You might be interested in CinePaint (before known as FilmGimp). It's a branch-off of Gimp which is geared towards film. One of the main differentiators with Gimp is that it has the feature you are looking for.

http://cinepaint.sourceforge.net/

Cheers, Daniel.

On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 01:28:41PM -0500, tbaldridge@alertacademy.com wrote:

Can anyone tell me an easy way to edit a movie frame by frame in gimp? This would be useful in rotoscoping (like in the creation of light saber effects). I don't have ready access to the internet, so a e-mail answer would be nice.

Timothy Baldridge

Hi,

tbaldridge@alertacademy.com writes:

Can anyone tell me an easy way to edit a movie frame by frame in gimp? This would be useful in rotoscoping (like in the creation of light saber effects). I don't have ready access to the internet, so a e-mail answer would be nice.

The GAP plug-in offers a frame-manager interface for The GIMP as well as a feature known as onionskin. There are snapshots of GAP for GIMP-1.3 available at http://sven.gimp.org/. More info is available from http://wolfganghofer.tripod.com/gap/gap.html

Sven

On Tuesday 09 September 2003 14:28, tbaldridge@alertacademy.com wrote:

Can anyone tell me an easy way to edit a movie frame by frame in gimp? This would be useful in rotoscoping (like in the creation of light saber effects). I don't have ready access to the internet, so a e-mail answer would be nice.

Timothy Baldridge

There is a version of Gimp that the Hollywood types have taken under their wing and modified specifically for motion picture use. It is a big league tool AFAIK. Perhaps someone else on-list knows more of the details.

This one time, at band camp, Sven Neumann wrote:

Hi,

tbaldridge@alertacademy.com writes:

Can anyone tell me an easy way to edit a movie frame by frame in gimp? This would be useful in rotoscoping (like in the creation of light saber effects). I don't have ready access to the internet, so a e-mail answer would be nice.

perhaps this tool

http://filmgimp.sourceforge.net/user/use.filmgimp.html

Kevin

Hi,

John Culleton writes:

On Tuesday 09 September 2003 14:28, tbaldridge@alertacademy.com wrote:

Can anyone tell me an easy way to edit a movie frame by frame in gimp? This would be useful in rotoscoping (like in the creation of light saber effects). I don't have ready access to the internet, so a e-mail answer would be nice.

Timothy Baldridge

There is a version of Gimp that the Hollywood types have taken under their wing and modified specifically for motion picture use. It is a big league tool AFAIK. Perhaps someone else on-list knows more of the details.

All I can say is that this application (now called cine-paint) is based on film-gimp which was forked from GIMP around version 1.0. GIMP-1.0 is a piece of code from the stone age. Lacking an overall design concept, this code is full of bugs, depends on unmaintained and outdated libraries and lacks any features that have been introduced to The GIMP during the last five years. In my opinion it is a shame that some good hackers are wasting their time on this codebase.

Sven

Hi,

> In my opinion

it is a shame that some good hackers are wasting their time on this codebase.

Which begs for the question: why is current gimp not extended to include the film-gimp specific features?

Maybe after the bug week, a merge month can be organized?

Just a (probably too naive) newbie question, Stefaan.

Sven Neumann wrote:

Hi,

John Culleton writes:

On Tuesday 09 September 2003 14:28, tbaldridge@alertacademy.com wrote:

Can anyone tell me an easy way to edit a movie frame by frame in gimp? This would be useful in rotoscoping (like in the creation of light saber effects). I don't have ready access to the internet, so a e-mail answer would be nice.

Timothy Baldridge

There is a version of Gimp that the Hollywood types have taken under their wing and modified specifically for motion picture use. It is a big league tool AFAIK. Perhaps someone else on-list knows more of the details.

All I can say is that this application (now called cine-paint) is based on film-gimp which was forked from GIMP around version 1.0. GIMP-1.0 is a piece of code from the stone age. Lacking an overall design concept, this code is full of bugs, depends on unmaintained and outdated libraries and lacks any features that have been introduced to The GIMP during the last five years. In my opinion it is a shame that some good hackers are wasting their time on this codebase.

GIMP 1.0?
hah...
And I thought, when I ran it, that the lack of options was caused by them not updating all the GIMP features to the new image models.

Hi,

Stefaan Himpe writes:

In my opinion
it is a shame that some good hackers are wasting their time on this codebase.

