Re: [CinePaint] cinepaint vs Gimp

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 09:49:55 +0000
Ron Hickson <ron-H+SwEB6EEwZWk0Htik3J/[email protected]> wrote:

> That's sad for those of us who don't (won't) use Microsoft.  Perhaps now
> is the time to give up boycott - ineffective anyway - swallow pride and
> buy the damn stuff!
> 

It all boils down to a matter of attitude.  Some people are committed
to the spirit of Open Source and will be willing to put up with the
shortcomings, the roughness, and the inconvenience.  Others have
expectations that all software should be perfect and omnipotent and
allow the user to be liberated from all concerns.

Why use a primitive axe when you can enjoy a powerful chainsaw?

Personally, in spite of the difficulty, I have come to prefer
the lowly axe.  It forces one to become more adept and creative
and to become more involved and intimate with the work.

Digital image processing, especially for the novice, involves
a great deal of learning, but the high-end commercial packages,
such as PhotoShop, tend to greatly isolate the user from the
underlying concepts and mechanisms.  On the other hand, some
Open Source utilities, such as Netpbm or ImageMagick, present
only a basic set of image tools that enable the user to explore
in detail the otherwise hidden mechanisms.  Most likely such
"bare bones" software would fail commercially but fortunately
it is widely available under Open Source.

For me, the challenge is to find the Open Source tools that
can fit the need.  If Cinepaint fails, then I will attempt to
forge some other solution using Netpbm or ImageMagick along with
shell scripts.  Perl and Python offer image modules that I have
yet to investigate.  This kind of diverse approach, although it
may be more painstaking and cumbersome, allows me to better
understand the concepts that underlie each kind of transformation
-- and that is just as much a goal as is the final product.

But, since others are voicing their dissatisfactions about Cinepaint,
I will contribute just one of mine.  Oftentimes I will need to
create a new image by cutting or copying a portion of another
image.  In the GIMP, opening a new window (File -> New...) after
copying a selection to the clipboard will automatically enter the
size of the copied portion.  This allows the selection to be immediately
pasted into the new window without overflow or underflow.  With
Cinepaint, however, this adjustment does not automatically occur.
The user must manually adjust the size of the new window to
fit the selection and it is nearly impossible to do the adjustment
correctly.

I have other complaints as well, but I realize the extreme difficulty
it is for a small band of volunteers to get a project of this
magnitude into a highly polished form.  That Cinepaint even exists
at all is, to me, a worthy accomplishment.  After all, Cinepaint
was the first comprehensive Open Source package to venture into the
realm of higher bit levels.  It's lack of absolute perfection can
only be blamed on a lack of participants in its development.

Frank Peters


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV