OT: yes, Yes, YES this is great Pixelmator

Wonderful, finally someone has made an alternative to PS with more logical use. I use PS and have had it for more than 3.5 years. I hate a good portion of its logic and arduous workflow.

I use it and at times it takes more time to figure out how it does something than it does to do it. I am one of the people its made for. I learned to do stuff in Shake and C4d faster than i did PS. Even premier is easier.

For those who were waiting for a PS competitor, then this is it. It doesn't do all that PS does but it does all i need. 2-3 versions from now it will probably be at the PS cs2 level.

BTW the web page looks awful Apple-ish. I wonder is this a test precursor to a part of FCS3.

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

Yeah I played around with Pixelmator a bit but ultimately found it too feature limited (and buggy) compared to what I'm used to in Photoshop. Definitely agree it looks like what I'd imagine a Photoshop redesigned by Apple might look like though.

There's also Drawberry for Vector. Decent but to me same issues.

[raphaelbost.free.fr]

If you do this stuff for a living Adobe is where it's at, not only for the features but for interoperability with service bureaus and other designers.

-Noah

Final Cut Studio Training, featuring the HVX200, EX1, EX3, DVX100, DVDSP and Color at [www.callboxlive.com]!
Author, RED: The Ultimate Guide to Using the Revolutionary Camera available now at: [www.amazon.com].
Editors Store- Gifts and Gear for Editors: [www.editorsstore.com]

Quote

If you do this stuff for a living Adobe is where it's at, not only for the features but for interoperability with service bureaus and other designers.

Amen, Noah. Well said.

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

ok, this is great for those who are cash strapped or (like the O.P.) have a mental block about photoshop.

BUT - be aware. just because an app seems to do what you need, it may or may not do it as well as its competitor. and im not just speaking of features, read on...

i was called in to troubleshoot a problematic flash project several years back. for some reason the jpgs were looking bad and bulking up the fla file. after a couple of hours of various experiments between photoshop and flash, i finally asked the client to demonstrate the workflow she did to prep her images. the first thing she did was open corel photopaint. i didnt say anything but i had a hunch that was the problem. i let her finish her process, and the problem persisted. THEN had her repeat it in photoshop - BAM problem solved!

same exact source image, same process (crop and resave) and it was simply contact with corel that caused the issue.

im not saying that photoshop is the only choice out there. but budget and or hobbyist-friendly software, regardless of price (corel photopaint isnt cheap) CAN introduce problems one might not immediately notice.

again, not saying that Pixelmator is bad. for some it MAY be just what the doctor ordered - especially for the price. but we need to look critically at the end product from it and its use in a workflow before we go celebrating it.

i dont think that pixelmator is as workflow friendly as PS but it is certainly a good start.

Graphics for a living is better done in ps but for simple elements you must admit that it is a pretty good starting point they have to grow from.

i have gotten a lot better with PS but i still run into things that stump my hole thought process to go and find the solution for 4hrs.

A while back someone mentioned that the PS learning curve often separates novice from pro. i agree with that more now than then (especially with PS extended ).

PS is like a never ending bag of goodies you get with patience, while Pixelmator is like a bag with 100 pieces. I don't think there are many people out there that can say i have used everything in PS in every way.

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

lets not make this another pro/con of photoshop thread.

j. i dont think youre understanding my point. its not about "goodies" its about end product. as i mentioned earlier, a jpeg output from one raster program is not necessarily the same as jpeg output from another raster program. we need to test the output from a program before we can make any judgements...

what i ran into between photoshop and corel was pixel extrapolation and file size issues. it wasnt about price/goodies/learning curve

Quote

i still run into things that stump my hole thought process to go and find the solution for 4hrs.

In 4 hours you could read the entire manual... then you wouldn't be stumped.



For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]

I understand. I wasn't disagreeing at all. I have only fiddle with Pixelmator for 2hrs. So its not truly tested. ( Especially by me who is somewhat PS-Handicap )

I was like wow, when i was able to roto in PS. That exercise in longevity made me really reconsider my mental block about the program.

