All you photoshop users, check this out...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sTBz23i6Wc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sTBz23i6Wc)
'Nuff said?... How is that even possible?... It also detects where the shadows should be casted behind the horse... Damn it!
Scott beat you: http://www.stick-online.com/boards/index.php?topic=848.0
I've tested it. Not as good as it boasts. Figures.
Ah you could do this in Gimp via a plug-in for some time now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2gonFtc1yc&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2gonFtc1yc&feature=player_embedded)
Also the new content aware-scale in Photoshop, where the main objects in the scene won't get distorted can also be done in Gimp by using a plug-in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3MDVKPly50&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3MDVKPly50&feature=player_embedded)
So I don't get why people are applauding Adobe for this, since a freeware program already beat them to the punch..
Quote from: Pinball on May 10, 2010, 02:03:34 PM
Ah you could do this in Gimp via a plug-in for some time now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2gonFtc1yc&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2gonFtc1yc&feature=player_embedded)
Also the new content aware-scale in Photoshop, where the main objects in the scene won't get distorted can also be done in Gimp by using a plug-in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3MDVKPly50&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3MDVKPly50&feature=player_embedded)
So I don't get why people are applauding Adobe for this, since a freeware program already beat them to the punch..
Probably because not many people knew about these Gimp plugins.
That's pretty awesome Pinball, my sister is a huge Gimp fan, I'll have to show her those links. Pretty amazing stuff they're making nowadays, soon every picture is going to be edited up to perfection. I dunno if I'm going to even need to smile anymore, they can fix that!
Quote from: Pinball on May 10, 2010, 02:03:34 PM
Ah you could do this in Gimp via a plug-in for some time now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2gonFtc1yc&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2gonFtc1yc&feature=player_embedded)
Also the new content aware-scale in Photoshop, where the main objects in the scene won't get distorted can also be done in Gimp by using a plug-in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3MDVKPly50&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3MDVKPly50&feature=player_embedded)
So I don't get why people are applauding Adobe for this, since a freeware program already beat them to the punch..
That makes my day knowing that, once again, open source pioneers, and proprietary adapts!
Quote from: Pinball on May 10, 2010, 02:03:34 PM
Ah you could do this in Gimp via a plug-in for some time now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2gonFtc1yc&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2gonFtc1yc&feature=player_embedded)
Also the new content aware-scale in Photoshop, where the main objects in the scene won't get distorted can also be done in Gimp by using a plug-in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3MDVKPly50&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3MDVKPly50&feature=player_embedded)
So I don't get why people are applauding Adobe for this, since a freeware program already beat them to the punch..
I never applauded Adobe. I was skeptical. As for gimp i simply did not know. I don't use gimp because its a little on the complicated side for me. I do use a little photoshop because i know it a little better. But i use paint.net the most just because i know it and it is easy to me.
But I will say after your post i think i might want to reinstall gimp.
Quote from: ARTgames on May 10, 2010, 05:23:46 PM
I never applauded Adobe. I was skeptical. As for gimp i simply did not know. I don't use gimp because its a little on the complicated side for me. I do use a little photoshop because i know it a little better. But i use paint.net the most just because i know it and it is easy to me.
But I will say after your post i think i might want to reinstall gimp.
http://www.tutorialized.com/tutorials/Gimp/1
Oh well... Tried the gimp and PS version of it... Pretty much the same =/... Actually nothing special at all. Dunno what excited me about it so much after all =/
Oh, I never knew about the gimp plugin... Take THAT Adobe ;)
How do you guys think it's done? How complex can the algorithm be? I think it does some cloning and healing on steroids... Nothing else, but I don't know how it finds out where should it put the cloned mesh...
It also fails at details... Unfortunately, details like human face would be impossible to add. But in the end, it does pretty good with placing shadows objects behind the deleted part drop =)... Pretty neat.
There's a lot of complex algorithms based off of random pulls of parts of the image. Essentially, if I'm understanding this right, it throws out a bunch of random calls around the image to find similar matches for pixels, once it finds a match or two, it then does another query around the match to find even more similar pixels, combines them, then patches the spot.
There's a lot of room for error, but it works good for small details. The trick is to just not go overboard with your selections, and keeping your brush size small when patching. Only select the necessary parts, leave a bit of overlap onto the surrounding area, and it seems to work out well. The larger the selection or patching, the more potential for error.
Looking at the Gimp versus Adobe versions again, it seems the Adobe version does a quite a bit better on sampling. Take a look at the finished product on the desert image. In the Gimp version, there is clearly a significant section of the patched area that is simply copy/pasted from another section of the image. In addition, in the Adobe version, it seems to have blended the right amount and size of bushes into the patched area wheras in the Gimp version it's not quite right. This is probably due to the fact that it copy/pasted a section from elsewhere in the image rather than calculating how the bushes would naturally look if the road was not there. This is a pretty clear indication of a major improvement in the Adobe version.
In my opinion, this may not be the greatest thing ever, but it would definitely save someone hours of work to reproduce manually. And wheras I could see a professional choosing to use a manual method over the Gimp version, I could see a professional finding the Adobe version a pretty usefull tool in many situations.
