Adobe's Content Aware Fill.. huh? GIMP already had it for years

I saw the upcoming Adobe's Photoshop sneap peak video yesterday and to be honest I was completely dazzled to see their Content Aware Fill feature. Later I was wondering(and probably many of you too) that Adobe Photoshop seems to be the state of art, will GIMP ever reach such a level? But GIMP is actually years ahead of Adobe's "state of art" technology. It had the same feature in the form of a plugin, Resynthesizer, by Paul Harrison. Check it out.

Well, I am sure you would have all watched this Adobe's CS5 video.

Now I would like you to watch this video posted around 2 years ago.

Remember the three images edited by Adobe's CAF, now see the results using GIMP's resynthesizer.

Source: The real Uqbar


Ken (not verified)
March 27th, 2010 12:10 pm
This is damn amazing. I watched the CS5 video & I was amazed. Then watching the 49 second video of the Gimp, I couldn't do anything but laugh & think the Adobe is so behind in the times. Rock on Free Software!
Akax (not verified)
March 27th, 2010 01:51 pm
Yay! all i could say.. 0_0 *tears of joy* =D Thanks for that post.
DrEPROM (not verified)
March 29th, 2010 05:03 pm
CMYK? Hello? No? Sorry.
Anon Linuxer (not verified)
April 8th, 2010 07:37 am
hey buddy there is a plugin for cmyk. adobe is never going to beat open source give up
Kathaer (not verified)
April 13th, 2010 04:35 am
... a plugin for this.. a plugin for that. ... Where's a full complete versatile version of Gimp with all this features?... i love Gimp, but PS is commercial, so it's adaptive. When you deserve something, you don't actually need to find a plugin and the way to install it.
Anon Linuxer (not verified)
April 28th, 2010 03:51 pm
how is being commercial.. adaptive? plus how are you going to use PS's features if you already paid for it with your arm? not to mention hoping around to get places too.
Hanneth (not verified)
May 30th, 2010 12:31 pm
I don't know, where's the full versatile version of Photoshop with all of these features? Want proper resizing, buy a plug-in, want to do this really neat layer effect everyone else is doing? Buy a plug-in. My friend last I checked bought 32 different plug-ins to do what he needs to do. I know one is to properly resize images and another is something to do with picture tubes.

That being said, I'm not much of a fan of GIMP either.

I personally like Paint Shop Pro, but Corel is doing a good job of messing it up. Also Photoshop is much better with compositing layers because of all the layer effects out of the box, and all the plug-ins.
Anon Linuxer (not verified)
July 1st, 2010 02:29 pm
Want to edit pictures of money? No. Sorry.
Anon Windowser (not verified)
March 31st, 2010 10:45 pm
Photoshop is a lot easier to use. Resynthetizer rating: 7/10.
Anon Windowser (not verified)
March 31st, 2010 10:51 pm
Edit: Wow! It's better than I thought, 9.99/10
Anon Windowser (not verified)
March 31st, 2010 11:44 pm
Edit again: Ok, 8/10.
Anon wind (not verified)
April 6th, 2010 02:01 pm
make up your mind Anon or we will have to have you resynth-ed!
Rick Woods (not verified)
April 13th, 2010 03:12 am
Doesn't compare. At all. Even in these low-quality pictures and videos I can see a marked difference in the quality of the filled area, and it's quite obvious that GIMP filled it, whereas with Adobe's work I really can't tell without close inspection.
Anon Linuxer (not verified)
April 14th, 2010 07:25 pm
It's pretty clear to me these are not in the same league. The UI is atrocious for the GIMP in general, especially in that video. The end result is awful -- why is there grass where she was? That makes no sense.
Anon Linuxer (not verified)
April 17th, 2010 10:35 pm
It's pretty clear to me these are really not the same league as gimp had this feature 2years before photoshop. Epic Fail for commercials.
Anon V2 (not verified)
April 22nd, 2010 10:26 pm
anon the reason there is grass where she was is because..... there is grass behind where she was! That's the whole point of that plugin moron
Anon V2 (not verified)
April 22nd, 2010 10:27 pm
@ Rick Woods The image isn't as high quality as photoshops, but think of it, free for this.... $1000 for cs5...... what more could you ask for a FREE engine
Anon Linuxer (not verified)
April 28th, 2010 03:26 am
CS5 is free, too.
rabinbi (not verified)
May 5th, 2010 01:36 am
if you ever tried both, you see that photoshops algorithms are far ahead. GIMP might have it for years, but adobe waited long enough to bring us a more polished and useful version, that GIMP will never match. cheers
pekiboy (not verified)
May 7th, 2010 05:13 am
Let's get real:

Gimp, is a FANTASTIC program. It's so perfect, I had times when I actually felt my eyes filled with tears, when I found a plug-in "just the one I needed" with only one correctly asked google question.

