filterforge.com - General Discussion

Adobe To End Applications, Subscription to "Creative Cloud" Coming

Thrash — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 18:15:19 -0400

Thrash, Mon, 06 May 2013 15:58:50 -0400
So we will no longer have an application on our desktop to run local, we'll be dependent on the cloud based application (and a decent internet connection and a good server by Adobe) to create in Photoshop/Illustrator/etc. Adobe there will be no more Creative Suites released and all users will be required to buy a $50/mo subscription to the cloud. While it gives you access to all Adobe apps, what if you only ever use or want to use say Photoshop and Illustrator? No a la carte?

What will this mean for the future of Filter Forge?

CFandM, Mon, 06 May 2013 16:37:39 -0400
Not only Filter Forge but there are also the other plug-ins that go along with these applications.... :)
I'll hold back on my "Against Cloud" arguments... ;) :D

SpaceRay, Mon, 06 May 2013 22:37:28 -0400
According to this news from Adobe on 6 May this is not true

John knack on Adobe - New FAQs about Photoshop, Lightroom, & Creative Cloud

Quote
New FAQs about Photoshop, Lightroom, & Creative Cloud •Photoshop and Camera Raw: Photoshop CS6 (non-subscription) will remain available for sale alongside CC, and it will get free updates that add new camera support (though not new features). •Creative Cloud: You don’t need a constant internet connection (in fact, yearly subscribers can be offline for up to 3 months at a time), and you don’t need to store your data in the cloud. If you’re really going to Antarctica for 6 months or work in a disconnected environment, please call customer service & we’ll get you taken care of. You can keep running older versions alongside the CC versions. •Lightroom: LR5 will be included in Creative Cloud, but you won’t have to subscribe to Creative Cloud to get it (that is, you’ll be able to keep buying it via perpetual (non-subscription) license).

Quote

New FAQs about Photoshop, Lightroom, & Creative Cloud

•Photoshop and Camera Raw: Photoshop CS6 (non-subscription) will remain available for sale alongside CC, and it will get free updates that add new camera support (though not new features).

•Creative Cloud: You don’t need a constant internet connection (in fact, yearly subscribers can be offline for up to 3 months at a time), and you don’t need to store your data in the cloud. If you’re really going to Antarctica for 6 months or work in a disconnected environment, please call customer service & we’ll get you taken care of. You can keep running older versions alongside the CC versions.

•Lightroom: LR5 will be included in Creative Cloud, but you won’t have to subscribe to Creative Cloud to get it (that is, you’ll be able to keep buying it via perpetual (non-subscription) license).

ONLY the new Photoshop CC will be ONLY available for Adobe Cloud subscribers, Photoshop Creative Cloud (CC)

SpaceRay, Mon, 06 May 2013 22:47:34 -0400
I am sorry that I was wrong reading ONLY the above news blog and giving my opinion based only on this one to tell that this was not true, as I have been reading now many more news and this, unbelievable, is really true.

Searching for a news that really shows it I have seen this

Quote
Adobe kills Creative Suite – all future features online only Adobe had been expected to demo Creative Suite 7 at its MAX conference down in smoky Los Angeles on Monday, but instead announced there'll be no more versions of its boxed software and that the Creative Suite brand will cease to exist. All CS apps updates will only be added to its Creative Cloud suite

Please read the full news in the link above here to know more about this new future with Adobe

And to confirm the news here is another one I have found this other very interesting news that has a lot of information and is very interesting and recommend also to read

Quote
Adobe kills Creative Suite, goes subscription-only In a major shift for its business and its customers, Adobe Systems on Monday announced it no longer will sell its Creative Suite software as it moves instead to the $50-per-month Creative Cloud and other subscription plans. "We have no current plans to release another perpetual release of the CS tools and suites. Creative Cloud is going to be our sole focus moving forward," said Scott Morris, senior director of product marketing for Creative Cloud.

Quote

Adobe kills Creative Suite, goes subscription-only

In a major shift for its business and its customers, Adobe Systems on Monday announced it no longer will sell its Creative Suite software as it moves instead to the $50-per-month Creative Cloud and other subscription plans.

"We have no current plans to release another perpetual release of the CS tools and suites. Creative Cloud is going to be our sole focus moving forward," said Scott Morris, senior director of product marketing for Creative Cloud.

So it seems that there will be no more Photoshop versions after CS6 that was version 13.0, now there will be just ONE continually upgraded version and there will be no more waiting until the release of any new features that is know as

And also very useful and interesting for more information, and why they have done it and know there is this other long news with many things

Mashable - Adobe Goes All-In on Subscription Pricing Model

SpaceRay, Tue, 07 May 2013 08:41:30 -0400
Considering the two posts above I can now answer to Thrash, and I recommned and suggest to read them and the included links before continue reading this post below, although of course that you are free to do what you want.

Also this other one from the famous DPReview website with more information

Adobe heralds subscription-only future for Photoshop and Creative Suite

And it seems that this bad news is not shared as there is about 1 million happy Adobe subscribers

Survey: Customers happy with Adobe Creative Cloud so far

Quote
Thrash 1 - So we will no longer have an application on our desktop to run local,

This is not true because ALL the adobe cloud applications ARE local and run from your desktop computer, they are exactly the same as the ones you already have, and you do not need to have internet connection active always, they are not cloud based, you download and install them in the same way as before.

I can tell you this because I am already a Adobe cloud subscriber as I have put in this other thread

Quote
Thrash 2 - Adobe there will be no more Creative Suites released and all users will be required to buy a $50/mo subscription to the cloud

This is not true that you will be forced to make a subscription to the Adobe cloud because from now on, you will have 2 subscription options, you can have Adobe Cloud subscription, BUT if you do not want it you can also make a separate monthly subscription to any application you may want and is not required to belong to the Adobe Cloud.

And if you already own your Photoshop (bought one), you will not be forced to subscribe to either of this 2 options, if do not want to, and they will continue to support you, and will be able to keep using your desktop applications, and you will still be able to buy Photoshop CS6, BUT the problem is that you will be forced to subscribe if you want to have any new possible updates that there may be available, as all of them will be only for Photoshop CC

And from 31 December 2013 you will NOT be able to upgrade to CS6 from CS3 or CS4 and only be possible from CS5, so if you do not want to make any subscription you must upgrade to CS6 before 31 December 2013 or buy Photoshop CS6 Box or download version before they take it out.

And also on 31 July 2013 will end the offer discount upgrade from CS3, CS4 and CS5 to Adobe Cloud offer and will be ONLY possible to upgrade from the CS6 version.

Quote
Thrash 3 - we'll be dependent on the cloud based application (and a decent internet connection and a good server by Adobe) to create in Photoshop/Illustrator/etc.

If you subscribe to the Adobe Cloud you are NOT at all dependant on internet and even you can be offline without internet to be able to work with the Adobe Cloud applications as you can see already in my other post above here.

I am a Adobe Cloud Subscriber and I can tell you for sure that ALL the Adobe Cloud Application are really DESKTOP APPLICATIONS :) They are NOT CLOUD BASED at all, and they are NOT online based, they are exactly the same as the one you would buy from Adobe website or in a software shop.

What is true is that you need to have a minimal decent internet connection to download just ONCE any of ALL Adobe applications that are included and available for you to download them

BUT WHAT IS VERY IMPORTANT is that the download is NOT done in any way as any other download you could do from the internet, you have the Adobe Cloud Download manager that will do all the work for you and you will not be dependent on any browser or have fear that the connection would be lost and loose the download, I can tell you that it works smoothly and very well.

And Adobe have shown that they have very powerful and strong new servers to be able to supply all the needed to Adobe Cloud subscribers, and I have the proof from my own experience.

Skybase, Tue, 07 May 2013 09:34:17 -0400
TL;DR
1. You don't need the internet to use it.
2. Nobody's forced.
3. You still have options.

Burt, Wed, 08 May 2013 11:55:50 -0400
In general I'm not a fan of these subscription or licensing models but will have to see how it shakes out. I once took some 3DS Max classes and they were early proponents of 'licensing' the product rather than owning it. The plan was cheaper so I got it, took my classes and then the license expired and I couldn't afford the $3000 for the new product. If I had purchased the product the usual way I would have at least had an older version product I could continue using.

