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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 a good grasp of what exactly the limitations of 8-bit are and when 16-bit actually makes a difference. Computer graphics in general and digital photography in particular are technically heavy disciplines, and while one can get around without a good understanding of that things refusing to learn just because you're an 'artistic type' is a dead end. A person who is as good as you on the artistic side of things and has a good grasp on the technical side will always be your superior.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Most professionals, who have narrow yet deep specialization in particular field, are very very reluctant to learn new tools. Yet always keep an eye on them.
No we're not. We're happy to learn a new tool, especially when it saves us time/energy. That's why apps like ZBrush, Mudbox, 3D Coat, Modo, etc manage to find a market. Double bonus if it's cheap or free. The problem isn't reluctance, it's lack of time. And when an app goes out of it's way to be counter-intuitive, it's frustrating, especially when that change has no obvious benefit. (Look up ZBrush 2's history for a peek into why somebody would bother to accept BS like that.) Both the GIMP and Blender suffer from this problem to a maddening level. However, Open Office and FireFox are great examples of the other end of the spectrum. FireFox, in particular, is familiar enough to IE users but provides more functionality. GIMP's differences aren't 'quirks'.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)