Which begs for the question: why is current gimp not extended to include the film-gimp specific features?

Who says it isn't? GAP already provides quite a lot of that functionality (and more). Other features such as support for more color spaces are being worked on.

Maybe after the bug week, a merge month can be organized?

The cinepaint developers clearly expressed that they are not interested in such a merge.

Sven

"Sven Neumann" writes:

Which begs for the question: why is current gimp not extended to

include the film-gimp specific features?

Who says it isn't? GAP already provides quite a lot of that functionality (and more). Other features such as support for more color spaces are being worked on.

For me, the most important feature of filmgimp/cinepaint is the support for greater than 8 bits per color component (16 bit integer and 32 bit floating point).

The cinepaint developers clearly expressed that they are not interested in such a merge.

Last week I attended a public meeting chaired by the cinepaint project lead. I know very little about the reasons behind the cinepaint/gimp split. I do think it's unfortunate that the split is hindering the development of an open-source image editing program combining the richness and maturity of gimp 1.2/1.3/2.0 with the color precision of cinepaint.

=====
--
MARK
markrubn@yahoo.com

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

Hi,

Mark Rubin writes:

Last week I attended a public meeting chaired by the cinepaint project lead. I know very little about the reasons behind the cinepaint/gimp split. I do think it's unfortunate that the split is hindering the development of an open-source image editing program combining the richness and maturity of gimp 1.2/1.3/2.0 with the color precision of cinepaint.

Support for more color models with more precision as well as better color management is one of the main goals of GIMP's future development. I don't think the split is effectively hindering this.

Sven

Mark Rubin wrote:

For me, the most important feature of filmgimp/cinepaint is the support for greater than 8 bits per color component (16 bit integer and 32 bit floating point).

Hear, hear!
This is the only reason I have filmgimp on my system - the ability to edit 16-bit files from my cameras prior to doing final 8-bit work in Gimp.
I would be very happy if I didn't have to use filmgimp for this, as (has been indirectly pointed out) the interface is rather old-fashioned. The first problem is it doesn't have a drag-n-drop interface similar to that used by gimp-remote (which I use for passing files to the Gimp from my database) and goes on from there.
__
David Burren

Sven,

All I can say is that this application (now called cine-paint) is based on film-gimp which was forked from GIMP around version 1.0. GIMP-1.0 is a piece of code from the stone age.

CinePaint. It branched from GIMP 1.0.4 in 1998.

In my opinion
it is a shame that some good hackers are wasting their time on this codebase.

Although none of our developers are hackers, nice to hear you think highly of some of us.

What bothered you and other GIMP developers so much about Film Gimp that in 2000 you unexpectedly discarded three man-years of your own work funded at substantial expense by the motion picture industry?

In 1998 Film Gimp was an official development branch of GIMP CVS, much like GEGL is today. Some expected Film Gimp to become GIMP 2.0 in 2000. Three man-years of funded development (that was not incorporated into GIMP) went into Film Gimp before GIMP ceased work on it in 2000. Programmers who helped build and then kill Film Gimp are leading GIMP/GEGL today. I didn't become involved in Film Gimp until 2002.

There's no discussion in the GIMP mailing list archives regarding the reasons
leading up to that big decision in 2000, in fact, very little public discussion
of any kind regarding Film Gimp that I can find. Why is that?

Cheers,

Robin --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robin.Rowe@MovieEditor.com Hollywood, California www.CinePaint.org Free motion picture and still image editing software

Hi,

"Robin Rowe" writes:

What bothered you and other GIMP developers so much about Film Gimp that in 2000 you unexpectedly discarded three man-years of your own work funded at substantial expense by the motion picture industry?

In 1998 Film Gimp was an official development branch of GIMP CVS, much like GEGL is today. Some expected Film Gimp to become GIMP 2.0 in 2000. Three man-years of funded development (that was not incorporated into GIMP) went into Film Gimp before GIMP ceased work on it in 2000. Programmers who helped build and then kill Film Gimp are leading GIMP/GEGL today. I didn't become involved in Film Gimp until 2002.

There's no discussion in the GIMP mailing list archives regarding the reasons leading up to that big decision in 2000, in fact, very little public discussion of any kind regarding Film Gimp that I can find. Why is that?

