Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

GIMP Resynth vs. Photoshop Content Aware

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the in-this-corner dept.

Graphics 269

aylons writes "Just after Adobe released videos showing off the content-aware feature of Photoshop CS5, the GIMP community answered by showing the resynthesizer plugin, which has been available for some time and can do a similar job. However, are they really comparable? (In original Portuguese, but really, the images are pretty much self-explaining.) Compare them side by side removing the same objects from different kinds of images. Results do vary, but the most interesting part may be seeing the different results and trying to understand the logic of each algorithm."

cancel ×

269 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I photoshop (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32096754)

your mom naked

WE MUST DESTROY ALL GYPSIES (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32097046)

amen

HEY FUDGEPACKER MODERATORS!!! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32097094)

Mod parent up, or I'll kill you with a CHAINSAW [goatse.cx] .

Re:HEY FUDGEPACKER MODERATORS!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32097108)

samefag troll is obvious.

Even so... (3, Insightful)

Bourdain (683477) | more than 4 years ago | (#32096784)

...Why not have some test samples for in a more practical situation?

All of the samples on the site clearly can't "fool" anyone

Re:Even so... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32097138)

I wonder if that's because the examples were deliberately chosen to be with situations where both tools would fail miserably. In more realistic usage situations, PS's algorithm is scarily good, whereas GIMP's algorithm is always blotchy and poor, and so would easily win the 'competition'. But the review was from a pro-Linux site, so fairness isn't something I should have expected.

Re:Even so... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32097706)

A good start would be to define "more realistic" in terms other then "situations where PhotoShop performs well", or any other circular way.

Re:Even so... (4, Informative)

camg188 (932324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098402)

But the review was from a pro-Linux site, so fairness isn't something I should have expected.

Why do you think it was a pro-Linux site? Just because one of the sample pictures had toy penguins in it?
I looked at the first 5 pages of the site and it was mostly articles about Windows OS and Windows graphics applications with a few stories about Apple stuff and Twitter. Not a single article about Linux.

Re:Even so... (2, Informative)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097524)

True though Gimp did better, imo, on the first one. The rest were pretty awful for both.

I'm sure... (4, Insightful)

AcquaCow (56720) | more than 4 years ago | (#32096790)

I saw that site a few weeks ago when folks were going gaga over PS's "new" feature (GIMP Resynth has been around for a few years now)...

I'm sure Adobe has seen it, I'm sure Adobe took the time to try and make theirs better.

The question is the Adobe implementation worth the cost of PS, or is the GIMP plugin "Good enough"

That really comes down to the consumer though. I think it is "Good enough" for my needs...I can easily touch-up anything it does that I disagree with.

  -- Dave

Re:I'm sure... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32096874)

Wait till you hear from pseudo-professionals who would trash GIMP at any given opportunity. Clearly, GIMP was ahead of PS on this so called revolutionary concept, but nobody made a big fuss about it. And then hell broke loose when PS announced it - the earlier thread on it was full of multiple orgasms by the same 'professionals'.

Re:I'm sure... (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 4 years ago | (#32096922)

Wait till you hear from pseudo-professionals who would trash GIMP at any given opportunity. Clearly, GIMP was ahead of PS on this so called revolutionary concept, but nobody made a big fuss about it. And then hell broke loose when PS announced it - the earlier thread on it was full of multiple orgasms by the same 'professionals'.

[Puts on pseudo-intellectual trolling suit, with built in PS orgasm attachment]

Yeah .. but can the GIMP do it on 16 bit or CMYK Images?!?!??!!? ;-)

Photoshop couldn't (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32096966)

Photoshop couldn't. It was fine for professional use then. And nowadays there are many professional printers that will accept RGB directly, not so many in those days, so the "need" for CMYK is much less.

PS yes it can. GEGL.

Re:Photoshop couldn't (1)

trapnest (1608791) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097320)

I'm not sure I would trust a printer to convert RGB to CMYK. :\

Re:Photoshop couldn't (2, Funny)

Rand Race (110288) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097876)

Well, that would be because you do printing in the physical world and not in the plane of platonic perfection where, apparently, all of the GIMP print jobs get sent to (I assume this since I have never seen, in 15 years in the biz, an actual print job made with GIMP). A cloud-filled wonderland where 4-color separations happen by magic, trapping is done for free by dedicated itinerant monks (trappists... get it?) and fluffy bunnies pre-flight your print jobs while you drink frothy mugs filled from the free-as-in-beer trees.

It's the classic OSS answer to missing features: "Who needs it?"

Re:Photoshop couldn't (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32098138)

Sign me up!

Re:I'm sure... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32097626)

Does PS do 32-bit floating point color?

Re:I'm sure... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32098498)

Yes it does. It's had it for almost 6 years (since CS2)

Re:I'm sure... (5, Insightful)

Alphathon (1634555) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097334)

I think the main problem most "pseudo-professionals" have with GIMP is familiarity. I myself use OpenOffice.org regularly and the transition from Microsoft Office was extremely simple - download it and start using it. The same is not true of GIMP since it's UI is so different than Photoshops. These "pseudo-professionals", almost certainly have a long history with Photoshop, so understand how to do things using it's UI, but likely don't even know where to start with GIMP and write it off as useless. It is closed minded, but certainly understandable on a professional/semi-professional level. Blender seems to suffer the same problem, since it's UI is vastly different than any other 3D program I've tried (although since there are more available than in the photo-editing world no one program has a "monopoly" on the UI so it's not quite as bed).

Most FOSS doesn't tend to have this problem because it either does a specific task that has no industry standard UI, Emulates the industry standard UI (like OpenOffice.org) or is so simple that it makes little difference how the UI is designed as long as it works (things like 7-zip for example - its function is to open and create archives. You don't have 100s of filters and tools to use so everything can be put into a couple of menus and not be confusing).

Re:I'm sure... (1)

tixxit (1107127) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097680)

I'd definitely agree. First photo editing software I used was Jasc's Paintshop Pro. It was dead simple and everything seemed intuitive. Then I tried Photoshop. Compared to Paintshop Pro, it was a UI nightmare and I gave up on Photoshop pretty fast. GIMP wasn't any better; I only really gave GIMP a chance when I had pretty much stopped using Windows.

Re:I'm sure... (5, Funny)

geordie_loz (624942) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097446)

Look, it's clearly a case of the open source community failing to innovate and just copying the competition. They're getting so desperate now that they even resorting to copying features from propriety software a couple of years before they appear..

Re:I'm sure... (3, Insightful)

zwei2stein (782480) | more than 4 years ago | (#32096910)

For consumer, for all practical purporses Gimp plugin does not exist and PS wins by having feature that Gimp does not.

Why?

It is plugin. As such, you have to know it exists in order to get it. Even worse, you might not even know what you are looking for if you actually look for that function. You can not just discover it while "playing with filters" and your best shot is asking on some forums ("UTFG" being mostl likely reply) if you do not just use clone tool by hand (something a lot more intuitive and going to provide much better results anyway).

Re:I'm sure... (2, Interesting)

biryokumaru (822262) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097050)

It is plugin. As such, you have to know it exists in order to get it.

I even know it exists, what it's called, where it's website is, and I still have no idea how to download or install it. I've been using Arch Linux for several years, I can build packages, I can do ./configure or ./autogen.sh installs, I'm not retarded. I admit I haven't done much looking into it, but I have no idea how the plugin system works on Gimp, and it certainly isn't intuitive. I would say the barrier to entry for this functionality is even higher than you suggest.

Re:I'm sure... (4, Informative)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097184)

> I even know it exists, what it's called, where it's website is, and I still have no idea how to download or install it.

I use Ubuntu. There was a package for it. All I had to do was run apt-get.

This is probably just a "script" and can be dropped into the appropriate place if you don't have a proper package.

Plenty of PS stuff exists as plugins. Does that mean they don't exist either?

Re:I'm sure... (0)

Nemi (627009) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097552)

Plenty of PS stuff exists as plugins. Does that mean they don't exist either?

Yes, to the average user it does.

Re:I'm sure... (1)

marga (455344) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097232)

I don't know which website you are referring to, but at http://www.logarithmic.net/pfh/resynthesizer [logarithmic.net] there's a link that says "Download" that allows you to download it. It also allows downloading a pre-compiled Windows version, for the Windows people.

I don't use arch linux, but in Debian and Ubuntu it's available as a package that you can install through whatever package manager you use. It's called (unsurprisingly) gimp-resynthesizer. I expect other distros to have similar packages.

The barrier of entry is just as high as the distro you are using.

Re:I'm sure... (3, Informative)

dancingmilk (1005461) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097258)

You claim to know where the website is... The FIRST PAGE of the website gives install instructions, source download, and RPM/DEB packages.

Why do people complain when they are too stupid/lazy to take 5 seconds to read 1 page? Honestly if you can't be bothered to read 2 lines of text to learn how to install something, you probably should be using Photoshop anyway.

Re:I'm sure... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32097308)

Ah yes, the classic open source fanboy response. If something is difficult to use in any way, you are "stupid". Hilarious.

Re:I'm sure... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32097530)

Reading one website to get install instructions is a pretty basic task for a computer user. If you don't know how to read then yea, you can safely be classified as "stupid".

This plugin isn't difficult to use, it takes 2 mouse clicks to install it. How much easier do you want it?

Re:I'm sure... (2)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097598)

"How dow I download it? I can't figure it out! This sucks!" "It's the big, fuchsia section that says 'Download.'" In this situation, it really was stupid. No fanboy required.

Re:I'm sure... (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097636)

How is it difficult to download and extract it when even holds the same folder structure as Gimp so you don't even have to navigate folders and move files. You just extract into program files. Hell that's easier than some PS plugins.

Re:I'm sure... (3, Informative)

mugginz (1157101) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098002)

Ah yes, the classic open source fanboy response. If something is difficult to use in any way, you are "stupid". Hilarious.

Well you clearly aren't using Ubuntu then or an equaly useable distro.

*Now, lets see. Open the Ubuntu Software Center,
*in the search box type resynth (It should now be displayed)
*Click the Resynthesizer item
*Click install

Now start GIMP, create a new image and hey presto, in Filters->Map you'll see the entry for Resynthesizer

Surely that's not that hard.

Oh, and having been called upon more than a few time to install PS plugins I can assure you it's
completely plugin dependent how easy or hard that can be. Sometimes PS is no walk in the park.

I swear, the anti FOSS trolls aren't even trying these days, they just assume if it's Linux it's always hard.

Re:I'm sure... (1)

Gusfm (1157321) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097278)

Well, I've never used Arch Linux but on Debian and probably on Ubuntu it's very simple: sudo apt-get install gimp gimp-resynthesizer.

Re:I'm sure... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32097574)

http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=6823

Re:I'm sure... (5, Informative)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097726)

It's in the AUR [archlinux.org] as a package for Arch. I don't even use Arch and it took me thirty seconds to find this. It's the very first page when you Google for "arch linux resynthesizer." [tinyurl.com] You want to be 1337 "cause I use Arch?" Learn to Google.

Re:I'm sure... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32097914)

*ahem*

now that you _know_ the name, it's indeed easy to google it.

enough said.

Re:I'm sure... (1)

denisfalqueto (987529) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097968)

Sorry, but if you use Arch Linux and you don't know about AUR, you are missing a very good tool. There's a PKGBUILD for resynthetizer right here: http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=6823 [archlinux.org]

Re:I'm sure... (1)

basotl (808388) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098234)

I use Ubuntu so I just..
1. Opened my package manager.
2. Typed "resynthesizer" in the quick search.
3. Checked box to select the plugin and clicked apply.
4. Opened up the Gimp to edit a picture.
5. Lassoed selected an object.
6. Selected Filter > Enhance > Smart Remove Selection
7. Clicked ok on the dialog... and it was gone.

It seemed to work well enough and seemed simple to install and use for me.

Re:I'm sure... (4, Insightful)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097196)

Bingo, we're into Drake Equation territory here.

Hell, even if you do know about it, good luck actually using it. After 15 minutes of apt-get fiddling and chanting mantras, I'm still unable to get the damn thing working in GIMP 2.6.7. For a feature whose primary purpose is to save you time, it sure could do with an FONT OF GOD sized install guide that explains how to (actually) get it working.

Re:I'm sure... (5, Informative)

Zaiff Urgulbunger (591514) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097730)

I installed it pretty easy under Ubuntu (9.10):
$ sudo apt-get install gimp-resynthesizer
However, when I first tried using it, I was using the Filter->Map->Resynthesize... menu option which kind of works, but isn't so great. I had to google to find a good explanation of how to use it. What you should do is:
1. Install as above,
2. Select area of image to remove,
3. Use Filters->Enhance->Smart remove selection...

And to be clear about this - it is fucking awesome. Seriously! I'm not usually _that_ impressed with things (I'm far too old!), but this goes into total witch-craft territory, it is *that* good!

If anyone has managed to install this plugin under Windows, I'd like to know the instructions for doing so (not for me... it's for my *friends*... honest!!!).

Re:I'm sure... (1)

tibman (623933) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097380)

isn't almost everything in GIMP a plugin? I don't have gimp on this machine to look, but why isn't this plugin shipped with GIMP?

Re:I'm sure... (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097582)

I knew about it ages ago when I first got into Gimp. Like Firefox, if I'm told it has plugins then I look for them. Would you argue that Adblock is at some sort of disadvantage for not being included in Firefox?

Moot point (1)

BetterSense (1398915) | more than 4 years ago | (#32096984)

Most of the professionals and 'prosumer' types I've talked to about the Gimp dismiss it instantly because it can only do 8-bit color, or something of the sort.

Re:Moot point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32097376)

Most of the professionals and 'prosumer' types I've talked to about the Gimp dismiss it instantly because it can only do 8-bit color, or something of the sort.

That's a bit of a limitation when my camera can shoot in 12-bit color, and Photoshop can handle the files just fine.

