"On the surface, Filter Forge is just a Photoshop plugin, a pack of filters that generate textures, create visual effects, enhance photos, process images. However, there are 3 things that make Filter Forge unique:

1. You can create your own filters. Filter Forge comes with a visual node-based editor allowing you to create your own filters – textures, effects, distortions, backgrounds, you name it. All filters automatically support 16- and 32-bit modes in Photoshop, real-world HDRI lighting, bump and normal maps, huge resolutions and seamless tiling.

2. Anyone can submit filters to our online Filter Library where other users can download them – for free. This means that the more people use Filter Forge, the better it gets. Currently, the library contains 51 user-created filters.

3. Contributors get Filter Forge for free. You submit filters, they get popular with the users, we send you a free copy of Filter Forge. Sounds simple but don't expect a giveaway, you will have to earn it."

http://www.filterforge.com

Shaderman7 + Ayam + Pixie = da bomb. Or Shaderman7 + K3D + Aqsis.
But it would be nice to be able to do it right in Photoshop.

I applied.
~ crosses fingers ~

signed up also. thanks doug!

craig

I also signed up as a beta tester.
Then I got an email saying approved,
But I still can’t download anything????
Am I missing something??


Ken

same here, Ken.

Seems like the site is in Beta also.
Everything works - except the most important bit. :(

Rô

But it would be nice to be able to do it right in Photoshop.From what I read - while clicking on everything trying to download - it's a plug-in like Deep Paint.
In other words, it is really a stand alone program, but it has a small loader / unloader plugin to interface with Photoshop.

Rô

Hi everyone! Doug, thank you for posting the link to Filter Forge!

Ken, ByRo -- regarding the download problem: the download is enabled when 1) you have filled in the beta testing section in your profile when registering, 2) we have approved you as a beta tester, and b) you are logged in. The link is as follows:

http://www.filterforge.com/download/

I guess we will need to go through the beta signup/download chain again to make sure people have no problems using it.

it is really a stand alone program, but it has a small loader / unloader plugin to interface with Photoshop.

Yes, that' correct. It is marketed as a Photoshop plugin, but it works as a stand-alone app.

I got approved and I didn't have a problem.
Downloaded and installed.
Doesn't look too hard as I'm already familiar with Shaderman and DarkTree.

I'm off to play.

Does Filter Forge actually generate 8bf files, or do you need a copy of FF installed to use the filters?

Doug -- you need a copy of Filter Forge installed.

Perhaps it might generate demand for the filters if a free read-only version were offered? I mean, otherwise the only potential filter users are also potential filter developers, which might demotivate development.

Perhaps it might generate demand for the filters if a free read-only version were offered?

Yes, we've discussed that idea and even tried to do a test implementation -- we wanted Filter Forge to switch to read-only mode after the trial expires. The biggest problem was that everyone can use a screen-capture tool or a PrintScreen key to save the results the filter produces, so we can't actually make it read-only. We tried to distort the results, but that also can be circumvented.

Also, the filters are saved in an open XML format, so anyone can edit it manually, or write a simple generator to simplify the creation process. So, even if we lock the Filter Editor into read-only mode, that won't stop people from makin their own filters.

Two thoughts:

1) put a water mark over a trial version. There are several programs that take this approach already.

2) Screen grabbers are only going to get certain resolution unless they are seriously determined. Perhaps limit the output to VGA res with the proviso that if people use an image on a website the must provide a credit and link to your website. Granted not everyone is going to do that but some will and that's free advertising for you. It also strikes me that all the things that take off big time these days have given some sort of freebee.

Just my two cents worth.

Just reread the postings, I would ask, why would you want to stop people making filters? IMHO That's your life blood. The more filters you have, the more useful your program is, the more popular your program becomes.

Question: how do you make filters to get a free copy without an existing way of doing so? Or is that only for the beta period? If so what is the continuing incentive to develop filters?

And a further two cents :-)

Sorry if I've misunderstood something and good luck with your program.

why would you want to stop people making filters? IMHO That's your life blood. The more filters you have, the more useful your program is, the more popular your program becomes.

Of course we don't want to stop people from making filters -- quite the opposite :) Under "read-only", I meant "you can create filters but can't apply them" -- I'm just so tired that I can't explain things clearly :) Our ideal approach would be to make Filter Forge free to create filters, but to require a paid version to apply them -- that's why we offer a free copy to good authors.

Question: how do you make filters to get a free copy without an existing way of doing so? Or is that only for the beta period?

No, this is not a beta-only feature. People can use the free trial version to build and submit their filters -- the trial period will be 90-day long, that should be enough to learn the Editor. Plus, we're thinking about offering an extension of the trial period for every successful filter the user submits. Simply put, if you keep submitting good filters, you won't run out of trial days and will get the free copy eventually.

