On 29-Nov-2002, David Neary wrote:
> Hi all,
> David Hodson wrote:
> > My feeling is that Filmgimp should be a tool specifically (or
> > at least, primarily) for the film industry. It is very likely
> > to develop along lines that are (at best) not useful to, or
> > (quite possibly) totally unwanted by, the more general Gimp
> > community. Remember, a tool that can do everything is seldom
> > the perfect tool for one specific job. I don't think merging
> > Gimp and Filmgimp will necessarily make either set of users
> > happy.
> A smallish delta between gimp 2 and film gimp will probably be
> inevitable. And given that several filmgimp people seem to be the
> primary developers on gegl at the moment, I'm sure that there's
> some idea how big that delta will be right now. 
> But we're not talking about one tool for lots of different jobs, 
> here, so much as narrowing a rift that's developped while film 
> gimp was basically only developped in-house by one company over 
> the last 3 years. Things like getting the front-end looking
> similar, doing similar separation of core & gui typ[e work to
> that being done in HEAD right now (mostly by Mitch), and making
> sure that major structural and design changes at least get
> discussed wrt the two programs.
> Does anyone know how big the functionality delta is between the
> GIMP 1.2 and the film gimp? Are there plans to get filmgimp onto
> gtk+ 2.0? Is there the possibility of bringing useful
> functionality back into the main gimp branch from the HOLLYWOOD
> branch?
> > Of course, it would be great to build both tools on a single
> > code base. But that's a bigger job than just merging the code,
> > requires a wider range of skills, and (like everything else)
> > is only going to happen if someone wants it badly enough to
> > either do it, or pay someone else to do it.
> Of course it's a big job. The point, I think, is that it'll be an
> even bigger job by the time filmgimp is roughly up to the gimp
> 1.2 level, and gimp 1.4 is out on the shelves getting heavily
> debugged :) Of course, by that stage the emphasis will be on
> gegl, pupus and all the other cool stuff that's planned for 2.0.
> In brief, though - what does the film gimp have that the main
> gimp doesn't have, apart from some extra cool and expensive
> plug-ins and 16 bits per channel?

To cut this all short, how long will it be until I can  do higher precision
rendering in any gimp whatsoever? FG's xcf plugin is broke, gegl isnt done
yet.... <insert stock rant here>

Btw, why hasnt Gimp gone to linuxfund and get some funding? With $1k you
probably could hire someone to push a single precision float rendering pipeline
ahead of schedual. Or atleast put a huge dent in it.

Patrick "Diablo-D3" McFarland || [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd 
all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to
repetitive electronic music." --Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989

Attachment: msg03136/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to