Re:Moot point (1)

yo_tuco (795102) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097776)

"That's a bit of a limitation when my camera can shoot in 12-bit color..."

Not a limitation at all. If you need 16-bit color to manipulate the hell out of your picture to reduce color round off error, then maybe capturing a good shot to begin with will solve that problem. And most devices to view that picture are low dynamic range anyway. So, gee, just think how MUCH better your picture would be in 128-bit floating point color!!! Hardly, you can't even see all the color differences of 16-bit.

Re:Moot point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32098038)

Right! Obviously the software is not at fault for being limited, it is the user's fault for taking crummy pictures to start with.

OSS FTW again! :-p

It is *precisely* that attitude that limits OSS adoption.

Re:Moot point (1)

yo_tuco (795102) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098130)

Subject, mood and composition of a picture trumps everything every time.

Re:Moot point (1)

fucket (1256188) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098420)

Maybe they should ditch color support entirely, that might help simplify things.

Re:Moot point (1)

chronosan (1109639) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097384)

Didn't that change recently?

Re:Moot point (4, Insightful)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097514)

Most of the 'prosumers' I've seen dismiss Gimp just repeat stuff they've read on Slashdot, knowing that it makes them look +5, insightful. They're probably as lazy when it comes to learning new tools as they are when it comes to independent thought.

Re:Moot point (1)

arose (644256) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097756)

How many of them actually take advantage of higher color depths in a meaningful way?

Re:Moot point (3, Insightful)

BetterSense (1398915) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097846)

It doesn't really matter. They will buy photoshop and diss Gimp as long as they THINK it's an important feature, regardless of whether it actually is at all.

It's one of the great differences between proprietary software and open source software. If Gimp is indeed still 8 bit, it may be because the developers have found that that 16 bit color is not a great advantage to image editing. Meanwhile Adobe has found that 16 bit color is a great advantage to selling copies of photoshop.

Re:Moot point (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098028)

so they buy (or maybe pirate) to feel pro?

Re:Moot point (1)

denisfalqueto (987529) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098062)

I wish I had modpoints... +1 insightful from me.

Re:Moot point (2, Insightful)

arose (644256) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098094)

If Gimp is indeed still 8 bit, it may be because the developers have found that that 16 bit color is not a great advantage to image editing.

It still it, mostly because switching the engine over to something else is a fuckton of work, but it's finally underway. There is no question about 16-bit being useful, and I'm looking forward to the day when GIMP finally supports it. Meanwhile I'll make sure to do most of my adjustments in Ufraw. However I suspect many 'prosumers' and too many professionals don't have a good grasp of what exactly the limitations of 8-bit are and when 16-bit actually makes a difference. Computer graphics in general and digital photography in particular are technically heavy disciplines, and while one can get around without a good understanding of that things refusing to learn just because you're an 'artistic type' is a dead end. A person who is as good as you on the artistic side of things and has a good grasp on the technical side will always be your superior.

Re:I'm sure... (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097280)

The "good enough" problem is a bit unique for GIMP though (not exclusively related to this plugin, but in general). MOST people can get by fine with image editors that are FAR simpler than either GIMP or Photoshop in their everyday life. On Windows I like Paint.NET - a program that's install file is a whopping 3.5MB. I'll admit though that with the newer version that comes in Windows 7, for quick stuff I'll often use regular Windows Paint. At home on Linux I still use GIMP, but that's just because I haven't found something good and simple on that platform.

I think you'll find that hold for most casual users. Anything that can crop, add text, and do the basics is fine. GIMP is overkill.

SO, when you start getting into a GIMP vs Photoshop discussion specifically, you're talking about professionals. IE, the people who would actually use the oddball features that casual users will never touch. In that regard, I think GIMP is just in a bad position. Powerful enough that mostly professionals would look at it, but weak enough compared to it's competitor that most professionals opt against using it.

Oh well. Maybe once they straighten out their UI issues it'll get better. GIMP has been around seemingly forever - people have criticized the UI from the start, and it's STILL never been addressed.

Re:I'm sure... (1)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097830)

Take a look at Pinta [pinta-project.com] . It's modeled after Paint.NET.

Re:I'm sure... (4, Interesting)

arose (644256) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098166)

Maybe once they straighten out their UI issues it'll get better. GIMP has been around seemingly forever - people have criticized the UI from the start, and it's STILL never been addressed.

People will find a new pet issue to criticize. What most of them really mean is "I don't care, I don't want to try anything new", but that doesn't sound good, so they will always find a new issue as long as GIMP isn't a carbon copy of the latest version of Photoshop. For the record, there are no serious UI issues beyond it being unfamiliar, there is a ton of minor ones, but to see them you actually have to spend some time with the program, so unsurprisingly they are not the target of much criticism.