SpaceRay, Sat, 11 May 2013 04:02:04 -0400
I want to comment and tell my opinion about this surprising and shocking news that will change very much many things and it could be good and bad in many ways, but I do not have the time right now to do it

Just to put this news I have found that is interesting

After nearly 10 years, Adobe abandons its Creative Suite entirely to focus on Creative Cloud

It explains the news and WHY, and there are more than 300 comments below the news too

Sorry that I would like much to comment more but I can´t do it as I have to go.

McGyver, Sat, 01 Jun 2013 18:08:41 -0400
Personally, I feel it's a money grab. It doesn't benefit the midlevel user, professionals who have forgotten what it was like when they first started out at the bottom will argue that its good for everyone, but the truth is- no, its only good if you use it to generate income and really-really need up to moment updates... if you are like many others who buy it and keep that version for a couple of years, you lose out.
I believe this is just the start of a sickening trend in software. Just to get anything done you'll need subscriptions for everything... this will over time this will seriously reduce the hobbyist market.
I'll hold on to my copy of CS until my OS no longer supports it and in the mean time I'll familiarize myself with Gimp... Adobe can go ride their cloud.

Skybase, Sun, 02 Jun 2013 04:26:35 -0400
Some pointers:

I doubt Adobe's cloud move will reduce hobbyist market at all. In any case, it'll encourage further development of 3rd Party alternatives, which there are plenty of floating in the market. I think we can have more faith in what the hobbyist market would result in.

This isn't the start of a trend. High end software has always been available for subscription, especially to studios. So this isn't new at all. :) It's "new" in the sense that Adobe is a pretty general provider of the base tools necessary for design, which having access to a very base level software like Photoshop becomes critical. It make sense seeing strong, adverse reactions.

In any case... I recommend writing formal complaints to Adobe! ;)

ddaydreams, Sun, 02 Jun 2013 21:34:33 -0400
Subscriptions are a nice option for some and if I were wealthy or had a good stable income I would rather do that. But it should be just that, an option. The other option being a perpetual license.

I like the run out of money and you can still use your software option that a perpetual license provides. VS run out of money and have absolutely nothing option that a subscription is. I like to buy outright the rights to use it via a perpetual license while I have known money rather than to commit more monthly payments in an unknown future.

So for me I grabbed an Adobe CS6 Web Design Premium Suite Student Teacher version with my student discount for about $450.00 USD and I'm calling that good enough for the next four or five years. That gives a perpetual license that can also be used on commercial projects. Student versions can't be resold so if I get poor I won't be tempted to sell it. And I'll be looking for alternative non subscription software as needs for other future software inevitably arises.

As Microsoft goes the same subscription route I've already done this with Free Open Office Suite rather than upgrading my 2007 Microsoft office suite.

SpaceRay, Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:57:07 -0400
Finally the new Adobe CC is already available

New Full Adobe CC (Creative Cloud) is already available NOW

I still have to say why I think that this has not been a good decision and option for Adobe and think is bad that you do not have the option to BUY it and own it

SpaceRay, Tue, 18 Jun 2013 17:45:20 -0400
Photoshop CC: Adobe responds to reaction

Interview with Adobe

Skybase, Tue, 18 Jun 2013 19:54:47 -0400
Yawn. So many Adobe threads today.

TL;DR for those reading Photoshop CC: Adobe responds to reaction : They knew they were going to get an angry crowd. The software is surprisingly more affordable. Adobe wants to keep your software updated. You don't always need to be connected to the internet. No, Adobe isn't backing away from the cloud.

Bill Roach, Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:03:07 -0400
A lot of people think that Adobe's stuff is "The end all / Be all" of graphic design software - which is erroneous. In my creative pipeline - I use The Gimp, Paint.Net, regular old Microsoft Paint, Inkspace, Wings 3D, Blender, and a host of other free / open source software. I haven't used Photoshop in years, and I don't miss it.

If Adobe is indeed going away from allowing their customers to permanently own software - and instead is moving towards a perpetual rental kinda thing (so I'm guessing here), then it's time to wake up from the brainwash, and look into other alternatives. I am really puzzled as to why there aren't more competitors vieing from Adobe's clientel base, because the whole situation kind of reeks of MONOPOLY? Adobe has been running the game for WAAAYYYYY too long (oddly) - and it sounds like they've finally caved into the "drug pusher's" mind set - i.e., "The first sample is yours to keep - but afterwards - your going to have to pay through the nose to get your fix." Their ego's (and their greed) - from what I am gathering here - seems to be running in overdrive.

The "rental model" is what a lot of companies seem to be pushing for lately anyway - not just software. It's like the whole world is throwing away the concept of permanent archivable property and is instead, going "TIVO" on everything. NOT a good move - especially when fewer and fewer of us can afford eternally renting everything that we own.

There are a lot of companies that have actually moved towards relying less on high cost software - and have incorporated a lot of free open source stuff into there production methodology in order to save on expenditures. Disney / Pixar, and a and a few other companies have been known to use "Cinepaint", which is a free open source application originally developed for Linux / Unix systems - but was ported to Windows in it's post beta days, for example.

Adobe is NOT the "Alpha & Omega" of graphic design solutions kids - trust me on this one :) !

SpaceRay, Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:39:21 -0400
If you do not want to jump into the Adobe Cloud and want to still want to use Old Adobe CS2, it seems that is available for FREE from the main Adobe website download

Another possible alternative to Adobe could be the software products from the Serif company

Searching in Google for Alternatives to Adobe I have seen that there are many pages showing some possible alternative suggestions

Build Your Own Adobe Creative Suite with Free and Cheap Software

See many more alternatives in the google link above

I have just seen that Corel has jumped into the controversy of Adobe subscription only and are offering to all the unhappy Adobe users they own software as alternative, it´s funny :D how they have shown and represented the Adobe subscription as a huge wall with a narrow exit :D

I think that they may be right, as Corel software have alternatives that are good and well done and may be a good option

Corel Welcomes CS users

SpaceRay, Wed, 19 Jun 2013 02:09:32 -0400
From the great controversy risen with this I have an interesting and clever article that explains better the bad reaction many people have got after Adobe switch to subscription.

10 Reasons The Haters Are Mad About Adobe Creative Cloud

Quote
Adobe started moving everyone to the cloud months ago and we’ve covered it extensively on Photofocus. From the very beginning, there’s been weeping and gnashing of teeth that has bordered on hysteria. In fact, in some cases, it’s mostly faux outrage based on greed, silliness, stupidity, disinformation, mob mentality, entitlement issues and misinformation. Let’s set some ground rules. Adobe is in business to make money. How they choose to do it is up to them. If you don’t like their business model, move on. Nobody is holding a shotgun to your head making you buy their products. There are lots of alternatives. If you’re unhappy switch. But don’t cry like a 13-year old girl claiming you’ve been wronged. You haven’t. You have free choice. But for people like me, the switch to the Creative Cloud has been a Godsend. I personally couldn’t be happier about the plan. I get more frequent updates. Switching computer platforms is now easier than ever because Adobe’s license doesn’t say I have to use a certain computer. I can authorize or reauthorize as I need to. I can get updates automatically, etc.

Quote

Adobe started moving everyone to the cloud months ago and we’ve covered it extensively on Photofocus. From the very beginning, there’s been weeping and gnashing of teeth that has bordered on hysteria. In fact, in some cases, it’s mostly faux outrage based on greed, silliness, stupidity, disinformation, mob mentality, entitlement issues and misinformation.

Let’s set some ground rules.
Adobe is in business to make money. How they choose to do it is up to them.
If you don’t like their business model, move on. Nobody is holding a shotgun to your head making you buy their products.
There are lots of alternatives. If you’re unhappy switch. But don’t cry like a 13-year old girl claiming you’ve been wronged. You haven’t. You have free choice.

But for people like me, the switch to the Creative Cloud has been a Godsend. I personally couldn’t be happier about the plan. I get more frequent updates. Switching computer platforms is now easier than ever because Adobe’s license doesn’t say I have to use a certain computer. I can authorize or reauthorize as I need to. I can get updates automatically, etc.

Read the 10 good reasons in the link above

Skybase, Wed, 19 Jun 2013 02:14:27 -0400

Quote
If you do not want to jump into the Adobe Cloud and want to still want to use Old Adobe CS2, it seems that is available for FREE from the main Adobe website download

That is false. Adobe is not providing CS2 for free. They were trying to help CS2 users and everybody misunderstood that as an act of "giving stuff away." The serial numbers don't activate the software, they only let you install.