I have put more study into ps since then. I just thought that pixelmator would have made ps easier to learn. If you never have used a raster program before PS is a monster for some. Pixelator is like a precursor to PS (sorta like imovie to fce to fcp to fcs1).

A manual is good iif you know exactly what terms to ask it for. Even then it has a lot of read that doesn't always relate to what you are trying to do. But i am not good with written instruction as much as i am the show me and hands on style of learning.

I am not trying to do a +/- of photoshop. I am just saying for a novice Pixelmator is a very nice place to start with.

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

I wasn't talking about reading the manual in a "I'm looking for xxxx" sort of way.

I was referring to the way the majority of manuals are written... That is to learn the WHOLE application.

That way you cease to be the unenlightened, you will know EXACTLY the terminology, in fact you will be able to talk precisely about what it is you need or want to achieve from the tools and if you don't already know the answer, then you will be able to ask in relevant terms what the workaround might be.

The first step in any area of learning is to understand the language - otherwise how can you communicate effectively?

I mean - you wouldn't edit a video (without help) in a language that you didn't understand would you... or travel to another country where you couldn't ask for basics such as food or water?

Talk the PS manual to bed with you - sit on the WC and read it - find an audiobook version or get your Laptop to read it to you whilst travelling. Whatever it takes.

If Pixelmator does what you need then great - but you need to understand what people tell you in this industry.

I my opinion every editor should know basic PS.

Ultimately if you want to be competitive and employable you need to know a few of the Adobe apps such as PS, AI, AE, etc or you will forever be asking us what "does 'xxxx' mean?"

I've specified PS on every edit suite Avid or FCS for as long as I've been editing because it just makes sense to have it as part of my tool set.



For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]

I'm going to steal the phrase "cease to be unenlightened," Ben.

There are basically two kinds of Photoshop users in the world. There are those who've been using it since version 2 came out, when channel operations were the hot new thing. And there are those who find it daunting and terrifying. Oldsters like me (and I suspect Ben as well) don't find Photoshop intimidating because we knew it when it was a little program with a dozen or so tools and amounted to little more than a souped-up version of MacPaint.

The trick is not to let Photoshop scare you. It's grown into a big program with a lot of features, but it's still fundamentally very simple and intuitive. You don't have to learn a whole new way of thinking when you pick up Photoshop.

(Though I am awfully curious exactly how one does roto in Photoshop. I think I remember reading that the new version can open a Quicktime movie the same way paleo-Photoshop used to work with filmstrips. But without any motion tracking features at all, I'm having a hard time imagining how one would do roto with it at all.)

Yep thats the way to Roto in CS3 or CS4 (Extended Version only) is VERY cool.

Ahhh filmstips! Man that takes me back...

...actually I want to forget that time of my life trying to paint a lightsaber frame by frame!

Its not a scary app at all - you just might find that you won't use 80% of the 10billion options...



For instant answers to more than one hundred common FCP questions, check out the LAFCPUG FAQ Wiki here : [www.lafcpug.org]

Photoshop is def a required part of my edit toolset. I wouldn't be without it. There are also a lot of Photoshop for Video training titles around that can help get the NLE editor and PS acquainted. The other great reason to suck it up and learn PS, is that when you learn how Adobe thinks, it's easy to swap that knowledge into other Adobe apps. AE wasn't too hard to pick up because the interface wasn't too different, well used to be at least. But like i understand how Adobe does type, and that's carried across in Illustrator, InDesign, AE, PS, etc.

That said, Pixelmator looks really neat. In a play around with all the pretty things for hours kind of neat

Also, I want to have a pint with Ben King. That would be an experience...

Quote

The other great reason to suck it up and learn PS, is that when you learn how Adobe thinks, it's easy to swap that knowledge into other Adobe apps. AE wasn't too hard to pick up because the interface wasn't too different

Amen, brother...and with CS4 Production Premium, all the Adobe apps flow together. Try bringing 3D images into Pixelmator. Also in a team environment, especially now a ton of peeps are looking for work...Studio Managers see Pixelmator on your resume instead of Photoshop and you'll hear "Thanks for coming - we'll call you when something opens matching your skillset".