Because this decision did never happen. At least I don't remember that at anytime anyone ever discussed this topic. The filmgimp code slowly diverged from the main GIMP source code, mainly because the GIMP source code kept improving. Noone ever brought up the question if the code should be merged or even outlined a way how this could be done. Don't ask me why this didn't happen, but please don't claim that there was a decision made to discard that code.

Similarily there wasn't any discussion about a code merge when the code was picked up again by you last year. That would have been a good chance to finally merge the filmgimp improvements into GIMP proper. But for whatever reason this discussion also never took place.

Sven

Robin Rowe wrote:

Although none of our developers are hackers, nice to hear you think highly of some of us.

hmm, you don't have a single programmer who is working on FilmGimp because he enjoys it? if you do, you probably have a hacker on your team. Hacker in the original MIT definition, not the media corroupted version.

What bothered you and other GIMP developers so much about Film Gimp that in 2000 you unexpectedly discarded three man-years of your own work funded at substantial expense by the motion picture industry?

Noone who was making leadership decisions around then liked the gimp-1.0 codebase. I cannot answer more specificly than to tell you the best explanation I have recieved is that the old maintainers of Film Gimp understoond, "this is not how we want to do things," with "you suck, go away." Some feelings got hurt. Some people left, and there was a lot of unncecssary bad blood that could have been cured with a little more diplomacy.

In 1998 Film Gimp was an official development branch of GIMP CVS, much like GEGL is today.

not exactly. Gegl is a seperate project and gegl will never contain gui code. It will only be the image processing engine for the existing Gimp codebase.

There's no discussion in the GIMP mailing list archives regarding the reasons
leading up to that big decision in 2000, in fact, very little public discussion
of any kind regarding Film Gimp that I can find. Why is that?

Likely because it just fell of the map. This isn't necessarlly because someone wrote "here there be dragons" over it. There could have been poor communication and some hurt feelings. That would have been enough to drive away a maintainer or two.

Regardless of what went on in the past, the question comes often enough for me to conclude that nearly every major gimp developer would like to see some kind of merge from the CinePaint people. As far as I can tell though, you simply have no interest in working with us, so I don't forsee this happening.

And please don't misunderstand. These people don't think what you are doing to be "wrong" or "bad." Quite the opposite. Any interest generated in the movie industry for open source can only help all of us. Most of us just hate to see a large duplication of effort. Perhaps more significantly, there are several of us still around that remember with not so fond memories, what it was like to work on the gimp-1.0 code base. I know from personal conversation that almost all complaints mentioned on this list about Film Gimp are meant in this context.

I for one, and more than a few others, would really like to see CinePaint and Gimp working together again. I am not even neccsarially suggesting a complete merge. Sven and Mitch have done a really good job refactoring the gui stuff into objects. So good, in fact, (please correct me if I am wrong) that I am willing to bet that CinePaint and the Gimp could share a very significant chunk of the internal gui api's, without interfering with each other. (we could even factor this stuff into an external project, Extended GTK, if you will).

And I happen to remember you mentioning that you don't think what we are doing with the compositing engine is the best way to go. However, porting the internal gui stuff to whatever compositing engine you are using now will only help us, since we need to do the same thing when gegl comes around anyway.

Every time Cinepaint gets mentioned the divide between the CinePaint crew and the Gimp crew gets worse. This needs to change or people must give up on the idea of a merge. This change will only happen when people stop trying to figure out who to blame for the split and start trying to encourge a merge.

Robin, do you want to see more overlap between the Gimp and Cinepaint projects? 'Cause if you don't, someone who wants to see the merge happen needs to volunteer for the job, otherwise this goes nowhere.

-- Daniel Rogers

Sven,

Because this decision did never happen. At least I don't remember that at anytime anyone ever discussed this topic. The filmgimp code slowly diverged from the main GIMP source code, mainly because the GIMP source code kept improving. Noone ever brought up the question if the code should be merged or even outlined a way how this could be done. Don't ask me why this didn't happen, but please don't claim that there was a decision made to discard that code.

It seems terribly careless on GIMP's part to lose three man-years of work and not know how that happened.

Similarily there wasn't any discussion about a code merge when the code was picked up again by you last year. That would have been a good chance to finally merge the filmgimp improvements into GIMP proper. But for whatever reason this discussion also never took place.

Not discussed? Are you kidding?

