I don't want to try something new? LOL! Why on earth should I?
I didn't say you should. I said you should stop using generalized "horrible UI", "thousands of windows", etc. bullshit as the reason why you don't. You are happy with PS and don't like GIMP? Fine! You have real criticism about the interlace that's not skin deep? Fine!
If, however, you just want to is defensively position your subjective opinions about workflow efficiency as absolute fact, then don't be surprised to be called out on it.
It's a reference to one of the most commonly mentioned benefits of using a Microsoft stack -- integration. As opposed to the typical GNU/Linux distro that is just clobbered together from parts that haven't been designed to go together.
number of devices out there that support h.264 - millions and millions.
Define 'support', does Baseline count? Sure enough, who would disagree? Does Baseline with additional restrictions count? No? Well the iPhone is out then? What's left that matters for the web?
I put this one under tools again, with what we have its just way too much work that a computer should be doing. If only we had something with half the power of metafont that's able to spit out OpenType... Then again, different optical sizes are not what makes a good web font, so I didn't consider that a strong feature in the context.
Yes, sturgeons law does apply, unsurprisingly. Then there is Linux Libertine, Gentium and others. There probably would be many more good ones if the free software tools were better... Unfortunately, for whatever reason, we are stuck with fontforge and the best I can say about it is that it works, most of the time, kinda.
You'll forgive me if I missed that one since I have never used anything that has such a tool. It is also not one of common 'issues' that get parroted around by people who don't even want to take a look for themselves.
Let's make that: "For the record, there are no serious commonly discussed UI issues beyond it being unfamiliar". Does that clarify my perspective somewhat?
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.
Maybe once they straighten out their UI issues it'll get better. GIMP has been around seemingly forever - people have criticized the UI from the start, and it's STILL never been addressed.
People will find a new pet issue to criticize. What most of them really mean is "I don't care, I don't want to try anything new", but that doesn't sound good, so they will always find a new issue as long as GIMP isn't a carbon copy of the latest version of Photoshop. For the record, there are no serious UI issues beyond it being unfamiliar, there is a ton of minor ones, but to see them you actually have to spend some time with the program, so unsurprisingly they are not the target of much criticism.
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.
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.
It works reasonably well, but be aware of the limitations. Resynthesizer was originally made for texture enlargement, so you are best of working in chunks where you want a uniform texture. If it keeps pulling in texture that doesn't match you might have to create a layer isolating the matching texture and use the plug in itself (instead of the "Smart Remove" tool it is bundled with) to specify that layer as the texture source, make sure the source and target layers color spaces match, it will refuse to use an RGBA source with an RGB target. If they are both RGBA (the most realistic case), Resythesizer might leave small holes in the image, they are easily filled with a quick "Smart Remove".
If this sounds too complicated to any of you, you should try doing it by hand... Tools help, they don't do the job for you.
Read the article, this is about tire manufacturers saying that you can only use the tires you bought (even the ones that say "professional racing") for carting around your family. If you want to put your tires on your semi or F1 you have to negotiate with the patent holders.
The problem outlined in the article is that your camera (a physical device with the capability to encode MPEG2 and/or H.264) manufacturer has negotiated a license that requires you to pay for the privilege of using your video from your camera for your commercial purposes.
Google ships Chrome with Theora support, increasing the market share of browsers playing Theora and the likelihood of webpages that won't "just work" on Apple devices. Google is the easiest target as they can ship H.264 where Mozilla and Opera would fight harder. Pretty far fetched.
More likely it's actually a message to Google about VP8 piggybacking on Theora. It goes out of its way to mention "all video codecs" and specifically "open source" ones after all.
You are referring to a specific test, comparison was both against H.263 (not ancient, just off the bleeding edge, but that's beside the point) and H.264 as they are used on youtube. The point wasn't to show that Theora can achieve better compression then H.264 (monty quite clearly admits the opposite), but to refute a specific claim by a Google representative (this is clearly spelled out on the test page). Said representative hasn't bothered to defend his statements. Now please define "nowhere near" and we can move on with the usual.
More often than not, proprietary software licenses absolve the vendor from any guarantees in situations where the software likely to fail (or likely to fail with catastrophic results).
Actually they usually have the same general disclaimers as free software, including the "fitness for general purpose disclaimer". The end result is that MS can ship buggy versions of windows, fix bugs for a while, then stop and force you to upgrade if you want the particular machine on the net. To be honest it's quite hard to pin down exactly what we are paying for with proprietary software...
Being judged by twelve random people is as close to 'objective' as possible.
You might have a point if they were not allowed to discuss the case among themselves, since they are, any randomness will have a hard time against peer pressure.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say you should. I said you should stop using generalized "horrible UI", "thousands of windows", etc. bullshit as the reason why you don't. You are happy with PS and don't like GIMP? Fine! You have real criticism about the interlace that's not skin deep? Fine!
