On 29-Nov-2002, David Neary wrote: > > 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? > To cut this all short, how long will it be until I can do higher precision rendering in any gimp whatsoever? FG's xcf plugin is broke, gegl isnt done yet.... <insert stock rant here> Btw, why hasnt Gimp gone to linuxfund and get some funding? With $1k you probably could hire someone to push a single precision float rendering pipeline ahead of schedual. Or atleast put a huge dent in it. -- Patrick "Diablo-D3" McFarland || unknown@xxxxxxxxx "Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music." --Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989
Attachment:
pgpyeEAGj1M3X.pgp
Description: PGP signature
