scoopy Posted August 6, 2003 Author Report Share Posted August 6, 2003 I think I am on the right track now. I must have installed a gimp LT version that forgot to include plugins for PSD files and such. I replaced what I had with version 1.2.3 (would of tried the 1.3.17 version, but I try to stay with rpms) and here's what I got this time using gimp from start to finish: Coming from photoshop ( working with photos more than art ) and being one not to get involved in installing extra goodies... psd plug-ins did not cross my mind. I think I was also missing an essential file that caused a few of my problems. (gimp-data-extras-1.2.0-5mdk) I understand the piracey comments were not specifically directed towards me. But I am not gonna claim I am 100 % innocent either. But the day may come shortly that if the only thing keeping me from being legal is just one or two apps... I think I would defianetly spend the money --- which would be the same case if I was just running windows. I will read up with these good links posted here. Hope to catch you (Dana) sometime on ICQ... I work evenings myself. thanks everyone for the imput - time for me to hit those links. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DOlson Posted August 6, 2003 Report Share Posted August 6, 2003 Something is weird about the new version of that image, but I'm not sure what. I've never done the animation stuff that you're attempting before; I just made each layer a new frame, and never worried about the combining stuff. I'm going to have to look more into it now, and maybe make a banner or something for TuxGames. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyv Posted August 6, 2003 Report Share Posted August 6, 2003 Something is weird about the new version of that image, but I'm not sure what. I've never done the animation stuff that you're attempting before; I just made each layer a new frame, and never worried about the combining stuff. I'm going to have to look more into it now, and maybe make a banner or something for TuxGames. :) The badge flashes with the red light? Or is that mean't to happen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyme Posted August 6, 2003 Report Share Posted August 6, 2003 the difference is the background. note the shadow, and also that the ground goes from dark-light from bottom to top. in the original, there is more of a spotlight effect where the ground right behind him is light and the dark areas are around the edge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest arise Posted August 6, 2003 Report Share Posted August 6, 2003 If Gimp was better or even close to Photoshop, then there would be no more Photoshop. This is not the case today, so draw the conclusions for yourselves... The beauty of Photoshop and any Adobe products for that matter is how they make use of one another, how they cooperate with each other. Right now on Linux there is nothing like that... The other thing that hurts open source is the reluctance of people who know a lot to put up with newbie questions in my opinion. I can remember countless number of times where i was sent to RTFM in whatever IRC channel, where one would expect to get at least SOME level of interactivity with one another. Which brings me to the "support" side of things...i am sure Adobe has better support channels, more literature, a wider and more established user base, etc... Who makes Gimp anyway? :P Back to the topic...the gif created with gimp seems to have a lesser colour depth, uses maybe dithering, because u can clearly see the shades of red in the strobe light. Plus the shadow looks more like a missing layer of something instead of a shadow. The PS one has seamless colour levels (which hints at colour depths in my opinion), which can be noticed both in the strobe light pattern and the shadow. Is there a detailed guide dissecting PS and Gimp, and taking them thru 100 tests for speed and quality comparisons? I can't find any...or maybe i didn't search long enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aRTee Posted August 6, 2003 Report Share Posted August 6, 2003 If Gimp was better or even close to Photoshop, then there would be no more Photoshop. This is not the case today, so draw the conclusions for yourselves... No good reasoning here, sorry. Compare that to: If linux was good there would be no more windows. This is not the case today, so draw the conclusions for yourselves... Ok, not a fair comparison, but yours was not so fair either. Compare PS vs GIMP to BMW 850 vs VW Golf. Both good cars, but not everyone can afford or needs a BMW. Heck, I would take the Golf (spoke he as a past Golf owner... ;) ). Anyway, I agree with much of the rest you said: interoperability of Adobe stuff as a suite is nice, and yes, currently this lacks in Linux. We do have some of that in for instance OpenOffice.org though. On RTFM: show me 10 posts in the last week where a newbie was told that, and I'll show you 100 where it wasn't the case. Things change, and this is (luckily) one of them. On literature: check out the gimp website, tutorials, even free books (DOlson posted the apt-get command, now what would that be on urpmi?? ;) Hey DOlson, stop making ads for debian!! :D ). To the topic starter: as you already realised, but just to clarify: no I was not insinuating that you don't have a legal copy, just that many arguing that the GIMP is lacking and useless are such themselves.. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aRTee Posted August 6, 2003 Report Share Posted August 6, 2003 On a side note, from professional users: Although Brooks considered and even tried to use several open-source alternatives, including GIMP, or GNU Image Manipulation Program (see related story), and Cinepaint (formerly FilmGimp), he said he ran into performance issues with the two programs. Artists also found the open-source programs less intuitive to use than Photoshop. From: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1210030,00.asp So they are using linux but want PS... sounds familiar?? ;) BTW a very good comment on Linux Today, which reminded me why I don't ever want to financially support Adobe (the second quote more than the first) : Skip Egdorf - Subject: What is with Adobe? ( Aug 6, 2003, 13:57:18 ) Adobe had a beta release of Framemaker on linux a few years ago. Although I tested alonside my Sun workstation version and it worked quite well, Adobe refused to release it. It seems that Adobe is one of the quieter, but more strongly, anti-linux players out there. Anyone know what is with Adobe and their disdain or dislike for Linux? ... John Atkeson - Subject: Re: Re: What is with Adobe? ( Aug 6, 2003, 14:55:01 ) > I don't know, but I've had a lot of distain for Adobe ever > since the Skylarov incident. Adobe seems to have a big stake in the "impeding