Open Photography Forums  
HOME FORUMS NEWS FAQ SEARCH

Go Back   Open Photography Forums > The Gear > Windows on PC

Windows on PC Win OS running on a non-Mac Platform

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 18th, 2006, 11:05 PM
KrisCarnmarker KrisCarnmarker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Spain
Posts: 240
Default Pixel image editor

Has anyone tried this new image editor called "Pixel image editor"? It is cross-platform, running on a long list of OSs and has a quite extensive feature list such as editable HDR images, full CM, layers, masks, paths, etc.

Website is here
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old June 19th, 2006, 03:50 AM
Ray West Ray West is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK - Somerset
Posts: 1,703
Default

Hi Kris,

I installed it a few months ago (windows xp) but couldn't do anything with it. I tried for half an hour, gave up, and uninstalled it. I had a look at the forum, and it is very much a product in development, as far as I can tell. I would like to get it working, I do not like software 'bloat' and much of cs2 I do not need. Why not download it for yourself? Let me know how you get on, I may well have another attempt.

Best wishes,

Ray
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old June 19th, 2006, 08:49 AM
KrisCarnmarker KrisCarnmarker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Spain
Posts: 240
Default

I just took it for a spin. What can I say? :) It's quite brave for one person to tackle such a project. It has potential but my feeling is it is still far from ready. I had numerous problems during the hour or so I spent testing it. It had the same fate as yours Ray. Uninstalled.

I'll take a look again in half a year or so, it's worth keeping an eye on.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old June 19th, 2006, 09:38 AM
Ray West Ray West is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK - Somerset
Posts: 1,703
Default

Thanks for trying Kris,

I too 'had another go', just after I posted my earlier reply. Last time I couldn't even get the brush to work, but this time its much better. I think it is actually evolving quite fast, but I am not sure of its viability. I took some notes, for this installation -

The first time I tried to browse some images, it crashed. seemed Ok the second time.
afaik, it doesn't do anything with raw files, nor psd. It does not like the tif files I created with cs2.
Opens jpegs OK.
Played with layers, but adjustments do not seem to work except on one background copy
It sort of looks like photoshop, but just doesn't work as I would expect it to.

When the screen first opens it looks very good, but downhill all the way from there.

If what he has mapped out worked properly, then it may be of some use, particularly for linux and other users. I may play with it some more, see If I can actually get something useful from it. However, I am very puzzled as to why anyone would release such buggy software in the first instance. Perhaps he has a reason on his site, I will poke some more.

Best wishes
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old September 25th, 2006, 07:04 PM
Ray West Ray West is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK - Somerset
Posts: 1,703
Default new windows version

I had an email today, saying a new version had been released. Installed it, went to resize the window, it crashed. 'File open window' text is overwritten. So, the first couple of basic requirements are broken. Unuseable under win xp imnsho. Anyone else know different?

Best wishes,
Ray
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old September 25th, 2006, 07:38 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,388
Default

Ray & Kris,

What's the deal? Does he say what is/will be unique about this? I would like to know whether or not you found a simple setup such as a small jpg and one layer more stable so you could see what it can do?

The big thing is, "What is unique?"

Asher
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old September 25th, 2006, 10:44 PM
KrisCarnmarker KrisCarnmarker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Spain
Posts: 240
Default

I think the only really unique thing is its ability to edit HDR images directly, although I myself question the use of that. The monitor is not capable of showing HDR images so it would be like working in the dark.

Other reasons for considering it are it cross-platform support and its price as compared to PSCS.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old September 25th, 2006, 11:24 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,388
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KrisCarnmarker
I think the only really unique thing is its ability to edit HDR images directly, although I myself question the use of that. The monitor is not capable of showing HDR images so it would be like working in the dark.

Other reasons for considering it are it cross-platform support and its price as compared to PSCS.
Not so fast in knocking the representation of the HDR on the screen! :)

After all we look at 8 BIT images with large gamuts on our limited screens too.

However, PS software is smart enough to give us a visual perception by remapping.

So I'd not be so surprised if they can do a good job with HDR too.

We might need a radiology practice's high dynamic range greyscale monitor for this.

It would be great if someone can get it to actually work!

Thanks for keeping us updated.

Asher
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old September 26th, 2006, 12:10 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,388
Default

I just spent a little while on the website and going through the comments by beta users. Jefftj86, a graphic designer seems to be able to paint with Pixel!




This program does appear to have grabbed a bunch of peopple looking for something powerful, cross platform and light on the pocket and in bloat.

Obviously the author is working hard to come out with a stable build. I'd think that Intel Macs would be happiest as Pixel semed to go 10X faster than 1 GHZ G4.

There's a promise to support the PowerMac as well as the Intel Mac and that is good.

The messages on the boards indicates a lot of activity in fixing interface issues and bringing all the different drawing and brush tools on line. So picking a rectangle might for hte moment give you sunflowers, perhaps, since for that instant, it was using the Spray Hose tool as a sort of space filler!

This program seems to have potential as it is written by apparently one guy who is ambitous, (I think crazy) enough to take on such a project.

The price for the software is low $35, but helps to keep the project going and will allow the upgrade to the final product (approx $79) at no extra cost.

This is a great toy to play with if you have some spare time and will provide valuable feedback for what is after all a labor of love.

This could be merely a perefectly good program or else have speed advantages. I'd give the guy the benefit of the doubt and whatever encouragment and bug reports one can find!

