[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / bestemma / cyber / imouto / magali / soyboys / sw / vg / voxed ]

/tech/ - Technology

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 3 per post.


File: c19d47e62eef9c4⋯.png (1.68 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot from 2018-04-27….png)

 No.905473

GIMP 2.10 is out and it actually seems to be a decent upgrade over 2.8.

https://www.gimp.org/news/2018/04/27/gimp-2-10-0-released/

 No.905474


 No.905477

are the filters backwards compatible?


 No.905478

>>905473

this is super cool

too bad there's no macOS build yet


 No.905479

File: 098fa6d1c541a5b⋯.jpg (487.38 KB, 3157x3157, 1:1, Stop-AIDS.jpg)


 No.905482

File: 3b61e801a7fcbd0⋯.png (343.29 KB, 1749x1656, 583:552, 3b61e801a7fcbd0b812e5c7679….png)

>>905479

Try it before complaining. There actually is a lot of new shit in this release.


 No.905484

>>905479

Flatpak is actually less harmful than Snap. No systemd dependency for one thing.


 No.905486

File: 2db9732acd62559⋯.jpg (21.23 KB, 500x500, 1:1, 3_500.jpg)

>>905480

A cheap Intuos from Wacom. But I didn't make the screenshot.


 No.905487

>>905477

You mean the GIMP's or G'Mic?


 No.905495

>>905487

I don't know what G'Mic is. I am talking about the GIMP filters and scripts. Are 2.8 filters/scripts compatible within 2.10?


 No.905497


 No.905499

>>905495

From what I'm seeing, 2.10 should be compatible with 2.8.


 No.905503

>>905497

Seems like some decent software. Thanks for the link.

>>905499

Thanks for the info anon.


 No.905534

File: b585b9a4467e11e⋯.png (883.22 KB, 885x691, 885:691, SpiceandFire.png)

>>905473

Pepper is a cute!


 No.905536

File: f4e9d5227312a35⋯.jpg (101.13 KB, 675x900, 3:4, d70635b7e22aed9f6d79dcea8b….jpg)

>>905479

Would you prefer a fucking PPA?


 No.905551


 No.905580

Still Gtk2?


 No.905585

>>905536

https://github.com/GNOME/gimp

You don't have to wait for some fag to fudgepack it for you.


 No.905601

File: 1b8cdbcc23ce655⋯.jpeg (73.03 KB, 700x950, 14:19, C_jYC_JVoAEBJ1h.jpg:large.jpeg)

>>905585

>GIMP

>compiling from sauce

Might save a little space, but it sure takes a lot longer. I'll just take the Flatpak.


 No.905608

>>905473

Are they actually making progress on squashing bugs?

Either way, nice to see at least an illusion of progress. Or that the project isn't dead.


 No.905623

>>905601

>he doesn't recompile large packages on a bi-weekly basis

INSTALL GENTOO NOW


 No.905625

File: a016168a3022e09⋯.jpg (12.72 KB, 252x255, 84:85, 908cd8d507b459d2ae9322d402….jpg)

h-hi guys, where is the w-windows version...?


 No.905627

File: 3fc3a7155de607e⋯.mp4 (598.46 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, All_users_of_Windows_are_s….mp4)

>>905625

"There is no Windows installer yet, sorry. Please check back later."


 No.905631

File: 30437187de44fe9⋯.jpg (60.17 KB, 1000x720, 25:18, pointing.jpg)

>>905625

DELETE MACROSHIT WANGBLOWS

INSTALL GENTOO


 No.905636

Long have I waited for this day.


 No.905646

woah they have a dark theme now. Holy shit.


 No.905653

>>905473

the OP image is a visual hack btw:

if you look at the thumbnail from a distance/defocused, you might see something completely different — a close-up of a guy from the side, with 1 eye and the nose in the visible area


 No.905656

File: cda1fd709f3d7a2⋯.png (25.95 KB, 294x188, 147:94, whoops.png)

>>905653

something like this


 No.905657

>>905656

>>905653

< Pareidolia (/pærɪˈdoʊliə/ parr-i-DOH-lee-ə) is a psychological phenomenon in which the mind responds to a stimulus, usually an image or a sound, by perceiving a familiar pattern where none exists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

Or maybe you wanted to call David Revoy a merchant because that image was shilling his Liberapay?


 No.905660

File: dfe9af509d93bd7⋯.png (29.16 KB, 294x188, 147:94, whoops_.png)


 No.905664

File: a1780cdad604e00⋯.png (1.95 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot from 2018-04-28….png)

File: 5287e883dbb6987⋯.png (1.95 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot from 2018-04-28….png)

>>905646

There actually seems to be a shit ton of new features. But, yeah, the theme is easier on the eyes.


 No.905666

File: c629765d26c87d4⋯.png (1.81 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot from 2018-04-28….png)

Also, it seems the GIMP has basically integrated Mypaint's painting engine and brushes. So it kinda is starting to step into Krtia's territory.

Also, way to EEE Mypaint, GIMP.


 No.905667

File: dd3f4f43b296496⋯.jpg (29.98 KB, 800x800, 1:1, DYNAU1yUMAAbndW.jpg:large.jpg)

>>905657

I don't really see anything wrong with Revoy making one (and so far the only one) promo image for Librepay. Hell, more people should be shilling that place over Paytreon.


 No.905672

>>905657

>Or maybe you wanted to call David Revoy a merchant because that image was shilling his Liberapay?

No. Although you can overlay you-know-what over that >>905656 >>905660

and it will blend. :D


 No.905676

>>905625

Should be one before long.


 No.905679

>>905676

How do you know?


 No.905684

>>905608

Gimp has gone through major changes in the back end

Just because it does not have new buttons doesn't mean the project is abandoned


 No.905686

>>905473

>There is no Windows installer yet, sorry. Please check back later.

<AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA


 No.905689

>>905666

Checked


 No.905691

>the Warp transform

Is this like the Photoshop's warp, or like the Photoshop's liquify.

>>905666

This sounds exciting, I might actually try it out. And it looks kind of neat, doesn't look like it's from Windows 98 era anymore.


 No.905693

>>905679

Because that's what the developer just said on Twatter.


 No.905695

>>905693

link? / what about macOS?


 No.905696

File: e6e2a1fb50df221⋯.jpg (87.31 KB, 1140x1136, 285:284, 396b2e5d71bf231a8589e80903….jpg)

>>905608

Nigger, did you even look at that changelog? This is a MAJOR update.


 No.905697

File: e842eb5b339181e⋯.png (56.94 KB, 640x438, 320:219, dae9896d-544f-4052-9c6a-9f….png)


 No.905698

>>905486

>A cheap Intuos from Wacom

I don't know what are you replying to, but I wouldn't consider Intuos cheap. Mine was around 270 bucks, I could have bought half a meter of tablet if I had went with Huion. Though this was from local store, might be cheaper in America.


 No.905702

>>905580

It's still GTK2. The Gimp 2.10 release was their main focus while the GTK3 port is less important to the team.


 No.905703

>>905698

The model in the picture is about 60-70 USD. And that was a couple years ago.


 No.905704

>>905702

I thought they were skipping GTK3 and going directly to GTK4?


 No.905705

>>905646

Theming is supposed to be handled by your window manager, not the Gimp program.


 No.905706


 No.905707

>>905703

What about the new model that recently came out? Intuos M something?

I tried to look it up, but got annoyed, link from Wacom took me to Indian store and I'm no where near India.


 No.905709

File: 6c8e62ac44f973f⋯.jpg (37.54 KB, 750x542, 375:271, wood erecting.jpg)

>foreground select


 No.905710

>>905704

The last time I saw it, the GTK3 version of Gimp compiled but still needed some work. I hadn't seen this news about GTK and Gimp. https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=GIMP-2.10-GTK4-Planning


 No.905711

File: a8370ac2250cd57⋯.jpg (46.27 KB, 460x644, 5:7, DXwZENNU8AAvG5K.jpg)

All GIMP really needs now is CYMK. It's interface is still autistic, but it has most of the features I need.


 No.905713

>>905711

CMYK is govno without tasks.

if there is any colorspace which supports full color range (such as CIE XYZ), conversion to CMYK is trivial and fully automatic anyway.


 No.905715

>>905707

>I'm no where near India

yeah right we all believe that don't we.

PAJEET PLS GO

>>905705

window decorations are handled by the WM but the interior of the window is controlled by the program.


 No.905718

>>905715

>yeah right we all believe that don't we.

I'm in Europe, fuck you buddy. It's not my fault Wacom has a retarded site.


 No.905722

>>905721

No, you tell me how much the new Wacom Intuos M model costs in America, because I can't be bothered to look it up.


 No.905724

File: cb1e9f6b3a83641⋯.jpg (170.46 KB, 1200x900, 4:3, Ashleigh Shackelford.jpg)

>>905721

> I need hot sexy gf. I need tall westernized indian woman. She must dominate me but not too much.

here you go


 No.905730

File: 1b3e5f3a7499164⋯.jpg (321.82 KB, 800x695, 160:139, 1b3e5f3a7499164a546da76ddf….jpg)

>>905722

In the time to make that post you probably could've done it yourself.


 No.905751

File: 81cafcba2f208fa⋯.png (Spoiler Image, 3.93 MB, 2024x3522, 1012:1761, 81cafcba2f208fa930301ce312….png)

>>905724

Too much MAFF!


 No.905752

File: 13fc43d218e4365⋯.png (358.24 KB, 599x536, 599:536, BfjcbeaCMAAEWsR.png)

>>905730

I see your point and I've thought about it, but that's where it ended.


 No.905754

File: b469b6c57d5fe0a⋯.jpeg (Spoiler Image, 126.22 KB, 1024x889, 1024:889, xlarge.jpeg)


 No.905755

>Layer groups can finally have masks on

Fucking finally!


 No.905764

>>905711

It's a shame they took her tiddies away in the remake...


 No.905767

File: 01fbb1f73bcdf08⋯.jpg (386.5 KB, 1950x1305, 130:87, nipple driver.jpg)

>>905764

>tiddies

you mean nipples?


