GIMP Core Mostly Ported to GEGL 312
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.
Re:Version math (Score:5, Informative)
Versions are not decimal numbers!!!!! what number is 2.8.4?
Re:hackery (Score:5, Informative)
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.
I'd say read the article before assuming the authors of a major piece of software are idiots, but this is Slashdot..
To fix horizons, use Rotate with Corrective + Grid (Score:5, Informative)
Yup, I don't get it, for example, why rotating a photo to get the horizon straight is not just a matter of drawing a straight line over horizon, and have GIMP figure out how to rotate the photo to get it straight.
Here's how to correct a horizon in GIMP 2.6.11:
Re:Inadvertently... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Wow! (Score:4, Informative)
Pixelmator
Price to anyone who owns something other than a Mac: $630.
Re:Great! (Score:5, Informative)
Here it is.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GIMP_2.7.3_splash.png [wikimedia.org]
Re:Inadvertently... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
2.8 does the single-window interface thing. It looks like this:
http://tapewolf.wildernessguardians.com/gimp28-screenshot.jpg [wildernessguardians.com]
...whether that's now a single window hairy mess is not something I can really comment on. Personally, I find Photoshop to be an unintuitive horror and gimp works just how I'd expect, but that's probably because I started out with Autodesk Animator and weird things like that. If I had started on Photoshop my opinion would probably be very different.
Re:Inadvertently... (Score:4, Informative)
2.8.0 RC1 is out, but it doesn't look too different on a cursory inspection.
Windows -> Single Window Mode
Re:Inadvertently... (Score:4, Informative)
It would've been nice if there was an option in that dialog to "use these values as default".
There is, for all tools at once. In the settings you can ask to save all current settings as default. You can set up all the tools you use the way you want them, then go to settings and save it all as your normal set-up.
Re:16-bit? (Score:4, Informative)
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,
Correct, although I think you mean 64/48 bits per pixel, not 128/96.
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.
No, that is wrong. While most pictures are saved in 24 or 32 bit formats, once loaded in a graphics program any workflow involving colour or level manipulation at 8-bits per channel (a paltry 256 shades of gray) very quickly shows up artifacts, compounding with every operation. This is a very real problem and it has been solved for pretty much every other photo editing program out there (including Krita and the GIMP fork CinePaint).
Re:CMYK (Score:4, Informative)
Use of CMYK inks does not mean that RGB images cannot be printed. I think you will find that a vast amount of those images you are thinking about were never anything other than RGB before they were converted by a printer driver to CMYK.
CMYK is vaguely useful for exact control of a known output device. It is useless if you plan to print on more than one type of printer, or if your printer does not accept raw control of the CMYK guns (most every non-professional device will not print raw CMYK, doing things like turning on the black 100% will turn the others off). Modern software has floating point so mismatched gamuts are no longer a problem.