Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Gimp Graphics Open Source

GIMP Core Mostly Ported to GEGL 312

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the high-bit-depth-goats dept.
A longstanding task for the GIMP has been porting the core graphics code from the ancient implementation (dating back to version 1.2) to GEGL. Progress has been hampered by the amount of code relying on details of the implementation of image data: tiles are directly accessed instead of linear buffers, and changing that detail would break the entire core and all plugins. A few weeks ago, two GIMP hackers got together to do some general hacking, and inadvertedly ported the core graphics code to GEGL. They work around the mismatch between GEGL buffers and GIMP tiles by implementing a storage backend for GEGL using the legacy GIMP tiles; to their surprise things Just Worked (tm), and their code branch will become the 2.9 development series once 2.8 is released. With this, 2.10 will finally feature higher bit depth images, additional color spaces (CMYK for one), and hardware accelerated image operations. There's still work to be done: to take advantage of the new features, plugins need to be ported to access GEGL buffers instead of GIMP tiles, but the conversion work is straightforward and current plugins will continue working as well as they do now in the meantime.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

GIMP Core Mostly Ported to GEGL

Comments Filter:
  • by TheModelEskimo (968202) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @02:57PM (#39714977)
    You have a pretty low UID; when's the last time you read up on GIMP development? 2002? I think most of the items you mentioned are being addressed right now in various ways.

    Probably not to your satisfaction, though.
  • by BagOBones (574735) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @02:59PM (#39715015)

    Being address and have been address are sometimes very distant things.

  • hackery (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bolthole (122186) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @03:02PM (#39715061) Journal

    My sentiments are somewhat similar to the poster above, although a bit less... aggravated.

    This sounds like a "cool hack". Which, .. ya know.. is "cool" an all... but usually not a good idea for a major piece of software such as GIMP.

    IFF what they're describing is some kind of transition phase, where it allows dual-mode backend sort of stuff, and a concrete plan of action to eventually port all existing (standard) plugins to the newer methods, and then DITCH the old way.... then great.

    But otherwise, having heavily layered interface/mechanics conversion code, is a Really Really bad idea. The bigger the software, the worse idea it is. It would be better to just toss it all out and start from scratch, if this is going to be an indefinitely lived hack.

  • by reub2000 (705806) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @03:08PM (#39715137)

    The user interface wasn't the problem. It was fixed in 2.0. A lot of what was hampering the gimp was the lack of support for larger bit depths and support for non-destructive editing.

  • by jellomizer (103300) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @03:20PM (#39715255)

    The problem is not Features, but finding them.

    This is what I often do in photo shop.

    Take Basic Shape, Rotate it, Apply Color, Apply a Texture, Bevel, and Apply Shadow, Create a new layer and repeat.
    I can do this stuff easier in HTML5 then in GIMP.

    It isn't that this cannot be done in GIMP but it doesn't make it easy to do so.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @03:28PM (#39715355)

    They fooled me with that a decade ago.

    Nowadays, Gimp is a living reference for how the stubborn douchiness of programmers can make a project irrelevent, when it was once promising.

  • by TemporalBeing (803363) <bm_witness@yaho[ ]om ['o.c' in gap]> on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @03:29PM (#39715367) Homepage Journal

    The user interface wasn't the problem. It was fixed in 2.0. A lot of what was hampering the gimp was the lack of support for larger bit depths and support for non-destructive editing.

    Just loaded GIMP 2.6 - and I'll tell ya' it's not fixed. it's still a hairy mess to figure out. Though has been reported they are working on a new interface (one more Photoshop like); but I don't know the status or what version it was to come out in.

  • Re:hackery (Score:0, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @03:32PM (#39715387)

    You haven't followed GIMP's history long have you? They are idiots...

  • by slater.jay (1839748) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @03:39PM (#39715457)
    But three things a man wishes to do but once in his lifetime come as naturally as the morning sun. This is the tao of GIMP.
  • 16-bit? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by del_diablo (1747634) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @03:44PM (#39715523)

    While we are first at it, how is the 32/24-bit support for the images? I mean.... for so long, the 16-bit limitation has been a serious disadvantage.
    Things GIMP needs to do:
    1. 32-bit support for images
    2. Buildt inn Normal Map plugin
    3. Buildt inn direct X image support, patents be damned
    4. Finally finish of the fight with the monster GEGL, how many years has it been? For a saga, a few months is ok, but not years.

  • by hackula (2596247) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @03:59PM (#39715783)
    I use GIMP all the time and love it, but the multi window interface still drives me insane. I have heard for ages they are working on single window tabbed version, but I will believe it when I see it.
  • Re:Version math (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @04:06PM (#39715887)
    Of course, you're the same guy who expected reasonable discussion after posting, in all caps, "2.10 IS NOT HIGHER THAN 2.9" to end your post.
  • by X0563511 (793323) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @04:14PM (#39716017) Homepage Journal

    What the hell is that supposed to mean?

  • Re:16-bit? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Xtifr (1323) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @04:15PM (#39716041) Homepage

    1. I'm not sure what you're saying. The 32/24 bpp support has been there since day one. The same maximum depth as my video card, and probably yours as well, It's only 16 bits per channel (128/96 bits per pixel) that isn't supported, and that's mainly an issue for those who work in the dying industry of paper-publishing, and those odd individuals who want to work on "raw" photographic images despite not being able to see the results of their manipulation.