And of course, it's a great time to market alternatives right now!!

SpaceRay, Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:23:52 -0400

Quote
Skybase The serial numbers don't activate the software, they only let you install.

Sorry, surely your are right and have written this without checking if this was true or not, as when putting it here, I already thought that most probably it would not work, but as someone said that this was a special version that was without serial number requirement, I thought it was true, but could not bother to test it myself.

So, please, do not download it and waste time to find that it will not work. Sorry for putting things without knowing if they really work.

Bill Roach, Wed, 19 Jun 2013 18:15:19 -0400
It's a shame that Adobe isn't offering their older, more outdated software like CS2 and Premiere Pro 2.0 for free - it might have proved to be a good marketing move. Why cling to holding on to software that is no longer supported? It just makes them look more like Ebeniezer Scrooge - Sans the revelatory Christmas spooks. :(

Filter Forge 3.0 and 4.0 works very well with the new Photoshop CC

SpaceRay — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:26:53 -0400

SpaceRay, Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:41:17 -0400
I have downloaded the new Photoshop CC ( I have a subscription to the adobe cloud and as shown in this thread and have tried both Filter Forge 3.0 and 4.0 and both works very well without any problem, at least with the few images I have tried it

You do not need to reinstall filter forge, just go to the old plugins folder of the previous version and copy the "Filters" folder into the new Photoshop CC Plugins folder

SpaceRay, Wed, 19 Jun 2013 02:16:48 -0400
I have tried even more with selections, layers, and transparent background and any way I use it, FF3 and FF4 works right always

I have to say that I forgot to say that what I am saying is ONLY from the Windows 7 64 bit side, as I do not have a Mac to test it, so it could be good if someone with a Mac or someone from the FF team could confirm if it works right and well also in the Mac side

SpaceRay, Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:26:53 -0400
Nobody else that has a mac and is subscribed to the Adobe Cloud OR is subscribed to the Photoshop subscription alone can test the new FF in Photoshop CC?

I think and suppose that if it works well in windows, it will probably will work well also in Mac, but can´t know it

"File Corrupted" when opening FF2

primitivedesign — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:19:16 -0400

primitivedesign, Wed, 19 Jun 2013 12:47:51 -0400
I installed FF2 and FF3 yesterday and then used FF2 for several hours with some of my old customized filters. This morning I opened FF3 and used it for an hour, before closing it and trying to open FF2, but FF2 will not open. It gives me a very non-descriptive "File Corrupted" box with a red 'X' and no other information.

I used to have FF2, FF3, and FF4b all installed side by side before reinstalling windows last weekend, and never got any message like this. Do I need to simply reinstall FF2 now, or is this going to be an ongoing issue? I need to have multiple versions side by side and not sure why it's a problem after reinstalling Win7 Pro SP1.

SpaceRay, Wed, 19 Jun 2013 14:19:16 -0400
As far as I know there is no problem using different versions of FF in the same computer (at least in the windows side) as I have also FF2 (that I never use anymore), FF3, and FF4b and have not had any problem with them.

Quote
Do I need to simply reinstall FF2 now, or is this going to be an ongoing issue?

Well, I think that perhaps it may be a problem of just FF2, so reinstalling FF2 could perhaps repair and fix the corrupted or missing file or files

Sorry, just for curiousity, I wonder why do you want to have FF2 installed and still use it?

I mean that if you already have the FF3 from my point of view I do not see, from my point of view, any reason why I would go back to use FF2

As said this is just curiosity and you may have your own valid reasons to do it and I respect it

Easy Way to Download All Filters?

Ultimist — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 09:46:09 -0400

Ultimist, Fri, 05 Nov 2010 21:25:13 -0400
Is there an easy way to download all of the available filters, or are we stuck doing them 1 by 1 on the website?

Thanks.

Kraellin, Sun, 07 Nov 2010 21:08:52 -0500
in the menu of FF, i think it's the last one on the right, open the options or preferences or whatever that one is, and find the tab that allows you to turn on the 'obsolete' method of downloading. then, when you click on 'download filters' you will get a thumbnail library of images for the filters. simply click on the top left one and then scroll down to where you want to stop in that category and hold down the shift key and click on that last filter. then add those to the queue with the button that lets you do that. or, you can simply double click just those filters you want and move to the next and double click that one. or, i seem to recall you can just click on a category and then hit a button that says download all or something like that.

they're pretty standard windows type actions, so if you know windows then doing downloads this way shld be pretty familiar to you.

sorry, i dont have FF open right now so i'm just going by memory and some of those buttons may not be right in name, but they are there. once you have all you want in a category checked, then hit the download now button or whatever that one says.

one thing i've noticed at times is, dont try to download more than a few hundred at a time. it seems to cause an error and i also have trouble sometimes when i click on some in one category and then move to another category and click on some there. this also has produced errors in the past. mostly, it works and it could just be my fussy internet connection, so play around and find what works best for you.

Ultimist, Sun, 07 Nov 2010 23:40:23 -0500
Thanks a million, Craig. I really appreciate it. There are just too many filters to download them 1 at a time. There are so many good ones I just wanted a way to get them all and sort the good from the bad later.

And by the way, your method and memory worked perfectly. :)

Rod

Kraellin, Mon, 08 Nov 2010 20:03:03 -0500
ah, good. sometimes i forget my name :) :D glad it helped :)

Lizzy, Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:28:51 -0400
I was looking for the same and found this via Google and it worked excellent with 2 categories (creative and distortion - each entirely selected and downloaded) but now I get the error message every time, even when loading only 3 filters. 1 filter would work.

edit: The Snipped category worked completely again (select all)
I think there are some filters somewhere that block the internet access (time out?) and then it all aborts?

SpaceRay, Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:19:01 -0400
Lizzy, the only way I know where you can mass download (lots of selected filters downloaded at the same time) can be done through the OLIFF (Obsolete Library Inside Filter Forge)

Advantages and Disadvantages of using the OL and OLIFF Filters Library

Please, to know how to use it, go to the link above here

Lizzy, Wed, 19 Jun 2013 09:46:09 -0400
Doesn't even mention the problem I face.

I downloaded the Misc category in smaller steps.
Now only Patterns is missing.
Doing small steps here too. Eventually filters that caused an abort will work the next day or few hours later.

I guess it's a bug somewhere.

I Have Six New Filters In The Library Now!

Bill Roach — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:56:06 -0400

Bill Roach, Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:36:14 -0400
My Filters Thus Far:

Mayan Metropolis, Mayan Metropolis Library Link ,
Alien Derelict, Alien Derelict Library Link ,
Battlestations, Battlestations Library Link ,
Bill's Ground Cover, BGC Library Link ,
Cammo Quick, Cammo Quik Library Link ,
Digital Camoflauge, Digital Camoflauge Library Link ,
Epic Sci Fi Panels. ESFP Library Link .

ALL CURRENT FILTERS:
My Filters

I've been harvesting a lot of textures made from your filters - so - I'm giving back a little too :) .

Your critique is welcome, but please be fair - but gentle, lol.

Those of you who are masters at filter creation will probably do a face palm after looking at these in the Filter Editor - just remember that I'm learning. Hope three of these go High Usage so that I can get a copy of FF that I can keep, lol.

SpaceRay, Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:56:06 -0400
Congratulations for all your filters. I want to suggest that you also make some filters where is involved the input of a photo or image instead of only making filter that make just make a self generated texture.

I understand that you are beginning and these are your first filters, and I wish you make a lot more, but if you want that they become a HU (High Usage) would be also good to have some others filters in the "Effects" category (the ones that are based on images or photos)

I wish you the best and that you keep learning and enjoy making more filters

Need download links for FF2 and FF3 please

primitivedesign — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:55:01 -0400

primitivedesign, Mon, 17 Jun 2013 20:06:31 -0400
I had these archived but lost them in a drive crash.. Can someone please point me to the old installers? Thanks!

GMM, Tue, 18 Jun 2013 04:28:10 -0400
Here they are:

http://www.filterforge.com/download/F...0Setup.dmg
http://www.filterforge.com/download/F...0Setup.exe

http://www.filterforge.com/download/F...0Setup.exe
http://www.filterforge.com/download/F...0Setup.dmg

primitivedesign, Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:55:01 -0400
Thank you, got them.

Browsing Question

JackHen — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 05:29:57 -0400

JackHen, Tue, 18 Jun 2013 05:29:57 -0400
Apologies if this topic is handled somewhere else. I did a brief search and was unable to find anything.

Is there any way to sort the results of a search or just a general category while browsing filters? It seems tremendously stupid to have filter categories produce pages of results in random order with no logical way to sort them, so I'm assuming the problem is with me being ignorant of how to do so.

Ideally I'd like to search by date submitted and/or by version. I attempted to search using 3.0 or 2.0 but that was a bust.

What am I missing, please?

Why the Filter Library Backup is not directly available for sale?

SpaceRay — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 18:08:22 -0400

SpaceRay, Mon, 17 Jun 2013 08:19:33 -0400
I have already seen many threads asking if there is any kind of filter backup of the online FF library like for example this last one

Quote
Space Octopus One thing I think HAS to be implemented (unless there's something in place I'm completely unaware of) is a back-up of already downloaded filter libraries that you can just load all at once into FF.

But when you go to the FF buy page there is no way to buy this FF filters backup collection and there is no link anywhere on this page, it only appears if you want to buy the FF software on the cart page.

Does FF Inc. do not want that people buys this FF filter backup alone?

It could be done that ONLY already FF registered users could buy it if there could be some problems

Is there any possible reasons to avoid loading filters this way?

I think that it would be good small profit for FF Inc. or perhaps could be more problems for the company than what they can earn

I think that this would be good for people that want to have the filters without depending on the server and if there is problems to download. Of course that very new filters would not be included in the library

For more information please, see these other threads

Quote
KarmaGeddin I cant find a link to download "Filter Library Backup ??? Laura

cant find a link to download "Filter Library Backup ???

Get the filters without updating

Buying ONLY the Filter Library Backup online ??? What do you get ??

Please, if you buy the FF Backup library, what happens with updates?

If I buy the Filter Forge backup library, How to install SELECTIVELY ?

GMM, Mon, 17 Jun 2013 08:43:58 -0400
SpaceRay, you've posted 6 links and haven't included the only relevant one. The filter backup can be purchased directly.

Space Octopus, Mon, 17 Jun 2013 09:34:51 -0400
I really don't think it would be fair to ask for money for it. My comment wasn't about the entire filter library anyhow, it was about backing up what I personally have in my own FF library. Possibly as 1 large file or something of the like that could only be opened by FF.

GMM, Mon, 17 Jun 2013 09:49:07 -0400
Space Octopus, please don't post similar comments in different threads.

SpaceRay, Mon, 17 Jun 2013 18:08:22 -0400

Quote
My comment wasn't about the entire filter library anyhow, it was about backing up what I personally have in my own FF library

For more information to know how to make a backup of your own downloaded filters you can see the my post on this thread with two links

Quote
GMM SpaceRay, you've posted 6 links and haven't included the only relevant one

Well, if you open the first one you will see the direct link to buy it inside, and this is why I have put it the first, although I am sorry that I forgot to copy the direct link to this thread.

Quote
GMM The filter backup can be purchased directly.

I already know that the filter backup CAN be purchased directly BUT why this link does not appear anywhere in the FF Buy page or anywhere else ?

FF 3.010 about banner FF 4.0 "Raises your creativity to next level!"

SpaceRay — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 06:54:20 -0400

SpaceRay, Tue, 02 Oct 2012 03:18:34 -0400
I have just upgraded to the new FF 3.010 and now everytime you start it appears a new banner or small message in the screen as shown below

SpaceRay, Tue, 02 Oct 2012 03:23:34 -0400
The text says

Quote
"FF 4.0 raises your creativity to next level!" Now with more realistic textures and cool effects"

and then a link to "Learn more"

BUT if you click on that link it takes you to the beta 4.0 page that ONLY shows about the new grouping feature and nothing else

So, please HOW can possibly FF 4.0 raise your creativity to the next level? :?:

What will have FF 4.0 to be able to raise your creativity?

What more realistic textures and cool effects ???? :?:

Is this something to be unveiled later in the future in another beta releases or in the final version?

I would like to preorder BUT not with only the group feature news, sorry.

_______________________________

NOTES
_______________________________

I know that you can click on the checkbox "don´t show again" and so it will not appear again, but I would like to keep it, waiting to have more information and be able to make the preorder, although of course that I could always go to the preorder page without this.

Another reason to keep it is that I like the nice cubic background FF Inc. have put for this banner maessage and is a good choice and like it

Sharandra, Tue, 02 Oct 2012 05:08:38 -0400
Grrr...Ray, you´re doing it again! :evil: :D
You already made your opinion clear in your other thread. No need to start one more about this! ;-)

SpaceRay, Tue, 02 Oct 2012 05:21:36 -0400

Quote
Grrr...Ray, you´re doing it again!

Sorry, I think this is different from my point of view, as this is related to the new banner and preorder option in the new FF 3.010 and was surprised that FF Inc. have put this text there NOW when there is no more information that really explains the "FF 4.0 raises your creativity to next level!" Now with more realistic textures and cool effects"

I have made this thread that I think is ONLY for asking why is this text there and for me is NOT the same as asking what are ALL the features that could be included in FF 4.0

I am NOT asking here about this here, I just want to know why is said NOW that "FF 4.0 raises your creativity to next level! Now with more realistic textures and cool effects" if they are saying this is because they know about what would really make this true, and do not think that it will only the groups or new filter manager that will raise your creativity to next level.

Sorry if this could make a confusion with this other thread Please, FF Inc. give reasons to motivate and buy the upgrade to FF 4.0

I thought about putting this in this other thread but then for me is not exactly the same topic and the motivation and source for the other thread is not the same as this one.

Anyway, sorry if I am wrong and both can be considered about the same, and was not my intention

Skybase, Tue, 02 Oct 2012 06:44:46 -0400
... dude... I recommend you to hold your horses and wait for the last beta to roll out. You decide then.

Quote
I am NOT asking here about this here, I just want to know why is said NOW that "FF 4.0 raises your creativity to next level! Now with more realistic textures and cool effects" if they are saying this is because they know about what would really make this true, and do not think that it will only the groups or new filter manager that will raise your creativity to next level.

You basically said, "I'M DISAPPOINTED AT THE THING I WANT!!!"

No serious, our wishes are finally being answered after all this time and you're saying "Is that it?" as if they didn't develop anything to help our interests and needs.Yeah ok, I admit, part of me does say "well are there more things?" but as much as I'm curious, I'm not making 5 different threads begging the same answer with different questions. I'm honestly sick of these threads. 1 should have been enough. I've been trying to ignore threads like this but it seems it's inevitable, I end up reading them anyway. Do realize: I'm also here in the forums too, and I can't "unsee" certain things. You're not alone here, there are others, please think before you post.

With that being said, I'm done. ;) <--- this smily face was added to lift the weight of the last paragraph in hopes to lighten the mood.

GMM, Tue, 02 Oct 2012 06:57:24 -0400

Quote
please think before you post.

I'd comment on Skybase's reply.
SpaceRay, we don't want you to stop posting, your input is valuable but it could be restrained to fewer threads. The idea of posting every new idea in a separate thread dilutes readers' attention. So, SpaceRay, please keep posting but try to comment in existing threads.

SpaceRay, Sun, 07 Oct 2012 17:59:31 -0400
I am sorry that this has been badly done and I should not have done this thread and is wrong and will try to not do things like this

Quote
please think before you post.

As said above I have already been thinking before making this thread and thought that although it seems to be about the same topic, for me is not the same, as this is different and is asking WHY it has been written this message in the FF 4.0 banner.

I mean that I find the message silly and without much sense WHEN you want to know more about this and there is NO information related to this.

"FF 4.0 raises your creativity to next level!" Now with more realistic textures and cool effects"

Click here to Learn More

And when you click on the link to "Learn More" expecting and wishing to see HOW FF 4.0 will rise my creativity to the next level and what more realistic textures and cool effect could I have I FIND NOTHING about this in the Beta 4.0 page where you go, the ONLY thing is the news of the new Group and instances and nothing else.

I am sorry but I think that this is not an answer to the "Learn More" link as you CAN´T learn more about it as there is NO information to learn more about this.

Quote
Skybase ... dude... I recommend you to hold your horses and wait for the last beta to roll out. You decide then.

Yes, this is will be better and wait not only until the last beta, wait until the final version OR at least to have all the information about what is going to be really included in FF 4.0 AND see HOW will be possible that this new FF 4.0 will be able to raise my creativity to a next level.

SpaceRay, Thu, 11 Oct 2012 02:38:55 -0400
Now there is a NEW misterious banner :D

Get more with Filter Forge Beta 4.0 ? :?:

What MORE ? :?: :?:

In the Beta 1 you only get grouping and this I do not think that this is "getting more", sorry

I think that we should wait to Beta 2 or Beta 3 so this may be true

Skybase, Thu, 11 Oct 2012 02:53:34 -0400

Quote
I think that we should wait to Beta 2 or Beta 3 so this may be true

What if it wasn't :p

SpaceRay, Sun, 28 Oct 2012 03:02:53 -0400

Quote
Skybase What if it wasn't

:?:

Sorry I do not understand unless is a joke :D

If it wasn´t that we have to wait to Beta 2 is not possible as it would mean that you "get more" already in Beta 1 and you only get the new groups feature, and although this is a little "more" than what you have in FF 3.0 ;) :D I do not think that this is enough

And also is obvious that you would get MORE than what you have in FF 3.0 if this is an upgrade as would be not possible to have THE SAME as you already have in FF 3.0 :D

Skybase, Sun, 28 Oct 2012 04:48:23 -0400
It's a joke of course. Typically the number of features increases over time and it usually leads to a point where it satisfies an upgrade.

I mean I'll be honest with you, I own a couple graphics programs which happen to cost a bit and sometimes the upgrades are super unsatisfying, with little or no features excepting 1 or 2 which I may use. The upgrade price tag is like $1200+ and I'm just going "err... no." Then they get me to buy it anyway after telling me they're dropping support for my version and also their latest version utilizes the newest OS system resources, runs much smoother, and happens to be slightly better.

And I'm like "oh... ok...."

Imagine 5 massive upgrades every year and 10 consumer-sized, $50 upgrades from all these other companies with different products.

This is why I'm broke.

Mongoose King, Sun, 28 Oct 2012 13:08:50 -0400
Real reason everyone will eventually upgrade: New filters will eventually all start being 4.0 ones and you'll get a load you want. Even tho people could have made the same filters in 3.0 or even 2.0

Mongoose King, Sun, 28 Oct 2012 13:15:12 -0400
Another thing!

Isn't that my colourbert filter as the banner background, but it doesn't even get to be a featured filter...

Skybase, Sun, 28 Oct 2012 13:41:55 -0400
So... I guess I'll just convert all my filters to 4.0... :p

SpaceRay, Mon, 29 Oct 2012 04:06:48 -0400

Quote
I own a couple graphics programs which happen to cost a bit and sometimes the upgrades are super unsatisfying, with little or no features excepting 1 or 2 which I may use. The upgrade price tag is like $1200+

WOW!! what programs are these SO EXPENSIVE for just an upgrade ???? :?:

Quote
Mongoose King Isn't that my colourbert filter as the banner background, but it doesn't even get to be a featured filter...

YES!! and I like it much as I have already said in my post above, and is good that they have choosen this one to show it, although perhaps could have put at least the source of it in little.

SpaceRay, Mon, 17 Jun 2013 02:36:18 -0400
Until now there is no further news about any OTHER possible new feature that would "Raises your creativity to next level" than the new loop component or the groups ability to make cleaner and more organized filters.

We will have to wait until FF 4.0 Beta 3 to see if there anything else that will do it or will only be these two things.

Quote
Mongoose King Real reason everyone will eventually upgrade: New filters will eventually all start being 4.0 ones and you'll get a load you want.

I agree that this is a powerful and true reason, as even if the filter does NOT use any of the new components of FF 4.0, it will still be incompatible with FF 3.0, and most of the professional and expert FF filters makers will upgrade.

Skybase, Mon, 17 Jun 2013 04:33:36 -0400
SHHH... it'll happen.

SpaceRay, Mon, 17 Jun 2013 06:54:20 -0400

Quote
SHHH... it'll happen.

Yes, I wish and hope that it will happen also, and that FF 4.0 will have something more than groups and loops and a new filter manager, and probably Control randomization locks.

Filter Forge radically changing the dynamics of computer art?

Torley — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 04:42:56 -0400

Torley, Tue, 06 Feb 2007 02:04:30 -0500
I've really been enjoying Filter Forge so far, just dipping at the surface. Something that's come to my mind more than once has been how it has such a ripe potential to radically change the dynamics of 3D modeling, including both homebrew and big-name game art development, original content creation in online worlds, and animated feature films.

For example, I've heard frustration about inflexibility expressed by some friends, when they go to Turbo Squid or Renderosity to shell out money on good textures. It appears in the long run, Filter Forge, since it's so generative and open-ended, is a far better investment than purchasing a pack of "100 Metal Textures" or whatever.

Understandably, some may feel threatened by how this is happening, because while there've certainly been texture generation tools for awhile (e.g., Texture Maker, Genetica), Filter Forge is incomparably flexible AND friendly compared to what I've seen before, and it goes beyond textures, to do many aesthetic effects which could seriously rival — and even surpass — other standalone packages, which means they'll have to do a lot better job with the price and performance of their products.

Of course, there are many angles this could be approached: I could see some artists designing bundles of finished textures with Filter Forge to resell, while others, very appreciative of how fluid it is to create cohesive sets for 3D scenes, won't be distributing the textures themselves, but the filters used to create them...

... and there are likely many future stars who've yet to hear of Filter Forge, but when they do, they'll be all over it, and this website, sharing what they've done with us, nurturing creativity back in return.

As a specific example, I'm interested in using Filter Forge to create texture sets for Second Life ( http://secondlife.com ), an online world I work for. I've already been giving out organic volumes, and intend to delve further into Filter Forge to assist me in making future wonderful, seamless swatches!

What are your thoughts + feelings on the road ahead, and how Filter Forge will change how we approach computer art? :)

Sjeiti, Tue, 06 Feb 2007 04:51:38 -0500
Define art. For me programs like FF really raise the bar. Where I'd use to call a computer generated piece artistic I now just call it clever or even nothing at all. Before you'd have to be a hell of a programmer, now you can just push a button (remember the bevel and the lens flare). I think therefore computer art is highly overrated. I don't want to sound all negative. I think FF itself is a work of art, and filters like this one are a work of art but most of the time tools like FF will generate more 'junk' than art. Just like all web 2.0 stuff filled the web with noise. In the end a tool is still a tool, what matters is how you use it.
I think FF can change the dynamics but not the art, so I'd leave out the radically :-P.

As for being threatened by these new tools: people will always be threatened by new things. Old school graphic designers were threathened by computers. If we use fire the bear hide market will collapse. Foreigners will steal my job. Things shift, we just have to learn to adapt.

Crapadilla, Wed, 07 Feb 2007 11:19:48 -0500

Quote
Torley wrote: ...how Filter Forge will change how we approach computer art?

I don't believe that FF will introduce a 'radical' change, as texturing and image filtering are just small niches of the huge "digital art" field. It is just a tool after all, albeit one that recognizes and embraces the ongoing trend to put the artist back in control of the software by providing more intuitive interfaces and less technical, streamlined workflows. Innovations are coming from small software companies these days, as many of the old players have grown fat and bloated.

Most definitely though, I can see FF appealing to 3D Artists, Compositors and Visual FX people working in games, television and film. But since FF lacks animation capabilities and a tight integration with major 3D and compositing applications, this appeal currently has limits. The potential to invade these markets however is definitely there.

Personally, since I began using FF I started having fun texturing again, much like I started feeling enthusiastic about 3D again once I got my hands on Luxology's excellent 'modo'. Using these next generation tools, one wonders why 'workflow' was never done this 'Right™' before. It's as if finally, the programmers had been kicked out of the bridge, letting the users assume their rightful places at the helm again. Very empowering, as it brings the fun of exploration back to our creative work.

Torley, Wed, 07 Feb 2007 20:23:07 -0500
Thanx for your insightful replies, Sjeiti and Crapadilla. I don't have a definition to "art", and if I did, it's always changing — like some sort of mad Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, by the time I've identified what it might be at a given moment, it's shifted.

But to lend some context to my original post, when I said "computer art", I was thinking of some classic animation reels I cherish — not the oldest, but I'm sure some of you are familiar with the Mind's Eye series. Beyond the Mind's Eye in particular, with its music by Jan Hammer.

