Re: Why GIMP Is Better Than Photoshop

On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 15:12:21 -0500, -hh wrote:

On 1/5/25 8:24 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>

On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 15:51:51 -0500, -hh wrote:
 

... needs to explain how & why it is significant for there to be
floating point at all, since the input sensor is integer based ...

 
OpenEXR files are commonly used in CG these days, and they have
floating- point numbers for each pixel component. They also allow for
more than 3-4 pixel components. The values still have their usual
meaning, with 0 being full black and 1.0 being full white, but the
values are allowed to go outside this range to avoid clipping of
dynamic range.

 
Dynamic range is why to support more bits, but that's oblique to adding
more intermediate values by using floating point instead of integer.

That, too, seems to be important to them. You’d think single-precision
floats would be enough, but no, they want the option for double-precision
as well.

GIMP’s GEGL pixel engine deals natively with such things. Photoshop
needs to use import/export filters which inevitably lose quality.

 
But isn't integral vs modular just a software architectural design
choice?

The limiting factor is what the native pixel engine can handle. And
Photoshop’s one is pretty limited compared to GEGL.

This is probably why Adobe products are not used much in VFX work.

 
Adobe's product here is probably After Effects, and it supports formats
such as ProRes, where the originals are integer 10 or 12 bits/channel.

But it’s not a node-based compositor, is it? Even Blender can do better
than that.