If, however, you just want to is defensively position your subjective opinions about workflow efficiency as absolute fact, then don't be surprised to be called out on it.
Maybe you should.
It's a reference to one of the most commonly mentioned benefits of using a Microsoft stack -- integration. As opposed to the typical GNU/Linux distro that is just clobbered together from parts that haven't been designed to go together.
The OSI disagrees with you, not that it will stop you from trying to bend the definition to where you want it to be...
Define 'support', does Baseline count? Sure enough, who would disagree? Does Baseline with additional restrictions count? No? Well the iPhone is out then? What's left that matters for the web?
I put this one under tools again, with what we have its just way too much work that a computer should be doing. If only we had something with half the power of metafont that's able to spit out OpenType... Then again, different optical sizes are not what makes a good web font, so I didn't consider that a strong feature in the context.
Yes, sturgeons law does apply, unsurprisingly. Then there is Linux Libertine, Gentium and others. There probably would be many more good ones if the free software tools were better... Unfortunately, for whatever reason, we are stuck with fontforge and the best I can say about it is that it works, most of the time, kinda.
You'll forgive me if I missed that one since I have never used anything that has such a tool. It is also not one of common 'issues' that get parroted around by people who don't even want to take a look for themselves.
Let's make that: "For the record, there are no serious commonly discussed UI issues beyond it being unfamiliar". Does that clarify my perspective somewhat?
It just might be that JavaScript security features restrict what it can take as an input... Either way I look forward to your HTML5 X11 client!
Yeah I also mentioned a semi... But in the end it is just a car analogy.
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.
People will find a new pet issue to criticize. What most of them really mean is "I don't care, I don't want to try anything new", but that doesn't sound good, so they will always find a new issue as long as GIMP isn't a carbon copy of the latest version of Photoshop. For the record, there are no serious UI issues beyond it being unfamiliar, there is a ton of minor ones, but to see them you actually have to spend some time with the program, so unsurprisingly they are not the target of much criticism.
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.
It works reasonably well, but be aware of the limitations. Resynthesizer was originally made for texture enlargement, so you are best of working in chunks where you want a uniform texture. If it keeps pulling in texture that doesn't match you might have to create a layer isolating the matching texture and use the plug in itself (instead of the "Smart Remove" tool it is bundled with) to specify that layer as the texture source, make sure the source and target layers color spaces match, it will refuse to use an RGBA source with an RGB target. If they are both RGBA (the most realistic case), Resythesizer might leave small holes in the image, they are easily filled with a quick "Smart Remove".
If this sounds too complicated to any of you, you should try doing it by hand... Tools help, they don't do the job for you.
How many of them actually take advantage of higher color depths in a meaningful way?
Read the article, this is about tire manufacturers saying that you can only use the tires you bought (even the ones that say "professional racing") for carting around your family. If you want to put your tires on your semi or F1 you have to negotiate with the patent holders.
The problem outlined in the article is that your camera (a physical device with the capability to encode MPEG2 and/or H.264) manufacturer has negotiated a license that requires you to pay for the privilege of using your video from your camera for your commercial purposes.
Not good enough. If I would want to rely on non-enforcement I'd still be using pirated Windows.
Two possible ways.
Google ships Chrome with Theora support, increasing the market share of browsers playing Theora and the likelihood of webpages that won't "just work" on Apple devices. Google is the easiest target as they can ship H.264 where Mozilla and Opera would fight harder. Pretty far fetched.
More likely it's actually a message to Google about VP8 piggybacking on Theora. It goes out of its way to mention "all video codecs" and specifically "open source" ones after all.
You are referring to a specific test, comparison was both against H.263 (not ancient, just off the bleeding edge, but that's beside the point) and H.264 as they are used on youtube. The point wasn't to show that Theora can achieve better compression then H.264 (monty quite clearly admits the opposite), but to refute a specific claim by a Google representative (this is clearly spelled out on the test page). Said representative hasn't bothered to defend his statements. Now please define "nowhere near" and we can move on with the usual.
Actually they usually have the same general disclaimers as free software, including the "fitness for general purpose disclaimer". The end result is that MS can ship buggy versions of windows, fix bugs for a while, then stop and force you to upgrade if you want the particular machine on the net. To be honest it's quite hard to pin down exactly what we are paying for with proprietary software...
Intellectual property, despite common claims to the opposite, isn't real property. For one you can't forget physical property out of existence...
You might have a point if they were not allowed to discuss the case among themselves, since they are, any randomness will have a hard time against peer pressure.
Just to add to the other reply... Did you think that mobile devices just have random DSPs included for the purpose of eventual Theora support?
And Microsoft and Apple CAN implement Theora, then we can have a nice baseline and H.264 fans can still use it if they wish to.
Wow, so doing the same thing as H.264 isn't good enough? Now you demand silicon for Theora where H.264 uses DSPs?