Re:I'm sure... (1)

bigrockpeltr (1752472) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097404)

i have been doing this manually for years with great results. didn't know plugins like this existed (shame). ill probably try out the gimp plugin and see how it compares to manual work for larger stuff.. in terms of rebuilding/ creating background objects.

here is one i did a couple years ago. http://niaz.phuph.org/images/misc/cricket2.jpg [phuph.org]

Re:I'm sure... (2, Informative)

arose (644256) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097858)

It works reasonably well, but be aware of the limitations. Resynthesizer was originally made for texture enlargement, so you are best of working in chunks where you want a uniform texture. If it keeps pulling in texture that doesn't match you might have to create a layer isolating the matching texture and use the plug in itself (instead of the "Smart Remove" tool it is bundled with) to specify that layer as the texture source, make sure the source and target layers color spaces match, it will refuse to use an RGBA source with an RGB target. If they are both RGBA (the most realistic case), Resythesizer might leave small holes in the image, they are easily filled with a quick "Smart Remove".

If this sounds too complicated to any of you, you should try doing it by hand... Tools help, they don't do the job for you.

Re:I'm sure... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32097476)

>The question is the Adobe implementation worth the cost of PS, or is the GIMP plugin "Good enough"
I compared them last week and here is my answer as a gimp user: the Gimp plugin is not good enough when compared to the Adobe tool and the Adobe tool is not good enough in itself.

Problems with the GIMP plugin:
It has no maintener/developer anymore.
It crash when the picture is big (4000x3000) tested in 2 distros, ubuntu 10.04 and opensuse 11.2).
Its usability is poor. The use of the lasso tool makes it a PITA when the plugin is not immediatly effetive. The GIMP lasso tool forces you to 3 clicks to make a minimal selection, or circle around the object and a double click. Then you have to press a key to launch the plugin or go through a menu. In that amount of time, you have done 3 to 5 operations with the Photoshop tools.
Its effectiveness is poor. It's really a try and miss, which sometimes gets a try and succeed. Basically it's effective when the picture is really easy to work with in the first place, or by pure luck. I tried on different picture, and on the same spots the photoshop plugin gave a better result.

Problem with the Photoshop plugin:
Being better than gimp in all the point above, the problem is still the same than the gimp plugin. Its effectiveness is poor, it is also a hit and miss in many cases and after a while it became obvious that the pictures in the demonstrations were carefully choosen for their "good behavior". Still there are many cases where you believe that the plugin will help you, like erasing simple antenas lines in a blue sky, and it fails, replacing horizontal lines with vertical ones instead of the sky. Border are very bad too, erase something that is on top of a roof against a blue sky, you'd believe the plugin would get some blue sky, no it replaces parts of the roof with other parts of the roof.
So basically, after a while, you lose as much time as you gain, and the gain is only minimal and happens only in very selective situation where you hadnt much difficulties to work with in the first place.
Still needs a lot of work to be worth the price and not the miracle tool it was touted as.

Re:I'm sure... (1)

yo_tuco (795102) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097986)

"It crash when the picture is big (4000x3000) tested in 2 distros..."

Did you change the default memory requirements in the preference? I scan 6x7 (cm) and 4x5 (inch) negatives and get 12000x10000ish images and edit them in the GIMP all the time. No crashes. Yes, I still shoot medium and large format BW film.

Re:I'm sure... (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097550)

This is it. A lot of people will say Gimp can't do print catalogues and all sorts of high end stuff that the vast majority of people don't use which makes it irrelevant. A company that needs those things can easily afford PS and imo Gimp isn't really going after them.

Re:I'm sure... (1)

fastest fascist (1086001) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097824)

The problem is, Photoshop sucks, too. It's the best tool out there for what I do (photorealistic painting and compositing for film), but it's not very good. The whole layer paradigm simply sucks, many features are nice-but-not-quite-thought-out, and overall the devs seem to spend way too much time bringing in new nifty tools, resulting in bloat and a lack of focus. I'd love to like Gimp, but it's not even as useful as PS for me (try painting an 8k frame with any reasonable brush size) and sadly there is absolutely nothing out there I know of that is doing things better, or even trying to go into a reasonable direction from a painting point of view. So people like me are left grinding our teeth and wishing Adobe a fast death so the market would free up and some better software would spring up to fill the void.

Re:I'm sure... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32097640)

Third party plug-ins for photo-shop have existed for years. I remember seeing a review of one in Mac Addict many years ago I am think about 8 years ago. They thought it worked well but took forever to complete and cost quite bit. They used it to remove something from a pebble beach which was pretty impressive. One of my understanding with using these types of plug-ins is to start with a much higher resolution then you are going to use in the final product.

