On Ubuntu 14.10, with Chrome and WebGL enabled I get an unsupported browser message. Here is my UA: >Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/38.0.2125.104 Safari/537.36
Try https://www.polarr.co/editor?force_browser_support=1 Thought I fixed that but..
Show HN: Polarr.co, a WebGL photo editor
51–60 of 100 posts
Re: Show HN: Polarr.co, a WebGL photo editor
#52I hate to shit on your parade because this is pretty dope, but the title is disingenuous at best. But I use Lightroom every day, and you might be faster but you aren't working at the same level of quality. I loaded up a 16-bit TIFF and got an 8-bit JPEG as a result, which leads me to assume that you are downsampling to 8-bit to work. Also, the results in polarr are way harsher then Lightroom, which is pretty common f…
Impressive, sure. But faster? Lightroom?
Re: Show HN: Polarr.co, a WebGL photo editor
#53I hate to shit on your parade because this is pretty dope, but the title is disingenuous at best. But I use Lightroom every day, and you might be faster but you aren't working at the same level of quality. I loaded up a 16-bit TIFF and got an 8-bit JPEG as a result, which leads me to assume that you are downsampling to 8-bit to work. Also, the results in polarr are way harsher then Lightroom, which is pretty common f…
What is supposed to be faster? If there is downsampling to 8bit then of course it is easier. If you can't load the full res image then it's easier (and so on and so forth). Impressive, sure. But faster? Lightroom?
Re: Show HN: Polarr.co, a WebGL photo editor
#54I hate to shit on your parade because this is pretty dope, but the title is disingenuous at best. But I use Lightroom every day, and you might be faster but you aren't working at the same level of quality. I loaded up a 16-bit TIFF and got an 8-bit JPEG as a result, which leads me to assume that you are downsampling to 8-bit to work. Also, the results in polarr are way harsher then Lightroom, which is pretty common f…
Awesome comment. TIFF is not officially supported now and so far we can only output 8bit JPEG in html canvas through downsampling. The downsampling is process "the thinking" part is controlled to be not hurting the user experience and it's different depending on your machine. For faster machines we can remove the thinking part but it would take up more memory (right now the footprint during processing is less than 20…
Clicking on the curve points doesn't do anything. I just retried it thinking maybe I had done something wrong, but still no love.
Re: correction profiles, I'm not sure. Darktable has some, though not as many as Lightroom, so there must be some public source for some of them. This is actually a pretty big deal (for me at least). I'm not a photographer, but I publish a digital/ipad magazine and do most of the retouching work.
(Not a fan of darktable, but they do some things pretty well).
Re: Show HN: Polarr.co, a WebGL photo editor
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is supposed to be faster? If there is downsampling to 8bit then of course it is easier. If you can't load the full res image then it's easier (and so on and so forth). Impressive, sure. But faster? Lightroom?
Try loading two 24mb 8 bit JPEG files into Polarr and Lightroom. Then try adjust knobs such as exposure and temperature. The rendition in Polarr is apparently faster due to its use of downsampling on the fly but still it uses fully sampled images after the user stops the interaction. I believe Lightroom is doing downsampling in one way or the other.
Like I said, impressive, but you'll catch a lot of flak for an otherwise impressive application by using the lightroom hyperbole. I don't think many people use lightroom to edit 8bit jpgs (changing exposure on a jpg is a bit disappointing!)
Re: Show HN: Polarr.co, a WebGL photo editor
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
Awesome comment. TIFF is not officially supported now and so far we can only output 8bit JPEG in html canvas through downsampling. The downsampling is process "the thinking" part is controlled to be not hurting the user experience and it's different depending on your machine. For faster machines we can remove the thinking part but it would take up more memory (right now the footprint during processing is less than 20…
Using Safari 8 on Yosemite. Clicking on the curve points doesn't do anything. I just retried it thinking maybe I had done something wrong, but still no love. Re: correction profiles, I'm not sure. Darktable has some, though not as many as Lightroom, so there must be some public source for some of them. This is actually a pretty big deal (for me at least). I'm not a photographer, but I publish a digital/ipad magazine…
Re: Show HN: Polarr.co, a WebGL photo editor
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have suggestions? When I look at applications oriented towards prosumers and professionals like this, photoshop, etc. I think the point is to give complete control to the user. I don't know anything about photo editing.
One can always take inspiration from audio software and audio plugins, some of those have quite slick UI ideas.
At least a wall of homogenous sliders doesn't require me to learn how the widgets work.
Re: Show HN: Polarr.co, a WebGL photo editor
#58Re: Show HN: Polarr.co, a WebGL photo editor
#59Re: Show HN: Polarr.co, a WebGL photo editor
#60Dev of Polarr here. I think the biggest thing that's missing from the current release is RAW image support which is technically difficult to do. We're right now having some success of extracting the thumbnail of RAW and do it on the client side only using JS, but editing the RAW is a lot harder and we're thinking about using some WebGL texture blending. Any thought/comment on this is welcomed and appreciated. (Not su…
Came here just to see about RAW support -- I think that's the only thing stopping this from being a legit competitor to lightroom, which says a lot so nice work guys! One other thing I would miss as well is the ability to auto-correct distortion through the lens profile. This is super quick and easy in lightroom and it auto-detects your lens from the image metadata. This typically reduces the vignette, so the ability…
The workflow feels a bit contrived and the whole problem based only on the cramped space on the SSD disk. I find storing previews on SSD and then the RAW files in the catalog on a huge mechanical drive works perfectly. I can't shoot pics fast enough to cope with the drop in storage cost on mechanical You get 1Tb drives in cereal boxes these days.
Ths library is then just backed with a good backup solution (NB: NOT just a sync provider like DropBox/OneDrive/...). I use crashplan, but you could use BackBlaze or any stand alone backup package to a sync provider. I also sync to my NAS, as per the "store everything in 3 places" theorem.
A problem I would like to solve (well) though is the first part of the article, where he shares pictures with his relatives. Email SUCKS for this. I use zenfolio, but creating galleries just to share a few pics is tedious. I'd like something more integrated with lightroom, and less tedious/crappy than zenfolio (better raw support, simpler/better style support etc).