Gimp vs Photoshop

On 30 Aug 2007 10:06:53 -0700, Bill Tuthill wrote:

It seems possible, even likely, that the best resampling techniques
for rotation might be different than the best techniques for simple resize
without orientation change.

Not just likely, but true. Bicubic isn't the best method for any of image
manipulation requirements. It's a passable catch-all solution requiring little
effort and intelligence on the part of the programmers.

The only reason bicubic is still used is due its simplicity of implementation,
speed (used internally in cameras), to software makers not caring if their
product is better. They can sell on product-name and user-base alone to fools
that aren't sharp enough to notice that there's been much better programming out
there for a decade or more. Why lift a finger while people are still foolishly
throwing money your way for doing absolutely nothing new and making no
improvements for the last 12 years. (i.e. Adobe)

Google is your friend.

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:09:51 +0100, "John Ortt"
wrote:

It is a shame the anti-photoshop brigade can't be more civilised and
rational in their arguements as they may convert more people if they were.


Ooo, lookie Martha. Here's another one that wants his computer monitor to be his
only lover in life. He can only stomach factual information if it's handed out
in imaginary e-group hugs and smarmy psychotic web-kisses. Isn't that cute??

(No, it's psychotic and SO ****ing pathetic.)

Get your hugs from real people, not words on your monitor, you ****ing loner
loser. I for one am not going to be another one of your many digital blow-up
dolls, no matter how much you beg for it. So **** off.

"AnotherONE!" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 10:09:51 +0100, "John Ortt"
wrote:

It is a shame the anti-photoshop brigade can't be more civilised and
rational in their arguements as they may convert more people if they were.


Ooo, lookie Martha. Here's another one that wants his computer monitor to
be his
only lover in life. He can only stomach factual information if it's handed
out
in imaginary e-group hugs and smarmy psychotic web-kisses. Isn't that
cute??

(No, it's psychotic and SO ****ing pathetic.)

Get your hugs from real people, not words on your monitor, you ****ing
loner
loser. I for one am not going to be another one of your many digital
blow-up
dolls, no matter how much you beg for it. So **** off.

There's only one person in this thread who is pathetic and that s you.

I won't lower myself to your level. This conversation is over.

In article , Floyd L. Davidson says...

I can't imagine that. I typically use 3 different settings on
a very common basis for each. Low, medium and high (roughly about
50-70, 75-90, and 100), all depending on what I'm going to do with
it.

Speaking about JPEG qualities what is 100% JPEG quality??
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E3X0, E4X0 and E5X0 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson says...

I can't imagine that. I typically use 3 different settings on
a very common basis for each. Low, medium and high (roughly about
50-70, 75-90, and 100), all depending on what I'm going to do with
it.

Speaking about JPEG qualities what is 100% JPEG quality??

It's a quality factor with a scale from 0 to 100 (not
percent).

Here's what the ImageMagick documentation says (with detail
that does not apply to JPEG snipped),

quality value

JPEG/MIFF/PNG compression level.

For the JPEG and MPEG image formats, quality is 0
(lowest image quality and highest compression) to 100
(best quality but least effective compression). The
default is to use the estimate quality of your input
image otherwise 75. Use the -sampling-factor option
to specify the factors for chroma downsampling.

...

For the JPEG-2000 image format, quality is mapped
using a non-linear equation to the compression ratio
required by the Jasper library. This non-linear
equation is intended to loosely approximate the
quality provided by the JPEG v1 format. The default
quality value 75 results in a request for 16:1
compression. The quality value 100 results in a
request for non-lossy compression.

...

If filter-type is 4 or less, the specified
filter-type is used for all scanlines:

0: none
1: sub
2: up
3: average
4: Paeth

If filter-type is 5, adaptive filtering is used when
quality is greater than 50 and the image does not
have a color map, otherwise no filtering is used.

If filter-type is 6, adaptive filtering with
minimum-sum-of-absolute-values is used.

...

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson says...

I can't imagine that. I typically use 3 different settings on
a very common basis for each. Low, medium and high (roughly about
50-70, 75-90, and 100), all depending on what I'm going to do with it.

Speaking about JPEG qualities what is 100% JPEG quality??

It exists on the IJG scale, but at 1x1 (no chroma subsampling)
the resulting file is almost as large as a lossless PNG.

And if you don't use 1x1 chroma, the losses from chroma subsampling
are worse than the artifacting that would have occurred at quality 95,
and depending on image content, perhaps worse than quality 85.

Quality 50 on the IJG scale is not something I would select nowadays.
If you want files that small, JPEG 2000 would be a better encoding.

On 2007-08-26 10:32:25 -0400, measekite said:

While to day it is no contest I wonder if someday Gimp will catch up.
However, for about $700 less Gimp is a very enticing product. Gimp
needs to support profiles, adjustment layers, a Photoshop like crop
tool and have the healing (and sport healing brush) and a few other of
the CS3 tools and it would possibly be the choice. It also needs the
print preview (driver) and scale to print media that PS has.

One thing is that when you print the same thing with Gimp and PS you do
see differences in color. PS is more pleasing most of the time but I
think that lack of profiles causes these problems.

I need RAW and Adobe Camera RAW is pretty cool. Yes GIMP does alot of
what Photoshop does, but then so does PhotoShop elements. As much as I
love UNIX flavors, (I manage a data center at work running Solaris
SPARC and Solaris x86 and a couple of Linux Boxes), my home machines
are now all Macs. Apple did what no Linux distro has done and what Sun
has not done with Solaris.. created the perfect desktop for UNIX.
Gnome isn't bad, but it doesn't hold a candle to OS X or I dare say ,
Windows. Evertime I get on a Linux distro, I need to find a piece of
software to do what I want. And in everycase, I usually do, and they
work well, but they are still an approximation of the best of the Mac
OS X and Windows apps. The open source office suites and presentation
managers, while decent, don't have the power and polish of PowerPoint,
Keynote, Excel, FileMaker Pro, Word etc for either the Mac or Windows
platforms. Gimp is very good, but it is not PhotoShop. I like
Linux and Solaris for severs, and Mac OS X for workstations...


--
Jim