A code merge was discussed at length on the filmgimp-developer list in October and November of last year. That was my earliest opportunity to discuss it knowledgeably. I'd only been working with the code a few months then. On November 30, 2002, I posted to the gimp-developer list my thoughts about the prospects of a merge. You had already made a public post there, not addressed to me, that was highly critical of me.

Maybe what you mean is I should have said more before October 2002, in July and August 2002 when the new Film Gimp project was getting underway at SourceForge? The GIMP lists were down for weeks during July and August of 2002.

Three months before launching Film Gimp at SourceForge, on April 9, 2002, I announced my intention to release a source tarball and create an up-to-date web page. That was to gimp-film, GIMP's official list for Film Gimp at the time. No response.

In March 2002 the first story on Film Gimp appeared in Linux Journal. My article revealed the method to coax Film Gimp out of GIMP CVS, the first time the general public was aware where it was and how to get it.

http://linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=5683

It was satisfying reader requests for a source tarball that led me to becoming the project leader later.

On March 2, 2002, I posted to gimp-developer announcing my Film Gimp article in Linux Journal. No response to my post.

Yosh (Manish Singh).is listed on gimp.org as the GIMP maintainer. I did coordinate my Film Gimp plans with Yosh at that time. In fact, the plan then was that would I manage Film Gimp from gimp.org. To enable that, Yosh said he would grant me a password at gimp.org. Had that happened that would have made me officially part of the GIMP team, but months passed and no password.

Yosh was too busy with GIMP to support me and Film Gimp. I suggested SourceForge would be better choice, that I would just be getting in the way at GIMP. GEGL, not Film Gimp, was where GIMP wanted to put its energy. I also talked with Calvin Williamson, the project leader of GEGL. Everyone agreed. As far as I knew, I was on good terms with everyone at GIMP. I quoted Calvin about GEGL as part of my Film Gimp article in Linux Journal. Although sometimes difficult to reach, Yosh was always polite to me.

Your name isn't listed as the project manager of GIMP. Not then. Not today. In fact, in checking "Authors" at http://www.gimp.org/the_gimp_about.html you aren't listed at all. Contacting you didn't occur to me because I had never heard of you.

My name, on the other hand, was everywhere. Although I didn't know of you, you should have known of me from the very start. I was prominently in the press and posting to GIMP lists regarding Film Gimp. You could have contacted me seeking my cooperation as soon as you learned of my involvement in Film Gimp, but instead you waited. Your approach has been to attack me from a public pulpit on the GIMP mailing lists. Your invective remarks are not addressed to me, but advise third persons against me.

For you to suggest today that the problem was me not communicating enough shows real cheek. The person out of the loop is you. You have admitted you have no clue what happened to Film Gimp in 2000 when it was killed or in 2002 when it was resurrected, but that doesn't stop you from publicizing a negative opinion of it and me.

People tend to assume I'm offended by your remarks since that appears the intended reaction, but really I can't stop laughing. Where some imagine Hamlet, I see Much Ado About Nothing. ;-)

Cheers,

Robin

P.S. The posts I mentioned in this note are in the archives, copies enclosed below.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robin.Rowe@MovieEditor.com Hollywood, California www.CinePaint.org Free motion picture and still image editing software

----- Original Message ---

This one time, at band camp, "Robin Rowe" wrote:

Not discussed? Are you kidding?

I guess you could argue this and take up alot of time/bandwidth or ... you could discuss it now

Kind regards Kevin

Hi,

For you to suggest today that the problem was me not communicating enough shows real cheek. The person out of the loop is you. You have admitted you have no clue what happened to Film Gimp in 2000 when it was killed or in 2002 when it was resurrected, but that doesn't stop you from publicizing a negative opinion of it and me.

Robin, there is really no point in being personally offended here. I didn't say a bad word about you nor about filmgimp or cinepaint. Why do you make this a personal flame war? I am not going to follow you on this road.

OK, then let's state my point again in a few simple words so that you have a better chance to understand them. I have been on the gimp-developer mailing-list since 1997. Before your reply I wasn't even aware that there was a film-gimp list at some point in time. During all this time, all I heard about film-gimp was some rumours. I might have missed something, but I personally don't remember any discussion among GIMP developers about a film-gimp merge. I haven't claimed anyone being guilty for this, I only state that, as far as I know, no serious discussion about film-gimp and if and how to merge it, ever took place. And I asked you (and still do) not to state publically that such a discussion would have happened.

Sven

I can't unsubscribe because of the crappy mailman system. All I get is an error. PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE ME!!

