it is going to be a tough act to follow robin rowe and cinepaint.

gimp-1.0 rox!

carol

On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 10:06:47AM +0100, Dave Neary wrote:

Hi all,

A quick reminder that today is the 16th of February, the last day for submission of abstracts for GUADEC talks.

The original call for papers is here: http://2004.guadec.org/cfp2004.html

Paper abstracts should be sent to guadec-papers@gnome.org

Thanks for your time, see ye all in Kristiansand,

Cheers, Dave.

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Carol Spears wrote:

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 06:49:06 -0800 From: Carol Spears
To: Dave Neary ,
GIMPDev
Subject: [Gimp-developer] Re: Last day for abstracts

it is going to be a tough act to follow robin rowe and cinepaint.

gimp-1.0 rox!

carol

Carol

I know you are funny sometimes but we all know Robin reads this list and such comments dont help anyone.

Can't we all just get along?

Barney the purple dinosaur says "Lets be fwiends"?

- Alan H

Hi,

Alan Horkan wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Carol Spears wrote:

it is going to be a tough act to follow robin rowe and cinepaint.

I know you are funny sometimes but we all know Robin reads this list and such comments dont help anyone.

Can't we all just get along?

I agree with the sentiment, but AFAIK Robin hasn't read this list since yosh de-subscribed him during the Summer after yet another row over the history of FilmGIMP. Just wanted to say that I disagreed with someone abusing their power like that - after all, we're welcome on the Cinepaint lists.

Cheers, Dave.

hi
On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 09:46:31PM +0000, Alan Horkan wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Carol Spears wrote:

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 06:49:06 -0800 From: Carol Spears
To: Dave Neary ,
GIMPDev
Subject: [Gimp-developer] Re: Last day for abstracts

it is going to be a tough act to follow robin rowe and cinepaint.

gimp-1.0 rox!

carol

Carol

I know you are funny sometimes but we all know Robin reads this list and such comments dont help anyone.

Can't we all just get along?

Barney the purple dinosaur says "Lets be fwiends"?

i guess it is rude and somewhat revealing of you to consider this as being rude.

maybe i am wrong and the rumor i heard of Robin being the keynote speaker are false. TheGIMP organization seems to support (when they work together) gimp-1.0 and kin better and they make a much better show for all to see. take a look at www.gimp.org for instance. this site is clearly more about cinepaint than any new gimp development.

i should think if i were robin, i would be pleased to read my note and a little embarrassed to read yours.

should i assume that you *dont* think that robin will be a difficult act to follow?

carol

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, David Neary wrote:

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 23:14:30 +0100 From: David Neary
To: Alan Horkan
Cc: Carol Spears ,
GIMPDev
Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: Last day for abstracts

Hi,

Alan Horkan wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Carol Spears wrote:

it is going to be a tough act to follow robin rowe and cinepaint.

I know you are funny sometimes but we all know Robin reads this list and such comments dont help anyone.

Can't we all just get along?

I agree with the sentiment, but AFAIK Robin hasn't read this list since yosh de-subscribed him during the Summer after yet another row over the history of FilmGIMP. Just wanted to say that I disagreed with someone abusing their power like that - after all, we're welcome on the Cinepaint lists.

You cannot prevent people reading the web based archives (assuming there is a working version around somewhere) nor can you ban every unknown address which anyone could easily aquire if they wanted to join this _public_ list. However if you made Robin that unwelcome I doubt he would bother rejoining the list and by outright banning him you will have only aliented him further.

I understand that some people resent the duplication of effort and that comments on both sides have been less than friendly but it benifits neither project to argue.

I still believe that both projects can coexist and that each can focus on doing something well and both fulfill a useful niche.

It is long overdue for both projects to accept each other and work together.

It seems odd to me that the best way to produce a plugin compatible with both Cinepaint and the GIMP is to program it to the Adobe Photoshop API.

I know that it is a contentious issue but someone has to just draw a line and move on for the greater good and it deeply saddens me that you dont cut each other a bit more slack and that these kinds of childish arguements, misunderstanding and misinterpreations prevent talented developers from working together.

I really love the work that the GIMP has done and I'm glad that CinePaint has been able to fill a niche for those who need 32 bit support right now and cannot or are unwilling to wait for GEGL.

I dont want to gush and say how wonderful you all are for devoting your free time to work on the GIMP but I worry that the joy is being lost. I really sincerely appreciate having such a powerful solution as the GIMP but the GIMP has only just begun.

I know it is a cliche but if you cannot say anything nice please do try and dont say anything at all.

Sincerely

Alan Horkan concerned stakeholder.

