It is currently Sun Jul 21, 2024 4:26 am


All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 63 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Gimp 2.6 vs gimp 2.8
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2013 3:48 am  (#41) 
Offline
New Member

Joined: May 26, 2013
Posts: 1
The export / save thing and the varied but unwieldy brush options have become rather hard to get used to. But the increased resource usage is the real deal breaker for me.

Most of the graphics work I do is amateur cartooning, and my style is more about line art than coloring. I really don't need any of those amazing new features that GIMP 2.8 brings.

Given the way towards which GIMP is heading, I'm going to either stick with 2.6 forever or switch to another graphics editor that better suits my needs.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Gimp 2.6 vs gimp 2.8
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2013 9:29 am  (#42) 
Offline
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Aug 10, 2012
Posts: 13080
Location: Native to NYC living in Arizona, Gimp 2.8 & 2.10, Win 11 PC.
Given all that's been said/written in this thread, I will keep using 2.6.11 as my main Gimp.
What's been mentioned about 2.8's performance or lack thereof, is very apparent to me when I attempt to use my portable 2.8.
I'll wait until such time that 2.6.11 becomes obsolete or unusable, then I'll make a complete switch-over.
I've also experienced many of the same issues with 2.8 that the devoted 2.6 users have, (I'm also a devoted 2.6 user) and this alone keeps me from making a complete switch to the new version.
I don't find myself in any real need for the new features 2.8 has available. Even so, I must admit that the new brush dynamics is a pretty sweet features.

A 'Brush Dynamics' plug-in for 2.6 anyone?
:hehe

_________________
Image
"A wise man learns more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer"
Image


Top
 Post subject: Re: Gimp 2.6 vs gimp 2.8
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2013 11:15 am  (#43) 
Offline
GimpChat Member
User avatar

Joined: May 26, 2012
Posts: 342
Location: France
Wallace wrote:
2.8's performance or lack thereof

Just from one 2.6 user to another, I found out that 2.8.4 partha portable is the version that convinced me to keep trying the .8 branch.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Gimp 2.6 vs gimp 2.8
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2013 11:19 am  (#44) 
Offline
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Aug 10, 2012
Posts: 13080
Location: Native to NYC living in Arizona, Gimp 2.8 & 2.10, Win 11 PC.
anarkhya wrote:
Wallace wrote:
2.8's performance or lack thereof

Just from one 2.6 user to another, I found out that 2.8.4 partha portable is the version that convinced me to keep trying the .8 branch.


Yes I hear you and I feel the same way. ;) That still won't have me giving up on my 2.6 version.

_________________
Image
"A wise man learns more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer"
Image


Top
 Post subject: Re: Gimp 2.6 vs gimp 2.8
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2013 11:29 am  (#45) 
Offline
GimpChat Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 22, 2012
Posts: 2089
Location: US
C'mon now, guys!
GIMP is flying on my 64-bit 8-core CPU with 16GB RAM system.
GIMP ain't going back, the future releases will be even more resource hungry.
Adding full-throttle GEGL engine, multi-threading ability and utilizing GPU image processing
will speed things up and improve gimp performance.
But the trend for all modern graphics apps is to not fall behind hardware progress.
Powerful machines with 64- and 128-bit architecture, 32-64-GB RAMs, and insane graphic cards are
around the corner. Some software developers (both FOSS and proprietary) already announced discontinuation
of 32-bit support.

From the GIMP product vision statement
"GIMP a high-end photo manipulation application" it is clear that the target
gimp end-users are the professional photographers.
They have to deal with big files, rendering time is crucial. Gimp will be developing according to their needs.
The choice is to save money for powerful computers or stick with 2.6-2.8.
And as we all well know, gimp developing team stops supporting previous version the very moment
the next newest version has been released.


P.S. Regarding 'new' save/export behavior, i've seen many people who didn't like it at first to grow
appreciative to that. Isn't really big deal of a change to switch from Ctrl+S to Ctrl+E keyboard shortcut, is it?


Top
 Post subject: Re: Gimp 2.6 vs gimp 2.8
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2013 1:22 pm  (#46) 
Offline
GimpChat Founder
User avatar

Joined: May 22, 2008
Posts: 5242
Location: Gimpville
Locoluis wrote:
the increased resource usage is the real deal breaker for me.