-----Original Message----- From: gimp-user-bounces@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu [mailto:gimp-user-bounces@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Sven Neumann
Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2003 6:17 AM To: Robin Rowe
Cc: gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [Gimp-user] CinePaint and Film Gimp

Hi,

For you to suggest today that the problem was me not communicating enough shows real cheek. The person out of the loop is you. You have admitted you have no clue what happened to Film Gimp in 2000 when it was killed or in 2002 when it was resurrected, but that doesn't stop you from publicizing a negative opinion of it and me.

Robin, there is really no point in being personally offended here. I didn't say a bad word about you nor about filmgimp or cinepaint. Why do you make this a personal flame war? I am not going to follow you on this road.

OK, then let's state my point again in a few simple words so that you have a better chance to understand them. I have been on the gimp-developer mailing-list since 1997. Before your reply I wasn't even aware that there was a film-gimp list at some point in time. During all this time, all I heard about film-gimp was some rumours. I might have missed something, but I personally don't remember any discussion among GIMP developers about a film-gimp merge. I haven't claimed anyone being guilty for this, I only state that, as far as I know, no serious discussion about film-gimp and if and how to merge it, ever took place. And I asked you (and still do) not to state publically that such a discussion would have happened.

Sven

Robin, there is really no point in being personally offended here.

Sven, no need to apologize. I said I wasn't offended.

Cheers,

Robin --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robin.Rowe@MovieEditor.com Hollywood, California www.CinePaint.org Free motion picture and still image editing software

Robin, there is really no point in being personally offended here.

Sven, no need to apologize. I said I wasn't offended.

Cheers,

Robin

So the merge is on?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robin.Rowe@MovieEditor.com Hollywood, California www.CinePaint.org Free motion picture and still image editing software

Eric Pierce wrote:

Robin, there is really no point in being personally offended here.

Sven, no need to apologize. I said I wasn't offended.

So the merge is on?

Perhaps, a year ago, if someone had proposed re-merging the extra colordepth code from cinepaint into the gimp, with the idea that it would eventually be replaced by gegl post-2.2, it might have happened for 2.0. However, that didn't happen, and as we can see there has now been some personal animosity (if not offense) that has built up between the 2 projects (or at least, between key people on the two projects).

It definitely is not something that's on the cards before 2.0, and 2.2 should be a stabilising release with some feature additions, but nothing as major as a code merge from a project which actually doesn't share that much code with us any more from what I can see... if we were to attempt such a merge, it would definitely delay 2.2, and would thus delay the merging of gegl into the GIMP (which is due to happen, if all goes well, after 2.2).

Given that, I'd say it's unlikely.

Cheers, Dave.

Hi,

I know I should stop actually this thread but since Robin didn't get the point again, I will comment to some of the more personal attacks included in his former reply. Perhaps this can help to get rid of some misunderstandings.

"Robin Rowe" writes:

Your name isn't listed as the project manager of GIMP. Not then. Not today. In fact, in checking "Authors" at http://www.gimp.org/the_gimp_about.html you aren't listed at all. Contacting you didn't occur to me because I had never heard of you.

I am not the project manager and I never claimed to be. There is no such role as the project manager in The GIMP development. Like most free software projects The GIMP is being developed by a bunch of hackers and other contributors who together form some sort of community. There is no leader elected and there's no spokesman neither. If you want to get in contact with the GIMP developers, you need to address them all and use the developers mailing list. There is no point in talking to a single person and there is also no point in taking a single person responsible.

I don't give shit about my name listed on the GIMP website. If you want to know who is actively working on a free software project, you don't look at it's web-site, you take a look at the source code and the ChangeLog. You cannot apply the rules you learned from corporate software development to free software projects; it won't work. If you want to work with us, try to respect us and the way that things work here.

My name, on the other hand, was everywhere. Although I didn't know of you, you should have known of me from the very start. I was prominently in the press and posting to GIMP lists regarding Film Gimp. You could have contacted me seeking my cooperation as soon as you learned of my involvement in Film Gimp, but instead you waited. Your approach has been to attack me from a public pulpit on the GIMP mailing lists. Your invective remarks are not addressed to me, but advise third persons against me.

Yes, I noticed the selfishness with that you spread your name all over code that other people wrote. And I also noted that you are constantly trying to blame the wrong people for things that went wrong in the past. You even tried to change history (or the perception of it) by claiming obviously wrong facts. This is the point when I had to speak up and tell people how I remembered the story you just told them.