On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 11:14:30PM +0100, David Neary wrote:

Hi,

Alan Horkan wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Carol Spears wrote:

it is going to be a tough act to follow robin rowe and cinepaint.

I know you are funny sometimes but we all know Robin reads this list and such comments dont help anyone.

Can't we all just get along?

I agree with the sentiment, but AFAIK Robin hasn't read this list since yosh de-subscribed him during the Summer after yet another row over the history of FilmGIMP. Just wanted to say that I disagreed with someone abusing their power like that - after all, we're welcome on the Cinepaint lists.

Just to clear things up, he wasn't de-subscribed, I turned on his moderation bit since he was posting rather off topic rants. He's the only person I'd had to do this to, which is telling.

Robin has a tendency to jump to conclusions with little basis and present them as fact. This is precisely why he got in trouble in the first place.

-Yosh

it is going to be a tough act to follow robin rowe and cinepaint.

gimp-1.0 rox!

Should I feel flattered that GIMP can't stop talking about me and CinePaint, even when it is to spread the misconception that CinePaint is GIMP 1.0?

GIMP people have demonstrated a persistent interest in expressing their opinion about CinePaint and giving me unsought advice since I became the CinePaint project leader in 2002. For the benefit of those who seem confused about the difference between our projects, I would like to share CinePaint's long range roadmap and explain why GIMP isn't part of it. In addition, I will address some common misconceptions GIMP folks have repeatedly stated about CinePaint.

CINEPAINT ROADMAP

- Deep paint including support for exotic bit depth formats. We've supported 16-bit integer and 32-bit floating point for a long time. Recently, we implemented 16-bit binary fixed point, another bit depth format widely used in the motion picture industry. One reason deep paint matters in pro work is film has greater dynamic range than monitors. Deep paint images clipped to 8-bit will look fine on monitors (which can only display to 8-bit) but can show visible defects when output to film.

- High dynamic range (HDR). We can read and write OpenEXR, an open source HDR format provided by ILM. We're adding paint features to better support HDR capabilities. HDR is to images what headroom is to audio. Without HDR an image clips white at 1.0. Colors in flames and other highlights can be lost, turn gray if the image is later adjusted back down again to be darker. HDR paint can repeatedly adjust image intensity without color loss.

- Roto and vector 2D paint. CinePaint (and GIMP) are raster paint programs. CinePaint can be used for rotoscoping, but the lack of vector 2D paint support (especially splines) hampers that. Good vector 2D support is also needed for our new slideshow feature, described below.

- 3D paint. CinePaint is used as a texture paint tool to support work with 3D packages such as Maya. We seek to have closer integration, be able to preview or even paint 3D in CinePaint using OpenInventor.

- Colorspaces. CinePaint (and GIMP) only have RGB support now. We've begun work to implement CIELAB and CMYK. We want to add XYZ, sRGB, and scRGB.

- Color management. We want output on film that matches what users see on monitors, to support precision and artistic control in how colors are displayed. We have recently implemented color management for 8-bit depth, but found the screen performance too slow. We have begun to overhaul our GIMP-based paint core to make CinePaint fast enough to handle CMS responsively.

- World-class GUI. Our goal is to offer a user interface superior to Photoshop.

- Slideshow feature. We want to offer an alternative to PowerPoint. We have a new slideshow feature built into the movie flipbook in CinePaint.

- Compositing and effects. We want to offer an alternative to Apple Shake and Adobe AfterEffects.

- Video editing. We want to add a flatbed film-style video editor including sound and support for transcoding to popular video codecs such as MPEG, DV, QuickTime, AVI, and MJPEG. We want to offer an alternative to Adobe Premiere, Apple FinalCut Pro, and Avid Composer.

- High performance. We're developing a command-line tool with no GUI, something like ImageMagick 'convert' but to use CinePaint plug-ins. Our 'img_img' tool is intended initially for fast image file format conversions on renderfarms and came out of a major studio. For performance, img_img uses a scanline-based architecture. It's plug-in architecture is a totally new API I developed, and unlike the CinePaint and GIMP tile-based APIs. In keeping with our strategy of maximizing our compatibility across applications (e.g., GIMP, Photoshop, AfterEffects) we will enable img_img plug-ins (such as our new img_img JPEG2000 plug-in) to work in CinePaint, and tile-based legacy CinePaint plug-ins to work in img_img. CinePaint seems likely to evolve into a scanline architecture more like Shake.

