Hi,

Alexander Rabtchevich wrote:

Can GIMP handle raw images from digital camera (without downsizing to 8 bits per channel) as Photoshop can?

No. For the moment, the GIMP is limited to 8 bits per channel.

Dave.

Le 19.01.2004 14:32, Dave Neary a écrit :

Hi,

Alexander Rabtchevich wrote:

Can GIMP handle raw images from digital camera (without downsizing to 8 bits per channel) as Photoshop can?

No. For the moment, the GIMP is limited to 8 bits per channel.

Dave.

Hi,

Does « for the moment » means there are some plan to change this in rhe (near) future ? ;-)

--
Regards
- Jean-Luc

Jean-Luc Coulon (f5ibh) wrote:

Le 19.01.2004 14:32, Dave Neary a écrit :

Hi,

Alexander Rabtchevich wrote:

Can GIMP handle raw images from digital camera (without downsizing to 8 bits per channel) as Photoshop can?

No. For the moment, the GIMP is limited to 8 bits per channel.

Dave.

Hi,

Does « for the moment » means there are some plan to change this in rhe (near) future ? ;-)

This is something which we will get for some cost (mostly interface issues) when we have fully migrated to gegl. People are currently debating a migration plan for getting gegl into the GIMP. Currently nothing has been decided.

In one of these plans it's possible we will have higher bitdepths within a year in a stable release. In another, it will be a little longer. Given our experiences with 2.0, I suspect that the plan which will be chosen is the one which allows us to keep a more or less stable CVS tree during the migration.

I'd guess if you twisted my arm that we'll have both more colourspaces and increased bitdepth within 18 months. But that guess is worth about the same as anyone else's.

Cheers, Dave.

Alexander Rabtchevich wrote:

As I understand, gegl has been planned as a core for GIMP 2.0 :). Looking at gegl pages shows it's at beginning of development. Am I right?

Hmm, the pages, are horribly horribly out of date. This is my fault. The pages do not accurately reflect the state of gegl development.

I should update those. . .

-- Dan

it would be nice. btw, how far is the gegl development? when we can expect gegl based release of gimp to be made? 2005?

Jakub Friedl (listy) wrote:

it would be nice. btw, how far is the gegl development? when we can expect gegl based release of gimp to be made? 2005?

I have been working on the pixel access stuff, some ICC colorspace classes using lcms, and some swap stuff. That should be done in a few weeks. The node stuff (of which there is aready a good chuck of it in CVS) will be done some months after that. It all depends on my (and calvins) free time of course (unless someone wants to pay me ;-)).

gegl introduction is slated to begin with the next developers version after 2.0, though we have not set any dates as to when that will lead to new features nor have we decided how this will proceed.

Hopefully it won't be that long to a next stable release of gimp. It would be nice to see it in 2004 (albeit late 2004).

-- Daniel

Daniel Rogers wrote:

Hopefully it won't be that long to a next stable release of gimp. It would be nice to see it in 2004 (albeit late 2004).

I have been asked to point out that is is my opinion and noone has made any specific plans. (From talking with other open source projects, 9-12 month release cycles keep interest high).

-- Daniel

Hi,

Daniel Rogers writes:

Hopefully it won't be that long to a next stable release of gimp. It would be nice to see it in 2004 (albeit late 2004).

I have been asked to point out that is is my opinion and noone has made any specific plans.

We did indeed make very specific plans for the time after the 2.0 release and decided that we are targetting a GIMP-2.2 release about six months after 2.0.0 hits the streets.

Sven

Hi,

Alexander Rabtchevich writes:

2.2 is going to have the same core as 2.0, isn't it?

Not necessarily. We will try to prepare the core for GEGL and perhaps even start to use it in a few places. With 2.0 we have come quite far with our code cleanup and it's about time to tackle some of the more basic functions. So I don't expect the 2.2 core to be identical to the 2.0 core. I doubt however that a user will notice the difference.

Sven

Hi,

Daniel Rogers wrote:

Hopefully it won't be that long to a next stable release of gimp. It would be nice to see it in 2004 (albeit late 2004).

I have been asked to point out that is is my opinion and noone has made any specific plans. (From talking with other open source projects, 9-12 month release cycles keep interest high).

It's my opinion too. It's also the general plan that was discussed at the GIMP conference in Berlin. I'd personally like to aim for a 6 month stable release turnaround, similar to GNOME. At least for 2.2.

Of course, this is just my opinion

Cheers, Dave.