In comparison:

To me, PS is like a mac computer; it's sleek, it's funky, it's windows grow and shrink with cool effects without tiring the machine (at least it doesn't make it obvious)... but, it's not customizable, at all! I don't think having a user-friendly-tool-bar-placing-remembering-thingie makes it customizable. Ok, you can do cool stuff with PS, but only if it has it; if it doesn't, you're doomed. Because it's copyrighted -whatever the hoax does that mean- even the people who will actually gonna get up and write some stuff "for free" to share with others, can't do it.

Gimp, on the other hand, feels more like a computational based progam. You have to deal with it with a sort of mathematical eye. When it's used elegantly, you can get "perfect" results. It's not always about the artistic effects when it comes to digital art; Gimp comes to your computer with its “freedom”: that alone is enough for it to weigh more on my scale.

Just look around: Every girl with a sense of "pink" have the potential of becoming a designer today, only the ones that can understand the math beyond it, get ahead.

And Gimp can teach you how, along with a very cool artistic integrity.

Jim Jordan (not verified)
May 7th, 2010 07:34 pm
Adobe probably could have offered this technology a few years ago. I remember visiting a video production studio 10 years ago that was using some sort of similar tool to remove unwanted content from motion pictures where the camera was moving in 3 dimensions. The difference between an open source tool and a commercial tool is that open source has the ability to push tools out more quickly, according to an immediate need to do something. The makers of a commercial tool need to spread out their whiz-bang features out over several releases so that they can ensure continual sales. We'll likely see a few more features in GIMP before they appear in Photoshop. But the public probably won't know about GIMP's features until Adobe starts marketing and improving them in Photoshop.
Mike (not verified)
May 24th, 2010 05:48 am
Why aren't plugins like these standard in GIMP? I'm sure if this was made standard it would get more attention, and someone would take over the development, which is what the dev is asking for on the plugin page.
/me (not verified)
May 27th, 2010 01:40 pm
photoshop CS5 "paint" tools are *only* a decade behind painter! Amazing
Anon Linuxer (not verified)
June 10th, 2010 01:36 am
This is b.s. gimp does not work worth a damn, if you don't believe me then just try it for yourself. After all it is free...
pekiboy (not verified)
July 2nd, 2010 12:01 am
@Mike The reason that the user needs to plug a plug-in is because it's a customizable environment. they don't fill it up with EVERYTHING that you usually don't use like in Photoshop. I'm not saying that Gimp is "better", they are two different programs. and you my Anon friend; I don't think when something is free, doesn't necessarily mean it doesn 't have a value; Gimp is uniquely free program where math and art finally meets. And I think, that alone is enough for us to acknowledge its worth.
BenyP (not verified)
August 13th, 2010 08:42 am
* Troll alert * : ) Free this, free that , I'm kinda fed up of people arguing open source is 'waaaaaay' better because it's free ! Free doesn't put food on the table, and doesn't necessarily motivate people create better and more polished applications. I do admit, there are some very talented and passionate people out there willing to share their hard work freely to the world, but even they, have to make money somewhere (else). Let's give Adobe the merit of putting together a very capable and complete suite (out of the box) that will empower graphic designers with 99% of the tools they'll need. Besides, when you make money out of it, what's the problem of paying 1000$ ? Just because the marginal cost of producing one more unit of an application is almost 0, doesn't mean it has to sell for 0 . No ? That was my 2 cents : )
Cracknel (not verified)
August 22nd, 2010 12:12 am
apoka (not verified)
September 3rd, 2010 10:02 am
hkgvhkaz'e jhi(e kluhzip
apoka (not verified)
September 3rd, 2010 10:05 am
lyjgviyv kjhiph iuyh_o
ACLU protects my right to say Nigger (not verified)
March 22nd, 2011 10:15 am
Free Beer

Post new comment

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <img> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <p> <br>
  • You may post code using <code>...</code> (generic) or <?php ... ?> (highlighted PHP) tags.
  • Image links with 'rel="lightbox"' in the <a> tag will appear in a Lightbox when clicked on.

More information about formatting options

Type the characters you see in this picture. (verify using audio)
Type the characters you see in the picture above; if you can't read them, submit the form and a new image will be generated. Not case sensitive.