Re: [Gimp-developer] CinePaint Roadmap
Hi all, I just wanted to correct an inaccuracy in what I'd written before... David Neary wrote: And yes, she is misinformed - the 1.2 branch was merged into the HOLLYWOOD branch when it stabilised. I was mixing up the upgrade to gtk+ 1.2 (which was done by yosh in 2001) and a merge of the 1.2 branch back to HOLLYWOOD. I could find no evidence that this ever happened. So the HOLLYWOOD branch which was taken over by Robin a couple of years ago was based on 1.0.4, and migrated to GTK+ 1.2. I guess yosh and calvin would know better than anyone else whether any code from the 1.2 branch was merged into HOLLYWOOD after their initial work in 1998. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] CinePaint Roadmap
On 18 Feb 2004, at 23:04, David Neary wrote: > Robin Rowe wrote: > > The software we seek to surpass is Photoshop. > > As I have said, that is also our target. With all due respect, I > believe we are moving closer to that target, faster, than > Cinepaint. Since GIMP and CinePaint aim at completely different markets, I am not sure you can make such a comparison easily. Clearly, Photoshop is trying to envelop all kinds of niche markets that it has been very weak in traditionally, such as web graphics creation and film editing, so it automatically becomes a competitor of GIMP and CinePaints in these areas, where our applications excel. But even then, that does not make CinePaint and GIMP each other's competitors, as they're only competing with PS in certain fields. -- branko collin [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] CinePaint Roadmap
David Neary ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > In my mind, the priority for the GIMP now is to play catch-up to > Photoshop. [...] > Robin Rowe wrote: > > The software we seek to surpass is Photoshop. > > As I have said, that is also our target. I beg to differ. My personal goal is to have as much fun as possible while developing useful software. I don't want to play catch-up with a company that easily has the resources to dump a lot of new functionality in Photoshop by snapping with the fingers and buying/integrating some other piece of software. Doesn't sound like much fun. I don't want to "have to" implement a feature I don't like, just because we want to do a copy of PS. I want to develop my own ideas independantly. Thanks for listening :-) Simon -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.home.unix-ag.org/simon/ ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] CinePaint Roadmap
Hi Robin, Robin Rowe wrote: > Should I feel flattered that GIMP can't stop talking about me and CinePaint, > even when it is to spread the misconception that CinePaint is GIMP 1.0? Please don't jump to any conclusions here which might deepen any ill-feeling that has developer between the programs. There was a mail about guadec. You were a keynote speaker at guadec last year. The person who replied to that mail did so in a personal capacity. And yes, she is misinformed - the 1.2 branch was merged into the HOLLYWOOD branch when it stabilised. > GIMP people have demonstrated a persistent interest in expressing their > opinion about CinePaint and giving me unsought advice since I became the > CinePaint project leader in 2002. If I were being objective, I would say that there was inappropriate behaviour on both sides. Certainly, making a point of disparaging either project, or saying things which could be construed as confrontational, does not help. Good luck on accomplishing the issues on your roadmap - we share many objectives (colour management, "deep paint", colourspaces) although it appears that architecturally we're diverging. I am wondering how you plan to achieve those goals, but I'm sure we'll get the chance to talk about that again. And then... > He did not accomplish > his employer's mandate to build and release deep paint as a feature in > mainline GIMP. Regardless of the basis in fact of this statement (it is arguable that it is untrue, since filmGIMP was successfully merged with what was then the latest stable version of the GIMP), its intent is obviously to annoy some people. > Sven Neumann has said on this list that > he is offended because we have never sought his advice in how to implement > CinePaint. I think that's probably a misrepresentation. I do recall Sven saying that he felt that the development effort being spent on Cinepaint would be better spent working towards those same goals with the GIMP. That's hardly the same thing, though. > To put it bluntly, you haven't said what you guys are doing for long term > vision. Besides 16-bit deep paint, is there anything you have planned that > could match CinePaint? > > Does GIMP have a long term roadmap? Personally I think that experience has shown us that a short-term roadmap and a medium-term roadmap is about as far ahead as is valuable. In my mind, the priority for the GIMP now is to play catch-up to Photoshop. I don't see us as a competitor of Maya, or Shake. Some day, perhaps. But I think we will have deep paint in 18 months, and I can justofy that estimate. I think we will have a compositing UI and a new rendering motor in 2 years. I think that we will have more colourspaces around then too. Our goals are perhaps not as ambitious as yours, but I think they are attainable in the near future. > GIMP advocates suggest that CinePaint is fundamentally > flawed... > GIMP advocates suggest that GIMP developers should resent > duplication of effort... > GIMP advocates suggest that CinePaint is a temporary stopgap... Who are these GIMP advocates? I don't think it's helpful to generalise like this Robin. For my part, I disagree with some of the design decisions you have made (moving towards a GTK+ 1.4, for example), but I recognise that it's your right to make those decisions. I don't think the project is fundamentally flawed, and I do think that Cinepaint will find it hard to make a place for itself in the Linux raster editor "market" once the GIMP is using gegl. > ...expected to occur at some unspecified date. As we agreed at GIMPCon last Summer, we are working towards an integration of gegl this Summer. The discussions on how that integration should happen have already started (see