The use of the word actually negates the use of the word smart, you don't need to be a genius to get it.
Re-read my original reply, genius. I gave you a not-so-subtle hint. I shouldn't have even needed to do that, if you had re-read the line you're nitpicking you'd realize the oops you made and why your reasoning about it is so amusing.
One step at a time, or the rest is just between you and your imaginary incorrect friend.
Ah, you need more time to cook up some spin, got it.
I know you love to win, so just let me remind you, the above is what I'm discussing because it represents a kind of tapestry that can be unwoven - you still don't get it.
Wow. It must be getting late, I can't tell if this is irony or hypocrisy. I guess we both need to look up words in the dictionary tonight.;)
You've completely avoided admitting you were wrong.
It'd be inappropriate for me to 'admit' something that isn't true.;) You've been wrong several times, btw.
I advise you to enjoy your weekend, because if you continue here, I will ensure each piece is analysed to its full before proceeding to the next. You do not deserve your arrogance, and I would be happy to show you why.
Heh. Did you write that imagining that Liam Neeson was reading that line while you were writing it?
I will not accept questions as answers.
You may ignore my responses as you like. Afterall, you're no stranger to it. It's a pity, though, that you will not answer a very direct question that had a real opportunity to, if you were sincere, put me in my place.
I will not deal with an entire post at once. Your redefinition approach will be deconstructed.
Take your best shot. Maybe you'll prove me wrong. In that case, I could make better use of OSS and improve my value in the industry. Alternatively, you could continue to utterly flail around and then I'm still right. That's also good. Really, though, I hope it's the first one. I'll happily eat some humble pie if it improves my job security or raises my income.
The use of the word actually negates the use of the word smart, you don't need to be a genius to get it.
Apparently you need to be a genius to understand what I said. Heh. I find it really amusing that you're picking out a specific word of my post but... ah well, I'll leave that to you to stew over.
Now correct yourself on this point, and I will procede to destroy your others.
You mean you haven't been attempting to otherwise?
BTW, I realize you skipping over my entire post was intentional in order to avoid having to face the criticisms you've earned, but please answer this: Going to let me know when I can beta test the features you're gonna add?
for the third time, "your wrong way attitude" is not what I'm saying - for the third time, you haven't paid attention.... Just becasue it may be a waste of money does not stop you. You claim to have \ things you can do with Photoshop that you can't do with GIMP or CinePaint. That's grand for you.
They are important points. They are important to understand where I'm coming from. They are important for the OSS Community to understand as they continue to develope software. And, in the context of this conversation, they are important points to whether or not Photoshop was a 'waste of money'.
for the third time, you haven't paid attention. Probably, just like all the others who talk to you about the philosophy and seem to get frustrated, you just refuse to get it
It's not that I haven't paid attention, it's that I don't get swept up in the dream of it all. It's easy to spout about the wonders of Open Source, it's hard to actually boil it down into a reality for everybody. The biggest hurdle is understanding that it isn't for everybody. You'd be a lot happier if you asked more questions and used fewer declarations. This is also true for your predecessors.
you seem to think I am trying to sway your use of tools
Yes, here's why:
"I'm sorry, your filesystem is corrupt Windows now runs like a snail on valium, could be a virus or maybe you just havn't re-installed for a month. Files ? I think some of them are ok..." "The OSS paradigm probably benefits smart users most, but actually it benefits users who prefer to think for themselves." "This life you say that is so elusive, is what many people are busy doing whilst you are busy trying to convince yourself." "If Adobe is the centre of your universe then all of this will go straight over your head anyway." " you are a pure user that does not even want to be a part of the software cycle, if you did, you would work for adobe or wake up to gimp." "We are both free-thinking, but you must pay money to Adobe for your free-thoughts"
Your propoganda'ish tone and your implications that I'll be smart one day when I behave like you are intended to belittle me into going your way. Spare me the righteous bullshit.
I would rather work on GIMP if really had to rather than pay for Photoshop. That's my choice.
I respect this. Now respect my choice. Better yet, try to understand it. You'll only come away richer for it.
We are both free-thinking, but you must pay money to Adobe for your free-thoughts
Oh no. The horror. Meanwhile, I continue to earn a living with much thanks going their way. They earn money, they employ programmers. The cycle begins again. I profit from them. I wouldn't profit from GIMP. I like having a roof over my head, personally.
You'd love for me to be right ?
Yes, I would. But the fundamental things I keep talking about keep getting glossed over. Your attitude about it is pervasive. This is why it will be along slooow journey with questions about whether or not it'll actually get there.
My advice is learn what these types of statements are about. - you miss many things, that is the truth. You have on many occassion tried to redefine my argument.
Right back atcha, buddy. Take a good hard look at what you said there and think about how it applies to you.
Your argument style is one of win-lose...
That's very hard to take seriously Mr. "If you reply saying this stuff it means you haven't learned anything."
I do think you're condescending attitude with everything else though shows that I do not want to know you.
Whatever, Mr. Use a Real OS. You've heard of the golden rule, right? You never ha
Yep. And people like you always come up and try to tell me it can replace Photoshop. In a lot of cases, it can. In all cases, it cannot. Some people, like you, even try to posture it like the problem is that I've subscribed to propoganda, but they can never say something like "Oh no no no no, all you gotta do is this, this, and that." You can be on the 'right side' and still be a zealot.
In the mean time, and this was going back to another point you were trying to make, I'm actually better off having both. Saving that money on Photoshop and going exclusively GIMP wouldn't make me a better employee.
This is the last time I'm going to say this, Photoshop is the market leader, not the market.
Yeah, that makes a big fappin difference.
Its quite simple, its mostly gone over your head. I will use gimp, you can use photoshop.
But... but... but.. I'm supposed to use the GIMP because I'd be smart for saving the money and I could always write more code for it! I'm so confused! I mean, am I supposed to be a free thinker and use GIMP exclusively or be a sheep and use the best tool for the job?!
Now go away and use photoshop, go on... off you go... Adobe awaits... boy!
Hey, show me an adequate alternative and I'll "open my mind'. I'd love to save a few bucks and expand my toolset.
If you come back, repeat the same BS and I will know you havn't learned a thing.
Heh. "Come back being an independent thinker like me or you'll lose!" That's convenient. It's fair to say you haven't learned anything from me, either. That much is clear from your blanket "that's hortshit!" reply. I have to say, though, that what I find most amusing about this topic is that I've talked with people like you before, and never once has anybody fished for information on what could be done better so I could not be so reliant on Photoshop. You'd think that with all this posturing about how we could all contribute to the community and how grand and glorious that'd be that they'd want to get all the info they could and get crackin. But never once did they actually even ask me what I do. Never asked me what the work was. Never asked me what it is I use about Photoshop that GIMP's failing at. When I give them real information about who's doing what (it's funny how quiet they get when I correct their misconception about Linux's role in Hollywood... hee hee) I'm suddenly a sheep. I'm not following the righteous path because I've been lost to... wel I think the impression is that Adobe has put a gun to my head or something. Perfect opportunity to demonstrate your commitment to your principals, here, and instead you go for a cheap attempt to 'win' the argument. Whatever. I really hope you don't represent a significant portion of the OSS community. The "your way is wrong!" attitude is detrimental.
I don't think so. Reality just isn't supporting your claims.
Every project for you is a new challenge defined by photoshop - you are a pure user that does not even want to be a part of the software cycle, if you did, you would work for adobe or wake up to gimp.
Heh. You really think I haven't evaluated GIMP? Do you really think I'd make it in this industry if I didn't make use of every tool available to me, especially free ones? Brrrtzt wrong. Give me a little credit here, I work for a living. I'm not some pimply teenager sitting in his parent's house arguing about stuff he's not involved in. I don't have a single app I work in. Not in 2d. Not in 3d. It's not a religion.
you have no option with photoshop but to trust those who write the software to improve it the way you like
Not really true, no. Granted, it's not as flexible as having the source code available, but Photoshop's scripting is robust enough. Can't say that it's been much of an issue except for automating the more tedious stuff. Photoshop is strong, mature, and very robust. The GIMP supports the right formats that I can drop in and use it if need be, but I have yet to find anything useful to me that GIMP does better than Photoshop. It really hasn't proven itself to be a replacement for things like matte painting and texture creation. I could write that, I suppose, but then what? By the time I've spent maybe 20 hours on that, I could have afforded the solution that already works and is time tested. Adobe has people focused on delivering the experience people in my industry need. GIMP is still playing catch up.
If you do have an original idea to do with imaging software, I state again that modifying gimp is your best option becasue its OSS, therefore, playing catch-up only applies to the ideas the adobe provide, The gimp will continue to attain both as supply creates demand and if hollywood changes its mind as many have already with respect to 3d rendering, then they will pay for extensions to gimp because it will be cheaper and faster.
I can actually kind of see this happening some time in the distant future. The problem right now, though, is that the solutions are already available and well understood through Adobe. The GIMP community is not running around creating new things that are making any bother. The value isn't there. If there were, instead of having Photoshop on all the workstations at the big ginormous studios, they'd have their own proprietary software. It doesn't happen. Blender stands a much greater chance of reaching that goal than GIMP. However, that community's pulling all kinds of silliness, too. You've got Maya, which was designed to be a 3D OS of sorts that all the studios can code for. Maya could be cancelled right now and it'd still be in use for years to come. Blender's got such a huge up-hill battle it's not even funny. They might actually have a shot if they were to produce the right enticements. Oh well.
