digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Liquid rescale feature now available as a GIMP plugin

linuxhelp.blogspot.com — This article reports that a liquid rescale plugin which uses the content aware image rescaling technology has been released for the very popular Free graphics suite GIMP.

Submitted:
225 days ago, made popular 224 days ago
Submitter:
glow649 glow649
Share:
Bury It:
Bury
Hide Profanity Collapse Tree Global Settings
  • +22 diggsBuryDigg
    z0mbie2099  by z0mbie2099 on 09/30/2007
    Nice, in time Gimp will surpass Adobe Photoshop.
  • +10 diggsBuryDigg
    sodoh  by sodoh on 09/30/2007
    I 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.
    • +17 diggsBuryDigg
      Blazeix  by Blazeix on 09/30/2007
      I 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.
      • +6 diggsBuryDigg
        jbus  by jbus on 09/30/2007
        Agreed... 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.
      • +5 diggsBuryDigg
        Ademan  by Ademan on 09/30/2007
        Yeah this is really cool, I wish you could resize it in real time like in the siggraph video, but this is still insanely cool.
      • +2 diggsBuryDigg
        Buu700  by Buu700 on 09/30/2007
        Worked 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...)
        • +2 diggsBuryDigg
          dbr_onix  by dbr_onix on 10/01/2007
          That 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..
    • +3 diggsBuryDigg
      cdmarcus  by cdmarcus on 09/30/2007
      It's good, if you use the feature preservation option. Just like the demonstrated one.
    • +4 diggsBuryDigg
      Jedeye459  by Jedeye459 on 10/01/2007
      Without full CMYK support gimp is not an alternative for the print industry. So I would say no, it is not "pretty much on par"
      • +2 diggsBuryDigg
        Phlosten  by Phlosten on 10/01/2007
        While 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.
        • 0 diggsBuryDigg
          sodoh  by sodoh on 10/01/2007
          Yea my point exactly. There are a number of plugins that offer CYMK support as well.
    • -1 diggsBuryDigg
      mikemx  by mikemx on 10/01/2007
      ROFL you are a complete assclown if you think its on par. Hilarious, absolutely delusional. Go download a copy of the cs3 trial. It is superior in every-single-aspect. LOL
      • +1 diggsBuryDigg
        laserdog  by laserdog on 10/02/2007
        People use software in different ways.

        For people who just need basic image manipulation features, free GIMP vs hundreds on photoshop is a no-brainer.

        Calling someone else an assclown because they use software differently from you, however, I find to be hilariously delusional.
  • +4 diggsBuryDigg
    jbus  by jbus on 09/30/2007
    Awesome, I've been waiting for this. ☺
  • +13 diggsBuryDigg
    Anonymous3  by Anonymous3 on 09/30/2007
    Unfortunately 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
    • +9 diggsBuryDigg
      specialK16  by specialK16 on 09/30/2007
      For those like me that didn't have a clue of what this was, just check the video.
    • -3 diggsBuryDigg
      listrophy  by listrophy on 09/30/2007
      So, you're saying:
      IIS > Apache?
      Windows > Linux?
      IE > Firefox?
      • -2 diggsBuryDigg
        Syntaxis  by Syntaxis on 09/30/2007
        If you use .NET, IIS > Apache. (No, Mono is not up to par yet)
        If you want to play games, Windows > Linux.
        If you want to .. um .. ok, IE just sucks. Firefox > all (except maybe Opera, if only it had Ad Blocker Plus...)

        But you get the point, I hope. Different means to an end. The Gimp > Photoshop is just another perspective, for those running Linux I doubt Photoshop will be a default choice....
        • +5 diggsBuryDigg
          listrophy  by listrophy on 09/30/2007
          I 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.
          • +1 diggsBuryDigg
            Syntaxis  by Syntaxis on 10/01/2007
            If 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.
    • +1 diggsBuryDigg
      richIsBored  by richIsBored on 09/30/2007
      Attention. That was awesome.

      That is all.
  • +4 diggsBuryDigg
    Renton  by Renton on 09/30/2007
    This 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.
  • +2 diggsBuryDigg
    eplawless  by eplawless on 09/30/2007
    Good 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.
  • +11 diggsBuryDigg
    ArthurSucks  by ArthurSucks on 09/30/2007
    I'm glad to see technology like this for FOSS community.
  • +9 diggsBuryDigg
    masterc  by masterc on 09/30/2007
    Finally, a reason to install Gimp!
    • +3 diggsBuryDigg
      SteelyDuran  by SteelyDuran on 09/30/2007
      For 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.
  • +10 diggsBuryDigg
    disappointed  by disappointed on 09/30/2007
    Firefox needs this.
    • +4 diggsBuryDigg
      linkinpark342  by linkinpark342 on 09/30/2007
      i 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...
    • +3 diggsBuryDigg
      BrainRecall  by BrainRecall on 09/30/2007
      There 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.
    • +1 diggsBuryDigg
      dbr_onix  by dbr_onix on 10/01/2007
      WIth 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..
  • +19 diggsBuryDigg
    tweeto  by tweeto on 09/30/2007
  • +5 diggsBuryDigg
    LittleDas  by LittleDas on 09/30/2007
    Oh 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.
    • +5 diggsBuryDigg
      Breepee  by Breepee on 09/30/2007
      Use Inkscape for vector. I find it works very well.
  • [below viewing threshold, show comment]  -14 diggs
    pukufek  by pukufek on 09/30/2007
    Is there a solution for people who dont want to spend the next 60 minutes figuring out how to get GIMP installed and working with this plug-in?

