Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Gimp Graphics Media Movies Software

Film Gimp Project Renamed to CinePaint 183

Posted by timothy from the frame-set-match dept.
ubiquitin writes "To avoid confusion with the GIMP, the Film Gimp project has renamed itself to CinePaint. The project is essentially a legitimate fork of GIMP, and is focused on image manipulations for moving pictures." We've mentioned Film Gimp several times lately; it'll be even handier as programs like Cinelerra and Kino grow more polished.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Film Gimp Project Renamed to CinePaint More

Film Gimp Project Renamed to CinePaint

Comments Filter:
  • Here were the other choices they had to pick from:
    • FrIMP
    • Film-Fu
    • FIMP
    • GFMP
    • FilmStudio
    • FilmShop

    I agree, Cinepaint is the best. FrIMP ? ;-)

  • CinePaint? Kind of bland ... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by moonbender ( 547943 ) <moonbenderNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Sunday March 02, 2003 @07:58PM (#5421061)
    CinePaint? Not exactly a creative name. Out of the names mentioned as candidates in the press release, Film-Fu is easily the funniest. But I guess being funny isn't exactly what they wanted to achieve for "the most popular open source tool in feature motion picture work" ...

    • Re:CinePaint? Kind of bland ... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by DrPascal ( 185005 ) on Sunday March 02, 2003 @08:00PM (#5421073) Homepage
      CinePaint is a "producer friendly" type name, and it sounds like it fits pretty well.
      • Beats the hell out of "Herbert."

        KFG
      • My wife and I were talking about this very topic over the weekend (she is a graphic designer) Her main gripe with open source software is that the names are not very consumer friendly. The GIMP is her least favorite of the bunch. When posed with the choice of Photoshop and GIMP, which sounds more likely to help you touch up your photos?

        I'm glad to hear that FilmGIMP is called CinePaint now. It may be a little bland, but at least it gives a better impression of what the program does to the general public (and yes, I know the chances of the general public using a film frame retouching program are slim to none)

  • topic's (Score:3, Interesting)

    by slug359 ( 533109 ) on Sunday March 02, 2003 @07:59PM (#5421067) Homepage
    Hard to believe GIMP has a topic of it's own, despite the fact this is the first story in the topic for over a year (see here [slashdot.org]), when overclocking (which I'd love to filter without removing hardware!)/individual BSD's/P2P (including the RIAA/MPAA/*AA)/and so on don't have topics!

    • Re:topic's (Score:5, Interesting)

      by cascino ( 454769 ) on Sunday March 02, 2003 @08:41PM (#5421271) Homepage
      The same goes for Mac OS 9. Yes, there is a topic for OS 9. Five stories have ever been published in this category, one of which is entitled "Apple Drops Mac OS 9."
      On the other hand, Google is a topic-deserver: there's been five articles in the last month directly pertaining to it. And besides - we all use it, love it, and, as of recently, have made quite a bit of controversy about it.
      Can there be a vote on these things, or at least a call for feedback?
      • You know what I just noticed? There are 2 Medias, one called "Media" and one "The Media". Plus Media (Apple).

        Apple gets a dozen categories, but all MS stuff gets lumped into one. An Evil category would be fun.

        And what about BEANIES?

    • While were at it... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by cybercomm ( 557435 ) on Sunday March 02, 2003 @10:46PM (#5421711) Homepage Journal
      Did anyone notice that the icon for gimp is ANIMATED (his eys move) is this me, or is this the FIRST animated gif on slashdot??

    • The reason for the GIMP topic....

      Back when Slashdot was first started, the Gimp was a big deal. It was the first end-user Open Source application that truly did something cool. There were many stories about it. So it was certainly logical to have its own topic.

      I do web hosting for Slashcode sites, so I know that you don't generally delete a story. Stories are intended to stay in the database pretty much forever. You certainly wouldn't want to delete a topic that has stories attached to it. While you *can* change which topic is attached to a story, why would you want to?

  • The Gimps are always getting shafted (Score:5, Funny)

    by robb0995 ( 633070 ) on Sunday March 02, 2003 @08:00PM (#5421071)
    Does this mean the developers have to park further away now?