Actually, by read-only I meant you can apply filters but you can't create them. This would create a huge fanbase for the filters, and that would be the incentive for new development. I can't imagine many paying $200-$300 just for the capability of using the filters.

vladimir,

thanks for coming and posting here. we appreciate the personal attention.

i have similar comments to the others. if you're making a filter maker, which i think is great, then one thing i would want is to be able to give those filters to others or to sell them as stand-alone products. in other words, as .8bf's. that is why i would buy a filter maker. but if all end-users have to buy the filter maker in order to use the filters that are already made, then that would put me off a bit.

and that raises another question; if you are going to allow us to make .8bf's with this program that dont need the original program, what, if any commercial restrictions are you putting on the .8bf's so made? i know some programs in the past have tried to license the output files making it so you cant sell the output file unless you pay the original company something. i find this totally unappealing and i refuse to ever use those types of programs. so, i ask this up front. i didnt see anything on the web site about this.

so, my ideal filter maker would allow me to make .8bf files with no restrictions on licensing and no need for those i want to give or sell those 8bf files to buy the filter maker itself.

now, i do understand the whole protecting one's software issue. it wouldnt surprise me to go out to some bit torrent site or warez site and find that your software, even the beta version, already exists out there in a hacked form. i'm afraid that's just the way things are currently. so, you have to decide how strong do you want to make your locks because there's always someone out there that can pick any lock you make. that's a rather sad thing, but nonetheless a reality these days. so, do you want to go the way of some companies where they make the locks so strong that even the legitimate users are hassled or so weak that there are no legitimate users? it's a trick.

i find most folks want to be ethical and that most simple locks will keep the casual shopper from going to extreme means to get a commercial product for free. so, watermarks and limited trial periods or no saves on the outputs tend to keep most from crossing over to the dark side. and like one person said, a watermark is free advertising. heck, i'd even allow the demo version to output .8bf's with a tasteful watermark with your web address on it. that's just good business. stick it up on all the free download sites and let folks get exposure to it and produce filters like crazy....all with your web address on the output files. you cant buy advertising like that and you're getting it for free.

i do appreciate that you are offering an incentive program for those that do make filters and upload them to you. i think that's very smart.

i'll also offer some suggestions in ways you might offer this thing to folks. you have the main filter forge for making filters. good. you also have a demo version. good. but i want to make filters and distribute them as stand alone filters. what if you had a free read program for those that dont want to MAKE filters but just want to USE them? adobe does this quite nicely with acrobat. if you want to MAKE .pdf files you BUY the maker, but if you just want to READ .pdf files you simply get the free reader. that makes sense. this gets their name out there for free to anyone who reads .pdf files. once you see how good pdf files are and start wanting to make them, you buy the writer. so the reader is just a loss-leader for the writer. so, if you had a free reader that made your output filters work, everyone who uses filters can use them for free and as they see how good these are and decide they want to make them, they buy filter forge.

sure, you're always going to get a few nuts and bolts guys that are going to hack the .xml or python files, but most folks wont. in fact, since your filter forge is a 'codeless' filter maker, you're going to attract those who dont want to fool with coding or scripts and they just arent going to bother hacking things.

i know it's a hassle. software companies are always fighting this stuff. how do you make money with something as easily hacked as software. i dont know all the answers. and i do wish you luck. i also signed up for the beta test and hope i'm approved. i've beta tested for several companies over the years and it's always fun to see your ideas go into a product.

and thanks again for posting here.

craig

just checked my email. i'm approved and downloaded the beta. just in time for the weekend :) thanks, vladimir :)

craig

Filter Forge
Vladimir Welcome to Retouch Pro.

Not sure what happened yesterday.
The email I got yesterday was just saying that registration was successful.
The download was not available at this point.
I received another email this morning which was the beta testing approval and contains the Registration Key
The download was then available.
So there is nothing wrong. Just a delay between the two emails.
I’ve downloaded it and installed it.
This looks cool. Looks like a new learning curve this weekend.

Thanks Vladimir and Thanks for the link Doug.

Ken.

well, forget everything i said in my last post. now that i've actually had a chance to LOOK at FF i can see why a few things might be difficult. stand-alone filters could probably be done, but the way they're integrating the output back into the interface makes this a bit tougher.

still, there are two modes here, the user side and the creator side. no reason they have to be bundled together if all you want is the reader side.

craig

Craig -- there is an issue about .8bf filters I would like you to consider:

Suppose we have the ability to output .8bfs from Filter Forge. Some person learns that all user-created filters in the Library are legally free to use and distribute.

After that, this person downloads all filters from the Library, and compiles 8bfs of them all.

Since the filters are free to use and distribute, this person bundles the compined 8bfs with a free manager similar to PluginCommander and anonymously uploads this package everywhere -- freeware archives, torrents, forums, everywhere.

And that's it for Filter Forge. Yes, they won't steal the filter creation ability, but since only 1% to 10% of users are going to use the Filter Editor, this won't be a big loss for the 90-99% of users who just want to apply effects, not to create them.

I'm afraid after 3 and a half years of development with 5 full-time programmers we just can't afford that.

And since filters in Filter Forge use HDRI lighting, we will have to pack all lighting environments into every 8bf, thus increasing its size to at least 12,6 megabytes.