    Im thinking maybe a standalone demo or a Photoshop version.

    No offence but GIMP sucks balls
  • [below viewing threshold, show comment]  -7 diggs
    krusher  by krusher on 09/30/2007
    Magic words ain't "liquid rescale", they're "better interface".
  • +1 diggsBuryDigg
    iXam  by iXam on 09/30/2007
    My own implementation of "seam scaling".
    http://netrogenic.com/dev/content_aware_scaling/
    • +6 diggsBuryDigg
      Fritzed  by Fritzed on 09/30/2007
      Looks good, but there is no code, download, or information about your implementation.
  • -1 diggsBuryDigg
    GodIsntReal  by GodIsntReal on 09/30/2007
    Anything like this for Photoshop?
    • +2 diggsBuryDigg
      codecomposer  by codecomposer on 10/01/2007
      The 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.
  • +9 diggsBuryDigg
    GavinZac  by GavinZac on 09/30/2007
    you 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.
    • +1 diggsBuryDigg
      Malachai  by Malachai on 10/01/2007
      I never thought of it that way...well that explains the Apple fanboys...
    • +3 diggsBuryDigg
      zeejay  by zeejay on 10/01/2007
      For 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.
      • 0 diggsBuryDigg
        mikemx  by mikemx on 10/01/2007
        lol "making graphics for myspace pages"
        Sums up gimp in one concise line, love it.
  • -1 diggsBuryDigg
    Zipper114  by Zipper114 on 09/30/2007
    The windows plugin zip seems to be corrupt. I'm looking here http://liquidrescale.wikidot.com/local--files/en:d ...
    Does anyone have a link to a working windows version?
  • +1 diggsBuryDigg
    Robotsu  by Robotsu on 09/30/2007
    Neato. Now just fix the cracked out interface and workflow design.
  • +4 diggsBuryDigg
    BrainRecall  by BrainRecall on 09/30/2007
    I'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.
  • +1 diggsBuryDigg
    firstpost  by firstpost on 09/30/2007
    Anyone knows how I can get it running on Gimp.app?
  • +1 diggsBuryDigg
    gmprunner  by gmprunner on 09/30/2007
    Any word on a Mac version?
  • +3 diggsBuryDigg
    tomis  by tomis on 09/30/2007
    Sweet. Now we just need a CoreImage version bundled into the OS, this could be used in so many places.
  • 0 diggsBuryDigg
    tyrione  by tyrione on 10/01/2007
    Fix the source for 2.4 Final or it's rather pointless to regress back to 2.2.x just to use it.
  • +4 diggsBuryDigg
    computergee  by computergee on 10/01/2007
    I 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.
    • +1 diggsBuryDigg
      Terr01  by Terr01 on 11/02/2007
      Uhm... It looks like a plain stretching resize to me.
  • +1 diggsBuryDigg
    Cipher054  by Cipher054 on 10/01/2007
    waiting for implementation on krita.
  • +13 diggsBuryDigg
    BlackOp  by BlackOp on 10/01/2007
    haha this is awesome http://i22.tinypic.com/14agd45.jpg
  • 0 diggsBuryDigg
    svetlyak40wt  by svetlyak40wt on 10/01/2007
    Hey! I have the Debian version of this plugin in my multimedia repository. Please, visit http://svetlyak.ru/blog/moj-debian-repozitorij/
    or just add "deb http://svetlyak.ru/debian etch main contrib non-free" in your /etc/apt/sources.list
    then do "apt-get update && apt-get install gimp-lqr-plugin"
  • +1 diggsBuryDigg
    Myztry  by Myztry on 10/01/2007
    Great stuff for situations such as where generic stock photo is used to 'enhance' an article. It wouldn't devalue an already meaningless image.
    Beware the marketeers though. You can be dang sure that in a single photo of competing products, only the highest bidder would get their image portion 'protected'.
  • +1 diggsBuryDigg
    Skiessi  by Skiessi on 10/01/2007
    Remember to enable the "Update energy in every step" -setting, otherwise it doesn't look so good.
  • +1 diggsBuryDigg
    Thujone  by Thujone on 10/01/2007
    Both version fail to work with portable GIMP for windows.
  • +1 diggsBuryDigg
    Vtorch  by Vtorch on 10/02/2007
    Note to glow649...GIMP is not popular.
  • 0 diggsBuryDigg
    BastionPl  by BastionPl on 10/02/2007
    here is nice image examples :) Best is harry potter :) in little version
    http://www.jarzebski.pl/read/gimp-liquid-rescale.s ...
  • +1 diggsBuryDigg
    pavs  by pavs on 10/03/2007
    Duh!! 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- ...
    • +1 diggsBuryDigg
      Myztry  by Myztry on 10/03/2007
      And got 11 diggs as opposed to 679. LOL.
      Ever get the feeling you're being ignored.
  • +1 diggsBuryDigg
    GavinZac  by GavinZac on 10/06/2007
    why 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.

© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.