 No.905770

File: f89106918d1b82d⋯.jpg (33.93 KB, 250x334, 125:167, trunderworld-lara.jpg)

File: 6f5bb4d8dbc18a1⋯.jpg (308.2 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, 236477-20161120185804_1.jpg)

>>905767

I mean they gave her the Nu Lara treatment.


 No.905772

>>905770

>Nu Lara

I have no idea what the fuck it is


 No.905774

File: a599e2295f7d903⋯.jpg (49.31 KB, 600x697, 600:697, 88a4b8f74f4671fa8019efb7db….jpg)

>>905767

The term 'tiddies' covers the whole package.


 No.905775

>>905772

We're starting to derail, so let this suffice: Nu Lara had her sexiness toned way-way down from her last incarnation. AND it would seem the same thing is happening to Tifa in the PS4 remake.


 No.905778

>>905697

There any downside to performance by running this in Flatpak?


 No.905780

>>905775

Bigger boobs doesn't mean more sexiness. Nu Lara is a far more relatable body type of a badass chick who is capable of performing acrobatics for multiple days with minimal rest.


 No.905783

>>905775

not everyone is turned on by BIG boobs

>>905780

true


 No.905789

File: e16ddf50058aba2⋯.jpg (191.6 KB, 1280x1920, 2:3, Pettanko.jpg)

File: fcb9ecc0fd96db6⋯.jpg (153 KB, 579x1163, 579:1163, Loli Croft.jpg)

>>905780

They were iconic to the character, and even the first couple of movies acknowledged this. The newer ones decided to say fuck all that, and replace Jolie with this. The saddest part is this one fanart has more breasts than her.

>>905754

Saved.


 No.905790

>>905789

Why is that 12 yr old boy wearing a bra.


 No.905794

>>905789

I like small boobs, but that is just a man's body type. Doesn't even look like a woman if you cover the face.


 No.905807

Can you draw a circle now?


 No.905817

>>905807

No, but you can draw a pepper which is close enough.


 No.905832

>>905807

Gimp has always had different ways to draw a circle.


 No.905927

>>905789

hollyjew trap/10


 No.905963

>>905702

YES

The day Gimp requires me to install (((GTK3))) is the day I stop upgrading it.


 No.905972

>>905764

>>905770

>>905775

They did WHAT!?!? I thought Sony as a nip company was supposed to be immune to Western sjfaggotry?

Fucking hell. At least we can stay with the original (and best) version.


 No.906043

File: f2387b2ed0ff661⋯.jpg (10.94 KB, 240x170, 24:17, screen67.jpg)

File: 212d41098123639⋯.jpg (104 KB, 300x565, 60:113, Lara-Croft-Tomb-Raider-Ann….jpg)

>>905783

>>905780

You two forgot to say no-homo~ In adult women, we are evolutionary wired to like larger breasts (to a point).

And as a character, Nu Lara is far more dull than her original over the top and borderline-sociopath predecessor. Hell, even Legends Lara had more flavor. The problem with Nu Lara is that everything she does has to be grounded more in reality. This makes her, and the world she takes you though more boring.


 No.906044

File: 20e3c94724f093a⋯.jpeg (Spoiler Image, 133.88 KB, 1024x576, 16:9, xlarge.jpeg)

>>905807

Here:

Step 1: Load mildly lewd image into the GIMP

Step 2: Select the 'Ellipse Select Tool'

Step 3: Drag mouse over image to draw circle

Step 4: Go to 'Edit &gt; Stroke Selection'

Step 5: Select brush and size in the popup menu

Final Step: Click 'Stroke' (lewd).


 No.906045

>>905963

Good news! The GIMP team has seid they aren't going to make a GTK3 version.


 No.906046

Wait, so they'll support Google's obsolete-out-the-door WebP format, but I still have to use a shitty hack to get half-assed APNG support in Gimp Animation Pack?


 No.906059

>>906046

APNG was never an official format though.


 No.906060

>>906046

APNG is shit outside of a handful of very specific circumstances, and tries to make a format for still images into a video format. Just like use lossless video. What you should be upset over is new formats that are better than webp and need exposure not being supported, like FLIF or maybe HEIF.

Here's some of my tests. The original image is 7.07mb uncompressed.

PNG with -9 compression gives me a file that is 371kb in half a second. Using zoplfipng gives 326kb in just under a minute.

FLIF gives me a file that is 159k in just under 5 seconds.

Webp is better than PNG, but not as good as FLIF. It gives a file of 214kb in 1 second when using lossless compression. If I crank up the compression level to max it gets to 203kb in 13.3 seconds.

I would compare HEIF with this, but I can't get it to compile correctly. That or the poor documentation prevents me from using the binary that might be the writer. If I did do it correctly, then the file I got was about 270kb but was near-instant. Not sure if that's lossless or lossy.

tl;dr: FLIF is much better than PNG or Webp and the GIMP should support it.


 No.906102

>>906046

APNG is cancer. The sooner it dies the better.


 No.906104

>>906102

APNG can't ever die because it never really lived in the first place.


 No.906112

File: 0fe7e7d4f83238e⋯.png (1.78 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot from 2018-04-29….png)

>>905972

SOMEHOW, they've gotten the idea that tits are no longer marketable in the US.


 No.906115

>>906104

I'll believe when support is removed from all major browsers.


 No.906116

>>906112

Hiring American (((marketing experts))) so that they ruin your product for ideological reasons. What a great idea.

sage for offtopic, pls do the same next time


 No.906117

>>906115

I'm using falkon and apng doesn't work. This has not been a hindrance to me, ever. Therefore apng is dead.


 No.906118

>>906117

>major


 No.906122

File: 5842a1ec1c0c035⋯.png (3.19 MB, 2024x1556, 506:389, pepper_and_carrot_mini_fre….png)

>>906116

Hey, at least I made the reply IN the GIMP. That said, yeah, I'll get back on track.

One thing I'm wondering is how much the GIMP project and devs get through crowd funding. Anyone know? I'm pretty sure it's a lot less than Krita or even David Revoy.


 No.906123

>>906118

I don't care about (((major browsers))). If I can use a browser without APNG support yet never notice the lack of APNG support (i.e. there's no APNG content on the web), then it's dead.


 No.906128

>>906123

As long as support is sufficiently widespread, some idiots may start using it on a popular website - and forcing browsers to keep compatibility forever.

And Mozilla is full of idiots, they were are the ones pushing this shit format to this day.


 No.906131

File: 09872b83b816893⋯.jpg (215.83 KB, 476x618, 238:309, imgurjew.jpg)

>>906128

I don't think that is going to happen. GIF is still the normie way to upload animations. And (((Imgur))), for example, has switched to converting them to WEBM. I'd say there is around a 70% to 80% chance that APNG will never take hold. And if it does, oh well, at least it's better than GIF :^)


 No.906132

>>906131

>GIF is still the normie way to upload animations

if non-normies stop just accepting that, maybe we could stop that cancer.

>I'd say there is around a 70% to 80% chance that APNG will never take hold. And if it does, oh well, at least it's better than GIF

not much, and even less software support.

special formats for animation aren't needed, full stop. there are video formats which are already out there and more efficient.

want lossless video for some reason? there's FFV1.

want looping? this is not a format's duty at all, should have a HTML attribute for that and/or a field in the WEBM container.


 No.906133

>>906131

If we're going to replace GIF, at least use a decent replacement. I don't want to be stuck with another shit format for the next two decades just because it's "good enough".


 No.906134

>>906133

"good enough" has been the mantra for computer technological development since at least the late 90's.


 No.906135

>>906134

>>906134

APNG isn't even good enough.

At least VP9 should be used, or something that's at least as good.


 No.906137

File: 61ddad043a90921⋯.png (4.84 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, 61ddad043a90921d121d410683….png)

>>906135

There's one good use for APNG. NSFW warning.

>>906112

Squeenix should have learned from NIER Automata. But then they don't learn.

>>906044

You funny guy.


 No.906138

>>906137

>There's one good use for APNG. NSFW warning.

fake thumbnails?

that's not a valid use case


 No.906139

>>906133

>>906132

Now that some discussion on the topic has been generated I have decided to convert all my GIFs to WEBM using ffmpeg. But should I use VP8 or VP9? I've noticed that 8chan sometimes doesn't accept my webms; I'm not sure whether that's due to it not supporting VP9.

>>906137

>4.84 MB

Ok, APNG is shit.


 No.906140

>>906139

>convert all my GIFs to WEBM using ffmpeg

you can't do that losslessly and win, as you have to deal with nasty color dithering which compresses badly by full color codecs.

you need to find the sources and use them.

once a video goes through GIF compression, it's wasted.

>>906139

>8chan sometimes doesn't accept my webms; I'm not sure whether that's due to it not supporting VP9

it's not because of VP9.

VP9 is supported here, I tested it.

you were doing something wrong I guess.


 No.906141

>>906140

>once a video goes through GIF compression, it's wasted

I have huge folders of gifs saved from random places. The quality can't be fixed. But I can at least save some disk space.


 No.906143

File: ed68cfbae839bd2⋯.webm (16 MB, 640x272, 40:17, ed68cfbae839bd2d939e5fe7e….webm)

>>906139

VP9 compresses better with the tradeoff of encode times being much longer. Still doesn't seem worth bothering with, depending how big they are. Disk space is cheap. Most GIFs are better off re-generated from sources or discarded.

Also what tool are you using? Try using standard ffmpeg instead of any frontends. Also note some browsers don't support all pixel formats. Stick to yuv420p if possible.

>>906138

Have you never used an imageboard? Of course it's valid. Less ugly than historic ways too.


 No.906145

>>906141

when I was in a similar situation, I just ran

find ~ -name "*.gif" -delete

if you really want to prolong the suffering, you could encode them into VP9.

you'd better disable color subsampling (should be made so by default, but add `-pix_fmt yuv444p` just in case) and use CRF mode with rf ≥ 30 (`-b:v 0 -crf 30`) — increase the value after `-crf` if you think it could be worsened even more.

crf 30 is a good starting point for normal video, but for palette-dithered inputs it could produce too big files, you need to test that.


