If The Foundry made a node-based image/photo editor, would you buy it?

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

View Poll Results: Would you be interested in a node-based image editor by The Foundry?
Hells yes. Photoshop hurts my brain and kills my creativity 30 24.00%
Mmmm, sounds promising but I want to see it in action first 59 47.20%
You would have to offer up something special for me to change my current workflow 16 12.80%
Not really, I know Photoshop inside and out and I have no problems with it. 20 16.00%
Voters: 125. You may not vote on this poll

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03 March 2013   #31
Mari is a pretty loaded toolset for what it does already so adding some trivial photoshop features is nonsense. Also a node based PS would only attract %0.1 of its userbase

TF should give away Nuke without a timeline though, just to throw some sand into Adobe's eyes. The current generation of photographers&cg artist are lost to PS. But a free Nuke without a timeline, could be the ticket to raise a new generation of them.
__________________
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex & more violent..." Einstein
 
Old 03 March 2013   #32
That's also an interesting point.

At this stage, who "needs" the full toolset of Photoshop (Creative Suite). There is clearly a section of the market that is fully serviced by Aperture/Lightroom etc, that is, apps that are very clearly focused on photography rather than, say, an all-in-one imaging app.

Photoshop seems to be the one stop shop for everything but many people (not just "CG people") wouldn't use half of it's functionality.

One of the barriers to anyone coming into the market is stagnation - "I have used this software for years and I know all it's benefits and weird foibles." Even if something objectively better comes out, moving on is difficult and not just because things like production pipelines are in place. It requires learning new techniques etc and when we are comfortable with what we know, that can seem like too much of an effort.
 
Old 03 March 2013   #33
Free Nuke without a timeline is pretty freaking genius. I think that would be a big deal.
 
Old 03 March 2013   #34
I use Nuke for a lot of render composites and the benefits are obvious: you can update the entire thing by changing image paths and I think an animation-free edition would be great for this type of thing.

But I would still use Photoshop for final finishing. A ton of nodal Roto clone brush strokes would be brutally slow in Nuke and it's not made for things like easy cropping and border extension.

And I don't really get the hate for PS. Other than needing better 32-bit support for everything, I'd say I'm very happy with it. But I actually go through every feature because I review it:

http://arstechnica.com/business/201...e-cloud-review/

Last edited by cgbeige : 03 March 2013 at 05:33 AM.
 
Old 03 March 2013   #35
I don't hate Photoshop per se, but I can't help but feel that it is . . . complacent. It is the king of the hill, no doubt, but as I said, competition is almost always a good thing and usually spurs innovation at the very least.

Take a look at 3ds Max and Maya. Both industry standard pieces of software and both very good and capable, but is there any reason to really innovate or say, do a core rewrite (I am looking at you, Max)? Of course not. Autodesk effectively has the entire industry with 3 products. Who do they have to fear nipping at their heels? Cinema 4D? Lightwave. Nope. Each year sees new features to justify the price of a new subscription, but realistically, if they didn't they would easily have a few years up their sleeves before anyone came close to touching them.
 
Old 03 March 2013   #36
Quote: but is there any reason to really innovate or say, do a core rewrite


People say this like it's just something you do in a year. It would take 10 years and be of dubious value, not to mention break all your plug-ins and come with completely new stability issues, which Photoshop doesn't have much of right now.

Maya just transitioned to Qt and even just that was a colossal undertaking and slowed down the interface noticeably. But it was necessary to do stuff like viewport 2.

Photoshop's GPU stuff is being added without them having to rewrite the entire base code, so this kind of request just makes no sense, given how they aren't really being held back by the code in order to do new things, which is different from Maya and the Motif/Qt transition.
 
Old 03 March 2013   #37
Example: Nodewerk

Here's an example of what could be done. Nodewerks used to be part of a web based suite but is now a standalone.
http://nodewerk.com/
 
Old 03 March 2013   #38
Oooh, nice one. I will check it out today
 
Old 03 March 2013   #39
Originally Posted by TDan: Here's an example of what could be done. Nodewerks used to be part of a web based suite but is now a standalone.
http://nodewerk.com/


I mean, it looks like it takes ages and is slow & clunky. Plus the results aren't all that hot. It's more doing it because it can be done, rather than doing it because it's the best way.
 