I know in cases like this, there's a dangerous "valley of hype" when any tool is pushed up too far beyond its actual capabilities relative to the person using it. What made me smile about what Sjeiti said is, I think of when I was involved in electronic music, and people feared that synthesizers would replace humans. (Yeah, all that Kraftwerkian shiznit!) So again, more adaptation.

To Crapadilla: I can't say it better than "the old players have grown fat and bloated". It's like, I can't really see Photoshop, as comprehensive as it is, slimming down. Only rarely does such a massive migration like Mac OS 9 ---> X happen.

While not a 3D pro by any means, as mentioned, I enjoy the work that comes as a result, and also look forward to what comes.

What struck me so immediately about Filter Forge is both how easy it is to use, but as both you guys have demonstrated, mastery can be very deep!

My perspective relates to the online world of Second Life, where content creation is encouraged, but many amateurs and first-timers find it frustrating to model stuff to their satisfaction our of primitive objects, let alone texture them well; after seeing some of the wall and tile sets made with FF, I'm convinced therein lies a rich potential for FF to ease the pathways into content creations.

I definitely agree on the "fun of exploration" point too.

Vladimir Golovin, Wed, 07 Feb 2007 20:43:31 -0500

Quote
Torley wrote: Mind's Eye series. Beyond the Mind's Eye in particular, with its music by Jan Hammer

Jan Hammer? Thanks, I liked that music a lot but didn't know who wrote it.

Vladimir Golovin, Tue, 13 Feb 2007 04:23:34 -0500

Quote
Torley wrote: a ripe potential to radically change the dynamics of 3D modeling, including both homebrew and big-name game art development, original content creation in online worlds, and animated feature films.

My view on this is more practical.

I think that procedural textures will never replace photographic textures. I spent several years of my career working as a 3D modeler, and from my experience I can tell that the key to photorealism, which is everyone's goal, is using photographic references and photographic textures.

When you look at a procedurally-generated brick wall, it is just a brick wall, clean and shiny and all nice. If you look at a real-world wall, in a real town, near a real-world pub or a market, you'll see a lot of detail -- scratches left by a passing truck, remains of 5-year-old posters layered on each other, graffiti, stencil marks of the local utility company, moss growing in humid areas near the rain-pipe, and much, much more.

Trying to reproduce all this with purely procedural means is impractical.

However, there's a downside to the photographic textures -- there's currently no way to capture the surface height/depth information needed to make bump/normal maps for lighting. And I doubt that such a camera will appear in the near future. Artists who want depth information have either to model or sculpt their textures in full 3D, or fake the depth information as a 2D bitmap.

Since Filter Forge can output the depth information easily, it certainly has a place in a modern content-generation pipeline. Also, some operations, like Perlin Noise, are fundamental to any kind of texture work, especially in texturing -- rock and stone textures with depth info are hard to create using the traditional painting approach. I think that Filter Forge will definitely find its place in the arsenal of a professional artist.

infiniview, Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:10:59 -0500
Hi there Torley,

I don't think I have met you, but I will have been in SL for a year in April, and you are like a local celebrity.
Filter Forge is one of my favorite toys, I spend a great deal of time
using it.
As an art tool it is absolutely fantastic and of course for textures
it is completely amazing.
Having started out with the approach of an artist I try to make the
textures I create artwork.
So if a person does not know what to do with one of my textures, I suggest they frame it, lol.

Naturally art like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And then again with any new tool what attracts the eye of the user is what will ultimately define what they create.

In my attempts I like to create things that could be something real
and usable but then to also blend in elements of the abstract or fantastic into it.

I am honestly not sure why this is,lol.

Here is one of my recent textures. An attempt at mottled glass along a orb theme.

And another orb thing in this case a closed aperture version of it.
And yeah sorry guys I did'nt track all the filters I used to create
it, bad habit of mine.

Lately I have been modifying filters in the process of learning and
also beginning to create my own from scratch so I hope to be contributing some soon.

Oh wait I sort of briefly met you at the SL 3rd b-day exhibition.
You came and zapped some griefers that were at my site.

Thanks again,

Infin

Torley, Tue, 13 Feb 2007 19:45:41 -0500
Vladimir: You're welcome, Beyond the Mind's Eye was a big part of my childhood! Thanx also for your insights — I almost feel like I'm interviewing you! I've long been a fan of hybrid techniques, e.g., when doing electronic music, I layered synthetic 909 bassdrums with acoustic snares. Similarly, when I was doing textures before, I worked with organic elements in ArtRage to create very painterly effects that could easily be combined with some of the generative powers in Filter Forge.

infiniview, all too cool! Thanx — what's your name in Second Life? Are you the same infiniview who made this awesome work of art?

http://www.sluniverse.com/pics/pic.aspx?id=81690

I'm happy to hear you like Filter Forge, 'cuz I've found it hard to find anyone else in Second Life who also uses it, but would sure like to see it popularized for textures.

That glass almost looks like it could be an animated gel, with a baby dragon coming outta it... or something!

Kraellin, Wed, 14 Feb 2007 12:10:58 -0500
torley,

i put forth a statement similar to your original one here, a while back. mine was more directed at plugins. i said something like there's going to be a lot of plugin makers suddenly out of business when FF goes mainstream.

i still think that's somewhat true. but more than that, you can extend the basic concept of what FF does and how it works on such a visual basis instead of 'coding' basis, to a LOT of stuff. and, i've seen attempts done before along these lines. i can even recall back in the old 8 bit days of computers folks making programs that were visually oriented like FF. i dont recall the name now, but there was one back then that was something like 'war game creator'. you didnt need to know any code; it was all visual.

the old Star Trek talking computer is actually a similar application of this. even Windows is somewhat similar. how do you get folks to use this thing called a computer without forcing them to learn code or even DOS. windows did it visually and it took off.

i've tried to learn to code from time to time... old BASIC, assembly, C and so on, but never had the patience or that much time and drive to really devote to learning it (actually, i liked assembly. it's the only language that ever made sense to me).

but give folks that arent coders a way to create on the computer and you open up avenues that previously were never thought of. create a program like photoshop and suddenly all us folks that couldnt draw a decent stick figure on paper can actually do something now.

i've also fiddled with programs like filtermeister. i even made a couple of filters with it.... with help :) and had it been a visual program like FF is, i'd probably still be using it.

so, i dont know how radical the change is going to be, but you can bet we'll start seeing more programs like it. imagine if photoshop were designed this way. dont like the built in filters? alter them or make new ones. dont like their sharpness routine? change it.

so the one dynamic that FF is helping to change isnt so much the whole splurge of digital art we're seeing now; it's more about being able to create the tools that make the art, which will have an impact on the whole. FF is redesigning the digital paintbrush, redesigning the tools to make them more accessible to a wider range of folks. and yes, that will have a fairly big impact.

infiniview, Fri, 16 Feb 2007 01:59:30 -0500
Yep same guy.

Thanks for posting that up by the way. :)

jffe, Fri, 16 Feb 2007 02:45:03 -0500
There's been graphic modular environments for audio apps out for years now, Reaktor, Tassman, Vaz, SynthEdit, and many more. SynthEdit even allows you to export as vst that can be used by people who don't own the SynthEdit program, in any number of audio host apps. Ultimately, those programs found their places, and had a little impact on the scene so to speak, SynthEdit more than the rest combined, but still not enough to put but maybe 5% of the hold skool hand-coded app devs out of business. FF will not be the end of filter plug-ins, not by a longshot, but, it will raise the bar on people's expectations, and perhaps cause some companies to either lower their prices a bit, and/or get some new better filters made and out for sale in the near future.

jffe

Eric Chadwick, Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:28:57 -0500

Quote
However, there's a downside to the photographic textures -- there's currently no way to capture the surface height/depth information needed to make bump/normal maps for lighting.

http://www.crazybump.com/ is a step in this direction, generates normalmaps and heightmaps from photosrc. Much better at making normalmaps so far, but surprisingly usable. More info about it in this thread, many game artists are using this tool in their work.

Vladimir Golovin, Sat, 17 Feb 2007 06:55:41 -0500
Good tool and definitely a step in the right direction. I tried to reconstruct a normal map for one of our library filters:

StevieJ, Sun, 18 Feb 2007 08:57:21 -0500
I am a fine artist and designer who has started delving into the digital realm in order to go beyond the creative limitations, labor, and costs of photography. I think that Filter Forge will at least redefine the customization and creativity of the process. I had just started getting into the SDK when I came across FF about two weeks ago. I quickly dropped SDK after I started discovering that I could acheive the same thing with FF much more easily and effeciently....without wasting all of my time becoming an advanced programmer and testing programs. The only reason to pursue the SDK would be to sell the plugins.....and my interest is in producing and selling digital fine art.....

