21–30 of 34 posts
I recently using G'MIC to produce a video for a client. We used the G'MIC plugin in GIMP to build up the look, then used those parameters to drive it on the command line frame by frame. It's very slow, so we ended up having to build a solution with AWS to do massively parallel processing, but in the end it turned out great. G'MIC is really good at that kind of thing. I wouldn't use it to replace ImageMagick though.
It should be noted that the project CIMG/GMIC is _not_ built and billed as an IM alternative. It's an image processing framework that happens to have similar utility to IM for some folks and that is also available as a plug-in to GIMP for visual+interactive use.
That feels a lot like being billed as an IM alternative to me.
So, a question: why? Just so that there is an alternative (not that there is anything wrong with that), or is there an issue with ImageMagick that discourages some people from using it?
I don't know what your standard is when it comes to software but by this point I'd expect a lot more out of what we have. I've experienced nothing but headaches with imagemagick. Have you ever tried to use it for rasterising a pdf? Forget about it.
The only other alternatives I'm familiar with involve 3rd parties and web based apis. If you want to perform image editing in an app, it seems like its the only choice.
I don't think this software is an alternative to imagemagick, but those are my thoughts on imagemagick since you asked.
I want to be nothing but encouraging, but I have simultaneous positive and negative reactions. On one hand, we need better FOSS alternatives to imagemagick, on the other hand, using imagemagick as the target to compare against means it's doomed to repeat some of IMs mistakes. And sure enough, using the online server's filter examples, so many of them seem to exist to fill a checkbox and increase the filter count, but…
It's still quite young imho, but it's very promising.
Incidentally, it also integrates with GMIC
So, a question: why? Just so that there is an alternative (not that there is anything wrong with that), or is there an issue with ImageMagick that discourages some people from using it?
Plus it comes bundled in with Krita and Gimp.
Just as a sidenote, if you like playing around with G'Mic, you might absolutely love Python+OpenCV+Numpy combination. It's crazy powerful for tiny amounts of code required.
It should be noted that the project CIMG/GMIC is _not_ built and billed as an IM alternative. It's an image processing framework that happens to have similar utility to IM for some folks and that is also available as a plug-in to GIMP for visual+interactive use.
"In this setting, G'MIC may be seen as a serious (and friendly) competitor of the ImageMagick or GraphicsMagick software suites."[1] [1] http://gmic.eu/ That feels a lot like being billed as an IM alternative to me.
It should be noted that the project CIMG/GMIC is _not_ built and billed as an IM alternative. It's an image processing framework that happens to have similar utility to IM for some folks and that is also available as a plug-in to GIMP for visual+interactive use.
I'm my experience it has been the only plugin to help Gimp fill in the space of the advanced features Photoshop users enjoy such as Content Aware Fill.
Does it support vectors? And PDFs, AI, EPS? Does it handle CMYK/RGB properly?
Looks like a raster library to me. I imagine if it does handle vector graphics, it's only on the input side, same as ImageMagick. Didn't see any indication one way or another on color spaces.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"In this setting, G'MIC may be seen as a serious (and friendly) competitor of the ImageMagick or GraphicsMagick software suites."[1] [1] http://gmic.eu/ That feels a lot like being billed as an IM alternative to me.
As a single _example_ of one (of many) possible interfaces for it? Seems to hardly qualify as 'billing' as much as one example of how it might be used...