when you enter something really long into a cell it automatically overlaps the cells next to it, and so it would print that way. That's how software should be made, with a focus on what the user wants out of the software.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:The difference between The Gimp and Excel.. by swillden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ever tried to do basic drawing in The Gimp? Like, say, drawing a circle?

      First, there's a much easier way to draw a circle than the one you linked to. To draw a circle: use the ellipse select tool, holding down the shift key, then use Edit->Stroke Selection. Done. You can adjust the width, color, pattern, etc. of the circle on the Stroke Selection tool that pops up.

      Second, if even that seems like too much effort, well, I'm with the developers on this one: The GIMP is a photo manipulation tool, not a drawing tool. As a fairly heavy GIMP user, I don't want the interface cluttered up with additional drawing-related tools, not when (a) there's a perfectly good, if non-obvious, way to accomplish the task and (b) it's not the tool's primary job.

      That's how software should be made, with a focus on what the user wants out of the software.

      Which user? You can't be everything to everyone. In this case, people editing photos very rarely have any need for drawing circles, and it's a bad idea to clutter the UI up with stuff that they aren't going to use much anyway.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    2. Re:The difference between The Gimp and Excel.. by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Ask any Gimp developer why this is such a bitch and they'll tell you something like: The Gimp is an image manipulation program, not a drawing program, go use Inkscape or something if you want to draw circles."

      That's the sort of answer that, if used frequently, could kill OSS. If the aim is to replace commercial software with 'free' software, then the 'customer is always right' motto still applies.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    3. Re:The difference between The Gimp and Excel.. by chill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I see your "the customer is always right" cliche and raise you one "use the right tool for the right job".

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    4. Re:The difference between The Gimp and Excel.. by koreth · · Score: 4, Insightful
      If the aim is to replace commercial software with 'free' software
      Which it isn't for a lot of OSS developers; the aim is to have software that does a particular job well enough. If other people find it useful too, great. If other people find it so useful that they can avoid purchasing a commercial software package or two, that's nice too. But if not, that's also fine; they're welcome to stick with the commercial packages, no harm done.
  4. GIMP needs fresh developers by Speare · · Score: 5, Insightful
    GEGL was first proposed in 1999, but the GIMP's existing code base has remained in place over several revision cycles since then. As recently as summer 2005, GEGL appeared for all practical purposes dead in the water.

    I see this as a confirmation of the stagnant GIMP developer pool, led by a few who are not interested in growing that community at all.

    If the GIMP team would foster new blood, help new hackers learn the large and intimidatingly complex codebase, give any other reply besides a gruff "you want it, you code it" response to any artist who dreams of a good core feature, give specific progress feedback about modern image demands like 32bits-per-channel, CMYK, or fully functional ICC, then maybe we'd see a real alternative to Photoshop in the OSS world, not a Photoshop 1993 clone.

    The only other path is "fork it," but with any complex project, it's very tough to fork away from the few experts.

    It's clear the GIMP captains still see GIMP as a pet project, just as some major tech news sites see themselves as a pet blog, and refuse to take on the responsibility of being a leader or even trying to become a leader.

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
  5. Re:Maybe now the UI by swillden · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe now he can give The Gimp a decent UI instead of the trash it's had for the last 10 years

    In the first place, the GIMP's UI has changed a great deal in the last few years, so much so that it doesn't make much sense to call it one UI. Second, the GIMP's current UI is very powerful and very usable. Personally, I prefer it to Photoshop's UI, mainly for the ease with which it can be customized to fit exactly the thing I need to do right now. Then, later, when I'm doing something different, I can flip a couple of hotkey assignments, tear off a different menu or two, and have a UI that is perfectly suited to what I need at that moment. For those who know it well, the GIMP's UI rocks. Much like PS, actually. The biggest difference is that there are a lot more people who know Photoshop's UI well.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  6. Gimpshop! by BeeBeard · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ahem:

    Gimpshop. It's a great attempt at making The Gimp more comprehensible to people with a Windows/Photoshop background. And like The Gimp, it too is free.

  7. Re:Maybe now the UI by swillden · · Score: 4, Funny

    The problem is that the GIMP's UI is not consistent with any other UI I've ever come across. Sure, it's probably easy-to-use once you already know it. But why not make it the same as other apps?

    Because all of us who know the GIMP would then have to learn a new UI.

    ;-)

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  8. ØØØØØØØhhhs and by BeeBeard · · Score: 4, Funny

    Pardon my American sensibilities, but I like Øvind Kolås based solely on the difficulty of typing and pronouncing his name. Woo woo alien character set!

  9. Gimp's problem are ideological by wysiwia · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I'd love to hear specifically what is missing, as I'm sure the devs would too.

    I don't think the developers really want to know, else they would have responded long before since I've already told it several times. While the graphic drawing power of Gimp isn't disputed, Gimp sports the most uncommon GUI an application could have. This (and only this) GUI leaves a bad taste in the users mind so they start looking for other minor annoyances one finds in any application if looked for. Yet since most users a pre justice because of the bad taste they won't forgive any other annoyance.

    This is all known in the Gimp community yet they don't want to acknowledge this simple fact but prefer to discard this as a flame bait. So it's now wonder Gimp gets flamed at all the time, rightfully or not. On the other side it's incredible easy for Gimp to drop off this flaming, they simply should change their GUI to the one outlined in wyoGuide (http://wyoguide.sourceforge.net/). All it needs is some willingness on the Gimp side and a little work. It might be that wyoGuide isn't the best but it certainly is good enough for Xara (http://wyoguide.sourceforge.net/projectlist.php) and many other fine applications.

    You see Gimp's problems aren't technological, they are ideological.


    O. Wyss
    PS. You are free to rate this as flame bait but that won't help Gimp.
    --
    See http://wyoguide.sf.net/papers/Cross-platform.html