  • This is uber cool! (Score:3, Informative)

    by $$$exy Gwen Stefani ( 654447 ) on Sunday March 02, 2003 @08:01PM (#5421076) Homepage Journal
    Film Gimp (now SinePaint) has been used in tons of major motions pictures, such as the following:

    Scooby-Doo, Harry Potter, Cats & Dogs, Dr. Dolittle 2, Little Nicky, Grinch, Sixth Day, Stuart Little, Planet of the Apes, Showtime, Blue Crush, and The Fast and the Furious II.

    This is really cool. I used to think it was just another Open Source project where someone creates a SourceForge website and then abandons it two months later after no code is written.

    • Re:This is uber cool! (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Mononoke ( 88668 )
      Film Gimp (now SinePaint) has been used in tons of major motions pictures, such as the following:

      Scooby-Doo, Harry Potter, Cats & Dogs, Dr. Dolittle 2, Little Nicky, Grinch, Sixth Day, Stuart Little, Planet of the Apes, Showtime, Blue Crush, and The Fast and the Furious II.

      I'm sure the same could be said about NotePad.

      Impressive though, I suppose.

    • It would be even cooler if someone used it for a movie that didn't suck.
    • This is really cool. I used to think it was just another Open Source project where someone creates a SourceForge website and then abandons it two months later after no code is written.

      Hey, I resemble that remark [sourceforge.net]. I'm just waiting for a time machine to take me back to 1999 so I can find a Mac to recompile that extension on. Really...

      No actually I have a new version of a few of my toolkits in use at the office, but they are not in a presentable shape for public consumption. Hell, my last version was pirated by some guy's Doctoral Thesis, and if I had one more request to recompile the software for later versions of Tcl on the Mac I was going to scream. I don't even own a Mac anymore! The source code is right there, with the Metrowerks Build files.

      Hey, how about you just open a copy of Tcl 8.0, and use a sockets interface to talk to your new program?

      I did have a few kind souls who did submit some patches. But for every contributer there was a high maintenance user who didn't want to believe that his platform was stuck in time.

  • Name change is probably a good thing... (Score:5, Funny)

    by pongo000 ( 97357 ) on Sunday March 02, 2003 @08:08PM (#5421108)
    I mean, how much credibility do you expect from the outside world by giving your project a cutesy name like "GIMP"? Last time I checked, that was a slang term for a cripple, and a not-very-nice slang term at that.

    Maybe "Cinematic Layout Imaging Tool" might have been more in keeping with the spirit of cute acronyms.

  • Why fork? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mcgroarty ( 633843 ) <brian@mcgroarty.gmail@com> on Sunday March 02, 2003 @08:18PM (#5421156) Homepage
    I don't doubt there are good reasons for it, but I'm curious no less...

    Why fork?

    Are there features going into CinePaint that aren't valid for GIMP? And the other way around?

    It seems like both projects might benefit by staying more tightly coupled.

    • Because... (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      ...CinePaint's based in GIMP 1.0, but with support for more data formats, like 16 bit per channel (normal GIMP is 8 per channel). GIMP should have that extra formats in the future (v2.0, by means of GEGL library), but the CinePaint people needed that now, and wanted to improve the original fork. On the other hand, GIMP people wanted to clean the code and port to GTK+2 first, then add new features. So for the moment the targets are a bit divergent.


      If you want more information, search about both projects, read their mailing lists and websites.

    • Re:Why fork? (Score:5, Informative)

      by ocelotbob ( 173602 ) <ocelot@@@ocelotbob...org> on Sunday March 02, 2003 @08:37PM (#5421255) Homepage
      Essentially, the fork came from a different design philosophy and set of priorities. One of the big reasons was that the Film GIMP (now CinePaint) crew wanted support for 16 bit per channel color, something that the GIMP crew wasn't going to be getting around to until GIMP 2.0. While GIMP 1.3.x now has that support, CinePaint now has support for other color models, such as floating point colors. Also, GIMP is migrating to GTK 2.x, and CinePaint is still using 1.2.

    • Forks like this can be good (Score:4, Insightful)

      by for(;;); ( 21766 ) on Sunday March 02, 2003 @11:23PM (#5421841)
      Cloning a project, forking a project with essetially the same goals but under different management, can be bad. In Linux distributions, for example, we have the same features implemented many different, annoying ways.

