151–160 of 473 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because GIMP has a lot of baggage: a very particular UI, a community of active users (many of whom probably like it exactly how it is thanks), and a terrible name.
So fork it. New name, new UI. Seashore was a try at this a decade ago. http://seashore.sourceforge.net/The_Seashore_Project/Screens...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Photoshop has a lot of engineering/product work going into making it better. Unless the price of it were totally absurd, it's always going to be a worthwhile expense if it's the most efficient piece of software to use, because software is typically much cheaper than labor. "Good enough" isn't the goal in this regard. In this case, Photoshop will continue to dominate (unless they get lazy/give up) because they have re…
Probably many people would be happy just using an open source version of Photoshopp 6 an they would be ok missing some of the features released in the last 10 years (like painting 3D surfaces or automatically fill a region of the picture that you delete). Sometimes companies forcing you to update your software to get your money it's not a good thing (Windows 10?). With open source there is always the chance of forkin…
Content aware fill was in Gimp before Photoshop. It was an open-source PhD project.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's wrong with GIMP? I use it every day and find it pretty good. On the MAC now it has lots of weird glitches but they seem pretty fixable...
GIMP is perfectly fine (for many use-cases), but its not what you or I think that matters. Perhaps the best person to ask is a photoshop user who actually paid for it?
CS is expensive and I use a small part of its features... if GIMP covered just 25% of what photoshop could do, I would use it. But I think the only people who think GIMP is close to replacing it are those that have never used/learned photoshop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In terms of ML you could probably load a pre-trained image classification convolutional model and fine-tune it a bit and get quite a reliable if not superbly exact "here is some text" classifier without too much effort. Perhaps not 10 minutes, but maybe a weekend to allow for training.
E.g [1] trained for 20 * 10^5 iterations at 2.1 seconds per image, coming out to 48 days (!) in total. Maybe the 2.1 seconds also include the post-processing to get bounding boxes, though. Anyway, you need lots of training time. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.04018 "Multi-Oriented Text Detection with Fully Convolutional Networks"
I would strongly suggest that there be an option to list existing solutions. A sustainable model means identifying real needs, not duplicating products that people are merely ignorant of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It appears to me that this is a tool to identify a market / need that is not being met. There are people who simply want a product/service, no desire for ownership. They post what they'd be will to pay for it, as a customer, and you decide if it is worth your time to build it. Anyone? Am I understanding this correctly?
Oh, so you own it, in an open source way. Is that correct?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While it would almost certainly cost more than 400k to build a replacement photoshop, the open source community would already be profiting off the fact that a commercial photoshop already exists, and has years of product professionals spending large amounts of resources to understand and cater towards their users.
and if you're building on Gimp you're WAY past "from scratch". The bulk of it is already there. Mostly Gimp just needs usability / human interaction changes.
This could be a good thing or a bad thing if major changes are needed. A project of GIMP's size is a big ship to steer.
> Industry-specific deep learning interviews and walkthroughs > 1 customer paying $5/mo Sounds about right.
> Developers own the products they build for customers, and charge a monthly fee for access.
So, what you're seeing is what a single user is expecting to pay. This is not like a contracting / free-lance website where someone hires you under contract to do some development work.
Instead, you create the SaaS or whatever, and then you have at least x number of people that are willing to pay $y/month for said service; your market is not limited to the people who use this website, too.
I think it's really just a way for people to find what projects people want, and what a select few are willing to pay for it.
Photoshop license costs $348 a year. If 1000 people get together and put $400 each, you'll get $400000. That money could be used to leverage a Gimp to be more Photoshop-users friendly. Then you don't have to keep with the subscription model. You have a great piece of open source software available for everyone to use as long as they want. You can do another round to get more features added. This solves the issue that…
Photoshop license costs $348 a year. If 1000 people get together and put $400 each, you'll get $400000. That money could be used to leverage a Gimp to be more Photoshop-users friendly. Then you don't have to keep with the subscription model. You have a great piece of open source software available for everyone to use as long as they want. You can do another round to get more features added. This solves the issue that…