accessibility" industry. Observer how almost nothing can copy from a pdf file (a format which Adobe is hyping to permeate web pages - ick). It's part of the mindset that information is property and learning is stealing. John From: http://linuxtoday.com/high_performance/200...080600726NWHESW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest arise Posted August 6, 2003 Report Share Posted August 6, 2003 artee, things will change...if adobe doesn't like linux today it doesn't mean it won't like it tomorrow. IBM, HP and Sun are leading the linux pack right now big time, but...they all have 1 thing in common: major hardware vendors (ok hp-ux, solaris and aix as well) but you get the point -> server world. Right now linux starts to be adopted slowly as a good OS choice for all kinds of servers, but until it hits the desktop world it will still take a while. For God's sake there is not even homogenous copy/paste functionality between applications out there, lol. But give it time, and it will hit... Only then Adobe and Co. will turn their noses (they already have but they are probably considering it not feasable yet) and port software to Linux. Who in the right mind in today's economic situation would want to invest into R&D for "alternative" OS-es? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoopy Posted August 6, 2003 Author Report Share Posted August 6, 2003 Just for quick clarifications: This avatar project started off with 5 layers in the gimp. The red on the badge being layer number 5. When things were not coming out right, I switched over to photoshop and had quickly redone each layer, except number 5. The backgrounds are different. The gimp's background was a brand new blending, and photoshop's was just repasted back in from original. Not sure what I chose when the dithering option came up. Something I need to work on next time. Note: I did not start off to make a side by side comparison... just wanted something decent looking. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DOlson Posted August 6, 2003 Report Share Posted August 6, 2003 If Gimp was better or even close to Photoshop, then there would be no more Photoshop. This is not the case today, so draw the conclusions for yourselves... That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. It's not even worth debating. Back to the topic...the gif created with gimp seems to have a lesser colour depth, uses maybe dithering, because u can clearly see the shades of red in the strobe light. Plus the shadow looks more like a missing layer of something instead of a shadow. The PS one has seamless colour levels (which hints at colour depths in my opinion), which can be noticed both in the strobe light pattern and the shadow. GIF files can only use a maximum of 256 colors anyhow, so the depth will never be more than that. It's just the method used to convert the image to indexed color. You can easily fix it if you know what to do. On literature: check out the gimp website, tutorials, even free books (DOlson posted the apt-get command, now what would that be on urpmi?? ;) Hey DOlson, stop making ads for debian!! :D ). Heh. No. Never. Debian rocks me. I don't think that Mandrake has that book included, so you'll have to go get the tarball yourself. For God's sake there is not even homogenous copy/paste functionality between applications out there I beg to differ. Now, all of the Adobe fanatics should just switch to Mac if they hate Windows so much. Adobe has no problems supporting the minority OS that Mac is, so why are they treating Linux any differently? I would buy Premiere if they ported it before Cinepaint supports standard formats, but I doubt that will happen. It's too bad, in some ways, but in other ways, it's good. The less commercial software for Linux, the less warez kiddies will be using it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest arise Posted August 6, 2003 Report Share Posted August 6, 2003 "That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. It's not even worth debating." Why stupid? If you have a car that's faster than a Mercedes, eats less fuel/100km than a Merc, safer than a Merc and It's FREE, then why would you still buy the Merc? is THAT stupid? or let me put it another way: with gimp around, why are peeps trying to get PS7 to work on Linux? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyme Posted August 6, 2003 Report Share Posted August 6, 2003 because that's what they're used to and that's what they want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bvc Posted August 7, 2003 Report Share Posted August 7, 2003 Hey Scoopy, does the version of gimp you run attached all of the toolbar/windows together?...like this.... http://members.shaw.ca/jdmaccess/images/sh....3.5.99-dev.jpg [screenshot from here http://gnomesupport.org/forums/viewtopic.p...=2718&start=120 ] Looks more like Photoshop now. http://mmmaybe.gimp.org/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zero0w Posted August 7, 2003 Report Share Posted August 7, 2003 Why stupid? If you have a car that's faster than a Mercedes, eats less fuel/100km than a Merc, safer than a Merc and It's FREE, then why would you still buy the Merc? is THAT stupid? Because people get used to some kind of workflow in a software. A lot of people are complaining the UI of GIMP, but I haven't played with Photoshop much, and I don't find the UI of GIMP too much of a problem. However, the GIMP developers are working on separating the UI from the engine, I think GIMP 2.0 beta (after 1.3.17) will be coming soon. And developers are working to cater the artists need more and more. GIMP used to be able to process 16 bit color only, but I am not sure if it's the case anymore. Anyhow CinePaint has crossed beyond that color limit and probably will have feasible CYMK support soon. Feature wise, there are a lot of things can be done with GIMP already; some professionals claimed Photoshop can do more than GIMP but besides the CYMK/color argument I have never read any descriptive/concrete example of what only Photoshop can achieve but GIMP can't. I would like to be enlightened in this regard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aRTee Posted August 7, 2003 Report Share Posted August 7, 2003 The 16 bit colour thing is the one thing (since inclusion of CMYK colours in the latest beta's) that GIMP cannot do. Mind you, it is 16 bit per subpixel/colour, meaning 48 bit for RGB... GIMP can only do up to 24bit colour (jpg etc, gif as always is 8bit/256 colours). Apparently FilmGimp (Cinepaint) had one of the first things changed in that bit depth, because they really needed 48bit (16 bit per subpixel). For them it was very important, for most other things it is not. How many people complain that jpg does not have enough colour depth? Get real. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.