"You're gonna need a bigger boat" - Martin Brody :hehe

_________________
“If you reach for the stars, you just might land on a decently sized hill.” - Stuart Hill


Top
 Post subject: Re: Gimp 2.6 vs gimp 2.8
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2013 1:36 pm  (#47) 
Offline
GimpChat Member
User avatar

Joined: Apr 30, 2010
Posts: 1937
Location: Missouri
Three words for me: Single window mode. I waited for that for years. Having to mess with three windows drove me crazy. So now everybody knows what happened to me.

_________________
Image
The last time I kept an open mind,
my brain fell out and the dog grabbed it.
Now it's full of dirt, toothmarks, and dog slobber.
No more open minds or dogs for me.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Gimp 2.6 vs gimp 2.8
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2013 7:28 pm  (#48) 
Offline
GimpChat Member

Joined: Apr 29, 2012
Posts: 110
I can't see me getting rid of my portable gimp 2.6 anytime in the current state of 2.8 on windows, the fact 2.6 has absolutely no image tearing when zomming and moving around large textures (and i work a lot with textures) is all that matters to me, as even if Gimp 2.8.4 is faster (at least the "official" version) than any of the other 2.8.x i used (i was pleasantly surprised by the improvement over past 2.8.x), the image tearing is still -very- annoying.

That's actually the only problem i have with 2.8.4 , the export instead of save i don't care at all, i got used to it quickly, but the tearing is so annoying when working with large texture on which you need to zoom and pan very often is that if there was a way to backport to 2.6 the new brushes settings (the dynamics and the rotation i mean) i wouldn't even touch 2.8 anymore.

The only glimmer of hope i have regarding GIMP 2.8.x on my window OS is there :
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=674051
As if i understand well the later part of the comments, it seems that image tearing problem affecting window OS found a fix finally, but the build with the fix will not be available for a while apparently, but at least that's something positive to know it got fixed.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Gimp 2.6 vs gimp 2.8
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2013 8:24 pm  (#49) 
Offline
GimpChat Member
User avatar

Joined: Aug 28, 2012
Posts: 3062
Location: Idk where I am.
besides window mode I'd be perfectly happy with 2.6, but the download I was given didn't work for me.

_________________
Image
Reality is a lovely place...But I wouldn't wanna live there.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Gimp 2.6 vs gimp 2.8
PostPosted: Sun May 26, 2013 10:07 pm  (#50) 
Offline
GimpChat Member
User avatar

Joined: Apr 08, 2010
Posts: 5420
Location: Northwest Ohio
I use the Partha built McGimp 2.8.4 and I love it. I also liked his first McGimp, but the new one lets me use the newest scripts. I really am not a heavy user, so I have not found any problems.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Gimp 2.6 vs gimp 2.8
PostPosted: Mon May 27, 2013 12:20 am  (#51) 
Offline
GimpChat Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 22, 2012
Posts: 2089
Location: US
I'm not sure why 2.6 is still preferred over 2.8 by so many.
Performance-wise I don't see any deterioration in 2.8 series (been using gimp since version 2.6.4)

IMO, the changes between 2.6 and 2.8 were far more significant and long-awaited than between 2.4 and 2.6.
Let alone single-window mode, 2.8 has tremendous improvements. Finally, we've got 64-bit version of GIMP. Furthermore, gimp gets
layer groups, rotating brushes, highly customizable brush dynamics, assets management (brushes, palettes, patterns tagging),
brush outlines, on-canvas text editing, better pdf and psd support, tiff file support, better gradient editor and curves tool, pixel lock,
and tons of other lesser but useful stuff that was not available in 2.6.

IDK, maybe people just don't need all of that or simply unaware of new features?
I kept 2.6 version for some time after installing 2.8 but got rid of it after i realized i'd not been using it at all.

@Brogun Lagging of display real-time re-drawing is just a split-second glitch that never really bothers me. It is specific mainly to Windows
builds and on my system is only happening on diagonal panning and image opening (sometimes) and never on zooming in/out.
Surely, not a show stopper for me.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Gimp 2.6 vs gimp 2.8
PostPosted: Mon May 27, 2013 1:52 am  (#52) 
Offline
GimpChat Founder
User avatar

Joined: May 22, 2008
Posts: 5242
Location: Gimpville
Brogun wrote:
The only glimmer of hope i have regarding GIMP 2.8.x on my window OS is there :
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=674051
As if i understand well the later part of the comments, it seems that image tearing problem affecting window OS found a fix finally, but the build with the fix will not be available for a while apparently, but at least that's something positive to know it got fixed.