Also, these HDRI images were licensed from Sachform on the terms prohibiting us from distributing their HDRIs anywhere except as a part of Filter Forge.

vladimir,

Some person learns that all user-created filters in the Library are legally free to use and distribute. but that's just it, they are NOT legally free. they could be, under what i was saying, but by default, with no other permissions granted, they are not legally free.

someone made the point earlier that with your current expected pricing, a lot of folks arent going to even try filter forge, especially if they have no interest in making filters. so, $200 to $300 for pre-made filters seems to be a fairly high cost...seemingly. this cost drops PER FILTER with the more filters that are included in the package, obviously. so, i may be wrong here in the assumption that $200 to $300 is a fairly high price. with 100 filters included in the program, that's dropping the per filter price a lot. and that's not even considering the presets. so, ok, i do see where this becomes a very cost efficient program.

still, i think you could make more money and satisfy customer needs better if you had two programs; one, just the reader, filter user one, and two, the full program for user-creator.

and ok, i'll drop the whole .8bf issue. the more i use the program, the more i'm seeing how that isnt going to work very well. still, sometimes it's nice to be able to call up just one simple, quick filter without having to call up a much larger program. compare Deep Paint 2, which works like your program, parent to child, and one simple filter like Cybia's Alphaworks. it's just a lot simpler and faster, especially if you know what that one simple filter is and does.

this also raises another question. if we send in our created filters to you guys, are you going to include them in FF as part of the package?

and, yet another question, let's say i make a filter that ken likes and ken makes a filter that i like, can we exchange these filters between just us two? i havent looked at the files all that much yet, but if you're exporting the finished filter into xml, couldnt ken and i just send each other our .xml files to swap filters with each other?

also, please dont get me wrong on any of this. i think the program is damned good so far. i like it. and i really can see where buying this program makes sense if you're getting a number of pre-made filters plus have the ability to make and alter even more yourself. a lot of my earlier comments were based on not having even seen the program, so forgive me for that; i shld know better than to judge before looking :)

craig

guys,

despite my seemingly cantankerous requests to vladimir, this is one AMAZING program! i've already made two filters and not just cute texture types. this thing has a LOT of features, an intuitive interface, especially if you've worked with any type of editor before (including graphic editors), and is very much a 'plug'n-play', drag and drop, type editor. but dont let the ease of use fool you. it's got POWER!

not only do you have access to a growing library of filters and not only can you create your own, you can also edit any of the existing ones! so, you see a filter and go, 'boy, that's close to what i wanted, but not quite.'. so, open the editor portion and edit it how you want it and save it back out as a new or updated filter! very slick!

so far i've found no real bugs nor had any crashes at all. i've got some interface issues and of course a growing wish list, but those are minor. the program works with Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro, Elements, and just about any program that uses adobe standard plugins, i would think. i dont know how many versions back you can go in ps or psp before it wouldnt work, but it certainly works in psp 9 and 10 and elements 4 and from other users, ps cs2.

there is a forum for talking to vladimir and reporting bugs and getting help. the documentation is a bit short right now, but like i said, it's pretty intuitive and pretty simple to use. in short, i'm having fun :)

craig

.... I've got some interface issues ....I've been using the Forge for a couple of hours....
Like Craig said, no bugs no crashes and a very impressive array features.

BUT

- I am using a screen size of 1024 x 768, which is no way state of the art - but is "state of most folks". I am finding the filter editor screen rather disproportional. The parameter / preview panel occupies about a third of the screen. Opening the components panel another quarter gets used. That means that you can only visualize a small slice of your filter any time.
I intuitively tried to move the borders, but they are fixed.
I wanted to hide the preview so as to be able to vizualize the whole filter, can't do that either (even after setting the thumbnails to minimum).

- In the same vein... Although I understand the lack of horizontal and vertical sliders at the edges as meaning that the filter editor is an infinite field. It is easy to get lost in an infinite field - the "Don't panic" message is very cute (especially for a HHGTTG fan) and it did take me back to the "result" box. OK, maybe it was my fault for just messing around with the boxes and forgetting where I had left the "result".

- I use a 1,5G Athlon, once again nothing special, just average. Even though I use a smaller image, the filter is SLOW. I'm sure that Vladimir and the guys :wavey: already know that and must be rounding off the corners - but, unfortunately, the fact does need to be registered here. Even when avoiding the 3D'ish stuff it can be quite frustrating waiting for the preview to process.

Overall a very interesting program :thumbsup: . I'll be spending a lot more time discovering what can be done.

Rô

It does require Windows XP although I believe they are working on a Mac version expected later this year.

Craig. I agree. I’ve also written (is that the word) some very simple stuff but I can’t see any way to share these without submitting them.
I was expecting to spend this Sunday learning this but I think I’ll be writing filters instead as I think I’ve learnt 80% of it already.

Some things are great and it’s very intuitive but then there is simple stuff missing. I think it’s very much geared to making textures etc
I would have liked to have seen more tools in there. Foe example I can’t make a simple frame because I can’t find a tool to allow me to select just a border area. (I’m playing with offset but I don’t think this will do it). If making frames were possible I think they would have a category for them. And I agree with Rô, I need a bigger screen

There has been a lot of discussion at FM group about FF, however I don’t think they are in direct competition. They both have different uses.

