Hi all,
David Hodson wrote:
> My feeling is that Filmgimp should be a tool specifically (or
> at least, primarily) for the film industry. It is very likely
> to develop along lines that are (at best) not useful to, or
> (quite possibly) totally unwanted by, the more general Gimp
> community. Remember, a tool that can do everything is seldom
> the perfect tool for one specific job. I don't think merging
> Gimp and Filmgimp will necessarily make either set of users
> happy.
A smallish delta between gimp 2 and film gimp will probably be
inevitable. And given that several filmgimp people seem to be the
primary developers on gegl at the moment, I'm sure that there's
some idea how big that delta will be right now.
But we're not talking about one tool for lots of different jobs,
here, so much as narrowing a rift that's developped while film
gimp was basically only developped in-house by one company over
the last 3 years. Things like getting the front-end looking
similar, doing similar separation of core & gui typ[e work to
that being done in HEAD right now (mostly by Mitch), and making
sure that major structural and design changes at least get
discussed wrt the two programs.
Does anyone know how big the functionality delta is between the
GIMP 1.2 and the film gimp? Are there plans to get filmgimp onto
gtk+ 2.0? Is there the possibility of bringing useful
functionality back into the main gimp branch from the HOLLYWOOD
branch?
> Of course, it would be great to build both tools on a single
> code base. But that's a bigger job than just merging the code,
> requires a wider range of skills, and (like everything else)
> is only going to happen if someone wants it badly enough to
> either do it, or pay someone else to do it.
Of course it's a big job. The point, I think, is that it'll be an
even bigger job by the time filmgimp is roughly up to the gimp
1.2 level, and gimp 1.4 is out on the shelves getting heavily
debugged :) Of course, by that stage the emphasis will be on
gegl, pupus and all the other cool stuff that's planned for 2.0.
In brief, though - what does the film gimp have that the main
gimp doesn't have, apart from some extra cool and expensive
plug-ins and 16 bits per channel?
Cheers,
Dave.
--
David Neary,
Marseille, France
E-Mail: bolsh@xxxxxxxx