Interesting read, Brogun. It looks like that is a Windows bug that's not so easily remedied. Perhaps they now have a fix for the fix. :) I guess you guys are in a holding pattern until the issue is resolved in the next release (or Partha's next compile from the updated source).

_________________
“If you reach for the stars, you just might land on a decently sized hill.” - Stuart Hill


Top
 Post subject: Re: Gimp 2.6 vs gimp 2.8
PostPosted: Mon May 27, 2013 5:05 am  (#53) 
Offline
GimpChat Member
User avatar

Joined: May 26, 2012
Posts: 342
Location: France
K1TesseraEna wrote:
@Brogun Lagging of display real-time re-drawing is just a split-second glitch that never really bothers me.

This...
Brogun wrote:
but the tearing is so annoying when working with large texture on which you need to zoom and pan very often.

...is exactly where it become a real annoyance for some people while some don't realize it. When you're working on details and must heavily rely on zooming and panning this tearing turns out to be really a pain.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Gimp 2.6 vs gimp 2.8
PostPosted: Mon May 27, 2013 7:57 pm  (#54) 
Offline
GimpChat Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 22, 2012
Posts: 2089
Location: US
anarkhya wrote:
K1TesseraEna wrote:
@Brogun Lagging of display real-time re-drawing is just a split-second glitch that never really bothers me.

This...
Brogun wrote:
but the tearing is so annoying when working with large texture on which you need to zoom and pan very often.

...is exactly where it become a real annoyance for some people while some don't realize it. When you're working on details and must heavily rely on zooming and panning this tearing turns out to be really a pain.




This is a screen recording of my GIMP. As you can see, not much of a tearing
on window resizing, zooming in/out or panning. Using Space bar for panning, scroll wheel and zoom tool for zooming.
In almost one minute of this video I actually got only a couple of very short glitches.
No, this does not annoy me, and I don't consider myself a very patient person when it comes to software performance.
http://youtu.be/3RnqYVWnABQ

Sorry for the low quality, i was in a hurry.
Maybe it's more of a hardware issue than anything else.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Gimp 2.6 vs gimp 2.8
PostPosted: Tue May 28, 2013 4:01 am  (#55) 
Offline
Script Coder
User avatar

Joined: Jun 22, 2010
Posts: 1171
Location: Here and there
K1TesseraEna wrote:
I'm not sure why 2.6 is still preferred over 2.8 by so many.


I'll offer my personal reason.

I've approached it from a cost/benefit analysis

The potential benefits:
The additional features that 2.8 offers.

The costs:
Having to re-learn the save/export process. Learning to control the new sliders.

The problem comes from the fact that I don't value the new features. Looking at the list there isn't anything that I would have any use for, so I'm just left with costs and that leads to the decision not to upgrade.

Kevin


Top
 Post subject: Re: Gimp 2.6 vs gimp 2.8
PostPosted: Tue May 28, 2013 6:34 am  (#56) 
Offline
GimpChat Member
User avatar

Joined: Mar 23, 2012
Posts: 7316
Location: Göteborg at last!
paynekj wrote:
K1TesseraEna wrote:
I'm not sure why 2.6 is still preferred over 2.8 by so many.


I'll offer my personal reason.

I've approached it from a cost/benefit analysis

The potential benefits:
The additional features that 2.8 offers.

The costs:
Having to re-learn the save/export process. Learning to control the new sliders.

The problem comes from the fact that I don't value the new features. Looking at the list there isn't anything that I would have any use for, so I'm just left with costs and that leads to the decision not to upgrade.

Kevin


I agree. There are no new features that I have any use for and 2.8 is much slower than 2.6 on my computer when using my Wacom. I also don't like the new brush engine at all. I find it hinders my artwork rather than helping it.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Gimp 2.6 vs gimp 2.8
PostPosted: Tue May 28, 2013 8:04 am  (#57) 
Offline
GimpChat Member
User avatar

Joined: May 26, 2012
Posts: 342
Location: France
K1TesseraEna wrote:
In almost one minute of this video I actually got only a couple of very short glitches.
No, this does not annoy me, and I don't consider myself a very patient person when it comes to software performance.
http://youtu.be/3RnqYVWnABQ


I compared your screen recording to what I actually see and feel in front of an image, on a A4 size the tearing when panning affects the whole image and occurs every time I pan, while your tearing seems only to be visible in borders and not at every pan, also the tearing on my side is combined with variable length lags.