Old 03 March 2013   #40
Subtle changes to how a layer-based system can work can do wonders: compare Photoline to Photoshop, for example. In Photoline:
- any layer can be set to any image mode and at any bit-depth. True vector layers are supported, and bitmap layers can be converted to vector layers.
- instances or clones of layers and groups of layers can be made which immediately update (this is subtly different compared to smart objects). These are called "virtual layers".
- masks are part of the layer stack, NOT part of a layer. This makes all the difference.
- groups can act like layer masks.
- anything can act like a mask in a layer mask group. Regular layers, groups, vectors, bitmaps, virtual layers.
- any layer mask can be set to any bit-depth, independent of... anything!
- adjustment layers can be used and parented to layer masks(!)
- virtualized masks can be re-used in any layer mask.
- opacity can be set from -200(!) to +200 per layer. Incredibly useful.
- multiple pages are supported. Virtual layers can be moved to other pages.

This workflow with layer masks actually being part of the layer stack makes for all the difference, and is something Adobe should adopt. The current layer mask implementation in Photoshop is too limited. Still only one layer mask and one vector mask per layer? It's stuck in the eighties. And the smart object implementation is a patch rather than a true solution for a non-destructive workflow.

And why am I forced to switch image mode to work in Lab mode? Crazy. Insane!

Photoline runs circles around Photoshop's old-fashioned layer mask system.
 
Old 03 March 2013   #41
Originally Posted by cubiclegangster: I mean, it looks like it takes ages and is slow & clunky. Plus the results aren't all that hot. It's more doing it because it can be done, rather than doing it because it's the best way.


ya, that reminded me of those people who build entire images in Filter Forge. It's cool that it can be done but there's a reason matte painters don't use Filter Forge to build images...

It's great for textures though.
 
Old 03 March 2013   #42
Originally Posted by cubiclegangster: I mean, it looks like it takes ages and is slow & clunky. Plus the results aren't all that hot. It's more doing it because it can be done, rather than doing it because it's the best way.


I could say the same about Photoshop - ZING - HEYOOOOOO!
 
Old 03 March 2013   #43
Originally Posted by hvanderwegen: - opacity can be set from -200(!) to +200 per layer. Incredibly useful.


How would this work? Negative alpha / HDR alpha? Could you please elaborate on this?
 
Old 03 March 2013   #44
Originally Posted by VladimirGolovin: How would this work? Negative alpha / HDR alpha? Could you please elaborate on this?


For example:
- setting a +200 opacity to a layer with its blend mode set to "multiply" doubles the effect
- setting a -100 inverts the effect. -200 doubles the inverted effect. A blue-white cloud layer set at multiply with -200 opacity will not interact with white, but will affect the black lower in the layer stack with dark grey and yellow clouds as a result.
- same for adjustment layers: using a negative value will invert the adjustment layers effect, or double the effect at +200. Which can result in some interesting effects.


Also, applying a curve adjustment layer allows me to work in RGB, LAB, HSV and HIS mode at any time, independent of the image mode the bitmap layers are in. No need to switch to LAB mode first! Incredibly convenient.

Another nice addition to Photoline's adjustment layer approach is that more than one adjustment can be part of any adjustment layer. This is very handy to keep the layer stack organized. When I import a HDR into Photoline, only one adjustment layer is added, and one pane contains all the HDR adjustment layer settings for a complete non-destructive HDR conversion.

Last edited by hvanderwegen : 03 March 2013 at 03:52 PM.
 
Old 03 March 2013   #45
FYI, there is already a node-based texturing/paint program out there:
http://www.allegorithmic.com/produc...stance-designer

This is of course very much based on the gaming workflow, and in terms of painting is not as powerful as mari or photoshop, but it is the closest thing to what you are looking for.
__________________
www.sherrielaw.com
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.