Rô. Have you seen the workaround for the speed issue on the forum? I’m on a 2Gb P4 and I installed Filter Forge x86-SSE2.exe, but it has not made a big difference to my PC.

Ken

i use 1024 x 768 too and dont find this a bother. i simply close the componets panel for more space or drag the main window around as needed. it would be nice to have a zoom on the main window, though, so one could see the whole composition at a go. i could also see having the panels float rather than docked. or, have them minimize.

and ken, though i havent looked specifically for anything like borders or frames, i was wondering if something couldnt be done with the 'patterns'. they currently have a very limited selection of patterns and i was wondering if the end-user could import his/her own patterns for use in this. if that were possible, one could import base frames and borders to be worked with. i think that might be the solution for that. it's not likely that a filter maker itself would give you a whole set of drawing tools for making frames. borders shld be easy enough, though. and i'm also sure they have more things planned. they have 5 coders currently and have been working on this for 3 years. so, i'm sure they're hungry to get launched to get some cash coming in. after that perhaps we'll see some new features added or maybe even some in beta.

are you guys posting in the forums to give feedback? i'm sure they'd like to hear whatever you have to offer.

i've also made my third filter now. this one is quite complex and i'm still refining it and i also found out the limit on controls one can add. lol. i always learn the hard way by poking around. seems the limit is 10.

but this thing really is amazing. it's no wonder they're opening it up to beta. they could have 50 guys doing nothing but making filters and still not tap the full resources available here.

and ken, i think i read from vladimir that they export to .xml files, so it shld be possible to transfer those files around amongst users without uploading to the site. it makes perfect sense to upload them now and take advantage of the offer to get FF for free by making X number of good filters, but in the future i could see not always doing that. maybe vladimir will confirm this.

craig

I have just uploaded my first filter. A simple pencil sketch.

Craig.
If you wish to try a transfer I have attached it as a zip file. You will need to drop it into
C:\Documents and Settings\Craig\Application Data\Filter Forge\My Filters Folder
The FFXML file is very small (3kb) but I had to zip it to attach it here.


Ken

Ken, that worked fine :bigthmb: - the download, and the filter.

I am returning one for you.

The big advantage that I see in FF (intimate, aren't we? :cool: ) over normal filters is that you can leave a lot of flexibility.
If you want any parameter to show up in the "Filter controls" set just slap on a slider. In my case here I added sliders for colour and blending.
The filter is set to multiply the Blue channel but you can use any blending with any channel.

Over FM it does have the advantage of being an awful lot easier to program, though of course it can never have all the flexibility. (Do we use all the flexibility?)

It does require Windows XPI downloaded at work, and there it runs perfectly on Windows 2000.

Rô. Have you seen the workaround for the speed issue on the forum? I’m on a 2Gb P4 and I installed Filter Forge x86-SSE2.exe, but it has not made a big difference to my PC.I'll look into it. Yesterday there was onlty one thread there - now there are 19!

Rô

Pix, pls :)

Here you go!

1) Main screen
2) Filter Editor screen

Rô

Rô, Thank You.
Your Draganizer filter also works fine on my PC so it looks like we Can share filters.
This is good. Hopefully if we all get a free copy then we can share ideas before submitting filters in the future.

With the tools provided it would be possible to create some restoration and repair tools. But there is no category for them. I need to post at FF forum to find out if these are wanted or not.

I have still had no luck with frames and borders. This is a shame. FF could have a whole new use if these were possible.

Sorry, I did say it requires XP. What I meant was that it won’t run on Win98.

Doug. Attached is my pencil sketch (basic method) blur=50. It’s a start.

Ken.

Sleep. I need SLEEP.....

Here's a (lot) more complicated sketch effort. Not too good yet, but I 've got to leave something for tomorrow. :dead:

Rô

cool. wasnt sure that would work, but in theory it shld have. so, good :)

ok, i'm submitting one to you guys too. this is one that i uploaded to FF today. i just sort of went crazy :)

also attached is an original image borrowed from the the photo art forum and one done with the filter i uploaded today.

craig

i tried ken's sketch one out. worked fine. i'll try Ro's tomorrow (sunday).

i also altered kens' ... a LOT and came up with something different. not a sketch at all. not quite sure what to call this....wet glass? melted glass?

the attached is the filtered image on top of the original and then blended with luminance, duped again and blended with burn. i'm having a ball with this thing :)

craig

Craig, a question...maybe it has already been answered. When you download FF, do you get a lot of "demo" filters thrown in? Filters you can't use unless you buy the non-free version? I don't want a bunch of these cluttering up my hard drive like the so-called freebie of "Eye Candy", (two usable filters and 14 usable only if you buy the whole package.)