I think that Filter Forge is going to pull the carpet out from under the plugin package market....at the very least.

jffe, Sun, 18 Feb 2007 11:52:06 -0500

Quote
StevieJ wrote: I think that Filter Forge is going to pull the carpet out from under the plugin package market....at the very least.

----It *might* hurt Flaming Pear's sales a bit. And a few other smaller-name people who make filters, but don't pay rent doing so anyways, so not that big a deal. Don't get me wrong, FF is way cool, but it's too expensive for most hobbyists, and unless the professionals want to make/edit their own filters, they may choose not to switch over since they already know how to use the filters they have. It remains to be seen, but I wouldn't sell my KPT stock just yet, if I had any ha-ha. :D

jffe

Torley, Mon, 19 Feb 2007 05:41:27 -0500
I'm thrilled to see so many creative brains here; it's inspiring to learn from the collective experience.

Kraellin: I agree! I've previously used some procedural texturing programs like Genetica, but found the workflow unintuitive. Filter Forge makes it easy to get great results quickly, but dig deep down into incredible detail, as we've already seen — with a lot to come, I'm optimistic. You have a really keen point about "create the tools that make the art". I'm reminded of my past doing electronic music synthesis, and being frustrated with existing tools. With Filter Forge and the growing library of user-submitted filters, if you find it intimidating to start from scratch, it's going to get easier to fill needs as you have them, or vary an existing example to meet your projects.

I should emphasize some things will feel very natural (a process... kinda like the word "procedural", hehe) and their weight may not really be realized until we look back and see how far we have come — I'm specifically referring to the growing community evolving around passion for Future Forge.

infiniview: You're welcome, and lovely to see you here!

jffe: Ah yes! I was involved in a number of those too... a lot of VSTing. I never found SynthEdit all that easy to use, altho I'm impressed by some of what came out of it. One thing I wonder about, tho, is how small the audio market is compared to graphics. In the online world Second Life, there's a terrible disproportion of many visual builders, but not a lot of people who do custom jobs in sound design. I don't know of a popular phrase referring to the sonic equivalent of "Photoshopping a picture", either.

Eric: I'm gonna look into that.

Vladimir: Thanx for the image... intriguing.

StevieJ: Thanx for your thoughts, I can relate. There are some standalone packages which have every right to be concerned... I was particularly looking at a lot of the Flaming Pear plugins (as jffe also mentioned), including Hue & Cry, which looks wonderful, but has a clunky UI (it feels very dated).

The psychadelica I've seen come out of FF so far has been awe-inspiring. Re: price point, to Vladimir, I wonder if there's any considered possibility of that coming down in the future as the usage base increases?

Meanwhile, I've been spreading word about getting more people in Second Life — called Residents — to have a close look and go at Filter Forge. The world is so texture-dependent, and I often come across Resis who want great results but aren't artists by trade, so they get frustrated and give up. Even if FF is currently priced too high for casual hobbyists, it's clearly an uber-Swiss army knife in the hands of developers.

Lika, Mon, 19 Feb 2007 07:35:45 -0500
Well..Well..Well.. I see we've got a couple of other SL'ers here. Good to see you here and what a wonderful read! I am a custom builder in SL and that's what inspired me to "try" FF. And, boy! was I impressed. I got in a little late on the beta testing. I wished I could have spent more time testing and creating more of my own filters to get the free copy :) But that's okay, to tell truth FF was a godsend on at least one of my projects. After spending over $400 on some quality textures and creating several of my own I soon realized that I needed another option to supplement my growing texture sets and needs.

The versatility of FF is astounding to say the least. I do have extensive experience in Photo Shop but FF takes filters and "textures" to a whole new level (at least for me). The only drawback I see at this point in regards to FF is the pricing. Of course it will sell - it's a good product but it will take time. Like PS itself is very expensive and out of most people's reach in price. The market is definitely there but not for the masses...at least not now and maybe that's not the goal anyway. The old adage word-of-mouth in reference to user experience is what will convince potential buyers to fork over the cash and propel this baby to the top!

Torley, I'm sure we've met at least a couple of times in SL. One that comes to mind is the Burning Man Festival that was held in SL...I think you were there and we spoke, lol. If you're up to it I'd love to show you an underground club (literally speaking) that I created in SL using FF creations as textures. If you're up for it contact me in-world and I'll give you the "quick" tour (cause...umm, I know you're busy). BTW, I think you giving away free textures that you've created with FF is a wonderful idea. Maybe I'll do that myself when I get the chance. Anyway, wonderful seeing you here and please do contact me in-world if you'd like that tour. My account name in SL is Lika Goodliffe. That goes for anyone else here that stumbles across this thread as well. Cheers! to all and have a wonderful day :)

Happy Forging!

Lika

Kraellin, Mon, 19 Feb 2007 15:07:09 -0500
torley,

now, there's an interesting concept that you just made me think of, a component based music creator, similar to FF but audio based. that has real potential! imagine plugging the tom-tom component into the snares and adding a 'beat' component... and just take it from there :)

Vladimir Golovin, Tue, 20 Feb 2007 08:18:05 -0500

Quote
to Vladimir, I wonder if there's any considered possibility of that coming down in the future as the usage base increases?

Too early to say. Actually, if you calculate the price-per-filter, FF easily wins in this department. Plus, don't forget about our discounts and free copies to contributors. The general idea is that a professional or a company who has money but no time would pay for it, while a hobbyist who doesn't have money but has time can get it for free.

Torley, Fri, 23 Feb 2007 20:16:09 -0500
Lika! I'd sure like to see your club. At the very least, please send me a landmark — I'll IM you! Second Life Filter Forge usage is currently "under the radar" but I feel there's such potential to make it rise; there's a shared parallel of user-driven content and a sense of community, after all.

Kraellin, hey, yeah... I wonder if there's already something like that out there. On the visual front I've been looking at some VJ software like Livid Union with really slick UI (Livid's Tactic controller looks like something outta an alien mothership!); I was thinking of new ways to "play" textures or control them live. I know this is difficult with processor-intensive filters, but one can continue to hope. And in a lot of visual art shows, Filter Forge could induce severe trippage without needing to use drugs.

Vladimir: Thx, that's a really striking point between time/money, and also, emphasis on someone who purchases it, then creates highly-used filters, then can get it for free. Now that's rewarding!

Fluxtah, Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:30:53 -0500

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote: Too early to say. Actually, if you calculate the price-per-filter, FF easily wins in this department. Plus, don't forget about our discounts and free copies to contributors. The general idea is that a professional or a company who has money but no time would pay for it, while a hobbyist who doesn't have money but has time can get it for free.

I am a hobbyist with money, where do I fit in ;)

SpaceRay, Sun, 19 Feb 2012 03:09:31 -0500
If Filter Forge 1.0 changed the way to do art and design, then Filter Forge 3.0, has made a small revolution in art and design making from my own point of view.

Also since 2007 that this thread was started, there has been THOUSANDS of new filters that opens continually new doors to new possible worlds and option to make artistic creations and better designs and with newer, innovative and creative ideas.

The great versatility and easy of use of Filter Forge is very good, for me it´s only BAD thing is that it is still mostly very slow when you want to make renders of high resolutions, 4000 x 4000 upward.

And what is also good is that there are continually appearing new filters that enlarges and widens the possible ways to use Filter Forge.

And I think the real revolution for artists will be when 4.0 arrives as it will include (I hope) a much better way to manage the filters, customize and organize them as you want, and will be fixed many issues that are now, and will be even better features than is now.

So I want to give my congratulations to the FF team for making this software and help the graphics and arts community.

SpaceRay, Mon, 17 Jun 2013 04:42:56 -0400
Now it has been 7 years since the first beta of FF has been released, and I agree that FF has changed the way to make digital and computer art and to modify in many different ways your own photos and images in an easy and visual way.

There has been other software that let you make a revolution in computer art, BUT most of them need that you know about programming and/or they do not have a visual interface, or the way to work with is complex and difficult and may have a steep and high learning curve and be more professionally oriented.