 No.906147

>>906143

>what tool are you using?

I am just using command-line ffmpeg as compiled.

>>906145

Is the 444p correct or a typo. >>906143 says 420p.


 No.906148

>>906143

>Have you never used an imageboard? Of course it's valid. Less ugly than historic ways too.

Should be just a functional of imageboard.

This one is an ugly hack.

Anyway, this would work with webm as well.

>Most GIFs are better off re-generated from sources or discarded

Yeah that's what I said.>>906143

>Try using standard ffmpeg instead of any frontends. Also note some browsers don't support all pixel formats. Stick to yuv420p if possible

IIRC, 8chan supports yuv444p.

yuv420p looks like shit.


 No.906149

>>906147

>Is the 444p correct or a typo. >>906143 says 420p.

It's not a typo.

Try 444p, only if that doesn't work for you then go down. color subsampling is very bad for quality.


 No.906150

File: 3c6376cacd44506⋯.webm (1.02 MB, 540x480, 9:8, 3c6376cacd44506007d78e78c….webm)

>>906147

>>906148

You can use 444p but some browsers don't support displaying it (Pale Moon, possibly standard Firefox). Doesn't affect me as such since I always watch videos in mpv but it had to be pointed out. Example for testing.

>>906147

What's your typical command line?


 No.906151

>>906143

>Disk space is cheap

bullshit argument, network traffic is not always unlimited and not always ridiculously fast, and other people might not have such big disks.

also if you use VP9, you can have more content on the same space.


 No.906153

>>906150

444p is playing on standard Firefox for me.

perhaps you just should use normal browsers.

didn't check what your example uses but it plays in my standard Firefox.


 No.906154

File: 01d8ccde2086473⋯.gif (2.7 MB, 676x480, 169:120, laintrain.gif)

File: b43b84dcaa24702⋯.webm (312.41 KB, 676x480, 169:120, laintrain.webm)

>>906150

>What's your typical command line?

I used

ffmpeg -i source.gif -c:v vp9 -b:v 0 -crf 30 -pix_fmt yuv444p output.webm
for gif/webm related. Webm is definitely much better size-wise and I don't notice significant degradation, mostly because the source is already so low quality.

Of course, I could go back to the original anime and extract a segment but I'm too lazy to do that for my entire folder.


 No.906155

>>906143

very impressive but can you shove that entire movie into 8 MB?


 No.906156

>>906154

>Webm is definitely much better size-wise and I don't notice significant degradation, mostly because the source is already so low quality

if you use the original, it should be a lot better.

perhaps that anime didn't use a lot of color gradients to begin with, I dunno. then it could give passable results such as what you got.

command line looks correct.


 No.906157

File: 0d9c1c9d80668aa⋯.gif (351.84 KB, 500x357, 500:357, laugh.gif)

File: b922675d4b5b178⋯.webm (44.06 KB, 500x357, 500:357, laugh.webm)

>>906156

most anime don't have too many colours. but for camera-recorded video then converted to GIF, yeah the quality would be abhorrent.


 No.906158

>>906157

>>906154

if you feel like experimenting, you can pick a few samples you care about the most, and try raising the CRF value until the distortions becomes annoying, and see how far you could go.


 No.906160

>>906154

I find it strange btw that you didn't have to use `-c:v libvpx-vp9` instead. Is that a recent change in ffmpeg 4.0 or it's because of your distro or something? back in the days libvpx-vp9 was the way to refer to it.


 No.906161

>>906160

on my system it's still the old way

$ ffmpeg -hide_banner -encoders | grep vp9

V..... libvpx-vp9 libvpx VP9 (codec vp9)


 No.906163

>>906060

>APNG is shit outside of a handful of very specific circumstances

APNG is excellent for 99% of cases where you would traditionally use GIF.

>Webp is better than PNG

We're talking about APNG here, and no, it generally is not. Animated WebP typically cannot compete with APNG when it comes to lossless animation because WebP doesn't use delta frame compression.

>>906132

>there's FFV1

FFV1 can't even get near the file sizes of lossless H.264, that's a totally inappropriate format for website usage. The purpose of lossless video codecs like FFV1 and Lagarith is very different from animation.

>>906135

Same goes for VP9 dummy. Stop conflating lossy video formats with animation formats, they're not the same and they will never be the same. Could there be a better format for animation than APNG? Surely, but it isn't a fucking lossy compression codec for a video container.


 No.906164

>>906161

That's the same for my system, but for some reason just using "vp9" works as well (and the videos are actually encoded with vp9). I'm using ffmpeg-3.4.2 on gentoo.


 No.906166

File: c1e824cacf24ce9⋯.webm (16 MB, 684x466, 342:233, c1e824cacf24ce9c75a5da0a3….webm)

>>906155

It's not mine. Some other wizard made that. Neither is this.

>>906153

If standard Firefox wasn't so disgustingly heavy I'd still be using it. Not that browsers can ever be considered light but there is a threshold especially for my low-end system. Anyway again, I don't actually care if people use 444p since I play them externally.

>>906154

It works OK for some GIFs I'll give that. Things like >>906157 weren't that large to begin with, and most GIFs that are problem size are generally lengthier scenes, and look atrocious, so aren't really worth keeping.

>>906160

Someone correct this if it's wrong but I suspect libvpx-vp9 is an explicit reference to one VP9 encoder, whereas vp9 will choose a default of multiple.

V..... libvpx-vp9 libvpx VP9 (codec vp9)

V..... vp9_vaapi VP9 (VAAPI) (codec vp9)


 No.906167

>>906161

My system shows vp9_vaapi as well. Is that better? I've heard that using hardware-accelerated encoding can lead to low quality results. I guess because I'm dealing with GIF it doesn't make much difference though.


 No.906168

>>906163

>FFV1 can't even get near the file sizes of lossless H.264

When I tested it on some GG Allin performance recordings (recently) it was the opposite. (the source was the original MPEG-2 60i footage -> mcdeint filter)

>Stop conflating lossy video formats with animation formats

Are you trying to say that 256-color conversion is lossless?

>they're not the same and they will never be the same

Because … ?

>>906166

>If standard Firefox wasn't so disgustingly heavy I'd still be using it

you can use compile-time flags to remove shit you don't need.

>>906166

>Someone correct this if it's wrong but I suspect libvpx-vp9 is an explicit reference to one VP9 encoder, whereas vp9 will choose a default of multiple.

Could be a more-or-less recent addition. Thanks for the tip, I will test than some day.

>>906167

No way to find besides actually testing. Yeah there can be differences.


 No.906169

>>906168

>When I tested it on some GG Allin performance recordings (recently) it was the opposite. (the source was the original MPEG-2 60i footage -> mcdeint filter)

Perhaps it depends on the source. I've done extensive tests before on a variety of 2D video games and FFV1 typically was around 4x the file sizes as x264 in lossless mode with slowest encode setting. And the x264 lossless video itself is typically around 2x the size of a lossless APNG.

>Are you trying to say that 256-color conversion is lossless?

Now we're talking about GIF. But if your animation had only that many colors in the first place? Then yes that is lossless, and in such instances GIF almost always produces smaller files than video formats for animation. The reason that formats like GIF and APNG produce smaller files with animation lies in how they compress their information between frames. Animation formats use transparency layers to literally chop out visual information that doesn't change from one frame to the next. There are very few video codecs that use this technique, probably because it is actually rather computationally expensive for a comparatively high-resolution, high-frame video that people actually want to watch for a significant frame of time. This is why animation formats still retain their own niche and probably will continue to for at least another decade. They use a wholly separate compression technique that works well for simple things characteristic of animation but does not translate well to high-resolution, high-color, and extremely low between-frame similarities characteristic of actual video.


 No.906170

>>906168

>>906169

>When I tested it on some GG Allin performance recordings (recently) it was the opposite. (the source was the original MPEG-2 60i footage -> mcdeint filter)

To be precise, the source is the 3rd part of https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/13100579/GG_Allin_Best_of_1991_Live_DVD_remux

and the video processing args are


-vf crop=704:464:10:8,yadif=mode=3:parity=0,mcdeint=mode=extra_slow:parity=0

the FFV1 compression settings that gave the best results are


-c:v ffv1 -level 3 -coder 1 -context 1 -g 120


 No.906171

>>906169

>But if your animation had only that many colors in the first place?

How often do you see it on the web vs all other incorrect usage of GIF?


 No.906173

>>906169

>There are very few video codecs that use this technique, probably because it is actually rather computationally expensive for a comparatively high-resolution, high-frame video that people actually want to watch for a significant frame of time

It's not because of that. It's because it's inefficient for data which is as complex as photo-realistic footage.


 No.906174

>>906171

Less so these days in the context of animations intended to be shared between people on a place like image boards or imgur. It was certainly the most common form of motion on the web for the first ~15 years of its existence, and still retains its niche for simple elements of web design. Animation formats also have usage outside the web as well particularly for user interface elements.


 No.906175

>>906174

sure, that's right.

but the biggest mess is these morons storing movie fragments in GIF. we need to deal with them.

when only correct usage of "animation" formats remains, I'm completely fine with that.


 No.906176

>>906173

It's more the case of photo-realistic even simply grainy video capture involving millions of colors every frame. It's pointless in these instances because as I said their is very little visual parity from one frame to the next. You'll hardly save anything on file size because there are very few or none at all similar elements to "chop out" from one frame to the next via a transparency layer.


 No.906177

>>905702

Have they considered rewriting the GUI in Rust?


 No.906178

>>906176

you can store the difference vs the full data, and still "win" some space.

…but real motion compensation (one of the key techniques used in some way in practically all video codecs since MPEG-1 or earlier) allows to win even more.

and motion estimation is clearly more computationally demanding and complex than that.

>>906177

Since when Rust has its own GUI toolkit?


 No.906179

If macOS build ever comes, it will likely be visible here

https://download.gimp.org/pub/gimp/v2.10/

The web page contains broken links at the moment, this makes checking too annoying.