In 1998 the film industry decided to help GIMP by sponsoring development of deep paint. To enable GIMP developers to understand motion picture technology they were brought into the industry, given first-hand experience working at desks at film companies. GIMP maintainer Yosh Singh started as an intern at Silicon Grail and later became an employee. He did not accomplish his employer's mandate to build and release deep paint as a feature in mainline GIMP. After a year or so gaining experience in motion picture technology Yosh left Silicon Grail to go to LinuxCare. What he's done since I don't know.

I once asked the current GIMP developers what qualifications they have to develop high end graphics software. The answer given was to point me to GIMP as their signature accomplishment. Sven Neumann has said on this list that he is offended because we have never sought his advice in how to implement CinePaint. I have taught computer science at two universities and worked as a
software designer most of my life. When I need technical advice on graphics software design I turn to experts at ILM, DreamWorks, Disney, Sony Pictures ImageWorks, Rhythm & Hues, and other studios. Their proprietary in-house development is vastly beyond anything the GIMP developers have ever worked on.

GIMP has said since 2000 that someday it will support 16-bit deep paint. Sven and Yosh have said that CinePaint developers are wrong to continue building upon CinePaint's deep paint implementation (which is 32-bit and considering 64-bit), that we should stop our work to help GIMP catch up in this area. You are still trying to complete your GEGL 2-year roadmap from the year 2000. Technology has changed significantly since 2000. To the limited extent you have revealed your plans, they seem out of touch with the current graphics landscape.

To put it bluntly, you haven't said what you guys are doing for long term vision. Besides 16-bit deep paint, is there anything you have planned that could match CinePaint?

Does GIMP have a long term roadmap?

GIMP MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT CINEPAINT

GIMP advocates suggest that CinePaint is fundamentally flawed for being based on GIMP 1.0.4. It is true that CinePaint was branched in 1998 from GIMP 1.0.4. But, then so did GIMP 2! GIMP 2 is not a total rewrite. Both programs derived from GIMP 1.0.4. Furthermore, both GIMP 2 and CinePaint contain some code from GIMP 1.2. CinePaint has adopted code from other projects than GIMP, such as gimp-print, LCMS, Dillo, and ImageMagick. CinePaint also contains new code written from scratch.

GIMP advocates suggest that GIMP developers should resent duplication of effort between our projects. First, it isn't your business how we choose to use our resources. Second, we don't rewrite code pointlessly. Third, there is very little duplication of effort between our projects. CinePaint simply adopts any code from GIMP that we like. What could cause resentment is we won't adopt all your code because we don't like all of it.

GIMP advocates suggest that CinePaint is a temporary stopgap for a future release of GEGL expected to occur at some unspecified date. Whether GIMP is a stopgap for GEGL is your call, but CinePaint is not a substitute program. People who use both CinePaint and GIMP, including myself, understand why they are not substitutes for each other. As CinePaint matures it will tend to encroach more on GIMP's turf as a Web tool, but our design focus continues to be the high end. The software we seek to surpass is Photoshop.

GIMP advocates say they hope that CinePaint will cease to exist. Some GIMP advocates express hope that our developers will be reunited, that everyone will work for GIMP. However, what was never united cannot be reunited. We're not former GIMP people. Our current team was never part of your group.

GIMP advocates who have never had any relationship to me are telling me that I owe them labor and should do as they say. Why accept your management? GIMP's record with project management is a sore point I've been asked never to bring up again on the GIMP lists. My project management experience includes being an enterprise manager at a Fortune 500 defense IT company. I've led R&D projects funded by motion picture and television studios, DARPA, the Pentagon, and the navy.

We're glad to reuse bits of your code when it meets our needs and to work cooperatively when it doesn't interfere with our goals.

Cheers,

Robin ------------------------------------------------------------------- Robin.Rowe@MovieEditor.com Hollywood, California www.CinePaint.org Open source motion picture image editing software

Hi Robin,

Robin Rowe wrote:

Should I feel flattered that GIMP can't stop talking about me and CinePaint, even when it is to spread the misconception that CinePaint is GIMP 1.0?

Please don't jump to any conclusions here which might deepen any ill-feeling that has developer between the programs.

There was a mail about guadec. You were a keynote speaker at guadec last year. The person who replied to that mail did so in a personal capacity. And yes, she is misinformed - the 1.2 branch was merged into the HOLLYWOOD branch when it stabilised.

GIMP people have demonstrated a persistent interest in expressing their opinion about CinePaint and giving me unsought advice since I became the CinePaint project leader in 2002.

If I were being objective, I would say that there was inappropriate behaviour on both sides. Certainly, making a point of disparaging either project, or saying things which could be construed as confrontational, does not help.