The real questions have already been answered (5, Funny)

AUSman (1606165) | more than 4 years ago | (#32096820)

Re:The real questions have already been answered (4, Funny)

cc1984_ (1096355) | more than 4 years ago | (#32096882)

I was going to say this is NSFW, but on closer inspection, I just don't know what to say.

Re:The real questions have already been answered (2, Funny)

rvw (755107) | more than 4 years ago | (#32096980)

I was going to say this is NSFW, but on closer inspection, I just don't know what to say.

A picture is worth a thousand breasts!

Re:The real questions have already been answered (1)

MarkGriz (520778) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097032)

NSFA (Not safe for anyone)

Content UN Aware FIll (1, Insightful)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#32096912)

It should be named content Un Aware. It's not aware of what's behind the hole, so it's extrapolating. Even in this image: http://blog.ultradownloads.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Rua-do-Aljube_Blog2.jpg [ultradownloads.com.br] where CS5 is touted to have completely replaced the sign pole on the right, the car now has two lion symbols, identical shadows, tiles seem to fall off the church roof, a tree trunk is the wrong color, and there is something that looks like steam coming from the antenna. Neither of the effects looks like something I'd attempt to use on anything more than a telephone pole in a sky-shot, and even then, I'd want a slider bar or something that I could get hundreds of options for the replacement. Then I'd retouch it more afterward.

Re:Content UN Aware FIll (1)

JamesP (688957) | more than 4 years ago | (#32096982)

Yes, it removed the lamp

But in the case of PS it was replaced by a multidimensional portal to another world or something like it.

Gimp replaced it with a vertical sidewalk or a tree made of concrete

So, either way PS wins \o/

Re:Content UN Aware FIll (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098196)

Both products failed pretty spectacularly actually.

Re:Content UN Aware FIll (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097212)

You don't need a slider bar, all you need is to select larger or smaller regions. Start with the larger region, then work your way down to smaller ones until it looks like a real image. You didn't think it was going to do the work for you, did you? This ain't CSI. I tried out resynthesizer when this story broke and found it to be pretty darned useful if you use it in this way; I assume CS5's feature is similar in practice.

Re:Content UN Aware FIll (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097310)

You didn't think it was going to do the work for you, did you? This ain't CSI.

ENHANCE! [slashdot.org]

Re:Content UN Aware FIll (1)

Raffaello (230287) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097826)

For a similar view of the advanced use of content-aware fill see this video [youtube.com]

Re:Content UN Aware FIll (1)

virgilp (1774784) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097252)

You have to use it... it's actually very useful - at least for a n00b like me :) (but I'm sure it saves time for a "pro", too; I only played with it for a few minutes on a colleague's computer, at work).
Sure, it won't work directly on all situations, but you quickly grasp what it takes for it to work. For example, in the case of the penguins, I can bet that I could've removed them all in less than a minute (and remember that I have no artistic bone in my body). Just start right-to-left, make an approximate freeform selection for each penguin and press the "del" key; if not perfect the first time, re-select the artifacts and "delete" them again.
I haven't worked with GIMP, but from what I saw in an online demo, it's slightly more cumbersome to use. You can get similar results with it, too... but hey, if you're willing to put in the time, I'm told you can get similar results with the "clone brush" :) (so yes, there's probably nothing you can do with PS that you can't do with GIMP, it's just that you'll probably do it quicker with PS).

Re:Content UN Aware FIll (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097412)

Even in this image: http://blog.ultradownloads.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Rua-do-Aljube_Blog2.jpg [ultradownloads.com.br] where CS5 is touted

"Even" in the image preceded by "4 - Pushing the bar. Now, let's get heavy. Removing a post of an urban image, where the background changes several times in the selection "?

You expected flawless results from the "push the bar", "heavy" challenge? *sigh*

Re:Content UN Aware FIll (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097874)

You expected flawless results from the "push the bar", "heavy" challenge? *sigh*

I was talking about the one case where the impossible almost happened. At a quick glance, in the CS5 frame, that sign post is missing. It did better in that case then with most of the others except the car and human in the first picture. There are obvious flaws in the CS5 algo; taking small things like the lion symbol and copying them in new places when a simple blend parallel to the adjacent lines would have been much better. It's obviously an algorithm designed for the chaos of nature rather than the line-heavy world of man.

Re:Content UN Aware FIll (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098450)

There are obvious flaws in the CS5 algo; taking small things like the lion symbol and copying them in new places when a simple blend parallel to the adjacent lines would have been much better. It's obviously an algorithm designed for the chaos of nature rather than the line-heavy world of man.

It's an automated "stamp tool". It's a first iteration of it, so we'll have to wait for revisions before it offers more options, but we'll always have to go in and do touch-ups if we want to go near perfection.