    2. Why does a "plugin" need to be "buildt inn"? You're not making any sense here.

    3. Why on earth should a UNIX program depend on proprietary Microsoft technologies that aren't available on UNIX? If you want to make a Windows-only fork, feel free.

    4. That's what this article is about, dummy!

  • by rnturn (11092) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @04:22PM (#39716125)

    ``...accidentally re-organize and re-name all the tools using bumbled into industry standard names...''

    Which I assume you mean ``do things exactly like Photoshop''. That's what most people critical of the GIMP mean when they want something changed. (And, frankly, it's getting more than a little old.)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @04:30PM (#39716239)

    The original GIMP UI was a photoshop ripoff IIRC. "Too hard". The next UI was something windows-ish "too hard". Now idiots are trying to get gimp single windowed. (WTF? Lots of people have multi-monitor setups these days. And when was single window ever good since windows 3.1? )

    I have a feeling most people who can't use GIMP probably can't use Photoshop either. (I've used both, and many other bitmap/photo editors besides, and really don't get what all the hubbub is about. )

  • Re:16-bit? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @04:34PM (#39716299)
    As a photographer I disagree with your statement. The advantage of working with raw picture files is that you have much more data available then you have after a lossy compression has been applied to your image. Shooting in RAW allows you to do all sorts of neat tricks that with a standard jpg are extremely difficult if not impossible.

    Believe me, you do notice the difference between a processed jpg & a processed raw file.
  • by mark-t (151149) <markt@lynx[ ].ca ['.bc' in gap]> on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @05:07PM (#39716753) Journal
    Most people who are educated enough to read and write also have enough experience with their language to cope with the existence of homonyms, and not be compelled to associate a term only to one particular thing when the context is obviously referring to something else that only happens to share the same spelling.
  • by ScislaC (827506) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @05:10PM (#39716793)

    This is a problem that we have in Inkscape as well. I would say that in general, people are excited and motivated to add new functionality. The problem is that it's not nearly as satisfying when it comes to refining and bug fixing for most devs when it's all volunteer work.

  • Time for 2.10 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gr8_phk (621180) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @05:13PM (#39716843)

    GIMP 2.10’s core will be 100% ported to GEGL, and all of the legacy pixel fiddling API for plug-ins is going to be deprecated.

    This should be the only objective for 2.10 other than bug-fixing the single window interface which debuts in 2.8. They should get feedback on the UI, tweak a few things (not rework them) go full GEGL and get 2.10 out the door ASAP. The 2.8 is going to get a lot of people to look at it again, but when the features of GEGL are found to be missing they'll walk away AGAIN and it will be some time before they check in again. So let's not advertise 2.8 so much, but hurry with 2.10 and then make a push for people to switch.

  • by nyctopterus (717502) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @05:17PM (#39716901) Homepage

    No, it really isn't. I want a piece of software with a simpler interface that Photoshop. Not much more complex and a hell of a lot more ugly. Do better than Photoshop, that's what the people want.

  • by serviscope_minor (664417) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @05:51PM (#39717321) Journal

    I use GIMP all the time and love it, but the multi window interface still drives me insane.

    The GIMP is designed to work well with quality window managers. I, for one am glad that they cater to people who understand that X11 provides the best GUI.

  • by Machtyn (759119) on Tuesday April 17, 2012 @10:47PM (#39719353) Homepage Journal
    Agreed. When Microsoft can figure out an easy way to handle spanning single windows across multiple monitors, then I wouldn't mind a single application window space. But, for now, I am very pleased I can move my tools to one monitor (and any reference sources) while I work on my main image on another monitor.
  • by Fri13 (963421) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @01:36AM (#39720165)

    Single Window GUI (SDI) is terrible in photoshop.

    Have you ever heard about window managers? What manages windows (not Microsoft Windows) for you?

    Have you ever heard that you can attach multiple displays to your computer and that your working speed improves with it?
    I can not find the slashdot article about multi-screen efficiency but http://www.multiplemonitors.org/index.php/multiple-monitor-solution/multi-advantages [multiplemonitors.org] says it is 20-50% overall improvement and that is what I remember from slashdot discussion of different study as well.

    At that point, you want just to have MDI = every image as own window and tools in own window. Then you can use window manager to actually manage your windows so you quickly find what you need and you can see all of them at glance, get them in full screen and tools pop-up only when needed by pressing a TAB. You can organize images to second screen or make a duplicates of images and place them to side by side to compare when you want to have a new try of something fancy without undoing everything if it isn't successful.

    Since GIMP 2.3 development branch the UI has been very powerful and logical. Much better than in Adobe Photoshop what is illogical but works for those who have born with knowledge to use it. That is one reason why Adobe went and made a Adobe Lightroom for photographers because Adobe Photoshop was designed to totally different work than for photographers. And even Adobe has said that Photoshop UI is terrible and needs tweaking as now it is "one for all" what does not fit at all for everyone, but they need "one for one, everyone gets own". And now they are coming there with customization possibilities per user needs.
    http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2007/11/photoshop_as_seen_through_johnny_cash.html [adobe.com] http://slashdot.org/story/07/11/09/0226215/adobe-to-unclutter-photoshop-ui [slashdot.org]

    So go and get yourself a good window manager (like KWin) so you can get functions like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktTNcj0fAM4 [youtube.com] and virtual desktops and so on.

"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -- William E. Davidsen

Working...