What is Digg?82 Comments
- z0mbie2099, on 10/10/2007, -16/+38Nice, in time Gimp will surpass Adobe Photoshop.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -8/+29Thanks for the intelligent rebuttal, Adobe fanboy.
- Ademan, on 10/10/2007, -4/+24I wish... But i sincerely doubt it's going to happen, but it's been "good enough for me" for a looonnnggg time.
- tweeto, on 10/10/2007, -0/+19Here are my test results,
Before: http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1464838016 ...
After (width): http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1464839806 ...
After (height): http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1463983863 ... - specialK16, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19Hey fanboy, why is that so hard to do? We all know Open Source development goes lighting fast for some projects, in a couple of years and if Adobe keeps doing the exact same thing, will have a nice OS Photoshop alternative.
- Blazeix, on 10/10/2007, -0/+17I tested it and I was really impressed! I took a wallpaper from deviantart that wasn't widescreen, and used this liquid resize plugin to make it widescreen. If you compare the results of this resize algorithm with the normal resize algorithms, I think you will see quite a difference!
Anonymous3 ( a few posts below ) links to a good video demo of what this plugin does. - Anonymous3, on 10/10/2007, -7/+20Unfortunately for GIMP, many people are paid to improve Photoshop and its related tools, whereas GIMP has an overwhelming majority of spare-timers. Its not like it could ever be a replacement, but it is more suited as an alternative.
Seeing as image manipulation is just a series of known maths ops, the differences come down to aesthetics, stability, performance, and improved productivity/workflow -> a new design is being worked on I believe, so that it doesn't look all 1998. It would be nice if it could work closely with other GNU design tools (import from dedicated prog X, export to dedicated prog Y, etc). With stability and speed, working with large/complex files that say Photoshop can generate is slow and buggy, and having a godly long edit history when working on a file is a precursor to a lockup, etc.
Anyway, a demonstration of what the heck is going on when you perform a "liquid rescale": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIFCV2spKtg - BlackOp, on 11/12/2007, -0/+13haha this is awesome http://i22.tinypic.com/14agd45.jpg
- ArthurSucks, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11I'm glad to see technology like this for FOSS community.
- Breepee, on 10/10/2007, -5/+16I'm a OS fanboy, but development around the Gimp has been very very slow the past few years. There is no direction in the project and the interesting plugins are never included and then there's the gui, which just requires an newbie-proof overhaul, preferably a customizable gui so that old-time gimp-users can have their many-windows.
- sodoh, on 10/10/2007, -17/+27I tested it and it doesn't work that great.
As for photoshop vs Gimp. Gimp is pretty much on par with Photoshop these days. The learning curve of using the UI is the blocking point. Once you know how to do the same thing in Gimp that you can do in photoshop then I actually prefer the Gimp. - disappointed, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Firefox needs this.
- specialK16, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9For those like me that didn't have a clue of what this was, just check the video.
- GavinZac, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10you can usually judge how fiercely fanboy-ish people are going to get about a product by how much they pay for it - e.g. Photoshop, PS3. When someone comes along and says you can do 99% of the same things cheaper and easier without the 'oh some important' frills, on something else (GIMP, Wii), boy do they get annoyed.
- masterc, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Finally, a reason to install Gimp!
- djGentoo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Agreed. The 2.4-rc series isn't too bad, especially if they do that UI overhaul they've been talking about since 2.3.19...
- Fritzed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Looks good, but there is no code, download, or information about your implementation.
- jbus, on 10/20/2007, -0/+6Agreed... I'm testing it out right now and the results I've seen are amazing... It looks like you can also use other layers to preserve features that you don't want touched by the algorithm. I'm saying that based on the UI options, but haven't read the documentation yet so I could be wrong.
- listrophy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I just have issues with Anonymous3's argument methodology. In particular, I was speaking to the point made that "...many people are paid to improve Photoshop and its related tools, whereas GIMP has an overwhelming majority of spare-timers." Every example that I've cited involved an OSS app versus a commercial app in order to counteract his logic. The second major issue I have with Anonymous3 is that he/she is getting diggs, not for the specious argument, but for the YouTube link, thereby inflating his/her apparent support.