 No.906189

>>906179

Looks like the Windows version is up at least.


 No.906190

File: 94ebe2f8d597f71⋯.gif (1.57 MB, 256x224, 8:7, Tetris Attack simple top d….gif)

File: a1197bf8e5b267c⋯.png (1.09 MB, 256x224, 8:7, Tetris Attack simple top d….png)

File: c10b070bfe2c36c⋯.mp4 (2.68 MB, 256x224, 8:7, x264placebo.mp4)

Here's an old animation I had lying around that I thought would make for some nice tests. The GIF is the source, so any conversions are subject to the limitations of the GIF format. Namely, 256 colors per frame, and per-frame exposure times limited to multiples of 10 milliseconds (meaning you can only obtain 1/# ms = 100 fps, 50 fps, 25 fps, 20 fps, etc). Thankfully the color isn't an issue because the original video source never had that many colors to begin with. So the color is effectively lossless, while 1/6 of all frames were originally excised from the 60fps source.

./gif2apng source

GIF -> animated PNG results in nearly a 50% reduction in file size.

ffmpeg -i source -vcodec libx264 -crf 0 -preset placebo x264placebo.mp4

As expected, lossless x264 produces roughly 2x the file size of the GIF. If you're curious, I have done lossless tests between x264, x265, VP8, and VP9 before and x264 always seems to produce the smaller file sizes, so this is about the best you're going to get with a video format.

>>906170

I also gave this a try,

ffmpeg -i source ffv1 -level 3 -coder 1 -context 1 -g 120 final.mkv

Unfortunately I can't post this file, because it's 43.2 MB.

As you can see, while video formats make valiant efforts to compress losslessly, but when you're dealing with limited frame differences characteristic of lossless, limited-color animation, dedicated animation formats that make use of delta frame compression almost always win out.


 No.906194

I don't know what ever happened to CorePNG, but I would love to see a container format capable of combining animation formats like GIF and PNG with audio.


 No.906197

>>906194

>I don't know what ever happened to CorePNG

nothing happened, it should be still supported by ffmpeg and movie players.

>>906190

>I also gave this a try,

was it converted to yuv 4:2:0?

if so, the comparison is unfair.

I don't remember if FFV1 supports RGB or YUV444, if it doesn't, then it just can't be used for this; there are other lossless codecs that can do this, though.


 No.906204

>>906190

>nearly a 50% reduction in file size.

>1.57 -> 1.09

You mean ~33%.

And I'm not sure if GIF2apng creates a color index.


 No.906207

>>906197

now I see, FFV1 supports RGB and yuv444, but it just sucks dick at simple animations.


 No.906208

>>906190

>lossless tests between x264, x265, VP8, and VP9

>lossless VP8

Is that even a thing?


 No.906209

>>906137

>>906138

You can do fake thumbnails with .GIF just as well. It's hardly an achievement.


 No.906211

>>906208

No, it isn't. I misremembered.


 No.906213

>>906209

>You can do fake thumbnails with .GIF just as well. It's hardly an achievement.

But only with 256 color palette. All flavors of PNG support at least rgb24.


 No.906214

File: 801c9837596c47f⋯.gif (4.34 MB, 720x512, 45:32, lain_train.gif)

>>906154

I made this gif and it wasn't that bad. Somebody must have reconverted it.


 No.906215

>>906143

>Disk space is cheap.

Not in the era of ultrathin laptops with space only for a single SSD.


 No.906216

>>906215

then install HDD


 No.906219

File: ad92a7b4dd11c17⋯.webm (199.24 KB, 720x512, 45:32, lain_train_2.gif.webm)

>>906214

sure, it has even a different frame size.

probably from a different source too.

>>906216

these are brittle and slow


 No.906222

File: 8500702119fea9c⋯.gif (4.07 MB, 720x512, 45:32, laintraingimpopt.gif)

>>906214

I'm curious what you used to make this. I re-optimized it in GIMP and got something smaller.


 No.906223

>>906214

What episode is the original from?

>>906219

What options did you use? I got only 408kb.


 No.906226

>>906223

>What options did you use? I got only 408kb.

-c:v vp9 -b:v 0 -crf 35 -pix_fmt yuv444p

could probably push the crf even further without obvious distortion.


 No.906229

>>906226

actually for this kind of content it could be even beneficial to lower quality, as it may remove some palette-dithering artifacts. I'd not be surprised if it actually made it closer to the original source until some turning point.


 No.906230

>>906223

Serial Experiments Lain 03

8:57-9:02


 No.906231

Krita or bust.


 No.906232

>>906231

Oh it's (You) again.


 No.906233

>>906222

I think I used imagemagick without optimizations. Didn't know about them at the time.


 No.906234

>>906168

Do you need to specify the codec at all? For webm, vp9 is the default for some time now, you just need to specify -f webm for two-pass.

>>906214

I assume the dithering isn't in the source, why not get rid of it?

paletteuse=dither=bayer:bayer_scale=5
should do it, I think.


 No.906235

>>906234

>For webm, vp9 is the default for some time now

for clarity and for robustness as ffmpeg can be compiled without VP9. also the settings could make no sense when the default becomes AV1.

>>906234

>I assume the dithering isn't in the source, why not get rid of it?

for many kinds of content, simple rounding produces visible banding which is arguably even worse.


 No.906239

>>906235

Yeah, if you're using some script, that makes sense. Is that a problem in this case though?


 No.906241

>>906239

it's a habit of not making shit differently if there are no reasons to.

and a general rule: less "magic" — less chance of unexpected failures.


 No.906260

File: 90a97c90727038a⋯.webm (522.89 KB, 1520x1080, 38:27, laintrain.webm)

the laintrain webm in full HD if anyone is interested.


 No.906262

Can I select multiple layers or groups simultaneously yet? Even Photoshop CS2 let me do that back in the day.


 No.906300

File: 7eae2bfa2c23eb4⋯.jpg (179.89 KB, 2094x1166, 1047:583, fate-kaleid-liner-prisma-i….jpg)

>>906262

Did nobody read the fucking changelog?


 No.906301

>>906260

Well done anon


 No.906307

File: 0b3204486f1bff1⋯.gif (269.14 KB, 500x280, 25:14, normal.gif)

File: 56e79342624f746⋯.gif (191.89 KB, 400x280, 10:7, curves.gif)

File: d34a596a3aad05c⋯.gif (154.98 KB, 400x280, 10:7, vidstab curves.gif)

>>906241

BTW, I put together this script for making gifs some time ago. Mostly, you change the defaults by setting environment variables. It does the basic palettegen/paletteuse plus some fancier scaling and some other stuff, like vidstab (though you need the vidstab library and custom-compiled ffmpeg for that; when I was installing it, it had weird dependencies too, so I had to compile ffmpeg w/o vidstab, then vidstab library, then ffmpeg w/ vidstab): https://pastebin.com/AeDj8ULk

Interestingly enough, vidstab substantially reduced size of seemingly mostly static video (pics related).


 No.906308

>>906307

>Interestingly enough, vidstab substantially reduced size of seemingly mostly static video (pics related).

just as expected.

when there's no motion compensation in the codec, any nonzero motion however small in any part of the frame will burden it with more data to encode.


 No.906310

>>906307

>>906308

Now that I think of it, maybe the intermediate clip is at blame, since, unlike paletteuse, vidstab doesn't work with seek properly even with the help of setpts and so I have to extract the clip before vidstab can process it.


 No.906316

>>906216

Why should I suffer slow storage? And where do they sell HDDs in M.2 format?


 No.906317

>>906231

gas yourself


 No.906320

File: 764ce7984defa7c⋯.png (216.11 KB, 1275x1065, 85:71, kiki_by_such_deviant-d8tiq….png)

>>906231

I mean, considering the GIMP ate Mypaint... They kinda are competing now.


 No.906322

>>906213

It's usually more than enough for animations, which is the proper usage mode for these formats. It sucks cock for photographic imagery though. Then again, you suck cock if you use GIF or PNG for that.


 No.906381

>>905473

I was autistically trying to create 16bit grayscale heightmaps before and couldn't find any info online on how to do it. Then some faggot referred me to Gimp2.10 and it allows you to export it in that format. This was during the testing release.


 No.906443

>>905534

New P&C when?


 No.906471

>>905778

distros don't use it exclusively yet

No GTK theme.


 No.906497

>>906178

Rust has Gtk3 bindings. The GNOME folks used them to build Fractal, a Matrix client.


 No.906508

>>906497

Interesting! Is it easy to deal with?

Are there similar bindings for Python 3? (last time I searched they sucked dick for some reason but it was long time ago)


 No.906519

>>906320

don't feed the tripfag


 No.906651

>>905664

>>905709

>>905755

>>906044

>All the new changes are just stealing from what Adobe already did


 No.906673

>>906651

No. Some of the new features are simply for psd compatibility since it's widely used.


 No.906742

>>906471

Eh, looking at >>905664 the bundled themes look good enough. Though they are going to have to sort the issue these DAADs have with themes.


 No.906743

File: 0c3ff913da66495⋯.png (558.39 KB, 1638x1701, 26:27, 0c3ff913da66495500a356f0f6….png)

>>906651

Would you rather they didn't add a feature just because it's in PS?


 No.906821

>>906519

Didn't notice it was one.


 No.907167

>>906300

>Did nobody read the fucking changelog?

Why bother with such a thing?


 No.907226

File: ca096695d15f4d0⋯.jpg (13.38 KB, 480x360, 4:3, ca096695d15f4d08817248f78a….jpg)

>have image in rgb mode

>select part and delete it

>deleted part turns white

>want to turn it transparent

>color > color to alpha

>its greyed out

What the fuck. Piece of shit program..


 No.907248

>>907226

Right-click layer -> add alpha channel.


 No.907250

its actually layer>transparency>add alpha

but why? what was wrong with the old way?


 No.907251

>>907226

>have image without an alpha channel

>want to turn part of it transparent

derp.jpg


 No.907276

>>907250

or you just right click the layer like >>907248

stated.