If Adobe is the centre of your universe then all of this will go straight over your head anyway.
Yeah yeah. Look, I'm talking about reality here. It's fun to dream that we'll all hold hands with a rainbow glimmering over our heads and develope this grand glorious image editing application that'll suit everybody's needs all for free. I wish it'd happen. But it won't. Profit has proven to be a great motivator for innovation. It's fun to say things like "stuck in Adobe's world" but in reality the GIMP doesn't offer much Adobe doesn't. It tries really hard to be Photoshop. It's not like created some new wibbly wobbly way of image editing that's just too radical and revolutionary for people to accept. It's also not doing a terribly good job of embarrasing Photoshop by having stuff it's lacking. Even Blender's managing to do that to it's 'competition'.
I really don't need forced ideas, just like most of the world apparently doesn't need faster computers. I have a PRO standard digital camera that I can do everything I need with OSS and more - these standards were not defined by photoshop, they evolved through the needs of users.
Defined by Photoshop? Heh, okay. "Photoshop has a new feature, let's start making a movie around it!"
You have a fixed set of needs that don't change much, right? I don't. Every project is a new challenge. My needs keep changing. Adobe has been on top of that. That's why people are willing to plunk down the change on every release. GIMP's still playing catch-up, that's why it hasn't made in-roads into Hollywood even though you can go in and change it.
The OSS paradigm probably benefits smart users most, but actually it benefits users who prefer to think for themselves.
It's that sort of arrogance that's keeping it from becoming main-stream.
No problem, a little Photoshop here and there, and voilá! "Instant Evidence"!
Even a dude defending himself in court could dodge that. "Here's a picture of my not-brown-van and documentation to back that up."
Theoretically speaking, if the photograph is all they have to go on, it shouldn't lead to jail time. Of course, I understand reality is more theatrical.
Re:PC multiplayer vs. console multiplayer
on
Piracy and the PSP
·
· Score: 1
Ah, okay, I getcha now. I gave up on PC gaming yonks ago, for some of the reasons you mentioned actually. I was replying to the extremeness of your post, not the details so much.
Have a good weekend, man.
Re:PC multiplayer vs. console multiplayer
on
Piracy and the PSP
·
· Score: 1
I understood all this from your previous post. I just don't understand how it makes PC gaming 'stillborn'. You've picked a minority of circumstances and a sillingly high bar for the PC games to reach in order to be 'successful'.
Someday soon, someone will come in and say "I can do this job without the license fee" - and they will have the edge.
Never happen. At best, maybe the guy who pays the license fee and uses the free tool will have the edge. The fundamental problem is Open Source doesn't move forward until somebody else has handily dandily come along and given it a direction to go. Suppose Microsoft suddenly dropped Office, what would happen to OpenOffice then? Nada. A handful of people would come up with occasional interesting tools, but it wouldn't be scuplted into one big glorious innovative app. It would stagnate until some new fully funded app commercial app came along with the next whiz-bang productivity idea and four years later we'd get a barely working carbon-copy from the OSS community.
Seriousy, you're underestimating profit as a motivation to make good apps.
I'm sorry, your filesystem is corrupt Windows now runs like a snail on valium, could be a virus or maybe you just havn't re-installed for a month. Files ? I think some of them are ok...
Oooooookaaaaaaay. What I find amusing is your false sense of security. You should read back a few days, a bunch of Mac users learned a harsh lesson about that.
For photoshop, that was true for years, things are changing though and the direction is certain.
I hope you're right, but I can't see it happening any time soon. Linux has been designed from the wrong direction to effectively become a mainstream desktop OS. The other apps have been chasing the tails of other apps and not coming in on their own merits. Windows isn't a great OS, but it's definitely reached the 'good enough' state.
oh good. I think you are implying you can't be cost effective in your job with the Gimp because of its quality.
Let's not have any confusion here, that is precisely what I'm saying.
Some guy walks in, says he can do it because the software *is* sufficient in the rights hands and bang - you can no longer feel special buying things simply for the feel of the pricetag.
Pipe dream. First, the software has to be sufficient. Then Adobe has to go out of business so it won't develop the new whiz-bang tools for GIMP to copy. Then GIMP has to stay on top of it with new stuff coming out or else the next big commercial app will come along and people will move to that instead.
Won't happen. OSS in its current state is an alternative, not a replacement. It won't grow. It won't usher in a Gene Roddenberry'esque utopian state of software use. Heck, it's utterly failed to even make a dent in Office despite having something like 10 years to develop, stagnation from Microsoft, and security silliness.
Yeah, like Windows has network administration and web serving tools.
...why are you using Windows anyway ?
Because it is the de-facto standard and all of my clients, bosses, and so on require it. Besides that, if I switched to Linux, I'd no longer be able to do my job. (Again, that's due to de-facto market reasons, not for technical reasons. Linux would be better suited if more effort was put into the end-user experience.)