      A functional fork, to coin a term, is different. At my company, we have several different version of our client software, all of which does basically the same thing in different contexts. We organize this by placing most common functionality in a shared library, and using different code for each context (email integration, web client, desktop client, et cetera.) The codebases have enough different functionality that different code should be used, with common stuff in its own sandbox.

      This is a good way to go. It encourages the core code to be put into a generic library. Having a GIMP for single images and a GIMP for sequential images will move the developers to code in a way that maximizes reuse. They're not (really) competing with each other, so there's nothing to lose by sharing. And they'll each have their own space to work in, without having a poorly-overloaded interface for both single and sequential images.

      Or, they could not share code, and it could suck. But the incentive is there for sharing, and the architecture of both systems would naturally improve.

    • because spagetti with a spoon just ain't right.
    • This, to me, is actually the strongest point of Open Source projects.

      Bug fixing is not it: I have had many open source (GNU, BSD, etc) that is bug riddled and I have had many closed source that is bug free. I can make arguments that each does best (many eyes - more cought : most motivated - best cought) and each can have examples of good performance and bad performance.

      But one thing, by definition, that a closed source program can never do is fork. If photoshop does nearly everything you need, except say do a widgett. And this widgett is the most important thing to you but useless to anyone else you will never get said widgett (not economically feasable for adobe). With an Open source you can relatively easily fork a widgett project.

      In a well run Open Source project many eyes is very usefull. A lot of people testing is very usefull. But a closed source project can equal that if they choose to spend the money. But a closed source project can never fork in the way an open source project can.

    • Re:Why fork? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Raphael ( 18701 ) on Monday March 03, 2003 @06:37AM (#5422972) Homepage Journal
      Why fork?

      Good question. The initial fork occured a few years ago, when a team of developers started to work on Gimp16 for adding 16-bit color channels into the GIMP. This was needed for editing films, but it was not appropriate at that time to integrate the new code into the core so this became a fork. However, the GIMP developers expected that the main GIMP code and Gimp16 (which was later called Hollywood Gimp, Gimp's Film Version [gimp.org] and then FilmGimp) would converge later and that the core of GIMP 2.0 would support most of the features that were required for film editing (mainly 16-bit and floating point color channels). The user interface may have kept some differences due to the specific needs of film editors.

      Unfortunately, for various reasons (political as well as technical), the gap between GIMP and FilmGimp widened a few months ago, soon after Robin Rowe took over the maintenance of FilmGimp [filmgimp.org] and resurected the project that had not been very active in the last two years. There was some discussion about the fork on the GIMP developers mailing list in November and December last year (you can check the list archives here [berkeley.edu]). The conclusion was that the FilmGimp developers were not interested in bringing their code closer to the current GIMP, and there are too few people working on GEGL (the library that should bring 16-bit and float channels into the GIMP) so it will still take a while before the main GIMP code is suitable for film editing. I am still sad about the way this whole thing happened. I tried to bring the two projects closer to each other, but obviously I failed.

      I don't know how the future will look like. I wish the CinePaint developers good luck (honestly) and I hope that they will be successful. This fork of the GIMP suits the specific needs of the film industry and I hope that many studios will be able to use it and do great stuff with it. However, I expect that most people interested in photo editing, web design and general graphic editing will find that the GIMP is more suitable for them than CinePaint.

      By the way, if you want to know some of the plans for the future of the GIMP, I suggest that you have a look at developer.gimp.org [gimp.org]. In particular, read the plans for the future of the GIMP [gimp.org], posted in December 2000 but still valid. Besides this, the developers mailing list and the list of enhancements submitted to Bugzilla are good sources of information.

  • Put features in the mainline GIMP! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Speare ( 84249 ) on Sunday March 02, 2003 @08:20PM (#5421167) Homepage Journal

    Too bad for the GIMP.

    A lot of people had been hoping to see a backporting and/or merge between these two versions. This sounds like the architecture's going to be mainly irreparable.

    Some people would really like to see deep color channels and stronger tools for doing compositing work on movie frames.

    The more that digital cameras offer 12bpc RAW mode, the more the OSS world is lacking until GIMP can handle them well. Color corrections can and should be done with more bits, to avoid losing fine color integrity.