 No.907363

>>905534

It seems that I can't source this character via SauceNao or iqdb. Tineye and Google blocks Tor. Care to source?


 No.907376

>>905473

>using version numbers that aren't decimals

GIMP confirmed garbage software


 No.907381

>>907376

>using "decimal fraction" version numbers

windows nigger detected


 No.907472

File: 8edbd6b558b37cb⋯.gif (2.11 MB, 512x364, 128:91, o.gif)

>>906307

Pretty shit script, to be honest. Instead of trying to guess all the possible FFmpeg options the user might wanna use just do one thing: conver a video into a GIF image. The VidStab part is interesting thoug. Do you have the source video of that GIF?

Here’s the command line, by the way, for those who still don’t know how to make GIFs with FFmpeg:

ffmpeg \
-i "$INPUT" -map '0:v:0' -map_chapters '-1' -map_metadata '-1' \
-vf "palettegen = max_colors = $MAX_COLORS
: reserve_transparent = $RESERVE_TRANSPARENT" \
-c 'png' -f 'image2' "$PALETTE"

ffmpeg \
-i "$INPUT" -i "$PALETTE" -map '0:v:0' -map '1:v:0' -map_chapters '-1' -map_metadata '-1' \
-lavfi "paletteuse = dither = $DITHER
: bayer_scale = $BAYER_SCALE
: color_search = bruteforce" \
-c 'gif' -f 'gif' "$OUTPUT"

max_colors is an integer between 4 and 256 (default is 256)

reserve_transparent is either 0 or 1 (default is 1)

dither is one of:

> 'none'

> 'bayer'

> 'heckbert'

> 'floyd_steinberg'

> 'sierra2'

> 'sierra2_4a' (default)

bayer_scale is an integer between 0 and 5 (default is 2)

For more information either use ffmpeg -h filter=palette[gen|use] or use the documentation:

> https://www.ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg-filters.html#palettegen

> https://www.ffmpeg.org/ffmpeg-filters.html#paletteuse


 No.907475

>>906179

>>906189

>>905695

>>905697

Still fucking nothing at the moment.


 No.907511

File: baa58836d7ddedb⋯.png (844.05 KB, 1440x900, 8:5, riced archtop.png)

>Arch STILL doesn't have Gimp 2.10

>Arch STILL ships mpv 0.27 after nearly 6 months

>I'm on all the testing sources

Why do people claim this shit is "bleeding edge"?


 No.907545

File: 58dc4dff8d8d4fa⋯.jpg (354.34 KB, 992x1373, 992:1373, en_Pepper-and-Carrot_by-Da….jpg)

>>907363

That would be Pepper from Pepper&Carrot.


 No.907547

File: 126770117e188ea⋯.jpg (78.65 KB, 1100x558, 550:279, appimage-for-cat_frame2_by….jpg)

>>907511

Just download the AppImage or the Flatpak.


 No.907551

>>907547

Flatpak will forever be shit unless the distro makes it THE first-class way to get apps.

As it stands, it's a shitty way to distribute apps and the sandboxing is shit. It runs on it's own gay little platform and not even my themes work because the app and not the WM handles them for some gay reason.

App images are like exes and are gay.


 No.907554

>>907511

>mpv

>gimp

two outdated packages, maintained by the same dude


 No.907584

>>907511

>he doesn't know that mpv >0.27 needs a ffmpeg >= 4.0 (just released) because of libav bullshit


 No.907585

File: 786f4de062e3277⋯.jpg (84.33 KB, 840x487, 840:487, WeimarOvens.jpg)

>>907551

Your just salty either Flatpak or Snap is going to end up being a distro-agnostic AUR killer.


 No.907588

>>907551

There is a way to get themes working with Flatpak at least. Just search "Flathub themes".


 No.907589

>>907585

You're*


 No.907590

>>907551

AppImages are basically a chroot environment inside an ISO; they're nothing like a typical EXE.


 No.907591

>>907585

So far it feels like we're only getting outselves into an even deeper circle of dependency hell.


 No.907597

File: cc45c051d87e41f⋯.jpeg (270.24 KB, 1280x800, 8:5, DW8T-ZnU8AAi6Go.jpg:large.jpeg)

>>907591 Having Appimage and either Flatpak or Snap as the standards will beat the shit out of having to fuck with debs RPMs, tarballs, Mojo, bin installers, custom installers, the AUR and all the other shit we have now.


 No.907603

File: 22410a720e2af1c⋯.jpg (181.55 KB, 1044x1800, 29:50, Walker_large size.jpg)

>>907590

>have to download a loose file from some website and install it manually

>nothing like an .exe

Okay

>>907588

>Search flathub themes

I thought GNOME just werked.

Fuck that gay pottering shit.

>>907585

The problem is that AUR is still around when flatpak does the same job (for apps).

>>907584

Okay, so add ffmpeg to the list of outdated shit. I built an ffmpeg stack and mpv from source and it worked so it's Arch's fault for being gay and outdated SHIT.

>>907554

Arch is an outdated DINOSAUR. It's like I'm using Debian.


 No.907605

>>907597

So would getting every distro to use portage instead of their own package manager.


 No.907611

>>907511

packer -S gimp-git


 No.907612

>>907597

>GNUSTEP/Cocoa

>pikopixel

Computing at it's finest™


 No.907630

>>907612

It's actually a pretty good pixel editor.


 No.907643

>>907630

I agree. Nice to see it on here.

Too many people don't give it a chance because it's toolkit "looks old Xdd" on Linux.


 No.907649

>>907630

https://youtu.be/ukGrkLgbRBk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaL8m1SnsBI

Yes, it's top-class software built on the superior Obj-C NeXT/Mac toolkit.

Because it's FreeSource and really good, you can run it on GNU/Linux through it's GNUSTEP port.


 No.907801

File: 4a62d6e84fabdaa⋯.png (1.69 MB, 1704x1918, 852:959, rest_L.png)

>>907649

I've been using it to make some assets for EasyRPG's (an open source RPGMaker 2000/2003 clone) RTP asset replacement. It's not what I would call pretty, but it's a tool I'm glad to have come to Linux. Especially after Aesprite wen't proprietary.


 No.907803

>>907649

I think this is literally the first GNUStep application I've ever used.


 No.907804

File: 1e1646e8c0fea27⋯.png (80.57 KB, 1200x497, 1200:497, 1200px-AGPLv3_Logo.svg.png)

>>907649

From what I'm seeing, only the GNUStep version is OSS, and there is no indication he's abandoning the proprietary Mac version. Still nice to see it open source on Linux. But why choose AGPL over GPL for an app like this? You can't use it as SAAS, as far as I know.


 No.907807

>>907511

>>907554

>>907584

>>907603

ffmpeg and mpv are available in the staging repo.


 No.907822

what is this shit ?

no new version in the repo


 No.907833

>>907822

The repo version tends not to be updated. Just use the Flatpak or AppImage.


 No.908090

>>907833

stop pushing your trash fucking packaging systems


 No.908099

File: 3e68ca989803c95⋯.jpg (144.96 KB, 1100x558, 550:279, appimage-for-cat_frame4_by….jpg)

>>908090

Sorry? What was that?


 No.908113

>>907833

>>908090

Can you Linux users explain to a Winfag like me why it's so hard for you to just bundle the program with it's libs in the folder of the program like on Windows (either as some form of dll or statically compiled)? The size increase isn't significant anymore, the version incompatibility can destroy your entire system, and you can't install some thing because the libraries needed aren't the version on your system.

Also everything has to be distributed for each fucking distro.

Would it be so hard? Why does no one do that? Why do they use fucking sandboxes like litteral Java niggers?

This makes everything unstable, unportable and unusable. And then: "lel just build it yourself"

It's the main reason I'm still using Windows even through Wine improved enough to handle DX11 the last version video games (I mean real ones) used.


 No.908119

>>908113

Enjoy your security bugs that were fixed 7 years ago but are still present in the ancient library version bundled with your software.


 No.908120

>>908113

>lib gets hit by a vuln

>every retarded software bundling said lib is now also hit

and

>bundling humongous stuff like qt or gtk for every package

Disgusting. Please stay on your faggot OS.


 No.908134

>>908120

>>908119

>security bugs

Have you retards ever heard about the glories of being able to use 20 year old software with zero issues?

Also those kinds of things only matter in things like web browsers, image viewers and media players. And if those use outdated libs then they are just shit.

There are also enough software bugs without libraries being at fault.

You can also have outdated software on Linux and bundling homogeneous stuff too prevents bloat in the core system.

Linux program distribution sucks and I can't see why Flatpak or AppImage is any better than bundling directly.

What's the point of those sandboxes? They also contain all libs just like on Windows but with fucking sandboxes and compressed files.


 No.908137

>>908134

>There are also enough software bugs without libraries being at fault.

A good reason as any not to pile even more on top of that.

>What's the point of those sandboxes?

Being able to run untrusted applications and limiting the impact of security snafus in trusted applications.


 No.908139

>>908137

>GIMP is now untrusted, has security issues and we should all use Java.

Okay, that's news to me.


 No.908149

>>908139

>we

speak for yourself, pajeet


 No.908186

>>908113

It's possible and I've seen several proprietary applications do it.


 No.908188

>>908119

On the other hand, enjoy your programs not being able to be run at all because your OS decided it was time to ditch compatibility with them, or maybe you just want the ability to run a couple of bleeding-edge things on a more conservative distro such as Debian. Swings and roundabouts.


 No.908189

>>908113

You can, it's just that the benefits of not doing so outweigh the downsides in most cases.

>dude lol just get a bigger hard drive

Die.


 No.908248

>>908188

Did you know that major changes to a library that cause it to break backwards compatibility gets treated as a different entity? Examples include SDL1 and SDL2, Python 2 and Python 3, GTK2 and GTK3.


 No.908249

>>908248

Yes, and? You listed prominent ones that don't frequently have the older versions removed, which I've definitely seen a couple of times. Also for me the issue is more not having the latest and greatest, and I definitely prefer using an appimage for Krita, since I don't use Qt for anything else, and the built-in ones tend to be out-of-date.