If you value your collection of images, store them on a real OS.
Several reasons:
a.) Windows is not really the charicature that Slashdot has made it out to be. b.) A 'real OS' doesn't mean jack shit if the software I use doesn't run on it. c.) Linux ain't so faptastic, either. I would be far better off with a Mac than a Linux box. d.) Linux and GIMP's 'free' price tag would actually cost me a considerable amount of money. I'll concede though that I don't represent the masses because I use tools like Photoshop to make a living.
Yep, GIMP has some nice features. It's also akward to use on Windows, doesn't have as strong of drawing toolset, and isn't used by everybody in the world so it's harder to get tips for. The list goes on.
And... why is this important? Particularly in Arnold's case?
Not that I don't appreciate the humor, but check out the Terminator in the original movie. The endoskeleton I mean. Then look at the Terminators walking over the wreckage at the beginning of Terminator 3. The original was done with puppets and stop motion, the most recent was done with mocap and keyframed animation. One had a whole lot more human motivation behind it than the other. Watch the two and you'll find one is far far more convincing than the other.
You can reference some who acts like they are upset, or you can reference someone who is actually upset. Or happy, or whatever.
Acting is far more complex than chaining together a handful of emotions listed in a kid's book.
As much as actor like to poof it out into some sort of magical mystical thing, acting is just voice and expression.
Yeah, that's why all those youtube videos and student projects have such wonderful acting. On an unrelated topic, space travel's not a magical mystical thing, it's just an air-tight tube with thrust coming out the back.
These will be created digitally eventually. Based on some RnD stuff I have seen recently, this will happen a lot sooner then people think.
No, it won't. Just like mocap didn't kill keyframed animation. Just like photographs didn't kill painting. Jsut like TV didn't kill movies. What would really be needed to pull off automated digital acting is for a computer to have talent. That breakthru is much farther away than tech demos imply.
They could easily make a completly different movie starring ';woody' and 'Buzz' Just use there models in a new setting
Yes, with the right acting talent supporting it. Go watch the maknig of videos of Pixar's movies, there's all kinds of acting involved. Heck, go find that book the Illusion of Life. Look at how Disney animated movies back in the 40's. You're going to find that behind all of that great work are people talented at acting.
Yeah, its not like there are a million other people in LA who'd sign their souls away to be on the radio... tv...movies... Not like those contracts would become standard and then comeback to haunt someone 20 years later...
You're right, those contracts wouldn't become standard. What do you think the Actor's Guild is around for?
They could digitize him, and as long as he didn't have a speaking part, they could even have an action sequence with him fighting Bale/Connor and all of that, and say "hey, it's all covered under the same contract that lets us use your likeness for Terminator toys, etc. We don't owe you anything."
That strikes me as incredibly unlikely. There's no way he'd sign a generic 'use my likeness for everything' contract. Everything's isolated on a per-movie basis, even the merchandising, down to the point that the production companies are often created just for that particular movie to make all those arragements. Let me give you an idea: Crispin Glover sued, and won, because footage of him in Back to the Future was used in Back to the Future II without his permission. Even if the contract is open ended, there's still an understanding that movies, even in a series (which Terminator Salvation barely qualifies for), are individual entities.
Soon we no longer need actors and we just need digitized versions of them.
Computers can't act. Until Dr. Soong comes along and perfects a 'positronic' brain, this still statement cannot be true. Even animators need reference.
If you have three gamers in the house and one who visits, the hardware costs $2,400 (four PCs with monitor at $600 each)
Are you serious? Do you have four DVD players and big screen TVs in your home?
and the games cost $160 each (four copies at $40 each because few games support Starcraft-style spawn installations)
If you were putting forward such a ridiculous requirement for PC gaming, this little snippet right here would have the makings of a decent point.
I think the lack of PC titles that support the console-style model of a big screen and USB gamepads comes from the fact that since the late 1980s, most monitors with a VGA input have been sized for one person.
Network/internet gaming.
HDTVs can display PC signals, but those haven't been affordable for long enough to replace the CRT SDTV. And VGA to SDTV converters aren't sold in retail stores.
Boy, that's true. 10 million people are out there playing World of Warcraft on HDTVs....
Let me know when Nintendo resolves the conjectured legal issues holding up release of Mother and Earthbound on the North American Wii Shop Channel, and we'll talk.
I don't follow. Other than Nintendo annoying you, what does this have to do with what I said?
Slashdot Mirror
I can't wait till someone comes in my pharmacy and coughs this all over me. /pharmacist
Did you take a job as a pharmacist only expecting to talk to healthy and attractive people?
No no, thank you. If you had re-read what I said, this wouldn't have been so much fun for me!