For you to suggest today that the problem was me not communicating enough shows real cheek. The person out of the loop is you. You have admitted you have no clue what happened to Film Gimp in 2000 when it was killed or in 2002 when it was resurrected, but that doesn't stop you from publicizing a negative opinion of it and me.

Yes, I have a negative opinion on the code and there is nothing going to stop me from stating this as my very own personal opinion. I have no interest in telling anyone my opinion on you though.

Sven

Hi,

David Neary writes:

Perhaps, a year ago, if someone had proposed re-merging the extra colordepth code from cinepaint into the gimp, with the idea that it would eventually be replaced by gegl post-2.2, it might have happened for 2.0. However, that didn't happen, and as we can see there has now been some personal animosity (if not offense) that has built up between the 2 projects (or at least, between key people on the two projects).

I am not personally offended by Robin (and he claims not be offended by me). If he could try to understand and accept how the GIMP project works and if he could show some respect for the hacker culture, I am certainly not going to deny to work with him. Perhaps on a more technical level, it might even be a fruitful collaboration.

I don't believe however that a general code merge makes any sense. This has technical and strategical reasons. David already outlined the later quite well. If there is interest to discuss the technical details, this should happen on the gimp-developer ML.

Sven

can we stop this thread?

there is a good chance that i am responsible for the bad blood between filmgimp and gimp. i was writing to Robin and i might have said something rude.

as far as how free software works, i remember when Sven started to take over. i read the developer mail and kept thinking "just where does this asshole get off" and other similar eh, impressions. when i actually took the time to see what he was talking about reflected in the software improvement, my impression turned more from "that asshole at least knows what he is doing". and the rudness became more entertaining and gimp so much better.

i have disagreed with him a few times, i have my theory that this disagreement was a set up however. there are good ways and bad ways to build free software. i think the gimp community takes only the best from both of those ways.

Sven Neumann is an asshole. and a creep. he might even have stinky armpits, i dunno. gimp is really shaping up nice though :)

so i am sorry for whatever i said in that long ago exchange that pissed you off. also, i am sorry you have such old widgets to work with.

my real reason to want gimp-gap to work is to force the software companies to upgrade their consumer level software. i really think that gimp-1.2 was responsible for photoshop so quickly putting two of their software packages together. with gimp-gap, we can run the same experiment with the film software.

did you see how much better all the software in the world got when gimp-1.2 came out? ohmigod! who has time to be an ass kisser.

carol

Eric,

So the merge is on?

A restricted code merge has been underway for months, with CinePaint scavenging useful bits from GIMP 1.2.

The CinePaint code tree was reorganized to separate source files sensitive to bit-depth from those that are not. Some GIMP 1.2 source files were then swapped out with the latter without anyone noticing.

Some GIMP 1.2 plug-ins can now compile as-is under CinePaint's 1.0-like plug-in API, and that situation is improving all the time. Our new plug-in compatibility layer (PICL) enables CinePaint to accept plug-ins utilizing the GIMP 1.0, 1.1, or 1.2 APIs. Although code compatible, the plug-ins must be recompiled. Don't try to use plug-in binaries from GIMP in CinePaint.

Despite the code reuse in some areas, CinePaint and GIMP are actually diverging. CinePaint has a very different vision for the future than GIMP. We're pulling in features that further our mission, rejecting others as irrelevant, and building new designs that have no counterpart in GIMP.

CinePaint won't go back to being Film Gimp and can't ever rejoin the GIMP project. That irreversible decision was made -- or not made according to Sven -- in 2000, long before I came on the scene. GIMP misplaced three man-years of Hollywood-funded open source work. That's an immense amount of time and money to lose, especially for an open source project. There can be no going back.

Cheers,

Robin --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robin.Rowe@MovieEditor.com Hollywood, California www.CinePaint.org Free motion picture and still image editing software

Eric,

So the merge is on?

A restricted code merge has been underway for months, with CinePaint scavenging useful bits from GIMP 1.2.

The CinePaint code tree was reorganized to separate source files sensitive to bit-depth from those that are not. Some GIMP 1.2 source files were then swapped out with the latter without anyone noticing.