threads on gegl-developer recently). And we even have a testbed compositing application for gegl in the works (thanks to Oyvind Kolas) called Bauxite, which is looking quite nifty at the moment. > The software we seek to surpass is Photoshop. As I have said, that is also our target. With all due respect, I believe we are moving closer to that target, faster, than Cinepaint. > GIMP advocates say they hope that CinePaint will cease to exist. > GIMP advocates who have never had any relationship to me are telling me that > I owe them labor and should do as they say. I really hope that you will understand that this kind of mail from either you or from a GIMP developer is not helpful. As Alan Horkan so wisely asked, "can't we all just get along?" (what is it about the Irishmen anyway?). I think that it is clear to everyone involved that Cinepaiont/GIMP is not a simple fork, that it is a new team taking over an abandoned developmnet branch. And as such, there will never be a merge of the projects. I believe that at some stage in the future we will share some things - perhaps a file format, or a plug-in API, or in some way allow people outside both our projects to use the best bits out of each core. In the meantime, there is really no point i
[Gimp-developer] CinePaint Roadmap
> it is going to be a tough act to follow robin rowe and cinepaint. > > gimp-1.0 rox! Should I feel flattered that GIMP can't stop talking about me and CinePaint, even when it is to spread the misconception that CinePaint is GIMP 1.0? GIMP people have demonstrated a persistent interest in expressing their opinion about CinePaint and giving me unsought advice since I became the CinePaint project leader in 2002. For the benefit of those who seem confused about the difference between our projects, I would like to share CinePaint's long range roadmap and explain why GIMP isn't part of it. In addition, I will address some common misconceptions GIMP folks have repeatedly stated about CinePaint. CINEPAINT ROADMAP - Deep paint including support for exotic bit depth formats. We've supported 16-bit integer and 32-bit floating point for a long time. Recently, we implemented 16-bit binary fixed point, another bit depth format widely used in the motion picture industry. One reason deep paint matters in pro work is film has greater dynamic range than monitors. Deep paint images clipped to 8-bit will look fine on monitors (which can only display to 8-bit) but can show visible defects when output to film. - High dynamic range (HDR). We can read and write OpenEXR, an open source HDR format provided by ILM. We're adding paint features to better support HDR capabilities. HDR is to images what headroom is to audio. Without HDR an image clips white at 1.0. Colors in flames and other highlights can be lost, turn gray if the image is later adjusted back down again to be darker. HDR paint can repeatedly adjust image intensity without color loss. - Roto and vector 2D paint. CinePaint (and GIMP) are raster paint programs. CinePaint can be used for rotoscoping, but the lack of vector 2D paint support (especially splines) hampers that. Good vector 2D support is also needed for our new slideshow feature, described below. - 3D paint. CinePaint is used as a texture paint tool to support work with 3D packages such as Maya. We seek to have closer integration, be able to preview or even paint 3D in CinePaint using OpenInventor. - Colorspaces. CinePaint (and GIMP) only have RGB support now. We've begun work to implement CIELAB and CMYK. We want to add XYZ, sRGB, and scRGB. - Color management. We want output on film that matches what users see on monitors, to support precision and artistic control in how colors are displayed. We have recently implemented color management for 8-bit depth, but found the screen performance too slow. We have begun to overhaul our GIMP-based paint core to make CinePaint fast enough to handle CMS responsively. - World-class GUI. Our goal is to offer a user interface superior to Photoshop. - Slideshow feature. We want to offer an alternative to PowerPoint. We have a new slideshow feature built into the movie flipbook in CinePaint. - Compositing and effects. We want to offer an alternative to Apple Shake and Adobe AfterEffects. - Video editing. We want to add a flatbed film-style video editor including sound and support for transcoding to popular video codecs such as MPEG, DV, QuickTime, AVI, and MJPEG. We want to offer an alternative to Adobe Premiere, Apple FinalCut Pro, and Avid Composer. - High performance. We're developing a command-line tool with no GUI, something like ImageMagick 'convert' but to use CinePaint plug-ins. Our 'img_img' tool is intended initially for fast image file format conversions on renderfarms and came out of a major studio. For performance, img_img uses a scanline-based architecture. It's plug-in architecture is a totally new API I developed, and unlike the CinePaint and GIMP tile-based APIs. In keeping with our strategy of maximizing our compatibility across applications (e.g., GIMP, Photoshop, AfterEffects) we will enable img_img plug-ins (such as our new img_img JPEG2000 plug-in) to work in CinePaint, and tile-based legacy CinePaint plug-ins to work in img_img. CinePaint seems likely to evolve into a scanline architecture more like Shake. In 1998 the film industry decided to help GIMP by sponsoring development of deep paint. To enable GIMP developers to understand motion picture technology they were brought into the industry, given first-hand experience working at desks at film companies. GIMP maintainer Yosh Singh started as an intern at Silicon Grail and later became an employee. He did not accomplish his employer's mandate to build and release deep paint as a feature in mainline GIMP. After a year or so gaining experience in motion picture technology Yosh left Silicon Grail to go to LinuxCare. What he's done since I don't know. I once asked the current GIMP developers what qualifications they have to develop high end graphics software. The answer given was to point me to GIMP as their signature accomplishment. Sven Neumann has said on this list that he is offended because we have never sought his advice in how to implement CinePaint. I have taught computer science at
