Sujet : Re: Why GIMP Is Better Than Photoshop
De : recscuba_google (at) *nospam* huntzinger.com (-hh)
Groupes : comp.os.linux.advocacyDate : 07. Jan 2025, 01:49:15
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vlhtmb$1shoo$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 1/6/25 5:33 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 15:59:14 -0500, -hh wrote:
On 1/6/25 3:18 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 15:12:21 -0500, -hh wrote:
>
On 1/5/25 8:24 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
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.
>
Yet both are limited by what the original image source is too ...
The “image source” is here computer-generated images, with potentially
very high dynamic range.
Which means fictional, not reality. And trying to use ~3x more bits of data than a human can perceive is an inefficient waste of resources.
-hh
Why GIMP Is Better Than Photoshop
Re: Why GIMP Is Better Than Photoshop