Steve

guys,

despite my seemingly cantankerous requests to vladimir, this is one AMAZING program! i've already made two filters and not just cute texture types. this thing has a LOT of features, an intuitive interface, especially if you've worked with any type of editor before (including graphic editors), and is very much a 'plug'n-play', drag and drop, type editor. but dont let the ease of use fool you. it's got POWER!

not only do you have access to a growing library of filters and not only can you create your own, you can also edit any of the existing ones! so, you see a filter and go, 'boy, that's close to what i wanted, but not quite.'. so, open the editor portion and edit it how you want it and save it back out as a new or updated filter! very slick!

so far i've found no real bugs nor had any crashes at all. i've got some interface issues and of course a growing wish list, but those are minor. the program works with Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro, Elements, and just about any program that uses adobe standard plugins, i would think. i dont know how many versions back you can go in ps or psp before it wouldnt work, but it certainly works in psp 9 and 10 and elements 4 and from other users, ps cs2.

there is a forum for talking to vladimir and reporting bugs and getting help. the documentation is a bit short right now, but like i said, it's pretty intuitive and pretty simple to use. in short, i'm having fun :)

craig

Opening the components panel another quarter gets used.

True. I've found out that the panel stays open during the 90% of time and is actually needed very rarely. Despite the hotkeys, nobody closes it. I'm thinking about replacing it with something non-permanent, like a menu.

I use a smaller image, the filter is SLOW. I'm sure that Vladimir and the guys :wavey: already know that and must be rounding off the corners

I'm afraid we've already squeezed out every bit of performance we could get (a separate exe with whole-program SSE2 optimizations, our custom assembly-level math routines, smart antialiasing algo, extensive profiling, delayed loading, caching etc etc), so I'm afraid you can't expect big perormance boosts.

Also, Filter Forge is built for the future, not for the past -- it is slow on current middle-end PCs, but will scale extremely well as the number of cores per CPU increases. Two cores mean ~90 percent boost. Four cores mean ~180 percent boost. Sticking to an architechture that would be fast today but useless tomorrow would make Filter Forge outdated within two-three years, as happened with many plugins.

steve,

currently, the way things work, you HAVE to sign up for the beta AND be approved before you can even download it. and yes, it comes with ALL currently approved filters and textures. i dont know exactly how many there are now, but it's a fair number.

and, from what i gather, once it's out of beta, this will still work this way. the filters can NOT be used without the program. so, you get everything when you sign up for beta or buy the released version. and, there is a 'check the site for new filters' function. all nice and slick.

i've checked the file sizes too. the biggest filter size i've got so far is only 14 kb. that's pretty small. and the biggest one i've seen of the pre-made ones is only 35 kb. that means you could save roughly 40 THOUSAND before ever using a gig of harddrive space. :)

craig

byRo -- cool filter, keep them coming!
http://www.filterforge.com/filters/316.html

Rô
I just downloaded the Edge Selector.

Great stuff. :bigthmb:

I hope you get some sleep tonight.

Ken.

And since filters in Filter Forge use HDRI lighting, we will have to pack all lighting environments into every 8bf, thus increasing its size to at least 12,6 megabytes.

Also, these HDRI images were licensed from Sachform on the terms prohibiting us from distributing their HDRIs anywhere except as a part of Filter Forge.

What if you had a lower-cost version called FilterForgeLite, which installs and runs just like Filter Forge, but the filters cannot be edited.

I could have sworn somebody said something about borders.

Sleep. I need SLEEP.....

Here's a (lot) more complicated sketch effort. Not too good yet, but I 've got to leave something for tomorrow. :dead:

Rô

byRo -- make sure you submit it, we'll approve it right away.

I could have sworn somebody said something about borders.

Stroker -- nice idea, but it won't work on non-square images.

Here is my first try at an edge and color plugin. The attached sample shows the original and three of the presets. As you can see, it does the basic sketch thing, and can also bring in some color. The nice thing about doing these moves in the plugin (compared to Photoshop Layers) is it is easier to tweak results.

You'll have to pardon me. Wisdom teeth + codine + vicodin = brain not work so good. All I really remember is seeing the word border.

When I get my higher brain functions functioning a little better, I'll see about putting together an NPR thingie.

Craig, all I did was sign up and the XP "save file" window popped up and I downloaded the pgm...(beta version, I assume). Now, I am also reading something about a trial time limit. Am I suddenly going to lose the program after a certain length of time unless I submit filters? If so I'll pass. I did not sign up as a beta tester.

B.T.W. the setup file is 24.7 megs. This sound like the file you folks got when you downloaded?