Getting colder. ;)
The use of the word actually negates the use of the word smart, you don't need to be a genius to get it.
Re-read my original reply, genius. I gave you a not-so-subtle hint. I shouldn't have even needed to do that, if you had re-read the line you're nitpicking you'd realize the oops you made and why your reasoning about it is so amusing.
One step at a time, or the rest is just between you and your imaginary incorrect friend.
Ah, you need more time to cook up some spin, got it.
I know you love to win, so just let me remind you, the above is what I'm discussing because it represents a kind of tapestry that can be unwoven - you still don't get it.
Wow. It must be getting late, I can't tell if this is irony or hypocrisy. I guess we both need to look up words in the dictionary tonight. ;)
You've completely avoided admitting you were wrong.
It'd be inappropriate for me to 'admit' something that isn't true. ;) You've been wrong several times, btw.
I advise you to enjoy your weekend, because if you continue here, I will ensure each piece is analysed to its full before proceeding to the next. You do not deserve your arrogance, and I would be happy to show you why.
Heh. Did you write that imagining that Liam Neeson was reading that line while you were writing it?
I will not accept questions as answers.
You may ignore my responses as you like. Afterall, you're no stranger to it. It's a pity, though, that you will not answer a very direct question that had a real opportunity to, if you were sincere, put me in my place.
I will not deal with an entire post at once. Your redefinition approach will be deconstructed.
Take your best shot. Maybe you'll prove me wrong. In that case, I could make better use of OSS and improve my value in the industry. Alternatively, you could continue to utterly flail around and then I'm still right. That's also good. Really, though, I hope it's the first one. I'll happily eat some humble pie if it improves my job security or raises my income.
So please, go right ahead, I only stand to win. :)
The use of the word actually negates the use of the word smart, you don't need to be a genius to get it.
Apparently you need to be a genius to understand what I said. Heh. I find it really amusing that you're picking out a specific word of my post but ... ah well, I'll leave that to you to stew over.
Now correct yourself on this point, and I will procede to destroy your others.
You mean you haven't been attempting to otherwise?
BTW, I realize you skipping over my entire post was intentional in order to avoid having to face the criticisms you've earned, but please answer this: Going to let me know when I can beta test the features you're gonna add?
for the third time, "your wrong way attitude" is not what I'm saying - for the third time, you haven't paid attention. ... Just becasue it may be a waste of money does not stop you. You claim to have \ things you can do with Photoshop that you can't do with GIMP or CinePaint. That's grand for you.
They are important points. They are important to understand where I'm coming from. They are important for the OSS Community to understand as they continue to develope software. And, in the context of this conversation, they are important points to whether or not Photoshop was a 'waste of money'.
for the third time, you haven't paid attention. Probably, just like all the others who talk to you about the philosophy and seem to get frustrated, you just refuse to get it
It's not that I haven't paid attention, it's that I don't get swept up in the dream of it all. It's easy to spout about the wonders of Open Source, it's hard to actually boil it down into a reality for everybody. The biggest hurdle is understanding that it isn't for everybody. You'd be a lot happier if you asked more questions and used fewer declarations. This is also true for your predecessors.
you seem to think I am trying to sway your use of tools
Yes, here's why:
"I'm sorry, your filesystem is corrupt Windows now runs like a snail on valium, could be a virus or maybe you just havn't re-installed for a month. Files ? I think some of them are ok..."
"The OSS paradigm probably benefits smart users most, but actually it benefits users who prefer to think for themselves."
"This life you say that is so elusive, is what many people are busy doing whilst you are busy trying to convince yourself."
"If Adobe is the centre of your universe then all of this will go straight over your head anyway."
" you are a pure user that does not even want to be a part of the software cycle, if you did, you would work for adobe or wake up to gimp."
"We are both free-thinking, but you must pay money to Adobe for your free-thoughts"
Your propoganda'ish tone and your implications that I'll be smart one day when I behave like you are intended to belittle me into going your way. Spare me the righteous bullshit.
I would rather work on GIMP if really had to rather than pay for Photoshop. That's my choice.
I respect this. Now respect my choice. Better yet, try to understand it. You'll only come away richer for it.
We are both free-thinking, but you must pay money to Adobe for your free-thoughts
Oh no. The horror. Meanwhile, I continue to earn a living with much thanks going their way. They earn money, they employ programmers. The cycle begins again. I profit from them. I wouldn't profit from GIMP. I like having a roof over my head, personally.
You'd love for me to be right ?
Yes, I would. But the fundamental things I keep talking about keep getting glossed over. Your attitude about it is pervasive. This is why it will be along slooow journey with questions about whether or not it'll actually get there.
My advice is learn what these types of statements are about. - you miss many things, that is the truth. You have on many occassion tried to redefine my argument.
Right back atcha, buddy. Take a good hard look at what you said there and think about how it applies to you.
Your argument style is one of win-lose...
That's very hard to take seriously Mr. "If you reply saying this stuff it means you haven't learned anything."
I do think you're condescending attitude with everything else though shows that I do not want to know you.
Whatever, Mr. Use a Real OS. You've heard of the golden rule, right? You never ha
What a load of horse shit.
Well, I never said "Hey boy". ;)
It tries really hard to be Photoshop ?
Yep. And people like you always come up and try to tell me it can replace Photoshop. In a lot of cases, it can. In all cases, it cannot. Some people, like you, even try to posture it like the problem is that I've subscribed to propoganda, but they can never say something like "Oh no no no no, all you gotta do is this, this, and that." You can be on the 'right side' and still be a zealot.
In the mean time, and this was going back to another point you were trying to make, I'm actually better off having both. Saving that money on Photoshop and going exclusively GIMP wouldn't make me a better employee.
This is the last time I'm going to say this, Photoshop is the market leader, not the market.
Yeah, that makes a big fappin difference.
Its quite simple, its mostly gone over your head. I will use gimp, you can use photoshop.
But... but... but.. I'm supposed to use the GIMP because I'd be smart for saving the money and I could always write more code for it! I'm so confused! I mean, am I supposed to be a free thinker and use GIMP exclusively or be a sheep and use the best tool for the job?!
Now go away and use photoshop, go on... off you go... Adobe awaits... boy!
Hey, show me an adequate alternative and I'll "open my mind'. I'd love to save a few bucks and expand my toolset.
If you come back, repeat the same BS and I will know you havn't learned a thing.
Heh. "Come back being an independent thinker like me or you'll lose!" That's convenient. It's fair to say you haven't learned anything from me, either. That much is clear from your blanket "that's hortshit!" reply. I have to say, though, that what I find most amusing about this topic is that I've talked with people like you before, and never once has anybody fished for information on what could be done better so I could not be so reliant on Photoshop. You'd think that with all this posturing about how we could all contribute to the community and how grand and glorious that'd be that they'd want to get all the info they could and get crackin. But never once did they actually even ask me what I do. Never asked me what the work was. Never asked me what it is I use about Photoshop that GIMP's failing at. When I give them real information about who's doing what (it's funny how quiet they get when I correct their misconception about Linux's role in Hollywood... hee hee) I'm suddenly a sheep. I'm not following the righteous path because I've been lost to... wel I think the impression is that Adobe has put a gun to my head or something. Perfect opportunity to demonstrate your commitment to your principals, here, and instead you go for a cheap attempt to 'win' the argument. Whatever. I really hope you don't represent a significant portion of the OSS community. The "your way is wrong!" attitude is detrimental.
You have completely missed the point.
I don't think so. Reality just isn't supporting your claims.
Every project for you is a new challenge defined by photoshop - you are a pure user that does not even want to be a part of the software cycle, if you did, you would work for adobe or wake up to gimp.
Heh. You really think I haven't evaluated GIMP? Do you really think I'd make it in this industry if I didn't make use of every tool available to me, especially free ones? Brrrtzt wrong. Give me a little credit here, I work for a living. I'm not some pimply teenager sitting in his parent's house arguing about stuff he's not involved in. I don't have a single app I work in. Not in 2d. Not in 3d. It's not a religion.
you have no option with photoshop but to trust those who write the software to improve it the way you like
Not really true, no. Granted, it's not as flexible as having the source code available, but Photoshop's scripting is robust enough. Can't say that it's been much of an issue except for automating the more tedious stuff. Photoshop is strong, mature, and very robust. The GIMP supports the right formats that I can drop in and use it if need be, but I have yet to find anything useful to me that GIMP does better than Photoshop. It really hasn't proven itself to be a replacement for things like matte painting and texture creation. I could write that, I suppose, but then what? By the time I've spent maybe 20 hours on that, I could have afforded the solution that already works and is time tested. Adobe has people focused on delivering the experience people in my industry need. GIMP is still playing catch up.
If you do have an original idea to do with imaging software, I state again that modifying gimp is your best option becasue its OSS, therefore, playing catch-up only applies to the ideas the adobe provide, The gimp will continue to attain both as supply creates demand and if hollywood changes its mind as many have already with respect to 3d rendering, then they will pay for extensions to gimp because it will be cheaper and faster.
I can actually kind of see this happening some time in the distant future. The problem right now, though, is that the solutions are already available and well understood through Adobe. The GIMP community is not running around creating new things that are making any bother. The value isn't there. If there were, instead of having Photoshop on all the workstations at the big ginormous studios, they'd have their own proprietary software. It doesn't happen. Blender stands a much greater chance of reaching that goal than GIMP. However, that community's pulling all kinds of silliness, too. You've got Maya, which was designed to be a 3D OS of sorts that all the studios can code for. Maya could be cancelled right now and it'd still be in use for years to come. Blender's got such a huge up-hill battle it's not even funny. They might actually have a shot if they were to produce the right enticements. Oh well.