 No.908255

>>908120

Flatpak can theoretically link dynamically.

It already reuses libs if you have two or more apps that use the same lib in a flatpak profile.


 No.908284

>>906231

You do realize GIMP is written in tinyscheme? I thought that would be your jam.


 No.908475

>>908149

>doesn't understand sarcasm


 No.908504

>>908255

Which makes it better for general application distribution than AppImage. Though, the later will always be better for testing alpha/beta software.


 No.908521

>>906044

Source of picture?


 No.908525

File: 3344c985120345a⋯.png (Spoiler Image, 352.42 KB, 624x439, 624:439, Screenshot_2018-05-03_23-4….png)

File: 2eb8c600c49b0dc⋯.png (Spoiler Image, 151.56 KB, 428x668, 107:167, fuck.png)

>>908521

>screengrab region from expanded picture

>send to iqdb.org

>instant result!

Reverse image search places are black magic.


 No.908559

File: 41cd4a45c85ef23⋯.png (283.76 KB, 680x680, 1:1, file picker gtk.png)

>>908120

>every retarded software bundling said lib is now also hit

It takes a lot of effort to keep packages stable and relatively secure (by volunteers usually..), and often they are really old versions as far as end users are concerned. This works out for stuff you're not constantly poking at or working with, but for anything that remotely needs to be up to date it sucks shit. Even worse, every significant distro just HAD to have their own incompatible package format and package manager, so theres a lot of redundant effort. A lot of users simply don't care if some program that isn't essential to the OS operating correctly isn't 100% perfectly stable or secure. Why would an application developer want to wait months to years for their packages to show up in some repos? An appimage is sort of a bandage for the real problem, that non-essential programs can cause so much trouble on modern operating systems.

>bundling humongous stuff like qt or gtk for every package

Deadbeef keeps out the extra GNOME deps for their static build despite using GTK, in total the shared object files for GTK come out to about 2.362 MB. In total Deadbeef is about 17.6MB in size. The size problem pretty much levels out in practice anyway: package maintainers decide to add 3-5 dependecies that are not required regularly. I think most modern users prefer the fact that Deadbeef will run on their computer over the space spent, since disk space is pretty cheap now.

The issue of commonly using one library for everything that needs it is obvious: absolutely shit compatibility because it often simply isn't the same software that the devs were targeting.


 No.908564

>>906043

I am not a homo, but I like smaller boobs (but not too small). Deal with it.


 No.908645

>>908559

>that image

>blaming the kernel for third-party software

Are you a GNOME developer?


 No.908780

>>908559

>It takes a lot of effort to keep packages stable and relatively secure

It doesn't though. I can still easily bump the ebuild in my local overlay if I'm impatient. Re downloading all of your retarded paks just because libpng or libarchive got another CVE is shit.

And bloat is a matter of principle not of HDD/RAM availability.


 No.908819

>>908249

Enjoy your security bugs that were fixed 7 years ago but are still present in the ancient library version bundled with your software.


 No.908824

>>908819

Except that they're actually more up-to-date than most of what's running on my system, and also, do you really think that applies to Krita? We're not talking about a web browser.


 No.908832

>>908824

>you really think that applies to Krita? We're not talking about a web browser.

Because only browsers can be used for exploits, there's no such thing as a manipulated audio, video or image file.


 No.908836

>>908832

>there's no such thing as a manipulated audio, video or image file

Boy do I have news for you


 No.908841

>>908836

that was sarcasm


 No.908861

>>908832

I.. is this bait?

9.5/10


 No.908887

>>906043

The original Lara Croft never did anything for me. She isn't even shaped like a real woman, her proportions look more like a rubber doll designed by a space alien based on what it thinks men find attractive. I agree about the new Lara being boring though.


 No.908900

>>908832

True but vastly lower threat, and I don't often open third-party files in Krita.

>>908887

It's forgivable for a PS1-era game. The possibilities have only gotten better since then, and this is what we're treated to.


 No.909077

>>905703

can confirm. Got one around the holidays.


 No.909080

File: c8cb9f831786efd⋯.png (43.68 KB, 499x388, 499:388, gimpinstall.png)

> revolutionary new build

> windows install splash looks like it was vomited out of MSPaint

Pottery.


 No.909109

>>909080

Be happy that it's only the installer. The start splash has mushrooms with background blur.

I already reset the theme and icon set because they aren't recognizable enough.

Fucking icons that all look the same are shit, missing contrast sucks and I don't fucking care about themes. Program themes are cancer and bloat in my eyes. They should rather fix the font loading on Windows. Styles are supposed to be applied from the system so that all applications can be styled equally whether you are on Windows or Linux.


 No.909116

>>908887

It's the lighting. Render the exact same model with proper subsurface scattering and it'll look immeasurably better


 No.909134

File: 59c23bef864093b⋯.jpg (109.25 KB, 900x675, 4:3, tomb_raider_comic_wallpape….jpg)

>>909116

The PS1-graphics shouldn't be taken literally. The comics from the period is probably a better source to get an idea what the original Lara would look like with today's tech:


 No.909140

>>909134

>no pyramid tits

No thanks


 No.909143

>>909140

>wanting titless lara

kys but unironically


 No.909153

File: 9638170053e01ab⋯.png (275.39 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Screenshot from 2018-05-04….png)

This is all really off topic, but I didn't remember the art for the original had her looking so... swarthy.


 No.909159

>>909153

She was supposed to be a spic from central America IIRC. They changed her backstory at the last moment, but had no time to change the art so it was left as is.


 No.909162

File: a24f290a2ccaa40⋯.jpg (69.93 KB, 600x800, 3:4, TombRaider_10.jpg)

File: 41c19c93ba808b0⋯.jpg (349.96 KB, 800x600, 4:3, TombRaider_22.jpg)

File: 9b34c0a04335c3a⋯.jpg (250.55 KB, 800x600, 4:3, TombRaider_11.jpg)

>>909159

Caramel Lara was hotter. The next reboot they should just have her mom be from Uruguay or something.

sage for off topic.


 No.909188

>>909109

>>909109

Why would a GNU project care about font loading on Windows?


 No.909203

>>909188

GIMP is a GNU project like Gnome is these days. Not really, but changing the name would be a pain in the ass.


 No.909236

Does GIMP do animations like Krita?


 No.909249

>>909236

I think you have to do some convoluted and completely unintuitive fuckery with the layers, but yes.


 No.909400

So I guess the next version will FINALLY be GTK3/4?


 No.910306

>>909400

That seems to be what the roadmap is saying.


 No.910320

>>910306

Hopefully it gets delayed again so they end up doing another interim 2.x release.


 No.910364

>>910320

GTK3/4 doesn't have to be cancerous. Mate proves that much.


 No.910366

>>910320

This. Or switch to Qt5, but it'll never happen.


 No.910368

File: c19e548677bbc48⋯.jpg (152.51 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, Shichimi-and-Yuzu_pepperca….jpg)

>>910366

The port to modern GTK is about half done anyway. I don't imagine we'll be waiting as long for GIMP 3.0 as we did for 2.10.


 No.910414

>>910364

Spoken like a true retard. gtk+-3 depends unconditionally on the disgusting bloat that is dbus.


 No.910474

>>910414

>he doesn't know how to use gtk+ 3 without dbus

Who's the retard now?


 No.910492

>>906179

fug still no macos builds


 No.910512

>>910474

Still needs this shit at build time.


 No.910531

>>905715

>>905646

GIMP will look like whatever your GTK theme is set to be.


 No.910546

>>910414

>Not wanting universal ICCM across toolkits

>Not wanting the ability to use IME without having to autisticly define support for each one.

>Not wanting the ability to have other windows of the same process to communicate (i.e. copy dialog grouping, or opening files in existing windows)

D-Bus merely introduces features that every OS has had since when NeXTSTEP was king.

Why is it bad?


 No.910551

>>910512

Sure, if you are using the plain upstream copy of the source. You can simple just apply a small patch to remove compiling in the accessibility stuff which means you no longer need to pull in dbus anymore.


 No.911133

>>906179

come on, how soon is "soon"?


 No.911227

>>910546

>dbus is needed for ICCM or even EWMH

No.

>Not wanting the ability to have other windows of the same process to communicate (i.e. copy dialog grouping, or opening files in existing windows)

Bloat. The rare cases where it's really useful are normalfag tier.


 No.911320

File: 77b4c2469618974⋯.png (955.22 KB, 999x1387, 999:1387, Db1cGLEV4AA1ytC.png:large.png)

>>911133

Checked~


 No.911322

File: 76b47d64b58d89f⋯.jpg (111.6 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, sl11-3.jpg)

>>911133

OSX is becoming more of a problem to support for applications like Krita and the GIMP. Partly because they REFUSE to update OpenGL.


 No.911336

>>911322

Shit like this is why I switched to GNU/Linux. There was a time when Mac OS X was looking like a great option: a nice and consistent modern GUI with a solid Unix foundation, and supporting all modern standards. But then the cocksucker got high on his boyfriend's farts and Apple started doing things their way, which is incompatible with anything else in the world. Good riddance.


 No.911347

>>911322

>old OpenGL

Is it still at 2.1? Do the binary drivers have to be updated in order to update the OpenGL?


 No.911403

>>911347

It's frozen on 4.1 for the foreseeable future. This is all to push their meme Metal api.


 No.911409

>>911403

geeze. So since NVIDIA or AMD don't release their binaries as source, there is no way to compile against Darwin to benefit?


 No.911412

>>911409

Apple dictates what OSX supports. Nvidia and AMD have to go along with whatever they say.


 No.911418

File: 846b9d1538bf6fa⋯.jpg (75.87 KB, 1250x1250, 1:1, RI9225_51-U3P-global-001.jpg)

>>905752

I wonder if stallman would be autistic enough to appreciate it if I mailed him an explanation 5 years later.


 No.911440

>>911322

Metal is the future, goys!

It's just like DirectX!


 No.911443

>>911336

>Mac OS X was looking like a great option

Was it free software?


