![]() brushes up to 1000 - 1200 are quite usable. Maybe it's time to upgrade hardware, since 2.9 is even slower and I want it because of 16-bit support.ĮDIT: it seems it's a bit better with 2.8.22. Probably it's the brush size that causes the problem, but still, PS was faster. I don't, when I tried it was even slower. (02-16-2018, 05:39 PM)Espermaschine Wrote: Probably not: but have you got the 'Smooth Stroke' option active, perhaps ? Thanks for pointing that - I will upgrade 2.8 ASAP. Doesn't seem to change brush lag, stability was ok with both settings. I tried both single and multicore support. (02-16-2018, 05:28 PM)rich2005 Wrote: Yes, do not use multiple processors in Gimp 2.9 use Edit -> Preferences -> System Resources set Number of threads to use to 1 (my laptop Kubuntu 16.04 is I5 6200U 8 GB memory) but always a but, are you short on disk space? (02-16-2018, 05:28 PM)rich2005 Wrote: 24 Mp images, big but not that big, my lumix takes 18 Mp and Gimp handles those ok. ![]() I had to enable (set to "screen") Wacom Eraser and Stylus in "Configure Input Devices" and I also added "DirectX DirectInput" to "Additional Input Controllers" to be sure. The pressure dynamics didn't seem to work. However, could be a problem with Windows. Why did you need to force recognition? Can you expand on that? In linux even my ancient Wacom volito is supported. Work that I did in PS is mostly basic, so no problems here I used Gimp for a few years (basic work) before switching to PS and even after that I used Gimp from time to time. Former use of Gimp 1.2 is really irrevent to present use I go back to Gimp 2.2, things have moved on. (02-16-2018, 05:28 PM)rich2005 Wrote: Well.you might have to go back to using PS. That was fixed back in Gimp 2.8.16 or 2.8.18 - what version of Gimp are you using? Yes, do not use multiple processors in Gimp 2.9 use Edit -> Preferences -> System Resources set Number of threads to use to 1 Quote:Second question - I tried Gimp 2.9 - despite 2 core support it is significantly slower (more lag), and after enabling 16-bit depth it is even worse. However, could be a problem with Windows.Ģ4 Mp images, big but not that big, my lumix takes 18 Mp and Gimp handles those ok. Quote:After I forced Gimp 2.8 to recognise my tablet Former use of Gimp 1.2 is really irrevent to present use I go back to Gimp 2.2, things have moved on.Īre you using Windows or Linux? - your user profile lists both. Well.you might have to go back to using PS. Second question - I tried Gimp 2.9 - despite 2 core support it is significantly slower (more lag), and after enabling 16-bit depth it is even worse. I realise that my laptop is quite weak (Pentium 2020M, 8GB ram), but Photoshop didn't have this problem, even when working with 16-bit. I am working on quite big files (up to 24mpix) and when I paint on a layer mask using Wacom tablet I have serious brush lag. I realised, that after some modifications I can use part of my PS experience inside Gimp and it seems 16-bit support is almost there!Īfter I forced Gimp 2.8 to recognise my tablet I realised I have problems with performance - precisely speaking, brush lag. This year, after my subscription ran out, I decided that I will try to save some $$ and give Gimp another try. Few Years ago I started to photograph more seriously than before and I decided that I move to Photoshop, mainly for its much bigger tutorials availability and 16-bit tiff support. Nothing complicated, basic photo edition, low resolution. ![]() ![]() I have been using Gimp for many years (I guess it started with 1.2 or even 1.0 version). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |