Slashdot Mirror
GIMP Resynth vs. Photoshop Content Aware
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."
...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 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
up 12 days, 22:30, 2 users, load averages: 993.20, 994.21, 994.56
*makes note to limit user processes...
http://thedailywh.at/post/522085228/photoshop-cs5s-content-aware-fill-not-good
I was going to say this is NSFW, but on closer inspection, I just don't know what to say.
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 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 like something I'd attempt to use on anything more than a telephone pole in a sky-shot, and even then, I'd want a slider bar or something that I could get hundreds of options for the replacement. Then I'd retouch it more afterward.
Why test the tool in situations you would be very unlikely to contemplate using it?
If I want a high quality photograph of myself without the giant beard and santa suit and with the seamless removal of the marching band behind me, I will take a new one.
Photoshop couldn't. It was fine for professional use then. And nowadays there are many professional printers that will accept RGB directly, not so many in those days, so the "need" for CMYK is much less.
PS yes it can. GEGL.
I was going to say this is NSFW, but on closer inspection, I just don't know what to say.
A picture is worth a thousand breasts!
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.
NSFA (Not safe for anyone)
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
The GIMP plug-in is good but the photoshop feature is better.
The difference is that the GIMP plug-in will do a relatively good job but will require a decent amount of time to do the manual fixes and touch-ups. While the Photoshop feature does a better job and you save time in the manual fixes and touch-ups portion.
This seems like a useful plug-in to merge with GIMP, and it's GPLv2.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
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.
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}
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.
It always amazes me that the websites for wonderful FOSS projects can be so damn ugly.
The Resynthesizer website 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 first glance Resynthesizer wouldn't strike me as a serious competitor for anything that a behemoth like Adobe makes, although TFA shows me that it is.
Maybe that makes me a narrow-sighted idiot, but I'm sure I'm not the only one.
+1 Funny Signature
Oh dear, TWO people reading what theywant. Please tell me where I said that all printers will do RGB? And, please, tell me how wrong it could be for a printer to use, say AdobeRGB or sRGB as it's colourspace and then render that, thorough THE SAME FRIGGING PROGRAMS that do RGB->CMYK on your calibrated print into CMYK could be absolutely wrong?
If anything, since this would be a million-dollar printer for long runs, getting the most expensive and well tested RGBCMYK conversion would be a trivial thing. It's not like it has to worry about phosphor changes if you're using an iliama or Sony CRT or crap like that.
So WHY wouldn't you trust the printer of a professional printing company to do RGB/CMYK mapping but you WOULD trust the free software your monitor or printer manufacturer gives you to make RGB/CMYK conversions in your work?
I'll give you the simplest explanation: it allows you to ignore GIMP because it doesn't do CMYK.
I also note neither of you had anything saying that PS wasn't good enough for professional work before it got CMYK...
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.
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 My attempt (warning: 2.7MB, saved as PNG to avoid further artifacts).
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.
I did this in just 3 minutes using CS5 (results on the left). Whoever did the test did a really sloppy job. I am confident that this photo could be repaired to near perfection using other PS tools in about an hour or so. Content-aware fill is just a good starting point. See: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4041/4581718360_e2ea3500bd_o.jpg
I think therefore I can't be ~TTNH
No, that would be silly. and 16 million colours are a lot more than 0.
Before someone mods this Troll or Offtopic, can someone kindly explain why people make posts like these? It's not even spam that tries to advertise anything like penis enlargement pills or Nigerian bank fraud scams. I don't get it.
GIMP 2.6 has had support for bigger than 8-bits per channel since last year thanks to GEGL.
professionals and prosumer types tend to dismiss things based on obsolete information. it usually takes a couple of years for these arrogant types to catch up with the rest of us.
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)
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Do you know what trapping is? Separations? I don't think you do. The thing is, a client sees a file on their computer in RGB, on their monitor, under their lights. A professional firm will have calibrated monitors in a lighting booth that provides calibrated light. And they will have calibrations for the printing process they will be using. Dot gain, bleed, registration, there are a LOT of things going on in pre-press. We're talking professional publication here, not printing up a poster at your local reprographics firm.
However, to the guy you replied to: you wouldn't freaking KNOW if someone gave you a GIMP file, a .tiff is a .tiff. And plenty of people DO send in RGB files. Not everyone is obsessive about color matching, especially on short run and one off jobs. And most people won't be creating the whole layout in PS anyway, they will be using, oh I don't know, a page layout program? And THAT is what usually does the color conversions and separations, right? You can edit a pic in GIMP and do the rest of your pre-flight in the page layout program you normally use, right?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I found the original image from yesterday, here is the link:
http://img1.socwall.com/Nature/Landscapes/200803094555-9639.jpg
I am downsizing to 1920x1200 for desktop wallpaper.
I tested all three GIMP scaling algorithms and while there are slight variations all three look sharpened and artificial.
I tested against irfanview and paint.net on their defaults(and cubic).
There is a massive difference between all the Gimp downsizes vs all paint/Irfan (which look very similar to each other).
So it does look to me like there is something funny with Gimp scaling. Flipping between Gimp vs other is like before and after USM.
I don't have photoshop elements installed anymore, but I noticed its resize was not that different from paint.net/Irfanview.
Something is definitely peculiar here with GIMP Scaling.
Yours truly,
J. Stalin.
Yes I do know what they are. Your point? A professonal firm will have calibrated monitors in a lighting booth. And that will convert CMYK to RGB for that monitor. They will also have calibration from the process they are using. And if they aren't using a monitor, they can use AdobeRGB (do you know what that is?) or sRGB (do you know what that is?) which are a set calibration of RGB components just like your calibrated monitor.
Except, being actual defined settings, you don't need to change your calibration if you change your monitor: they use an "idealised monitor".
Therefore there is NO DIFFERENCE if they use your calibrated monitor or they use sRGB/AdobeRGB. Their calibration will be as good in either case.
So again, I ask, why would you NOT TRUST their printer taking RGB when you trust their monitor to take RGB???
Because PS allows CMYK.
No other reason.
It's a fake.
Content-aware fill has been around in this form for 10 years or more. Early versions were being used to paint out wires in film 17 years ago (I know because I worked with people writing the software).
The fact that there is a GIMP plugin to do this is absolutely no surprise. I also expect there are dozens of Photoshop plugins that do this as well, some of which predate the GIMP plugin by many years.
The fact that Adobe felt that it was useful enough to stick in the base program is mildly interesting. But they could have done this 10 years ago. The rest is hype, and now some GIMP people are trying to jump on that same hype bandwagon.
I think that was Photoshop's way of saying, "That's a push-up bra-- you don't want to see her when her garments are invisible."
"We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
In a hurry so of course, I inidcated wrong..... Gimp is on the left.
All this "PS Fanboi", "GIMP fanboy", "pseudo-professional" or "OSS hippy" crap is such a waste of time. I think Rob mainly posts stuff like that here once in a while in order to stir the shit a bit and so push the ratings up a bit.
In reality both the GIMP and Photoshop are fantastic programmes (even though I don't work in multimedia anymore, I actually bought the CS suite a few years ago because I've always wanted my own legal Photoshop and Illustrator since I first worked with them back in my DTP days in 1990 to 1992).
In my view, Photoshop is much better. A lot of people are paid high salaries to work on it day in and day out. It is an amazing piece of software. It has almost no bugs, is very fast at what it does and is incredibly precise and flexible. I love it. It does, of course, cost a fortune, as do all Adobe programmes.
BUT, the GIMP is no less amazing. Its feature set and its stability are fantastic, and given that it is free in both source code (not that important to me, to be honest) and price, its even better.
In reality, all the private people who have cracked versions of Photoshop at home could do almost everything they do with the GIMP as well. Any retouching of images that you'll be doing with your private images can easily be done with the GIMP. The reason these people often look down on the GIMP is because they look on its free price as something less worthy and look upon Photoshop's high price as something akin to owning a sports car or something along those lines (even if they are actually using a cracked version)
Owning a cracked version of Photoshop is generally not conducive to a smooth business experience and most professionals who actually make money from it will usually buy it as they'll view it as an investment.
But, in general, all this fighting about the different features of the software or the different UIs is silly. The GIMP can't do CMYK image editing but it doesn't need to in reality because if you really need to get fairly good results to print, you can do it with the GIMP as well. Also, the GIMP's UI is light-years ahead of where it was only two years ago. I find it very usable these days and it reminds for all the world, very much of what PS used to look like on Windows back in the 5.0, 5.5 days.
That said, if you need to be productive and need to work to a deadline in design or pre-press, you're going to need tools that you can rely on with high precision and no bugs, and PS certainly fits there.
Who cares if GIMP had that feature before Photoshop or not?
The only thing I wish is that Adobe continues and invests more time in making Photoshop harder to warez. I don't hate anything more then those morons using warez versions of Adobe products and salting other people brains by telling how ultra giga über cool their Creative Suite is and that they can not live without it and that Paintshop Pro, GIMP, CorelDraw, Inkscape, SK1, etc are just plain bullshit and so on.
If Adobe would give me money for every warez idiot out there that is using a warezed Adobe CS application and that I report, then I would stop immediately my normal day job and start reporting those idiots day and night!
It still isn't entirely clear how their results came about, but I will venture a guess that they used the tileable options (on by default) that most tutorials correctly note you should disable. Why they are on by default, I haven't the slightest clue.
Gimp one looks just like the autoscaling done by Firefox, while the other one looks pretty blurry to me. However Firefox may be using the same algorithm as GIMP and for some reason they both differ from most other programs?
At last a usefull comment on /.! Thanks mate! :)
No sig for now.
"Gimp one looks just like the autoscaling done by Firefox, while the other one looks pretty blurry to me"
Opposite here.
Here is the Firefox crop:
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/9004/firefoxcrop.jpg
Again, nearly identical to Irfanview, paint.net.
Something is odd with GIMP scaling.
Favor evitar páginas em outros idiomas que não o inglês, pois nem todos conseguem ler.
Obrigado.
I was going to say this is NSFW, but on closer inspection, I just don't know what to say.
A picture is worth a thousand breasts!
Hrm... Ever seen Total Recall?
Before someone mods this Troll or Offtopic, can someone kindly explain why people make posts like these? It's not even spam that tries to advertise anything like penis enlargement pills or Nigerian bank fraud scams. I don't get it.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/
HTH. HAND.
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!!!).
Same shit, different outcome.
If an open source program looks exactly like what a fortune 500 company provides, like OpenOffice.org, then it's patent infringement. If it looks substantially different, as seen with GIMP/Photoshop then it's unprofessional. Common sense, people!
In all seriousness though, GIMP really is professional for people who take the time to learn a different program, it's more than good enough for most people's needs, and it's well worth the price. Instead, everyone just runs off to buy the $700 brand-name product they just have to have for work.
thats a cool plugin I never new about before, thanks slash dot I have now wasted a few hours of my life playing with the gimp,
Come one, those are for family dads... Everybody knows that Slashdot readers remove unwanted objects from photographs the hard way: pixel by pixel using GrafX2.
It looks like they are aware of various scaling issues and a better scaler might be along in 2.8, maybe I will try again then, but this is a fundamental operation, so I am deleting again. Much testing shows me scaling is unpredictable and inconsistent with other image processing programs. Often it looks like it was done nearest neighbor, or had USM applied after, not what a good scaling algorithm should do.
There is already some bug reports (mine is closer to the one that was marked duplicate in last comment, downsize jaggies).
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=553390