Steve

steve,

currently, the way things work, you HAVE to sign up for the beta AND be approved before you can even download it. and yes, it comes with ALL currently approved filters and textures. i dont know exactly how many there are now, but it's a fair number.

and, from what i gather, once it's out of beta, this will still work this way. the filters can NOT be used without the program. so, you get everything when you sign up for beta or buy the released version. and, there is a 'check the site for new filters' function. all nice and slick.

i've checked the file sizes too. the biggest filter size i've got so far is only 14 kb. that's pretty small. and the biggest one i've seen of the pre-made ones is only 35 kb. that means you could save roughly 40 THOUSAND before ever using a gig of harddrive space. :)

craig

steve,

i'm surprised you could download it without signing up. maybe they changed that. i do know about the time limit. it's 30 days. and yes, if you dont sign up it will expire. when you sign up for beta and get approved they send you a registration code so the time limit wont expire. you simply pull down one of the menu items and enter the registration code there and you're good to go.

i dont know how many they are accepting for beta either. vladimir could answer that. but i wouldnt wait. the list of folks is growing and you've got a good chance of getting a very nice program for free once it's released.

i think what they must be doing now is allowing folks to download the beta version but they dont have to sign up and they can get a discount or a free version by submitting 3 approved filters within the time limit. and the 2nd way is by signing up for beta, helping out with testing, submitting filters and having possibly a better chance of being rewarded the full version for free. at least that's the way i see it currently based on what i've seen and what you've said.

craig

I did sign up, just not for beta testing.

This is all just a pastime thing for me and having to make filters or having to write reports on software is not something I care to get involved in. Makes it too much like a job. So I guess I'll pass.

Steve


steve,

i'm surprised you could download it without signing up. maybe they changed that. i do know about the time limit. it's 30 days. and yes, if you dont sign up it will expire. when you sign up for beta and get approved they send you a registration code so the time limit wont expire. you simply pull down one of the menu items and enter the registration code there and you're good to go.

i dont know how many they are accepting for beta either. vladimir could answer that. but i wouldnt wait. the list of folks is growing and you've got a good chance of getting a very nice program for free once it's released.

i think what they must be doing now is allowing folks to download the beta version but they dont have to sign up and they can get a discount or a free version by submitting 3 approved filters within the time limit. and the 2nd way is by signing up for beta, helping out with testing, submitting filters and having possibly a better chance of being rewarded the full version for free. at least that's the way i see it currently based on what i've seen and what you've said.

craig

Here's a (lot) more complicated sketch effort

byRo, have you finished this sketch filter? It looks good, do you plan to submit it?

Had to do a rush translation (Portuguese -> English :cool: ) yesterday for my daughter.

I've got a lot more ideas to try out, hope to finish it tonight.

Rô

OK, I uploaded the sketch filter to the site.

In the atachaments, Default settings and two of the presets.

Rô

This is fun. Isn’t it? :happy:

Rô
I’ve been playing with your convolution filter (lots of uses for this as FF can’t provide this component)

I think I may have found an error in the code

In the blend component at the bottom. Please see my picture. I have marked what I think is wrong in Red and the correction in Blue.

Could you please take a look at this and see what you think?

I think I may attempt a 7x7 Kernel. :confused:
Has anyone got any good painterly kernels?


Ken.

Ken, I think you're right. (actually, I made two errors not one :eek: )

I don't have a copy of the filter here, and I just discovered that I can't download from the site, 'cuz I've already done that.

As I remember the version before this one had the connection that you corrected. However, then I remembered that the central difference component should have double the weight of the others. I was trying to do that, but looking again, I think I got it all wrong :( .

7 x 7? :eek: :eek: More than the 48 offsets, the big problem would be in the weights. Just trying to do 3x3 with simple weights [1 2 1] I got into trouble :tired: . Imagine 7 of them!
(or, maybe, you were just kidding?)

Has anyone got any good painterly kernels?Not a kernel, but I do have a filter in the "unfinished" section using distorted tiling which may lead to something interesting.

Rô

Hi Rô.

I have been reading this thread
http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4015&highlight=kernel

but I am still a little confused about how to do the conversion to FF

Chris Russ posted the laplacian filter as
-1
-1 4 -1
-1
also here
http://www.homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/rbf/HIPR2/log.htm#3
and the Sobel is here.
http://www.homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/rbf/HIPR2/sobel.htm
and the Roberts Cross
http://www.homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/rbf/HIPR2/roberts.htm
(Hypermedia Image Processing Reference from the University of Edinburgh is an excellent source of info.)

I still can’t figure the logic with your filter. The pixels are compared with a difference blend mode and then blended with screen? I know there is no Add and Subtract (yet) and so difference should be OK for a subtract {result := abs(a-b)} but why use screen? Does this bring it back to a Plus? Screen is the opposite of Multiply. {(a,b) = 1 - (1-a) * (1-b)}

So how would I make a Laplacian Filter? Would it be difference mode to compare and then normal mode to blend?
And what would be the best way to increase the effect if the numbers in the kernel are bigger than 1?

So, if I wish to apply 0,1.0.1.1.1.0,1,0
To pixel values 164,188,164,178,201,197,174,168,181
I would add the surrounding pixels (932) and divide by 5 (186).
So I would change 201 to 186.

So how would I apply this in FF ?
Also how would I apply 0,-1.0.-1.-1.-1.0,-1,0 ?

Attached is a 5x5 Filter. I give up with 7x7. I don’t have a big enough monitor


Ken.

Ken,
First, thanks for spotting the error. I have corrected it.

