Thank you for having interest in this. I am really happy that the research doc can aid developers in implementing it some day.
It would be definitely awesome if we can get it in gimp, although I would have loved to have it in mypaint to eliminate the need to transfer layers between packages.
I thought that it's user simplicity (on the surface) fits mypaint perfectly.
Doing it with gmic still involves a number of steps requiring a tutorial (create new layer,paint strokes on it, filther>gmic, scroll through a giant list of filthers to find the blasted thing, set the layer/variables, apply operation). It kind of ruins the simplicity of it and hides it from the ordinary user- that is a shame.
Also lazy brush has a "background stroke" which creates empty fills that remove colour.
Well, you and I have different concerns here. I think it's good, but nontrivial, so the biggest danger comes from it not being implemented at all. Once you have an implementation, you can always convert it to another language, implement it in whatever app.. But before then it's essential to develop it in something that makes development easy. In the case of filters, that something is definitely G'MIC.
Whereas you 'want it in MyPaint', I think 'If it is not made efficiently, using G'MIC, it will not show up in *anything* else for the next 8 years, due to excessive dev difficulty. Having a
implementation that works is the hard thing; after that it's just grunt work to port it to whatever language/application.'.
Also, don't forget that GMIC is a commandline utility (sure, the GIMP plugin is more famous, but the commandline interface is the real heart of things). It would be a little slower, but once the GMIC command is implemented, MyPaint would be able to get basic support by simply exporting appropriate images and then calling the GMIC command with the appropriate parameters. Only a little additional work would be required (separate the GIMP interface for the filter into a separate filter that just calls the main filter).
(of course, there is a lot of other very nice things in GMIC we could already access by this method. Anisotropic smoothing can help to make lineart neat and smooth looking, for example. Gaussian or Bilateral blurring is another wishlist item for me that could be managed with this method.)
The workflow involves using colour brush strokes in combination with empty fill brush strokes.
I did not see these 'empty fill' brush strokes mentioned in the video or paper. Do you mean the ones that specify that the fill should be left alone in that area?
They can be specified symbolically (by reserving a color to represent them). White seems an obvious choice, since colorizing with white has no effect, or if more visibility is needed we could go for magenta (#ff00ff)
Here is what I know so far:
1.The author can be contacted- you can write him up an email. He responds fairly quickly. You are right it would be a good idea to check if there is a patent on this. I never liked software patents. It seems that if he released the paper and nothing in it is mentioned of a patent, it's likely not patented. Also he must be interested to see his work affect the graphics software world and see it evolve.
Very true, of course it has also occurred that papers are released, and later, when the application gets big enough, patents are filed.
And of course software patents are exactly as nonsensical as patenting pieces of math, but unfortunately the legal system is largely unaware of this fact.
I agree he does seem like an openminded sort of guy, though. And an excellent technical writer (that paper is the most clear I've -ever- read)
2. You can download the tvpaint plugin on windows and mac at the moment and try it out. Of course you will also need to download the demo (trial) version of tvpaint, which is an animation package:
I'll have to see how well that will work on Wine.
3. Somebody made an implementation as a plugin for photoshop, but never released it for download. I say somebody because I'm not sure if it's the original author.
That is interesting if it can be used through the Photoshop plugin adaptor for GIMP. I know the adaptor is limited to certain kinds of filters but remember nothing specific.
4. His main interest seems to be in using it to colour animation sequences, where as ours is to use the algorithm in order to speed up colouring single images.
Personally I found the animation section to be very motivating, and since that kind of thing is doable in GMIC (as multiple input/output layers) I certainly hope to experiment with it.
5. There is an official thread at tvpaint forum where the author answers questions and addresses requests:
6. Your bring out a good point that it performs best if all the colour fills are on the same layer, but it would be much better if it could generate a new layer for each colour. That way we can use each fill's alpha in mypaint to isolate it -paint inside it. If I can suggest an improvement over the original design to make it more suited for single image colouring, that would be it!
Well, that is about the input colors, not the output "colormap"; we can output however we want to (it's pretty basic stuff to separate a layer containing N hard-edged (no AA) color areas into N separate layers, and as far as I understand the output of the LazyBrush algo is hard-edged.). When implementing this in GMIC it would be easy to make this an option.
In any case, I hope this gets more developers attention out there. I am not kidding when I say that it is really making a HUGE difference in workflow. If you get this in mypaint, you are going to see a huge wave of new users starting to use mypaint just to colour their art faster than what they've been using in the past.
If you hide it somewhere in a gmic list of filthers, it's less likely that many people will notice it's existence. The ones that do know about it will have a number of unnecessary steps added to their workflow every time they colour a layer.
Like I said, let them suffer in the meantime. The important thing is first to have it working at all, *then* we can consider having it in the most convenient place.
In my opinion it should be right there on the tool's palete- next to or even replacing the blasted bucket fill tool.
Bucket fill tool is bad at quality, but it's good at getting results fast.Being able to quickly, approximately try out different fill colours is something I also appreciate. and it's acceptable for that if lines are not too complex or too broken.