    • Two paths (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Current path is due some people wanting to work in old GIMP Hollywood, and even trying to get the code in the main tree. Main coders had a different idea since before the others appeared, clean the tree, then make radical changes, and they kept it.

      Second path, which seems to have been discarded by CinePaint people, is pushing the GEGL library ignoring old code, make small test apps, and then merge with GIMP. A more parellel aproach.

      For GIMP people all is like in the past, no new hands helping, either with current project or with libraries for future one. For CinePaint they get a quick solution, but maybe a dead end. :(

      Oh, well...

  • Good Name (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Arc04 ( 601196 ) on Sunday March 02, 2003 @08:21PM (#5421176)
    I agree with them. CinePaint is definitely a much more professional sounding name than FilmGimp was and also more than the other suggestions.

    If it had a name like FilmStudio, it would sound to me like an amateur effort (My First Film Studio?!?!), which we know it is not and would not have the success it will most certainly have in the future.

    Well I like it anyway :P

    Arc

  • Good change... The old name kind of sucked (Score:3, Interesting)

    by LongJohnStewartMill ( 645597 ) on Sunday March 02, 2003 @08:31PM (#5421225)
    That's a good name change. To be honest, I thought the old one made the software sound kind of wonky. I thought,
    "Hmmm... The Film
    Gimp. Well, I probably can't use this program unless my monitor is fuzzy or my mouse doesn't have any buttons... Or maybe it has a built-in doodle filter that scribbles all over your work after you save."
    Very confusing... This name change is a Good Thing I think...
  • Why break away from the gimp name if its a fork?

  • Good (Score:5, Funny)

    by shr3k ( 451065 ) on Sunday March 02, 2003 @08:41PM (#5421276) Homepage
    The project is essentially a legitimate fork of GIMP

    Good, because you know how bad the "support" costs can get when you fork illegitimate chil... errr.... projects.

  • Open cutting software. :)

  • holy crap... (Score:2, Funny)

    by dcstimm ( 556797 )
    I was reading this article and I saw the icon for the gimp, you know the weird looking dog creature. Well anyways it freaked me out when I saw its freaking eyes move! I kinda got scared... DAMN MOVING GIF FILES!
  • Why not call it 'CinePint'?

  • Tomorrow's headline (Score:5, Funny)

    by enos ( 627034 ) on Sunday March 02, 2003 @10:08PM (#5421588)
    To avoid confusion with the GIMP, the Film Gimp project has renamed itself to CinePaint.

    To avoid confusion with MS Paint, the CinePaint project has renamed itself to Film Gimp.

  • In a related story, to avoid confusion with the Windows graphics utility, Microsoft has renamed MS Paint to M$ CinePaint.

    Chris

  • Project history? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by whereiswaldo ( 459052 ) on Sunday March 02, 2003 @11:26PM (#5421851) Journal

    In a case such as this where the project name changes, what happens to the CVS module name? Does it change as well? Is everyone required to re-pull the source from a new name? And finally, how is the history preserved?
  • Now without a lame name.
  • My 9th grade son has been using Cinelerra to put together several cinematography projects for school. It does crash occasionally so you want to make sure you save your layouts periodically, and it uses HUGE amounts of memory when loading in video files (it seems to want to store everything in memory), but it has a pretty decent set of features, including multi-layer editing, numerous effects and transitions, and clustered rendering. It may not be as mature as the best commercial packages, but it's already as good as or better than most of the low-end programs that come with most capture devices. He's been using Blender to do 3D titles and credits and stuff like that.

    The combination of Cinelerra + Blender + FilmGimp is pretty decent considering it's all open source. You can do better with commercial software, but not without spending many thousands of dollars.
  • the most important area to these guys. as far as i can tell, is getting it on to OSX and selling it(metaphorically speeking) to Mac users, if they wanted the package to have a future on the linux desktop surely they'd be working on porting to GTK2 and then to OSX from there.

    just out of interest, what can one actually do with filmgimp, sorry, CinePaint? i built it the other day and tried to have a play around, could really work out how to do anything at all, and is it just me or is it strange that they leave script-fu's that don't work with the filmgimp plugin set in the distro?

Slashdot Top Deals

Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"

Close