Quote from: Lingus on May 11, 2010, 12:27:24 PM
Looking at the Gimp versus Adobe versions again, it seems the Adobe version does a quite a bit better on sampling. Take a look at the finished product on the desert image. In the Gimp version, there is clearly a significant section of the patched area that is simply copy/pasted from another section of the image. In addition, in the Adobe version, it seems to have blended the right amount and size of bushes into the patched area wheras in the Gimp version it's not quite right. This is probably due to the fact that it copy/pasted a section from elsewhere in the image rather than calculating how the bushes would naturally look if the road was not there. This is a pretty clear indication of a major improvement in the Adobe version.
In my opinion, this may not be the greatest thing ever, but it would definitely save someone hours of work to reproduce manually. And wheras I could see a professional choosing to use a manual method over the Gimp version, I could see a professional finding the Adobe version a pretty usefull tool in many situations.
I noticed that too. While Gimp might have beat them initially, usually that's where open-source has a bit of downfall...quality. Good thing BitTorrent is open source. ;)
Quote from: Lingus on May 11, 2010, 12:27:24 PM
Looking at the Gimp versus Adobe versions again, it seems the Adobe version does a quite a bit better on sampling. Take a look at the finished product on the desert image. In the Gimp version, there is clearly a significant section of the patched area that is simply copy/pasted from another section of the image.
I think in the video he selected a little light brown from the road which made it take samples on the right of the picture. I did the same test and brighten it a little since the default picture is really dark and got this.
(http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i165/midnight_club_2004/gimptestB.png)
Aside from the blue gradient in the sky, if you showed that to a person with no prior knowledge of the picture, chances are, he'll buy into your lies.
Again, the Adobe version still seems to do a better job blending the size and quantity of bushes. In your example, the area you patched is comprised almost entirely by small bushes. In the Adobe version it blends from larger to smaller from right to left taking from the sample of bushes around the edges of the patched area.
And this is only in that one example. I noticed other things on the other two example pictures that seemed not only better quality final product but easier to accomplish with Adobe's. Which, there's nothing wrong with that. Gimp is free. They don't have as much money to throw at the problem. They got there first, but then Adobe was able to throw tons of money at improving on the concept.
Quote from: Lingus on May 11, 2010, 04:41:27 PM
Again, the Adobe version still seems to do a better job blending the size and quantity of bushes. In your example, the area you patched is comprised almost entirely by small bushes. In the Adobe version it blends from larger to smaller from right to left taking from the sample of bushes around the edges of the patched area.
And this is only in that one example. I noticed other things on the other two example pictures that seemed not only better quality final product but easier to accomplish with Adobe's. Which, there's nothing wrong with that. Gimp is free. They don't have as much money to throw at the problem. They got there first, but then Adobe was able to throw tons of money at improving on the concept.
Is photoshop $699/$999 better than gimp? For me i don't know. I know the back ground mechanics of photoshop are well built. I dont know the iner working of gimp.
Quote from: Lingus on May 11, 2010, 04:41:27 PM
Again, the Adobe version still seems to do a better job blending the size and quantity of bushes. In your example, the area you patched is comprised almost entirely by small bushes. In the Adobe version it blends from larger to smaller from right to left taking from the sample of bushes around the edges of the patched area.
I don't know how your making that argument with how dark the picture is in the photoshop video, this is a screen-shot of it and I can barely see sand spots, yet alone bushes.
(http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i165/midnight_club_2004/ut0.png)
Quote from: Lingus on May 11, 2010, 04:41:27 PM
Again, the Adobe version still seems to do a better job blending the size and quantity of bushes. In your example, the area you patched is comprised almost entirely by small bushes. In the Adobe version it blends from larger to smaller from right to left taking from the sample of bushes around the edges of the patched area.
And this is only in that one example. I noticed other things on the other two example pictures that seemed not only better quality final product but easier to accomplish with Adobe's. Which, there's nothing wrong with that. Gimp is free. They don't have as much money to throw at the problem. They got there first, but then Adobe was able to throw tons of money at improving on the concept.
http://www.logarithmic.net/pfh/resynthesizer also.. It has not really been updated lately either. So Adobe does have more recent improvements. But if your working professionally.. you're to go with Adobe.. as a freelance, or hobbiest or something along those lines.. No reason to pay for something gimp provides (and updates more often) for free.
I thought I might as well show you all the test I did all myself after the first 5 minutes of acquiring cs5. Now, granted this was an extremely quick test I did so quality was not my goal, it was more of a speed test to see how easy I could do things.
I googled for a picture of an ocean shore:
(http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/7564/cs5test1.png)
Made a very quick selection:
(http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/3268/cs5test2.png)
Used content aware fill to replace the sand with ocean:
(http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/4135/cs5test3.png)
Used the Spot Healing brush to do a very brief touch up:
(http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/3518/cs5test4.png)
Now I realize there are still many blending flaws/etc with the image but I did this to test speed and convenience. It certaintly got the job don't rather quickly. Though I have never used GIMP before so I can't really make a comparison.
Quote from: Pinball on May 11, 2010, 11:00:46 PM
Quote from: Lingus on May 11, 2010, 04:41:27 PM
Again, the Adobe version still seems to do a better job blending the size and quantity of bushes. In your example, the area you patched is comprised almost entirely by small bushes. In the Adobe version it blends from larger to smaller from right to left taking from the sample of bushes around the edges of the patched area.
I don't know how your making that argument with how dark the picture is in the photoshop video, this is a screen-shot of it and I can barely see sand spots, yet alone bushes.
(http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i165/midnight_club_2004/ut0.png)
It doesn't look that dark on my screen. I can see it pretty well.