And finally, to Syntaxis: I propose a counterargument to you. By your logic, you (more or less) make the statement that SUVs are the best cars because,
If you drive offroad, SUVs > compacts.
Whereas what you said is true, it does not enforce SUVs as the best cars. I don't (anymore) use .NET with IIS (that was a disaster). If I want to play games, I fire up the Wii or PS3.
And finally, all this argumentation aside... Photoshop is, in my opinion, a better program in terms of usability and workflow. But if you want to make that case, use the proper reasoning. There is no need to make gross generalizations that actually weaken your case via counterexample. - Ademan, on 10/20/2007, -0/+5Yeah this is really cool, I wish you could resize it in real time like in the siggraph video, but this is still insanely cool.
- Breepee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Use Inkscape for vector. I find it works very well.
- LittleDas, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Oh man this is so cool.
Having grown up using GIMP (being too poor to buy it and unwilling to pirate it) the interface doesn't bother me, the only thing I really want is better vector support. - jbus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Awesome, I've been waiting for this. ☺
- linkinpark342, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4i was just thinking I cannot wait until this becomes more popular and embedded in browsers. Though I'm using the gimp one now and its most definately not moving as smoothly as the video shows...
- Renton, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4This is great. I saw the video of this a while ago, and it's nice that it's finally being implemented. Hopefully soon we'll have browser support.
- computergee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I think it did a pretty great job, although it took forever to resize a big, full resolution picture. Here is one I did to show off it's power:
Original:
http://i23.tinypic.com/2j63d6g.jpg
Resized (Horzontally)
http://i24.tinypic.com/dg0a2u.jpg
Amazing results IMO, even if it did take quite a long time. And to those who must put down GIMP's UI at every turn, please, keep it to yourself. We've heard it from you before, countless times, we get it. The UI may seem a bit alien to you, but that doesn't mean it's bad. I used Photoshop for years before converting to linux, but after getting used to GIMP, I don't think I could, or would ever go back. - Jedeye459, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Without full CMYK support gimp is not an alternative for the print industry. So I would say no, it is not "pretty much on par"
- BrainRecall, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I've been playing around with my own implementation. Not quite as fast as Liquid Resize, but can produce better images. Released under the GPL, currently lacks an actual GUI to it (I'm getting the back-end finalized before such things). http://brain.recall.googlepages.com/cair
I'm trying to get a Sourceforge project page for it, and I got a few people toying around with a GUI for it. - zeejay, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4For those of us using products in the real working world, it's got absolutely nothing to do with cost. It's actually the other way around - it's about what *makes* you money.
I'm not an Adobe fanboy; I'm as critical of them as anyone. But yeah, I really do love the tools they make because they work, they're usually incredibly stable at release, and the whole environment, as a whole, is amazingly efficient and solid. If you chalk that loyalty and dedication to Adobe's tools to blind fanboyism, you're an idiot. Try living in the trenches for a while, with real deadlines, real commercial projects, and real money on the line - not making graphics for your friends' MySpace pages. Until you do, you have no idea what you're talking about. - jejones, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I have a hard time believing anyone with any computer experience, or who isn't, say, a native speaker of Arabic plopped down in front of a computer set up to display messages in Basque, would need sixty minutes to figure out how to use any of the GUI-based application installers available on most versions of Linux to install GIMP, or how to perform what I counted as two clicks and one entry of my password that it took on Ubuntu to install the plugin. I repsectfully submit that you might want to try those two tasks and see how long it takes you.
- BrainRecall, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3There is a lot of discussion about doing this. But, the most likely implementation will not have the user calculating the removal. Rather, it will probably be a PNG image that will store all of the resize information (such as which seems to add/remove for which sizes) that can be store in a sub-channel of the image. This could greatly increase the size of the image, depending on how much you pre-calculate into the image. This is probably what the demonstration video was doing, or something close to that, to pre-calculate the images at different resolutions. I've been looking at this algorithm quite a bit ( http://brain.recall.googlepages.com/cair ), and not mater which way you take it is going to be costly. Hell, my code doesn't even implement some of the fancy features of the doctors' algorithm, such as a transport map to determine the vertical/horizontal seam removal (since that would literally double the number of computations), and a 1024x768 down to a 800x600 can take over a minute on my dual-core. Even if you throw more power at the problem, someone will want it done on there multi-megapixel image.
