I love how everyone thinks it must have been SO ****ING HARD to write the code for that **** when GIMP has had a plug-in that does the SAME ****ING THING and more. It's amusing.
Yeah I tried that plug-in for GiMP. It's not the same... Also, you don't think it would be hard to make this?
It is. The software involved in all the Adobe suite is extremely high level, that's why it costs so much. It may be hard to realize how well designed and perfected the algorithms are, particularly if you haven't seen much of the difference. Just put it this way: everything Photoshop does is essentially equations. Those equations are EXTREMELY complicated and takes months or even years of programming and tweaking, with big teams of very highly paid and very professional programmers, for them to work as well as they do in Photoshop. There's a reason it costs so much, and it's not "because they can". The work behind the programs warrants every penny they make it cost, and that shows with the new code. It's amazing how much people think that the writing behind these programs is just like "OK, we'll just fill in this area! Easy!". Learn some programming and you can get an idea about how complex all of the Adobe stuff is. I've worked with GIMP, and that plugin really wasn't very good. GIMP does a great job, being a free manipulator, and those who can't afford Photoshop should definitely use it, because for the most part those people will be able to do the same exact stuff. I haven't used CS5 yet, but from the looks of things, CAF looks brilliant. As for the topic of "too much CS5", I disagree. I see Photoshop as srs business to me, and not being a part of the beta program myself, need to wait until it's released. I want to see everything Content Aware Fill can do...if you have the beta, good for you, but I don't and I'd like to see stuff that's been done with it.
The plug-in works fine for me... it just takes a little longer to figure out that's all. I understand your views on the topic, but I really don't see why everyone has to flip out over the feature. This.
Again, it's obvious you don't do photomanipulation often. Here's a random group picture I grabbed off of the internet: Let's use the same case I had, where you're requested to remove a person out of the picture. That WILL take you hours without CAF. Once it's done, simple tweaks are fine...however, we're using to spending hours doing that. It took me around 20 hours to do about 10 pictures. With CAF, you could do a picture in 10-15 minutes. Here's another example: Remove the car below Again, hours of work without CAF. With it, 5 minutes and you're done.
As crazy awesome as content aware is, I feel like a lot of the other great, time-saving and productivity-increasing features added are being dwarfed by this "no-work photo-manip" feature. Although it is amazing.
CAF can't remove large objects in an image. There needs to be a consistent pattern around an object that is larger than the object or you'll pick up interference. I've been playing with it for a while and i now understand it. Heres what it's meant for: (i did this)
That's a really nice effect. You could probably go back in and smooth out the middle area. Those darkish bumps. But that looks very convincing, just by looking at it you wouldn't think it's been photoshoped.
Sure, its unprofessionally done, but it was a 5 minute example. Thats what its good for. The filter takes parts of the image around your selection and fit it into your selection as best as possible. If theres alot of selection, and not alot of pattern, it WILL NOT work.
Exactly right. It's not supposed to be a magical tool that will forever make things a simple, select delete move. It simply fills in the annoying 30-60 minutes of frustrating cloning. All the rest is still up to you, cleaning up and making it look perfect.