This is fair play.

It is a known fact that the map tools in the GIMP have no optimization 
for previewing, and they should have.

The way out of this would do some hackish direct drawing to perform 
the preview on a scaled down/chopped version of the layer - which I 
suggested about 2 years ago, or, implement everything clean, with a 
model of "operate on view-version of  drawables and then operate in 
background on real drawables" using GEGL.

The GIMP either starts making use of GEGL - for which we are 
ultimately lacking developer resources, or lag behind other apps in 
this area.

The fact is it would be really nice to have someone to work full time 
in these issues. Last year, we decided not to hasle about a  Gimp 
Foundation and work close to Gnome Foundation instead. What are the 
odds of  Gnome Foundation be able to afford someone to work full time 
on the GIMP? Or maybe Mark Shuttleworth? Or some other Linux Distro? 

In time, I am in no way  complaining of what Jay, Sven, Mitch, Bill 
and others are doing...sometimes I am just amazed with the changes 
that go overnight on CVS. It is just that there seens to be more work 
than can be done in the spare time of anyone. Even Sven's excellent 
plan to categorize gradients, paletts, fonts and brushes seens to be 
in limbo.



On Friday 25 February 2005 23:10, Carol Spears wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 10:54:42AM +0100, Michele Petrazzo wrote:
> > Carol Spears wrote:
> > >On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 10:30:12AM +0100, Michele Petrazzo wrote:
> > >>I try to install photoshop on win and it work very well with
> > >> these images and bigger images.
> > >
> > >how about some numbers showing that windows/photoshop work
> > > better?
> >
> > On the same machine with photoshop, a preview of a "curves" tool
> > spend only 4-5 seconds, but when press the OK button, it spend
> > about the same time of gimp.
> > I think that photoshop don't create a real preview, like gimp,
> > but for a user that make a lot of changes (and preview) whit a
> > single tool, for view if the changes are right, the photoshop
> > solution is better. Try to think is a user want to make 5-6 tries
> > to find that seem better, he must wait 50-80 seconds every time
> > (50*5 = 250), while with photoshop only 4-5 seconds! (5*5 = 25)
> well, then play fair.
> turn the previews off and see how fast gimp seems.
> carol
> _______________________________________________
> Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user mailing list

Reply via email to