Vladimir had cleared my queue so that I could submit the "Adaptive Tiling" filter and now I'll have to wait until that gets through the process.

As to the workings....
There are three differences in each direction with the middle having double the weight of the others. As per your link the weighted sums of the differences in each direction will be "Gx" and "Gy".

The screen formula 1 - (1-a) * (1-b), can be rearranged to a + b - ab.
With a bit of sleight of hand (or just assuming that a and b are small - well sort of ;) ) that reduces to just a + b, an accepted alternative.


Laplacian
Your matrix got a bit messed up in the post (extra spaces get eliminated) that would be:
00 -1 00
-1 +4 -1
00 -1 00

See atachment: Invert the original and set up 4 offsets, one in each direction.
As the differences are now signed (not absolute) then the subtraction can be done blending 50% of one with 50% of the other inverted - note that now mid-grey is our zero and the values can be positive and negative.
To sum them up we would need a Linear Light blending mode. Lacking this maybe Hard Light won't be too far off.

Got to run now...try and reply some more later, OK?

Rô

Ken, I had a look at your 5 x 5.

I noticed that you left all the blenders at their default value of 50%.
I changed them all to 100%, and also changed the summing points from difference to screen.

I don't have the faintest idea what this thing is actually calculating, but I just loved the result. :D :D

Rô

F.Y.I. FF users. Found out there is a built-in device in this software, at least in the beta version, to detect what you do with, and what type of filters you make with it. Not sure if there is anything else it's peeking at?

Would like to try this, as everyone seems pleased with the results, but am a little leary of this bit of info.

Steve

Steve, I saw this too - but I also saw somewhere that you can turn it off.

Doesn't worry me too much though.
Vladimir and the guys are serious folk and they are only interested in feedback about their filter.
(or they fooled me real good!)

Rô

Hi Steve.

Here is the information about the info that FF use.
http://www.filterforge.com/more/usagestats.html

However it can be switched off in the preferences if you wish. There is also a message which asks if it’s OK to send the info before it is sent.

FF is worth trying. Some wonderful effects can be achieved. Just look what Vladimir had to say about Byro’s filter.

Vladimir Golovin
Administrator
This one is absolutely brilliant from the technical standpoint. A month ago I wouldn't believe that this is made in Filter Forge:

http://www.filterforge.com/filters/471.html
Posted: June 7, 2006 4:14 am

Ken

Hi Rô.

Invert the Original
Of Course, Why didn’t I think of that?

I was thinking the wrong way with this; I was hoping to build a 5x5 filter that I could re-use. But it seems that this will need re-working for each kernel. I will stay with 3 x 3 in future.
Offset Percentage. I understand that now (I think).
Linear Light is on Vladimir’s too do list

Thank you for the example. That makes everything a lot clearer.

I have managed to make a rectangular frame but it’s a bit messy I guess we would be better waiting for ‘bombers’


Ken.

I think I found a bug. But it could be a feature.
Levels won't invert if I swap the Black Point and White Point sliders.
Annoying, but survivable.

Ken, nice to see you got some filters admitted.
Passing on some advice from Vladimir, you could make your presets a little more interesting. For example the basic Tri-tone filter works fine and well-behaved, now just add in some extreme stuff in the presets to "sell" it. Maybe three different colours.

Did you try any alternative to the three impulse curves?
These make step changes between each colour. I would have expected some sort of fading.

Hi, Stroker. I'm pretty sure that it's feature, there are some other components that do that too.
Seems that it is FF policy to (over)protect us from doing something "wrong".
Agreed that it rules out some fun stuff. We'll just have to be more inventive. :idea:

Rô

Ok, Ro...I'm giving it a shot. And I appreciate the feedback.

Now you're really gonna see some bad filters. :lmao:

Steve

Steve, I saw this too - but I also saw somewhere that you can turn it off.

Doesn't worry me too much though.
Vladimir and the guys are serious folk and they are only interested in feedback about their filter.
(or they fooled me real good!)

Rô

That sets me straight. Glad you posted this, I appreciate it. Sometimes you get paranoid regarding software downloads that are free.

Plan to load it shortly and probably make some filters so bad they wouldn't want to know anyway. 8-)

Side note: if anyone comes up with any painterly-type filters either by accident or on purpose, I would appreciate some pointers on these.

Again thanks.

Steve

Hi Steve.

Here is the information about the info that FF use.
http://www.filterforge.com/more/usagestats.html

However it can be switched off in the preferences if you wish. There is also a message which asks if it’s OK to send the info before it is sent.

FF is worth trying. Some wonderful effects can be achieved. Just look what Vladimir had to say about Byro’s filter.



Ken

Plan to load it shortly and probably make some filters so bad they wouldn't want to know anyway. 8-) If you wish, post them here first, Ken, Stroker, Craig* and I could give you some pointers.

Rô

*hope I didn't miss anyone.

If you wish, post them here first, Ken, Stroker, Craig* and I could give you some pointers. just bear in mind that Ro, Ken and Stroker know far more than i do when it comes to the beast behind the beauty. i'm just here for the pretty pictures :)

craig

It's a fun beast to play with. Just know that my main interest is in finding bugs. But if something does tweak my noodle, I'll speak up.