I just think that it did a pretty good job at a glance, but yeah, if you nitpick, there's plenty to pick at.

Re:Content UN Aware FIll (1)

Philip_the_physicist (1536015) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098076)

It does a reasonable job of guessing the content based on a single image. For better results, you'd want one of the tools which uses scene descriptors formed from image derivatives to find matching segments in a huge library of images and paste them together, using some sort of Poisson blurring to mix the edges in. I have seen this demonstrated, but I forget the name of the tool which was used. I do recall that it used a library of 2.3M images of northern Mediterranean towns for its example data set, and returned a selection of about 20 images so that a human can solve the rather tricky problem of checking for silly mistakes of scale or orientation in the pasted material (one of the suggestions produced by the example I saw put a giant footprint on a beach, for example). Whilst this requires an awful lot of images, and does take quite a while to run, it only needs help at the beginning (to mark what is to be removed) and end (to check the result) of the process.

Re:Content UN Aware FIll (1)

Zaiff Urgulbunger (591514) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098214)

For the record, I'm getting results from gimp-resynth that are similar to the CS5 results. I just used "Free select tool" [aka lasso] to quickly select *around* the outside of the pole -- being careful not to select anything within the pole -- and then used "Filter->Enhance->Smart remove selection..." and it does a pretty good job. One thing I have noticed with Resynth is that if you undo it and then reapply it (NOT redo), then it'll probably look a bit different from the first attempt, so there's a random element in the algorithm there somewhere! Does anyone know if CS5 does the same?

Re:Content UN Aware FIll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32098242)

I'm wondering how long it'll be before lazy or hurried efforts using this tool become featured images on PhotoShop Disasters. I figure it can't be too much longer than the time it takes for the mainstream studios to adopt CS5.

Terrible examples (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32096942)

Why test the tool in situations you would be very unlikely to contemplate using it?

If I want a high quality photograph of myself without the giant beard and santa suit and with the seamless removal of the marching band behind me, I will take a new one.

The Difference (0, Redundant)

dunezone (899268) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097036)

The GIMP plug-in is good but the photoshop feature is better.

The difference is that the GIMP plug-in will do a relatively good job but will require a decent amount of time to do the manual fixes and touch-ups. While the Photoshop feature does a better job and you save time in the manual fixes and touch-ups portion.

Re:The Difference (0, Troll)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097120)

The open source software is good but the commercial software is better.

The difference is that the open source software will do a relatively good job but will require a decent amount of time to do the manual fixes and touch-ups. While the commercial software does a better job and you save time in the manual fixes and touch-ups portion.

I guess you can generalize that ...

Re:The Difference (1)

sammyF70 (1154563) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097354)

... and you're basing this statement on what? From the pictures in TFA, I'd say in the cases where this feature is useful (which would be the "shadow removing" picture), GIMP wins by a slight margin. In useless tests ( extreme variations in texture, like the church picture), Photoshop *might* be slightly better, but the result is in no way useable. Where Photoshop have a slight advantage is in the UI of the plugin, although resynthesizer isn't exactly rocket surgery neither.

Selecting smaller, more homogeneous portions of the pictures should work in both better anyway. So that leaves us with : Photoshop can do CMYK stuff, Gimp can't. Photoshop CS5 retail price for non-student starts at $699 (which, by the way, translates to €1015,40 in Adobe-land if you try to buy it in France, instead of the €544,60 it would be in a country using old fashioned mathematics and regular currency values). Gimp's retail price is somehow a lot lower, and is consistent with this universe's conversion rates instead of some weirdo parallel one.

Personally, I'd say "why bother with PS5 if you don't need CMYK?" (especially if you're not in the USA)

Re:The Difference (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097836)

Photoshop CS5 retail price for non-student starts at $699 (which, by the way, translates to €1015,40 in Adobe-land if you try to buy it in France, instead of the €544,60 it would be in a country using old fashioned mathematics and regular currency values).

Wow. They have strange pricing. It's £548 (before tax) in the UK ($830), €849 (before tax) in France and Germany ($1100), €689 in "Europe" ($890).

I think they just make the prices up.

Re:The Difference (1)

sammyF70 (1154563) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098014)

Yep. I got the prices from the adobe shop (the €1015.40 price was after taxes btw.) Their price ~structure~ doesn't seem to be based on anything but pure randomness somehow.

It's GPL, so merge it (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097040)

This seems like a useful plug-in to merge with GIMP, and it's GPLv2.

Re:It's GPL, so merge it (2, Insightful)

Steve Max (1235710) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097216)

Then people will say, "Look how Gimp quickly put together a crappy imitation of Photoshop's content aware!"

It's a lose-lose situation now, unless Resynth gets much better and offers results at least as good as Photoshop's in every situation, which is probably not going to happen anyway: since the algorithms have different strong points, each will be better in a different situation.

