Krita performance.

[Simon Legrand]

Hi guys. As an effort to make Krita used by artists in my studio I have to
show them why it is beneficial to use Krita over Photoshop on wine (or ever
harder, photoshop on a windows box).

My first step would be to, at least, replace Photoshop CS2 on wine with
Krita.

The first hurdle and the hardest one to justify for now is performance.
Even though Krita says it does high bit depth and large size canvas on the
UI (and the website), it still does not make it possible to do any work at
those high resolutions.

A very simple example, is to put CS2 on wine and Krita, on the same machine
running next to each other.

In this test I created an A4, 300dpi document, then I painted it with fill
and gradient. So far so good. Then I doubled the size of the document
again, I could see krita was starting to slow down, but it was still ok. I
then attempted to double the canvs again, but that was a limit I think. So
I moved on to convert to 16bit. Photoshop did it effortlessly, but Krita
crash.

This is only the first of a series of comparisons I will run. But,
essentially, if Krita cannot outperform Photoshop on wine, it's impossible
for me to convert my studio to it. The price tag is not really an issue,
what our artists need is performance. Even the UI quirks are something
artists can get used to, Mari was adopted in the industry extremely quickly
even though it had a UI no one had used before. Because performance drew
the industry to use it.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/21dsg43xhdu86hc/test_1.mpg


-- 
Simon Legrand
http://slegrand.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kimageshop/attachments/20130519/6abb58c6/attachment.html>