That being said, there's a real gap between our machines, I'm on dual core when you're on 8 cores, my RAM is 4go when you got 16go and my GPU was already a low end one in 2010.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Gimp 2.6 vs gimp 2.8
PostPosted: Tue May 28, 2013 9:39 am  (#58) 
Offline
GimpChat Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 22, 2012
Posts: 2089
Location: US
anarkhya wrote:
That being said, there's a real gap between our machines, I'm on dual core when you're on 8 cores, my RAM is 4go when you got 16go and my GPU was already a low end one in 2010.


I mentioned in my previous comment, maybe it's more of a hardware problem, but what i meant was graphic cards.
I don't think RAM and especially CPU are much of a factor for displaying images. GIMP at its current state doesn't use more than 1 core.
Multi-threading will be possible with GEGL only, so far 2.8.x uses just a few gegl ops.


@paynekj AFAIK, everything that is done in 2.8 could be done in 2.6. I agree, there no need to switch to 2.8 series unless you like
new features. What kind of changes to the program would make you abandon 2.6, Kevin? You know what's coming in 2.10. Will you
use it, given it performs well?


@Erisian Ah yes, E! I forgot about tablets (not using one, everything i draw in gimp is done with either mouse or paths)
That's a good reason to stick with 2.6. Tablet support is partially broken in 2.8 and 2.9, not possible to fix without gimp using GTK 3,
and that's gimp 3.0 onward.


Top
 Post subject: Re: Gimp 2.6 vs gimp 2.8
PostPosted: Tue May 28, 2013 11:50 am  (#59) 
Offline
GimpChat Member

Joined: Apr 29, 2012
Posts: 110
Even if Gimp is not coded to be multithreaded, all your core are working, making a difference.
So on windows while the bug is still obvious from your video, your powerfull system lessen its impact.

I have "only" 2 cores but on the task monitor i can see them working, obviously not optimally due to Gimp not having multithreading, but still working (i have read that multithreading should be in "in the future").

And maybe i didn't explained it well enough, it's the panning (while zoomed in) that is badly affected , not the zoom function itself.

Hopefully the bug fix from the link will be soon be featured (as it does not seem to be in current code, after trying a "nightly build" from http://nightly.darkrefraction.com/gimp/ , i can still see those tearings).


Top
 Post subject: Re: Gimp 2.6 vs gimp 2.8
PostPosted: Tue May 28, 2013 2:14 pm  (#60) 
Offline
GimpChat Member
User avatar

Joined: Sep 22, 2012
Posts: 2089
Location: US
Brogun wrote:
Even if Gimp is not coded to be multithreaded, all your core are working, making a difference.
So on windows while the bug is still obvious from your video, your powerfull system lessen its impact.

I have "only" 2 cores but on the task monitor i can see them working, obviously not optimally due to Gimp not having multithreading, but still working (i have read that multithreading should be in "in the future").

And maybe i didn't explained it well enough, it's the panning (while zoomed in) that is badly affected , not the zoom function itself.

Hopefully the bug fix from the link will be soon be featured (as it does not seem to be in current code, after trying a "nightly build" from http://nightly.darkrefraction.com/gimp/ , i can still see those tearings).


I was talking about real-time displaying of image in gimp viewport, and that's something that does not require 8 cores.
It's being done mostly by the video card.

As for processing manipulations on images, GIMP utilizes tile-based rendering that is being done in a swap folder,
when tile cache exceeds max capability GIMP queues the render instead of sending it to all cores. Workload (1tile at a time)
is being distributed externally between CPU cores by OS itself. And it's not the same as multi-threading.
1 core worth of workload being distributed by OS between 2 or 8 cores - makes little if any difference. Bigger RAM
though means faster processing because you can set in GIMP a bigger tile cache size.

GEGL will use buffers instead of tiles and this opens up a possibility to send work to all cores directly.
Anyway, 8 cores or not, the fastest render is still GPU-based (video card's processor) and that is
not possible without porting GEGL to graphics accelerators. Hopefully, they do port to OpenCL (although not the best out there
but still better then nothing)


Top
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 63 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]



* Login  



Powered by phpBB3 © phpBB Group