If Adobe is the centre of your universe then all of this will go straight over your head anyway.
Yeah yeah. Look, I'm talking about reality here. It's fun to dream that we'll all hold hands with a rainbow glimmering over our heads and develope this grand glorious image editing application that'll suit everybody's needs all for free. I wish it'd happen. But it won't. Profit has proven to be a great motivator for innovation. It's fun to say things like "stuck in Adobe's world" but in reality the GIMP doesn't offer much Adobe doesn't. It tries really hard to be Photoshop. It's not like created some new wibbly wobbly way of image editing that's just too radical and revolutionary for people to accept. It's also not doing a terribly good job of embarrasing Photoshop by having stuff it's lacking. Even Blender's managing to do that to it's 'competition'.
I really don't need forced ideas, just like most of the world apparently doesn't need faster computers. I have a PRO standard digital camera that I can do everything I need with OSS and more - these standards were not defined by photoshop, they evolved through the needs of users.
Defined by Photoshop? Heh, okay. "Photoshop has a new feature, let's start making a movie around it!"
You have a fixed set of needs that don't change much, right? I don't. Every project is a new challenge. My needs keep changing. Adobe has been on top of that. That's why people are willing to plunk down the change on every release. GIMP's still playing catch-up, that's why it hasn't made in-roads into Hollywood even though you can go in and change it.
The OSS paradigm probably benefits smart users most, but actually it benefits users who prefer to think for themselves.
It's that sort of arrogance that's keeping it from becoming main-stream.
No problem, a little Photoshop here and there, and voilá! "Instant Evidence"!
Even a dude defending himself in court could dodge that. "Here's a picture of my not-brown-van and documentation to back that up."
Theoretically speaking, if the photograph is all they have to go on, it shouldn't lead to jail time. Of course, I understand reality is more theatrical.
Ah, okay, I getcha now. I gave up on PC gaming yonks ago, for some of the reasons you mentioned actually. I was replying to the extremeness of your post, not the details so much.
Have a good weekend, man.
I understood all this from your previous post. I just don't understand how it makes PC gaming 'stillborn'. You've picked a minority of circumstances and a sillingly high bar for the PC games to reach in order to be 'successful'.
Someday soon, someone will come in and say "I can do this job without the license fee" - and they will have the edge.
Never happen. At best, maybe the guy who pays the license fee and uses the free tool will have the edge. The fundamental problem is Open Source doesn't move forward until somebody else has handily dandily come along and given it a direction to go. Suppose Microsoft suddenly dropped Office, what would happen to OpenOffice then? Nada. A handful of people would come up with occasional interesting tools, but it wouldn't be scuplted into one big glorious innovative app. It would stagnate until some new fully funded app commercial app came along with the next whiz-bang productivity idea and four years later we'd get a barely working carbon-copy from the OSS community.
Seriousy, you're underestimating profit as a motivation to make good apps.
I'm sorry, your filesystem is corrupt Windows now runs like a snail on valium, could be a virus or maybe you just havn't re-installed for a month. Files ? I think some of them are ok...
Oooooookaaaaaaay. What I find amusing is your false sense of security. You should read back a few days, a bunch of Mac users learned a harsh lesson about that.
For photoshop, that was true for years, things are changing though and the direction is certain.
I hope you're right, but I can't see it happening any time soon. Linux has been designed from the wrong direction to effectively become a mainstream desktop OS. The other apps have been chasing the tails of other apps and not coming in on their own merits. Windows isn't a great OS, but it's definitely reached the 'good enough' state.
oh good. I think you are implying you can't be cost effective in your job with the Gimp because of its quality.
Let's not have any confusion here, that is precisely what I'm saying.
Some guy walks in, says he can do it because the software *is* sufficient in the rights hands and bang - you can no longer feel special buying things simply for the feel of the pricetag.
Pipe dream. First, the software has to be sufficient. Then Adobe has to go out of business so it won't develop the new whiz-bang tools for GIMP to copy. Then GIMP has to stay on top of it with new stuff coming out or else the next big commercial app will come along and people will move to that instead.
Won't happen. OSS in its current state is an alternative, not a replacement. It won't grow. It won't usher in a Gene Roddenberry'esque utopian state of software use. Heck, it's utterly failed to even make a dent in Office despite having something like 10 years to develop, stagnation from Microsoft, and security silliness.
Dream big, my friend.
That's an expression, not a performance. Not the same thing, not by a mile.
Linux has drawing tools...
Yeah, like Windows has network administration and web serving tools.
...why are you using Windows anyway ?