Some GIMP 1.2 plug-ins can now compile as-is under CinePaint's plug-in API, and that situation is improving all the time. Our new plug-in compatibility layer (PICL) enables CinePaint to accept plug-ins utilizing the GIMP 1.0, 1.1, or 1.2 APIs. Although code compatible, the plug-ins must be recompiled. Don't try to use plug-in binaries from GIMP in CinePaint.

Despite the code reuse in some areas, CinePaint and GIMP are actually diverging. CinePaint has a very different vision for the future than GIMP. We're pulling in features that further our mission, rejecting others as irrelevant, and building new designs that have no counterpart in GIMP.

CinePaint won't go back to being Film Gimp and can't ever rejoin the GIMP project. That irreversible decision was made -- or not made according to Sven -- in 2000, long before I came on the scene. GIMP misplaced three man-years of Hollywood-funded open source work. That's an immense amount of time and money to lose, especially for an open source project. There can be no going back.

Cheers,

Robin --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robin.Rowe@MovieEditor.com Hollywood, California www.CinePaint.org Free motion picture and still image editing software

Hi Robin,

Robin Rowe wrote:

Despite the code reuse in some areas, CinePaint and GIMP are actually diverging. CinePaint has a very different vision for the future than GIMP. We're pulling in features that further our mission, rejecting others as irrelevant, and building new designs that have no counterpart in GIMP.

That's somewhat unfortunate - perhaps you guys are having some problems that we've already solved or thought about, and we can get talking?

CinePaint won't go back to being Film Gimp and can't ever rejoin the GIMP project. That irreversible decision was made -- or not made according to Sven -- in 2000, long before I came on the scene. GIMP misplaced three man-years of Hollywood-funded open source work. That's an immense amount of time and money to lose, especially for an open source project. There can be no going back.

Please, stop repeating this myth as if it were fact. Yes, some people were employed to work on the gimp, and yes, much of the work they did was not integrated into the gimp core. There, I said it, we can agree. Now, for the good of both our projects, and for inter-project relationships, please stop saying it. It really doesn't help matters.

Actually, a lot of lessons were learned while doing HOLLYWOOD which have now been absorbed into gegl's design by calvin and yosh. While there was no conscious decision not to integrate the code, there was perhaps an unconscious decision (if such a thing exists) that there was a better way to do things.

Cheers, Dave.

On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 12:22:28AM -0700, Robin Rowe wrote:

CinePaint won't go back to being Film Gimp and can't ever rejoin the GIMP project. That irreversible decision was made -- or not made according to Sven -- in 2000, long before I came on the scene. GIMP misplaced three man-years of Hollywood-funded open source work. That's an immense amount of time and money to lose, especially for an open source project. There can be no going back.

Please stop making stuff up and rewriting history to suit your own story. You have no real idea what happened before you appeared. You have bits of hearsay and you fill in the blanks yourself with "facts" that you pull out of thin air.

Maybe if you spent more time coding and less time beating your own chest, CinePaint wouldn't be perceived as the buggy, unstable piece of software that it is. Maybe if you stopped letting your ego get in the way of things, people wouldn't think you are hard to work with.

You refused to actually help further GEGL by choosing to promote CinePaint instead. That's fine, it's your decision, but for someone who keeps on going on about not having discussions in public you never actually explained that one...

Stop clouding this list with this drivel and go code instead. You have your own project and your own mailing list to write useless crap on.

-Yosh

Yosh,

Please stop making stuff up and rewriting history to suit your own story. You have no real idea what happened before you appeared.

You are right that I don't have the whole story and must rely upon what others say who were actually there.

Unlike Sven or me, you were one of the sponsored Film Gimp developers, correct? You were there. You can state what happened or didn't happen as someone who was personally involved. Whether the question is how could GIMP vote down Film Gimp with so much riding on it, or how could GIMP lose Film Gimp through inattention, I'm curious to know how it happened. Can you tell us?

You refused to actually help further GEGL by choosing to promote CinePaint instead. That's fine, it's your decision, but for someone who keeps on going on about not having discussions in public you never actually explained that one.

Well, I could discuss it if anyone asked me. ;-)

My main reason for not joining GIMP/GEGL is the very thing you are asking not be talked about. Nobody from Hollywood is joining GIMP's second attempt at implementing deep paint because GIMP wasted the effort last time.

Cheers,

Robin --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Robin.Rowe@MovieEditor.com Hollywood, California www.CinePaint.org Free motion picture and still image editing software