When life gives you dilemmas...make dilemmanade.

Pixelmator is great for simple photo editing. I bought it for my wife who was overwhelmed by Photoshop. TO tell the truth, I am a bit overwhelmed too with PS, but I need to use it because it works best when you need to prepare images for use in an NLE. If you just need good photo editing, Pixelmator is great. But for video work, PS is still the way to go.


www.shanerosseditor.com

Listen to THE EDIT BAY Podcast on iTunes
[itunes.apple.com]

ive downloaded and tried pixelmator. and for what ive seen in 20 min of playin with it - it does pretty much the basic things a video guy would need.

exports to psd with alpha intact (saved a file as psd in pixelmator. behaved as expected in after effects)
lasso works as well as photoshop does
layers seem to work as they do in photoshop
several of the same key combinations as photoshop

only negatives so far:
- not nearly as fast or responsive as photoshop
- same file same format jpeg is 716k via photoshop 860k via pixelmator
- adjusting the mids in a levels procedure seems to introduce a LOT of yellow
- doesnt seem to have layer masking feature
- (trivial) be sure to save as something other than "pixelmator" format. as after effects wont see it.
- (also trivial) interface is fun and pretty - but a little cartoonish for my taste

would be kinda pointless to use it if you know and own photoshop. but there is a lot of feature there for the hobbyist or the cash strapped - especially considering the $59 price!

but to counter corbetts position - i dont find it ANY easier than photoshop...

I am learning it and it hurts less day by day. I wont be a well versed editor without learning the adobe production suite.

I am able to do a lot of things with photoshop but i still don't know enough to say i am comfy with it.

Oh BTW, the rotoscope started when i did a cutout with PS. Then the next day (monday of this week) i exported 2 secs of video as a image sequence to place in photoshop and grabbed the eraser tool and went to erasing. It will not be true 29.97 but it will be 30-ish. (which will end up exported qtsc and re-imported).

This may not be a true rotoscope but its close. and i am using PS CS ( not cs 2,3 or4 ). I figure I will need to get good with this version before i move on to Production Suite CS4.

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"

Quote
I figure I will need to get good with this version before i move on to Production Suite CS4.

nah, the things i learned about photoshop back in 1993 arent functionally much if any different in CS4

I agree with Wayne. The only significant stuff that changed in Photoshop between version 3 and version whatever-we're-on-now, for me, were the layouts of the various palettes. The core functionality hasn't changed.

And Corbett, roto is traditionally done by cutting mattes and then either keyframe-animating them or applying motion-tracking data to them, specifically so you don't have to paint each and every pixel on each and every frame. Sometimes in the worst cases you do have to end up touching every frame, but the idea is to use the available tools to keep the manual part of the job to a minimum. That's why I was so skeptical about doing roto in Photoshop.

interesting point jeff. i saw what corbett did as far as "roto" goes and it seems that outside of pricey edge detection software there may not have been any other way to go.

which leads us to an interesting question. what he did was cut a hockey player in action out of a scene over a 2 second time frame. so he had to cut out the ice, boards, other players and crowd - a pretty busy frame. you see stuff like this done on tv a lot. i think it was the TBS "funny" promos last year where they cut actors out of their scene and placed them on a color background with a white outline. and you also see it a lot on sports promos.

i personally dont know of any edge detection package that would automate this process (at least not outside of the smoke/flame/etc... world) do any of you guys have thoughts that would make this process simpler?

Well, there definitely are cases where you just have to put on some music, get into your zen place and start painting. But there are also lots of roto tools out there that one can call on for this sort of thing. I've heard good things about Motor, and at $500, it's really quite cheap, if it saves you six hours of work.

(Then again, a good friend also told me he thinks Motor was created to be a great demo tool, not a great roto tool. So your mileage may vary.)

WoW, That Motor is nice. Better than the 6 hrs i spent with PS. Good pointing Jeff.
It would be a great tool to have.

""" What you do with what you have, is more important than what you could do, with what you don't have."

> > > Knowledge + Action = Wisdom - J. Corbett 1992 """"