- SteelyDuran, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3For this feature, and for "foreground selection," which is amazing. Think of it as content-aware selection, where as liquid rescale is content-aware scaling. I only wonder how much longer until every function (in raster editing programs anyway) becomes, to some degree, content-aware.
- cdmarcus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It's good, if you use the feature preservation option. Just like the demonstrated one.
- tomis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Sweet. Now we just need a CoreImage version bundled into the OS, this could be used in so many places.
- cfuse, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3If by 'surpass' you mean be more popular, then no, it won't.
- dbr_onix, on 10/20/2007, -0/+2That would be extremely difficult to create - Why? The way the plugin works is to remove areas of low "importance" from the image (low areas of contrast). With a video, those areas would constantly move.
So, say you resized a video of some one nodding - In each frame, different parts of the image would disappear, and it would look screwed up.
Even using complicated stuff like optical-flow to workout which pixels goes where (An extremely slow process), then trying to remove areas of the video without it warping/distorting/looking screwed up, is not an easy task at all.. Even grain and noise makes it more difficult..
It might work for fairly static shots, but I can't really think of a time it would be useful to convert mostly-static videos to a different aspect. The only thing I can think of is presentations - where cropping would be far quicker and more effective.. - eplawless, on 10/10/2007, -7/+9Good on you, GIMP developers. Once you fix the UI and add in the rest of the important functionality present in Photoshop I'll consider switching for good.
- BlackOp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2http://liquidrescale.wikidot.com/local--files/en:d ... worked for me
- Phlosten, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2While I love Gimp I fully agree with you on this one. Lucky for me I dont do any print work and for web based graphics its all good. CYMK support is coming. Wait until GEGL starts maturing and then the combination of it and Gimp will be awesome.
- codecomposer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The guy who created this technique (or at least made the youtube video about it) got hired by adobe a couple days after he published it.
- inactive, on 08/26/2008, -0/+2Worked incredibly on a Leopard screenshot (4:3 to 16:10). If only they could make a version for videos... (yes, I know it would take beast long to rescale, but still...)
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Duh!! I posted it more than 10 days ago!
http://digg.com/linux_unix/Seam_Carving_with_Gimp_ ...
http://www.linuxhaxor.net/2007/09/19/seam-carving- ... - Syntaxis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If the SUV is Windows (bloated, but plays mainstream games) and the compact is Linux (fast, cheap but plays no games) then your analogy is correct: if you want to go offroad (play games) you need Windows.
That said. If you don't care for offroad (games) then the SUV is just a waste of money. - CrushThemTorg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I am so glad someone else on this crazy, crazy earth despises Audacity with as much ferocity as I do.
- DaffyDuck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I see I've been dugg down by 25 gimp using optimists.
- posure, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I use Gimp on a regular basis, but that is mainly just because I don't think I could get a Photoshop license approved being that I'm a software engineer. Agreed with Ademan that it tends to be "good enough" most of the time though.
- dbr_onix, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1WIth resizing, you are seeing the original content, just smaller. WIth this system, you are seeing a different image (the content has been modified). Won't people (say, photographers) have a problem with this? Or even just people who end up saying "Eh? Why does that picture look different to the one I saw?"
Resizing is very easy concept to understand, to the point you don't need to understand it at all. With this "liquid-resizing" stuff, you need to understand it's altering the content, and the image is actually different to the "real" one..
An optional plugin maybe, but I don't think it's really suitable for widespread use.. Besides, Firefox needs to stop using so much memory/CPU/etc before it starts adding more resource-intensive processes like this.. - Terr01, on 11/02/2007, -0/+1Uhm... It looks like a plain stretching resize to me.
- GavinZac, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1why do people keep saying that this will be included in browsers? Its not going to be. It will be used by designers to fit in images that they'd like to use, in a nicer orientation. Can you imagine Firefox trying to guess the optimal size for every image on every page? Or would we need a new version of XHTML which would include a tag? If we did, you can guarantee I would -never- use it, because it would be simply easier for me to use it once and host the result than forcing a browser to use it every time it hits a page.
- Myztry, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And got 11 diggs as opposed to 679. LOL.
Ever get the feeling you're being ignored. -
Show 51 - 81 of 81 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