Because it is the de-facto standard and all of my clients, bosses, and so on require it. Besides that, if I switched to Linux, I'd no longer be able to do my job. (Again, that's due to de-facto market reasons, not for technical reasons. Linux would be better suited if more effort was put into the end-user experience.)
If you value your collection of images, store them on a real OS.
Several reasons:
a.) Windows is not really the charicature that Slashdot has made it out to be.
b.) A 'real OS' doesn't mean jack shit if the software I use doesn't run on it.
c.) Linux ain't so faptastic, either. I would be far better off with a Mac than a Linux box.
d.) Linux and GIMP's 'free' price tag would actually cost me a considerable amount of money. I'll concede though that I don't represent the masses because I use tools like Photoshop to make a living.
Yep, GIMP has some nice features. It's also akward to use on Windows, doesn't have as strong of drawing toolset, and isn't used by everybody in the world so it's harder to get tips for. The list goes on.
Woken up to what?
And ... why is this important? Particularly in Arnold's case?
Not that I don't appreciate the humor, but check out the Terminator in the original movie. The endoskeleton I mean. Then look at the Terminators walking over the wreckage at the beginning of Terminator 3. The original was done with puppets and stop motion, the most recent was done with mocap and keyframed animation. One had a whole lot more human motivation behind it than the other. Watch the two and you'll find one is far far more convincing than the other.
Does the body cast also "admire Hitler"?
Polly wanna cracker?
You can reference some who acts like they are upset, or you can reference someone who is actually upset. Or happy, or whatever.
Acting is far more complex than chaining together a handful of emotions listed in a kid's book.
As much as actor like to poof it out into some sort of magical mystical thing, acting is just voice and expression.
Yeah, that's why all those youtube videos and student projects have such wonderful acting. On an unrelated topic, space travel's not a magical mystical thing, it's just an air-tight tube with thrust coming out the back.
These will be created digitally eventually. Based on some RnD stuff I have seen recently, this will happen a lot sooner then people think.
No, it won't. Just like mocap didn't kill keyframed animation. Just like photographs didn't kill painting. Jsut like TV didn't kill movies. What would really be needed to pull off automated digital acting is for a computer to have talent. That breakthru is much farther away than tech demos imply.
They could easily make a completly different movie starring ';woody' and 'Buzz' Just use there models in a new setting
Yes, with the right acting talent supporting it. Go watch the maknig of videos of Pixar's movies, there's all kinds of acting involved. Heck, go find that book the Illusion of Life. Look at how Disney animated movies back in the 40's. You're going to find that behind all of that great work are people talented at acting.
Yeah, its not like there are a million other people in LA who'd sign their souls away to be on the radio... tv...movies... Not like those contracts would become standard and then comeback to haunt someone 20 years later...
You're right, those contracts wouldn't become standard. What do you think the Actor's Guild is around for?
They could digitize him, and as long as he didn't have a speaking part, they could even have an action sequence with him fighting Bale/Connor and all of that, and say "hey, it's all covered under the same contract that lets us use your likeness for Terminator toys, etc. We don't owe you anything."
That strikes me as incredibly unlikely. There's no way he'd sign a generic 'use my likeness for everything' contract. Everything's isolated on a per-movie basis, even the merchandising, down to the point that the production companies are often created just for that particular movie to make all those arragements. Let me give you an idea: Crispin Glover sued, and won, because footage of him in Back to the Future was used in Back to the Future II without his permission. Even if the contract is open ended, there's still an understanding that movies, even in a series (which Terminator Salvation barely qualifies for), are individual entities.
Soon we no longer need actors and we just need digitized versions of them.
Computers can't act. Until Dr. Soong comes along and perfects a 'positronic' brain, this still statement cannot be true. Even animators need reference.
It was stillborn.
Wrong.
If you have three gamers in the house and one who visits, the hardware costs $2,400 (four PCs with monitor at $600 each)
Are you serious? Do you have four DVD players and big screen TVs in your home?
and the games cost $160 each (four copies at $40 each because few games support Starcraft-style spawn installations)
If you were putting forward such a ridiculous requirement for PC gaming, this little snippet right here would have the makings of a decent point.
I think the lack of PC titles that support the console-style model of a big screen and USB gamepads comes from the fact that since the late 1980s, most monitors with a VGA input have been sized for one person.
Network/internet gaming.
HDTVs can display PC signals, but those haven't been affordable for long enough to replace the CRT SDTV. And VGA to SDTV converters aren't sold in retail stores.
Boy, that's true. 10 million people are out there playing World of Warcraft on HDTVs....
Let me know when Nintendo resolves the conjectured legal issues holding up release of Mother and Earthbound on the North American Wii Shop Channel, and we'll talk.
I don't follow. Other than Nintendo annoying you, what does this have to do with what I said?