 No.911458

How the fuck can I remove the ridiculous logo when empty on the artboard and also how to I delete the "You drag droop-able dialogs here" message below the tools?


 No.911578

>>911322

MoltenVK is free now.


 No.911580

>>905780

The new games are shit and the characters suck. It puts me to sleep with how boring it is.


 No.911643

>>911443

I said "great", not fantastic or ideal. Well, some of it is Free Software, like the kernel, some of the file formats and standards used, and some of the tools. I think Jobs was the kind of person who was more Open Source than Free Software: he didn't give a rat's ass about user freedom, but he recognized the benefits that Open Source provided to Apple. The current Apple seems downright hostile to Open Source; the only reason they open-sourced the Swift compiler was solely because IBM pressured them.


 No.911686

>>911643

>pressured

you wanted to say pressurized?


 No.911763

>>911578

And it currently has some limitations. But that has nothing to do with either GIMP or Krita since they use OpenGL, not Vulkan.


 No.911804

>>911322

OSX should just die. I mean it's worse than Windows/NT and GNU/Linux. They could just upgrade to Linux tbqh and get over ther "MUH ITSS NOT FROM APPPLLE I CAN'T USE ITT" barrier.

I just can't see the point in it since OSX has been a shit show from the very beginning contrary to Windows/NT and GNU/Linux. They also have backdoors like cheese even worse than Windows/NT.

They aren't missing out on any software since OSX doesn't offer anything good to begin with. Apart from that apple hardware is 100% botnet too Even BSD distros would be an improvement here.

All that valuable time could've been spend on Wayland, toolkits, porting etc. or a compatibility layer for Applefags to enjoy their software on BSD/GNU/whatever.


 No.911819

>>911804

>They also have backdoors like cheese even worse than Windows/NT.

Proofs please.


 No.911849

>>911819

https://youtu.be/dy3-QZLTpbQ?t=2660

Took a little while to find.

I hope you honor it.


 No.911850

>>911819

All apple hardware is made for consumerists so it's meant to be a child's toy which data can then be extracted from.


 No.911853

>>911850

This is not a proof.

>>911849

these are obsolete


 No.911856

>>911853

t. butthurt applefag who can't face reality.

Dude my ass is botneted with open backdoors anyone can shove their dick into but at least I know it.

It's only a matter of time before I switch to GNU/Linux and use my entire Windows software through Wine

t. Windows user


 No.911861

>>911856 (You)

GNU/Linux is botneted.

All GNU/Linux compatible hardware is made for consumerists so it's meant to be a child's toy which data can then be extracted from.

Prove me wrong.


 No.911878

>>911861

>All GNU/Linux compatible hardware is made for consumerists

Wrong. It's often used for servers, by corporations, governments, tripple letter agencies etc.

Also your just trying to defend your stupid buying decisions. Your anon here. I bought tons of stupid shit too (Even a gaymur mouse) but I get over it and you have to stop identifying with apple/M$/sony/whatever. It leads to nothing but more stupid decisions and regrets in the future.


 No.911940

>>911878

Gaming mice tend to be durable, but the fucking LED fad needs to die.


 No.911981

File: 00b3ab4bf6f8f88⋯.jpg (254.25 KB, 1241x1532, 1241:1532, 00b3ab4bf6f8f8807d3c72b2a8….jpg)

>>911861

>that fake (You)

>>911940

My cheapo Microsoft mouse has lasted me without needing to buy into that nonsense.


 No.912056

>>911940

g400s doesn't have any LEDs btw.

>>911878

calm down, I would happily jump to Ubuntu if it was first class citizen on this laptop which I have right now. and I decided to get a GNU/Linux compatible machine the next time when I would need it.

but until it died there's hardly any good reason to do the replacement.

>>911878

>It's often used for servers, by corporations, governments, tripple letter agencies etc.

you can say the same for macOS except servers.


 No.912213

>>912056

>GNU/Linux compatible machine

https://www.macworld.co.uk/how-to/mac/how-install-linux-on-mac-3637265/

>How to install Linux on a Mac: Replacing OS X/macOS with Linux

Mac just uses EFI instead of the more common BIOS to boot but that shouldn't be an issue at all just like things can be BIOS and UEFI bootable at the same time.

May need some extra time but your machine is compatible and if you aren't using anything super private you wish to hide from the NSA you don't have to buy anything new and 10% more shiny.

We're not here to sell you something, we're here to keep you from buying more bullshit.

>you can say the same for macOS

No, I've even seen the US government use Windows 10 with special group policies but not OSX.

Agencies use things like some Fedora fork but all that mainstream shit like Win and OSX is botnet and they aren't as stupid as to use the botnet they created themselves.


 No.912215

>>912056

You also don't have to jump completely in one go.

You can do dual booting:

https://linuxnewbieguide.org/how-to-install-linux-on-a-macintosh-computer/


 No.912316

>>912215

I don't have space for dual booting and it's pointless anyway because I actually already know how to use GNU/Linux.

The problem is the (one time) burden of installing it, and the "lottery" with drivers (I have no idea if all ports/built-in devices will work as intended, I have various feedback on the Web for my model) and the simple fact that I will need to set up most stuff from scratch and replace some software and I simply don't have time for that.

And you didn't understand my message, I'm not looking to buy more shit either way. I were saying that when (if) my current laptop finally dies, the next one will be not Apple, and then I will be finally forced to switch. And it's unlikely that I will bother switching OS before that (unless the current generation of macOS becomes unsupported while the next one is total shit)


 No.912343

Try to get a live stick running from EFI.

Then you can see if the default drivers work with your device.


 No.912356

>>912343

thx, good idea for an otherwise boring weekend


 No.912361

File: da9a8999fad9715⋯.jpg (2.79 MB, 4200x2625, 8:5, 2018-03-28_The-rendezvous_….jpg)

File: 6a26e94e79a9524⋯.png (1008.17 KB, 918x580, 459:290, ClipboardImage.png)

thanks to this bread, i've found my new wife-fu... pepper!


 No.912402

>>912361

>the token nigger

When will they learn?


 No.912416

>>912402

Doesn't bother me. I browsed through the creator's Twitter at length and didn't see the usual leftist, SJW shit of #resistance, #refugeeswelcome, he/him, etc. Plus, he makes true waifu material. Real SJWs don't do anything that might appeal to the male gaze


 No.912420

File: 29c978f9c1a0ad8⋯.jpg (319.36 KB, 1300x1800, 13:18, Pepper-and-Carrot-free-com….jpg)

File: afa04cf148343e7⋯.jpg (628.09 KB, 992x1373, 992:1373, en_Pepper-and-Carrot_by-Da….jpg)

File: b4ce53919484fb0⋯.jpg (583.58 KB, 992x1373, 992:1373, en_Pepper-and-Carrot_by-Da….jpg)

>>912416

Revoy is on the left, but the more traditional variety.

>>912361

>pepper

>not saffron


 No.912422

>>912420

>Revoy is on the left

It's okay to be a lefty. I look at the word "leftist" (the word I used in my pose) in a different context than "left" or "lefty". To me, leftists subscribe to a political doctrine/dogma.

Got any sources showing the creator's political alignment?

>>912420

>not saffron

I'd hit it definitely, but she's a bit of a cunt. Pepper is cute and has a great personality, the cornerstone for any waifu.


 No.912423

>>912422

IDK who this guy is but by default anyone that draws cartoons or has a tumbler is on the left as a general rule of thumb.


 No.912425

>>912423

Revoy is to Free Culture what RMS is to Free Software. He also uses FLOSS to make all of his art too.


 No.912607

>>905473

After many years since the last real release and its still missing basic features of photoshop. I was hoping for something good.


 No.912610

>>912607

It's also missing basic features of SolidWorks. Why compare it to some random proprietary software? Why not just say what features you would like?


 No.912617

>>912610

>It's also missing basic features of SolidWorks.

LOL. Solidworks is CAD and simulation man not an image editor. That would be like comparing firefox to world of warcraft.


 No.912618

Is there anything gimp can't do that photoshoop can?


 No.912626

>>912618

Tools for RAW image adjustments would be a start.


 No.912728

>>912617

That's exactly what you're doing. Why should Gimp be a Photoshop clone?


 No.912734

>>912618

have a build for macOS


 No.912735

>>912626

Gimp got Raw support if I remember correctly and the 32 bit per channel mode would definitely be enough to prevent all quality loss. .raw formats are proprietary anyways and shouldn't be kept in this format.

".raw" isn't even one format it's used for different unstandardized camera output formats.

>>912607

>its still missing basic features of photoshop

No it's not. It got everything one can need and everything else, you, photoshop user, are missing are convenience features and things you're used to. You being bad at using the software doesn't make the software bad.


 No.912751

>>912618

Have a sensible workflow.


 No.912778

File: 05a2ef0916a1b5f⋯.jpg (487.05 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, tRoW_story_04-Fall_of_Elda….jpg)

>>912735

The GIMP is still missing a couple things. Mainly, for professionals, CYMK.


 No.912807

>>912778

tell me at least one reason for having CMYK


 No.912842

>>912807

Prints. Various other kinds of swag.


 No.912844

>>912778

No matter how much shit GIMP adds you won't get the pros off of photoshop. It's bloated to the point of near unusable these days but they will still use it because it's the industry standard. If will be 3d sculpting that replaces photoshop if anything does.


 No.912846

>>912844

Applications like the GIMP, Blender. PS and even Krita are bloat by nature. Complaining about bloat in content creation apps (outside of pixel editors, I guess), shows you don't understand their use case.


 No.912847

>>912846

As someone who does photography based work I surely don't know :^)

The RAM usage of Photoshop these days is insane. It runs like a pig even on good machines. There is no need for it to be such a resource hog and yet it is. Another example is now how Adobe wants to run background progs in order to launch it's software these days. If needing 2 programs to run 1 program isn't bloat then I don't know what is.


 No.912848

>>912846

>/tech/ doesn't understand use cases

No shit, Sherlock


 No.912852

>>912847

Use Darktable or Rawtherapee.