Re:It's GPL, so merge it (1)

Zaiff Urgulbunger (591514) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098458)

FWIW, I've tried resynth and the "pole" picture [ultradownloads.com.br] looked pretty much the same as CS5 when I tried it, so I'm guessing the author of TFA made a poor selection. I've also previously tried the image from the CS5 promo video [youtube.com] with the woman sat on the park bench and I got almost much identical results.

The only area where I'd say Gimp lags is (1). the UI isn't as easy [both for this plugin, and more generally], and (2). the plugin only makes use of a single CPU core.

I don't know if CS5 make use of multiple cores... it bloody should do given the price though! ;)

Plugin vs built-in (4, Informative)

gaspyy (514539) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097072)

I can't speak for everyone who uses PS and/or Gimp, just for myself.

The real news was not the ability to do this kind of interpolation, but the fact that's built-in and integrated in the workflow.
For Photoshop, Alien Skin Image Doctor has been available for years (2002 maybe). What matters for me is that I no longer need to use a plugin and I can use this smart fills in several scenarios, including as a brush to remove fine things like wires.

The same goes with another new feature in PS CS5, the new selection tools. There were at least 2 or 3 plugins (like Fluid Mask) that could do tricky selections, but now it's built-in.
Same with the new lens corrections, no need for PTLens anymore, I can even profile my own lenses using the new lens profile creator from the labs.

I don't want to sound like I'm defending Adobe here, I used to hate them. For 10 years I've been using Corel Photo-Paint (from v3 to X3) plus a few others including The Gimp. In the end I realized that despite its shortcomings, PS really is the best tool for the job. When you're under pressure to deliver, small differences add up.

Re:Plugin vs built-in (1)

bigrockpeltr (1752472) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097470)

yup i agree 100% except that i never hated adobe for 10 yrs :P just wish they made a linux client.

Re:Plugin vs built-in (1)

herojig (1625143) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097622)

Yes, I totally agree with u. I actually despise Adobe's pricing and rollout practices, but what to do? I have to eat, and I can't make any money unless I use many of the programs in the suite: PS, AI, ID, and Flash in particular. On some level, I am also dependent on AE, but not so much these days. At least there is FCP, so I don't have to use PremierePro anymore. The current 64-bit plugin problem is just a fiasco, as here is another "upgrade" tax from most of the plug vendors to be able to use PS in 64-bit mode. Anyway, I think if users would just punish Adobe for thier crazy pricing, they might lower their prices, but I am not holding my breath.

Gotta love Google translate (2, Funny)

Bearhouse (1034238) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097372)

Seriously, it's a very useful tool to get the gist of things.
More amusingly, it come up with gems like this, (FTA):

The circus is armed: who is better at cutting the world?

"Bônus Round" (1)

LizardKing (5245) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097504)

\begin{linguist}
I love loanwords and phrases
\end{linguist}

OT: GIMP scaling seems broken. (2, Interesting)

guidryp (702488) | more than 4 years ago | (#32097838)

I know this is off topic, but I am not going to bother joining a GIMP forum.

I installed GIMP (windows) yesterday. I wanted to downscale some images and do a light USM, but GIMP downscaled images came out looking over-sharpened before I even got to the USM step. I know downscaling does make images appear sharper if the original was a bit soft.

But this is compared to downscaling in other programs. GIMP output looked over-sharpened with artifacts.

I could find no setting that indicated it was doing any USM on scaling, so I promptly un-installed GIMP, since it can't do something this basic without degrading the image.

The GIMP is open source, therefore IT SUCKS (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32097996)

The GIMP is a terrible piece of software.

No proper color support.

No usability.

Slow and crash prone

Poor support for content aware drawing.

In other words, just another day in the life of craptacular open source software.

Re:OT: GIMP scaling seems broken. (3, Informative)

arose (644256) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098446)

Which algorithm did you use for scaling? Cubic interpolation simply doesn't do this, Sinc does, it works great for upscaling and rotation, but stick with Cubic for downscaling.

Unattractive website (1)

Kenz0r (900338) | more than 4 years ago | (#32098152)

It always amazes me that the websites for wonderful FOSS projects can be so damn ugly.

The Resynthesizer website [logarithmic.net] is a great example. It's not so much the site itself I find ugly, but the logo.
They make a Gimp plug-in for crying out loud, they should be able to whip up something more appealing.

I get that programmers just don't care about their website or logo, only about coding the actual software.
But that kind of attitude is keeping some FOSS projects from becoming popular with the general population.

At first glance Resynthesizer wouldn't strike me as a serious competitor for anything that a behemoth like Adobe makes, although TFA shows me that it is.
Maybe that makes me a narrow-sighted idiot, but I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?