Good luck on accomplishing the issues on your roadmap - we share many objectives (colour management, "deep paint", colourspaces) although it appears that architecturally we're diverging. I am wondering how you plan to achieve those goals, but I'm sure we'll get the chance to talk about that again.

And then...

He did not accomplish
his employer's mandate to build and release deep paint as a feature in mainline GIMP.

Regardless of the basis in fact of this statement (it is arguable that it is untrue, since filmGIMP was successfully merged with what was then the latest stable version of the GIMP), its intent is obviously to annoy some people.

Sven Neumann has said on this list that he is offended because we have never sought his advice in how to implement CinePaint.

I think that's probably a misrepresentation. I do recall Sven saying that he felt that the development effort being spent on Cinepaint would be better spent working towards those same goals with the GIMP. That's hardly the same thing, though.

To put it bluntly, you haven't said what you guys are doing for long term vision. Besides 16-bit deep paint, is there anything you have planned that could match CinePaint?

Does GIMP have a long term roadmap?

Personally I think that experience has shown us that a short-term roadmap and a medium-term roadmap is about as far ahead as is valuable.

In my mind, the priority for the GIMP now is to play catch-up to Photoshop. I don't see us as a competitor of Maya, or Shake. Some day, perhaps. But I think we will have deep paint in 18 months, and I can justofy that estimate. I think we will have a compositing UI and a new rendering motor in 2 years. I think that we will have more colourspaces around then too. Our goals are perhaps not as ambitious as yours, but I think they are attainable in the near future.

GIMP advocates suggest that CinePaint is fundamentally flawed...
GIMP advocates suggest that GIMP developers should resent duplication of effort...
GIMP advocates suggest that CinePaint is a temporary stopgap...

Who are these GIMP advocates? I don't think it's helpful to generalise like this Robin. For my part, I disagree with some of the design decisions you have made (moving towards a GTK+ 1.4, for example), but I recognise that it's your right to make those decisions. I don't think the project is fundamentally flawed, and I do think that Cinepaint will find it hard to make a place for itself in the Linux raster editor "market" once the GIMP is using gegl.

...expected to occur at some unspecified date.

As we agreed at GIMPCon last Summer, we are working towards an integration of gegl this Summer. The discussions on how that integration should happen have already started (see threads on gegl-developer recently). And we even have a testbed compositing application for gegl in the works (thanks to Oyvind Kolas) called Bauxite, which is looking quite nifty at the moment.

The software we seek to surpass is Photoshop.

As I have said, that is also our target. With all due respect, I believe we are moving closer to that target, faster, than Cinepaint.

GIMP advocates say they hope that CinePaint will cease to exist. GIMP advocates who have never had any relationship to me are telling me that I owe them labor and should do as they say.

I really hope that you will understand that this kind of mail from either you or from a GIMP developer is not helpful. As Alan Horkan so wisely asked, "can't we all just get along?" (what is it about the Irishmen anyway?).

I think that it is clear to everyone involved that Cinepaiont/GIMP is not a simple fork, that it is a new team taking over an abandoned developmnet branch. And as such, there will never be a merge of the projects.

I believe that at some stage in the future we will share some things - perhaps a file format, or a plug-in API, or in some way allow people outside both our projects to use the best bits out of each core. In the meantime, there is really no point in trying to stoke a flamewar.

Regards,
Dave.

David Neary (dneary@free.fr) wrote:

In my mind, the priority for the GIMP now is to play catch-up to Photoshop.

[...]

Robin Rowe wrote:

The software we seek to surpass is Photoshop.

As I have said, that is also our target.

I beg to differ. My personal goal is to have as much fun as possible while developing useful software.

I don't want to play catch-up with a company that easily has the resources to dump a lot of new functionality in Photoshop by snapping with the fingers and buying/integrating some other piece of software. Doesn't sound like much fun.

I don't want to "have to" implement a feature I don't like, just because we want to do a copy of PS. I want to develop my own ideas independantly.

Thanks for listening :-) Simon

On 18 Feb 2004, at 23:04, David Neary wrote:

Robin Rowe wrote:

The software we seek to surpass is Photoshop.

As I have said, that is also our target. With all due respect, I believe we are moving closer to that target, faster, than Cinepaint.

Since GIMP and CinePaint aim at completely different markets, I am not sure you can make such a comparison easily. Clearly, Photoshop is trying to envelop all kinds of niche markets that it has been very weak in traditionally, such as web graphics creation and film editing, so it automatically becomes a competitor of GIMP and CinePaints in these areas, where our applications excel. But even then, that does not make CinePaint and GIMP each other's competitors, as they're only competing with PS in certain fields.