 No.912857

>>912842

Can simply convert to CMYK at the latest stage (maybe in the printer driver, or with imagemagick or something). No need to even use an editor for that, it's fully automatic.

And surely no need to use it as a working color space, it's inefficient for editing and offers no benefits.


 No.912870

>>912735

>Gimp got Raw support

No, gimp can open some other program for you when you open a raw file.

>It got everything one can need and everything else,

You mean RAW support that every good photographer uses?

>are missing are convenience features and things you're used to

We call those features around here.

> You being bad at using the software doesn't make the software bad.

You're right, all photo editing should be done in hex editors.


 No.912889

>>912870

>RAW

it's not an abbreviation you dinghole


 No.912957

File: 8235ac76adf8625⋯.jpg (176.14 KB, 877x1011, 877:1011, Thefinalpotion.jpg)

Misusing the GIMP will get you banned from the UK apparently.


 No.912987

>>912957

Whats the story

>Banned from the UK

>Difficult

Pick one. Even Dickie Spencer managed it.


 No.913009

>>912987

I imagine posting something like this on Twatter could get you into trouble in France, Germany and The UK.


 No.913010

>>912889

RAW is usually written that way in programs and by professionals. Keeping with the standard. You might know this if you were not a larper.


 No.913136

>>913010

I know this but I also know that this is stupid.


 No.913139

>>913009

even if you used a burner SIM to create that account over Tor and never revealed anything personal on it?


 No.913149

>>913139

Yes if you practice perfect op sec you can get away with crimes.


 No.913156

>>913149

The only perfect op sec is to kill yourself


 No.913316

>>912957

David is not going to like what pol is doing with his girls.


 No.913440

>>913316

I want to hold hands with Shichimi!


 No.913460

File: 1d06edbe0b5a9d6⋯.png (448.04 KB, 1024x799, 1024:799, _pepper_et_carrot_mini___8….png)

>>913440

>Shichimi

Hope you don't mind being mind fucked.


 No.913461

File: 9e73c68820fd7b1⋯.jpg (354.22 KB, 1170x1620, 13:18, Pepper-and-Carrot-free-com….jpg)

Of course the black one would be the one using voodoo.


 No.913511

>>913316

>pol

go back where you came from


 No.913512

>>906112

>(((somehow)))


 No.913521

>>907511

GIMP 2.10 just hit the Arch repos. Time to upgrade!


 No.913541

>>913511

I wouldn't be surprised that most people wouldn't know where that came from.


 No.913545

>2.10

REE


 No.913637

>>906179

Is this https://www.partha.com/ trustworthy?


 No.913990

>>913637

Looks like the only option short of compiling it yourself.


 No.914034

>>913990

This is an answer to an entirely different question though.


 No.914057

>>913521

Funny how Flathub has been outpacing the AUR. And by funny, I mean worrisome.


 No.914104

>>913545

Version number is not a decimal fraction, you dip.


 No.914129

>cant move layers around

>cant copy-paste and drag the selection around

<nothing is selected

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

What kind of meme is this?


 No.914130

>>914129

Fuck off photoshop shill


 No.914132

File: 69bda9c78920cbc⋯.jpg (171.34 KB, 732x788, 183:197, endit.jpg)

>>905473

>Going from 2.8 to 2.1

Just FYI, after 2.8 comes 2.9, and after that 3.0


 No.914133

>>914132

>he can't read a few posts up

It's NOT a decimal point. That's also why you see version numbers with multiple . in them such as the Linux kernel. It's just a separator.


 No.914144

>>914132

It's 2.10 not 2.1 you massive retard.


 No.914147

>>914132

>>914133

>>914144

The good folks at gimp.org called it 2.10.0 to avoid confusion. As mentioned, the linux developers do the same thing.


 No.914150

>>911412

can't the freebsd 'knockoff-linux' drivers be ported over?


 No.914151

>>914132

Maybe in wincucks world, which apparently can't even do version numbers right.


 No.914152

>>914132

You'll end up with versions like 2.9.9.9.9.9.9.9.9.9 with that mentality.


 No.914173

>>914132

>thinks version numbers are decimals

The absolute state of /tech/.


 No.914175

File: 8ff91114cf6823b⋯.webm (4.62 MB, 426x240, 71:40, Jewish voting.webm)

>>913461

>the vote will be by applaud-o-meter


 No.914236

>>914150

OSX has a totally different kernel.


 No.914328

>>914057

Isn't flatpak similar to how Nix does packages? (Each package is hashed along with their dependencies)


 No.914329

>>913460

I'd love this.


 No.914333

>>914130

>implying

The previous version of gimp didn't have this retardation. I ended up figuring it out, you had to toggle some shit in order to move the selected area, which is pretty retarded.


 No.914387

>>914175

sourceee


 No.914502

>>914328

Flatpak at least tries to minimize the redundancy with individual runtimes multiple applications can use.


 No.914993

>>905646

I kinda prefer the light theme, but more choice is not bad.

>>912728

GIMP should be able to replicate the workflow and capabilities of PS with little issue ideally, while also remaining FOSS. You want a complete competitor to Photoshop in this regard to kneecap that capstone of Adobe. With that out of the way, the whole rotted structure of the company is much more vulnerable to attack; Illustrator, Audition and Premiere can't keep them afloat like Photoshop can and has. Even Lightroom, which is incredibly powerful and well used, is facing increasing pressure from RawTherapee and Darktable; Photoshop remains secure however.

And that *should* change. Getting rid of them wouldn't necessarily mean FOSS-only moves in to fill the void to replace it, but pragmatically it means a bunch of smaller outfits fill in the hole along with FOSS solutions, with no subscription pozz to be seen for miles. If think the status que is fine as it is, you're mad.

>>912735

>>912807

Are you the sperg who posted here a while back, in one of the older GIMP threads, how basically any image editing feature that wasn't in FOSS software was basically evil and didn't have a right to exist?

>>912778

CYMK is important. Also while I believe GIMP has support for Lab color (which I use elsewhere), it's a little irritating to work with there compared to PS.

>>912852

Those are excellent, Darktable in particular, although I usually find some reason to bring my photos into GIMP or PS for final touches.


 No.914996

>>914993

You are confused. The authors of Gimp are not interested in making a Photoshop clone. If they wanted a Photoshop clone, they would have started such a project a long time ago. The purpose of Gimp is to be Gimp, not Photoshop. The people who want a Photoshop clone are more then welcome to develop what they want to see, they simply refuse to do this.


 No.914997

>>914996

Define the difference between Photoshop and Gimp. They're made for literally the same exact purpose.


 No.915000

>>914997

Define the difference between Windows 7 and Windows 10. Or even Windows and OS X. Same intent, totally different workflow, and as someone who has never touched Photoshop, I find GIMP to work fine.


 No.915001

>>915000

>and as someone who has never touched Photoshop, I find GIMP to work fine.

Actually guys I enjoy using an inferior piece of software, I don't know any better after all!


 No.915004

>>915001

I'm glad you do!


 No.915006

>>914996

>so what if it takes 17 steps to draw a circle, that's The Gimp Way™! it's not trying to be decent like Photoshop!


 No.915007

>>915006

>so this one example is broken, clearly the rest is

>>915001

Meaning I'm not speaking from over-familiarity with some other piece of software you dunce.


 No.915008

File: c854df56aa652dc⋯.jpg (50.97 KB, 1005x749, 1005:749, DaP5bM2U8AAuCI5.jpg)

>>915007

>with some other piece of software

I know what you meant anon. :^), the statement holds.


 No.915012

>>915007

>you didn't list every example therefore that's the only thing that's broken

Even if there's a situation when you need to press a button where in Photoshop you don't, that worsens the workflow and makes Gimp a less intuitive program to use, and there's a million and one of those kind of things among bigger problems in Gimp.


 No.915013

>>914387

Democrat National Convention 2012


 No.915048

>>915006

I really don't care that it takes 200 steps to draw a circle in the Gimp. If your goal is to draw artwork, then use a program that's specifically designed for drawing works of art.


 No.915101

File: 21bdd89ae32ccd8⋯.jpg (132.08 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, textstroke.jpg)

Did they finally make stroking to text easier or am I still doing a multi-step process? I do typesetting and that would be a huge help.


 No.915125

>>915101

Not yet. Gimp currently doesn't do non-destructive layer effects.


 No.915136

>>915101

GIMP isn't that good at vector stuff.

If you're doing something complicated, do it in a vector program and export to PNG in whatever size you need.


 No.915141

>>915006

It takes a few steps like >>906044 said. Not really THAT big of a fucking deal.


 No.915142

File: a06b57cc75f74de⋯.png (29.49 KB, 1022x316, 511:158, 13.png)

>>915101

Krita can do it but it's one of their half assed features, the outline becomes kind of diamond shaped.

>>915136

I hope you realize how incredibly shitty it is to do that when you need to put more than 1 word into something.


 No.915200

>>915125

Shame, that feature is the one I really wanted.

>>915142

>>915136

>If you're doing something complicated

It's not so complicated that I would want to do it in a separate program or convert text to PNG just for a block.

It would just be the difference between making sure everything is positioned on the page and then doing a final pass after QC looks over things to stroke the necessary text with a 6 step process. I should probably set up a behavior or whatever it's called to handle this myself really.


 No.915285

>>915200

>>915142

Oh you meant an outline made out of straight lines. English isn't my primary language, sry.


 No.915453

>>915101

I've been wondering, Gimp can be scripted, right?

Couldn't one make a script / macro to speed up the outlining process?

>create path from text

>selection from path

>grow selection by n

>new layer below current

>fill selection with color

I never really looked into it, but something like that should be doable, right?


 No.915461

>>915453

>Gimp can be scripted, right?

Yep, you can script it using a lisp. I've never messed around with it, but it'd probably be doable.


 No.916009

>>905684

5,000 year old reply. Not talking about cosmetic fake updates, but on making the thing STABLE. And NOT CONFUSING.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / bestemma / cyber / imouto / magali / soyboys / sw / vg / voxed ]