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.
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.
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.
Which algorithm did you use for scaling? Cubic interpolation simply doesn't do this, Sinc does, it works great for upscaling and rotation, but stick with Cubic for downscaling.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
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).
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)