Asher
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old September 26th, 2006, 12:38 AM
Don Lashier Don Lashier is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Oregon Coast
Posts: 745
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KrisCarnmarker
I think the only really unique thing is its ability to edit HDR images directly, although I myself question the use of that. The monitor is not capable of showing HDR images so it would be like working in the dark.
The whole point of HDR editing is to bring the DR within the range of what the monitor or (even more severely) the print can represent, so monitor limitations are not an issue.

But I have little sympathy for very buggy releases, beta or not, and generally will not waste my time with them, promising or not. Today's programming standards are appallingly low, particularly for Windows apps. Microsoft set the bar so low (by example) that apparantly programmers feel that if it lasts an hour without crashing, that's up to snuff. Thorough testing must be an incremental part of programming, step by step, but it's much more fun to write new code than to test, but by then finding the bugs (which is even less fun) becomes an order of magnitude more difficult.

Just the thoughts of an old curmudgeon programmer who is appalled that the concept of fine craftsmanship seems to have eluded many of today's programmers.

- DL
__________________
Don Lashier
www.lashier.com
- old enough to know better - but I do it anyway

Last edited by Don Lashier; September 26th, 2006 at 01:21 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old September 26th, 2006, 04:52 AM
Ray West Ray West is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK - Somerset
Posts: 1,703
Default

Don, Your second para are my thoughts exactly, but I live in hope.

Best wishes,

Ray
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old September 26th, 2006, 07:02 AM
KrisCarnmarker KrisCarnmarker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Spain
Posts: 240
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Lashier
But I have little sympathy for very buggy releases, beta or not, and generally will not waste my time with them, promising or not. Today's programming standards are appallingly low, particularly for Windows apps. Microsoft set the bar so low (by example) that apparantly programmers feel that if it lasts an hour without crashing, that's up to snuff. Thorough testing must be an incremental part of programming, step by step, but it's much more fun to write new code than to test, but by then finding the bugs (which is even less fun) becomes an order of magnitude more difficult.
While I agree in principle, one has to be realistic. This application is developed by a single person with the ambition of creating a powerful but low cost product. He is using the public as his testers, instead of hiring staff to test it. Not all of us will agree with that approach though.

Regarding the low quality of today's applications, I hardly think you can blame the developer for it. Development of software products has become a joke. Customers and management want all the latest features "yesterday", cutting corners wherever they can. Deadlines are usually beyond ridiculous nowadays, so developers are forced into a choice between delivering features or delivering solid code. Actually, there is no choice because management wants features :)

I also disagree with MS Windows software being worse than anything else. There is a lot more software available for Windows so maybe it looks worse, but I've seen my fair share of crappy software from all types of vendors and on all types of platforms.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old September 26th, 2006, 10:53 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,388
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Lashier
The whole point of HDR editing is to bring the DR within the range of what the monitor or (even more severely) the print can represent, so monitor limitations are not an issue.

But I have little sympathy for very buggy releases, beta or not, and generally will not waste my time with them, promising or not. ..............................Just the thoughts of an old curmudgeon programmer who is appalled that the concept of fine craftsmanship seems to have eluded many of today's programmers.

- DL
Don,

Yes, standards have changed. No layers of wooden slats, horse-hair and rough cement then fine plaster in 3 layers. Now we have sheetrock and if you see the seams in the most modern expnsive buildings, so what!

The reasons are partly economics. That is certainly a factor here. The programmer is open. "Pay below half-price now to help me develop something universal to every platform and at under $80."

I'm impressed. The guy appears open and honest. I like what he is doing as it often new products will spark different expectations from the big boys.

Asher
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old September 26th, 2006, 12:27 PM
Don Lashier Don Lashier is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Oregon Coast
Posts: 745
Default OT: sw development

Quote:
Originally Posted by KrisCarnmarker
While I agree in principle, one has to be realistic. This application is developed by a single person with the ambition of creating a powerful but low cost product. He is using the public as his testers, instead of hiring staff to test it.
I have been a single developer most of my life (and hate testing) so understand this approach. But when I see "tried to resize window and it crashed", it's obvious than not even the most basic testing has been done. It's essential to have others test as they often do things the developer didn't anticipate, but one should have a few "alpha" testers to catch the most egregious bugs.
Quote:
Regarding the low quality of today's applications, I hardly think you can blame the developer for it. Development of software products has become a joke. Customers and management want all the latest features "yesterday", cutting corners wherever they can.
I agree that in poor management is ultimately to blame, but for the solo programmer, that is himself! Too often management is totally ignorant of proper development practices and doesn't even have the background to determine the quality of work being done (other than surface appearance). In the long run, the fastest way to a quality product is to follow good coding procedures and do proper testing and QA at each step. Even at the alpha stage, exceedingly buggy sw is often a sign of flawed coding practices or fundamental program design.
Quote:
I also disagree with MS Windows software being worse than anything else. There is a lot more software available for Windows so maybe it looks worse, but I've seen my fair share of crappy software from all types of vendors and on all types of platforms.
I agree that the NT4/W2K/XP line is an order of magnitude better, but there was no excuse for the joke called Win95/98, and the early versions of OE and IE. Even the current IE 6.0 is horribly flawed although it doesn't exhibit so much in crashes as in flawed behaviour which web developers/tools have learned to work around.

- DL
__________________
Don Lashier
www.lashier.com
- old enough to know better - but I do it anyway
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:20 PM.


Posting images or text grants license to OPF, yet of such remain with its creator. Still, all assembled discussion 2006-2017 Asher Kelman (all rights reserved) Posts with new theme or unusual image might be moved/copied to a new thread!