For example, you can use Offset to do what Displace does.

Thanks for the offer of help guys.

Just a thought, after playing with it for a few hours. One of you beta testers need to tell them that as in so many image manip programs the work windows are too small. In this case too many and too small. And no way to see your work on the original until you apply it.

If you have Gertrudis. This is the kind of work space these programs need.

Not too enthused at the moment, but may take another look as time permits.

Steve

Steve, there is an active forum at their site.
There many people, as you, have criticised the usage of the window's "real estate".
The next version should be a little better.

Rô

Ro, I'll go by and take a closer look. Did notice it was there, but have not gone into it for info and stuff.

Appreciate the tip.

Steve

Steve, there is an active forum at their site.
There many people, as you, have criticised the usage of the window's "real estate".
The next version should be a little better.

Rô

Is it me or is there a bug?

Mike Blackney built a 5 pointed star but the code was too slow so I tried to speed it up however I can’t get the ‘maths’ to work.

The angles should be 72, 144, 216, 288 and 360 degrees for a 5 pointed star.

When blending two gradients the slider goes from 0 to 100 which equates to 0 to 90 degrees. So the slider must be set at 40 to equal 36 degrees and 80 for 72 degrees but when I use these settings the star is not correct. I can easily correct this but I would rather find what is wrong.

Clicking Linear or Smooth Gradients does not help although linear seems the best. Is my logic wrong or is there a bug?

Ken.

When blending two gradients the slider goes from 0 to 100 which equates to 0 to 90 degrees. So the slider must be set at 40 to equal 36 degrees and 80 for 72 degrees but when I use these settings the star is not correct. I can easily correct this but I would rather find what is wrong.

Sorry, Ken. It's a bit more complicated than this. When you blend the orthogonal ( :happy: ) gradients @ 40%, that means you get 40% of one and 60% of the other.
Remember your "trig" classes? This is a right-angled tringle with the vertical side of 40 and the horizontal side of 60, so the opposite angle is arctan(40/60) - which is 33.69 degrees (and not 36).
Starting with 36 degrees and working back, you'll end up with a blend of 42.08%.
The other blend, instead of 80% is in fact 75.48%.

(the thresholds I just lined up by eye)

Rô

Hi Rô

Thank You. That solves the problem and answers my question perfectly.
I knew something was wrong, I just couldn’t see where. I have re-done my spreadsheet of angles and I have even made an angle calculator which I am attaching here. It’s made in VB and so requires VB run-time.

I have searched the net for info on gradients, offsets and curves but can’t find anything useful.
Now if I could only find such a good explanation of multiply, squared etc? :)

Re.
http://www.filterforge.com/forum/read.php?PAGEN_1=2&FID=5&TID=623#nav_start

I don’t think a Gamma Spreadsheet (or a zip file) will upload at FF. Maybe you could post them here. I would be interested in seeing them.
Is this any help?
http://www.rskey.org/gamma.htm

I am trying to keep up. What is “the square root trick using the Gamma curve”?

Thanks again.

Ken.

I have searched the net for info on gradients, offsets and curves but can’t find anything useful.
Now if I could only find such a good explanation of multiply, squared etc? :)
OK, I hear you. :idea:

.....“the square root trick using the Gamma curve”?
When making a more mathematically based filter, square and square root functions are very useful. There is an easy way to do the square, but the only way I know to do the square root is with the gamma function.

In the snippet attached the Gamma curve generates a sqr(c) (squared) output when we specify a gamma value of -30.10.
Feeding that into the gradients and adding (blend, normal, 50%) you get a gradient of sqr(x)+sqr(y). That's good, but for it to be linear we need the square root of that. Running it through the Gamma adjustment, value 30.10, we end up with a luvly linear radial gradient. :) r = sqrt(sqr(x) + sqr(y))

Problem is that the Gamma isn't exactly the square root - though only a nitpicker would worry about that. (but, seeing as I am one.........)

(Excel file attached)

Rô

Hi Rô

Thanks, I have studied and (I think) understand that. I guess as more of these snippets are written then the need to understand them fully will diminish. (We can just use them)
However, I like to have some idea of the ‘how it works’.

One (last?) question if I may, My Sepia Filter which (I agree) I should not have used an impulse curve to select shadows, midtones and highlights.
This filter requires some fading or smoothing in the transitions areas. (Like Stroker wrote for Craig’s filter in FM). What would be the best way to do this?


Attached is an example of the 5 point star angles in action. Happy 4th July America.

Ken.

....I should not have used an impulse curve to select shadows, midtones and highlights.
No problem with the impulse curve.
What happens is that when you put in a value of 100% for the plateau, there's no room for manouver. Change the value to 0%, increase the width to 100% and use positions of -50, 0 and 50.
.......Nice smooth transitions.

The flag looks perfect to me! Great work!!

Rô

Thanks Rô, That’s much better

I was never happy with that filter, I will send in an update.

Ken.