Intellectuall rights??

voldemort — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 04:35:12 -0400

voldemort, Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:10:59 -0400
I havnt been around for a week but decieded to bounce on in here and take a look and ran into some interesting posts Ill probably get banned or this post deleted or locked but Im going to say one small bit on this

My personal opinion Is that I dont need credit or recognition for my work since I did it in good will to benefit and help people. On the other hand Im not an artist so I dont have much at risk

Yet even though my personal feeling is I dont need credit I do try to credit the snippet bases and filters I base my work upon. Have I maybe missed a couple credits in my time --probably and if so I appologize. The fact of the matter is most of you share a completly different possition then mine --you want to benefit others but you need or want credit-- and so ""I RESPECT YOUR POSITION AND VIEWS""[U] There is a truth in this world, reality or universe and Einstein pointed it out quite elloquently its called relativity.. From my perspective everything may add up and the math is dead on.. Change the perspective and the math and solution change dramaticall but are still 100% correct. There can be multiple correct answeres bassed upon differing perspectives.

If the fact that when we fell on our faces 1000 times when we where learning to walk dosnt teach you how faillable we are I dont know what will.. We should all try to remember that we can be wrong no matter what the evidence or circumstances might indicate. Also that our answer may not be the only one.. good example based upon FF look at the regular tileing snippets there is Uber's approach and mine --both work neither is right or wrong. Im not angry or resentful to his methodologies nor do I describe his as better or worse then mine. I simply recognize it as another answer

What Im trying to say by writeing a short novella is this

If I dont need credit --then dont sweat it
But if someone prefers it ---then credit them
respect other peoples views and positions on things

Im a major supporter of free knowlege --that dosnt mean Im entitled to ignore others positions with my own supersceeding theirs.

So if you need free knowlege foccus on open source or Creative commons licens things along that nature
but here in FF
the vast majority of folks expect their just due along the lines of recognition and credit
at least from a standard view point or perspective that I gleamed so lean towards the side of caution and allways respect that notion unless the author has made it clear you dont have to.

You may not care if I fart or burp in the same room with you but the polite assumption is to not stink things up for others..

Im not saying what side of this debate is correct from my view only that we should respect one anothers positions in all things..

If we lean towards the side of caution and respect then things will be alot more pleasent arround here

And let me say this again Ive said it before If I have ever neglected to give someone here credit please inform me and I will promptly correct the situation.

have a pleasent day

that is all
Voldemort --signing off[U]

Rawn (RawArt), Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:00:24 -0400
well, with the topic of giving credit, one cannot always base it on the ideals of the original creator of the filter for the simple reason that more often than not we have no idea what the ideals of the original creator are. Also sometimes parts are borrowed from several different filters and all may have different intentions that way.
There is no way anyone can mandate how credit is given and who should be credited. Most people here are reasonable adults and as such can guage for themselves how and when to credit someone. Once a filter is uploaded here, like it or not, it becomes public domain (or at least domain of FF as a company, and they make it public). That is all part of the agreement we check off everytime we upload a filter.

A problem does arrise when some less than scrupulous people come in and simply change a setting here and there on an existing filter and then call it their own original creation. That is obviously wrong, but that would be up to FF control. Obviously FF cannot go through and compare every new filter to every filter on this site, that would be next to impossible. But perhaps a system can be set up so that if a certian person has been found to be doing such things repeatedly, then they can get a warnign and maybe a banning. But even that system can cause alot of headaches from people who have nothing better to do than complain.

I think the way that causes the least headaches is for people to simply accept that the filters become public domain when they are uploaded here, and let their ego have a rest. Some people may be nice enough to give credit if they feel it warranted, and others may not. Be happy for the ones that do, but if they dont...well, they dont, deal with it.

voldemort, Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:06:49 -0400

Quote
voldemort wrote: My personal opinion Is that I dont need credit or recognition for my work since I did it in good will to benefit and help people. On the other hand Im not an artist so I dont have much at risk

My point was simply to illustrate that respect and good ettiquite will make things more pleasent around here not to imply that anything should be policy--but Like I quoted my self --I have little to loose compared to some
In fact last count I think I had 16 high usage filters--no editores pics but still quite a few high usage ones. So in the regards of obtaining a free copy again I have little to loose. Some have more to loose then I do and so may feel and view things differently. Im just saying that maybe we should respect that as a general public conduct norm

StevieJ, Fri, 10 Aug 2007 13:19:47 -0400

Quote
voldemort wrote: My personal opinion Is that I dont need credit or recognition for my work since I did it in good will to benefit and help people. On the other hand Im not an artist so I dont have much at risk

Quote
voldemort wrote: You may not care if I fart or burp in the same room with you but the polite assumption is to not stink things up for others.. Im not saying what side of this debate is correct from my view only that we should respect one anothers positions in all things.. If we lean towards the side of caution and respect then things will be alot more pleasent arround here

Quote
voldemort wrote: respect and good ettiquite will make things more pleasent around here

I whole-heartedly agree with this!!! .....and very eloquently stated.....even with a 'fart' squeezed in there ;) :D LOL....

Quote
voldemort wrote: no editores pics

+2 .....but I haven't given up ;) :D

Quote
Rawn (RawArt) wrote: I think the way that causes the least headaches is for people to simply accept that the filters become public domain when they are uploaded here, and let their ego have a rest. Some people may be nice enough to give credit if they feel it warranted, and others may not. Be happy for the ones that do, but if they dont...well, they dont, deal with it.

Exactly!!! Personally, I think the answer is ridiculously simple.....if you think you might get bent if someone uses your filter without giving credit, then just don't submit it.....it's just that simple. With the exception of unscrupulous quick mods, all submitted filters become "fair game" to learn from, expound upon, improve upon, and use parts of towards making other filters.....which is exactly what this software is designed to do......and if you have a problem with it, this is not the place to be.....

Persidio, Sat, 11 Aug 2007 14:27:37 -0400
Life is full of irony... one of the joys of life I suppose~ :)

Since the 'intellectual rights' phrase is one I seemed to have started here recently I thought some of you might want to know how that came about.

Pure irony really... ;) Depends if you like to laugh when irony happens... so was thinking some might enjoy the chuckle...

The phrase was a word misuse error on several filter descriptions pages of mine. It was an error I saw and caught before one comment was made. However I felt that updating a filter for one phrase was not necessary and I would on new filters and updates correct the word misuse.

The new description is as such:

If you use this filter to create a filter please don't forget to give credit on your filter's description page. This goes for all my filters. Thanks.

I have web projects and filters to make so I will not be able to respond to posts but I thought some might enjoy the irony of how the phrase came about~ :D

Best wishes to all~ :) You just have to love the irony in life~ ;)

StevieJ, Sat, 11 Aug 2007 17:42:08 -0400

Quote
Persidio wrote: If you use this filter to create a filter please don't forget to give credit on your filter's description page. This goes for all my filters. Thanks.

I think that is an excellent way to say it.....asking for the common courtesy of giving you credit for your hard work!!! :) :) :)

Persidio, Sat, 11 Aug 2007 17:54:43 -0400
LOL

Was what I was trying to say. :D

Also... it's just asking... not saying it's policy.. never have said it's policy... which it is not... it's not against policy to ask either... yet anyway... :D

One thing I have learned in life... if you want something you have to ask. You don't always get what you want, never hurts to ask. (People flame when they don't like you, not because you asked). Back to HTML... gotta admit irony can be very funny... came up for air... going back in HTML... the HTML I'm doing can be done for any of the background tiles here... so I'd like to get this up today... FF filters make the best background tiles on the web, so I want to get this up for the users and other filter forge artists so they can copy it if they like. Over and Out... :D

Thanks Steve for your kind words~

Vivian C., Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:31:49 -0400
Very interesting thread and it answers half of a question I had. Turns out that I was thinking about submitting a filter last night (would be my first) that is only a slight modification to one created by Angelboii. I've been trying to figure out if that is allowed and how to credit if it is. I guess I can submit it later tonight with proper credit.

My second half question was about crediting final works created with user-created filters from FF. In my case, I'm using them to create texture files for use in Second Life. I mention that I use FF to create my textures in my profile, but is there a need to give some credit to the filter authors?

Thanks.

StevieJ, Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:44:52 -0400

Quote
Vivian C. wrote: only a slight modification to one created by Angelboii. I've been trying to figure out if that is allowed

Good choice on learning from Angelboiii's filters. Slight modifications to filters are frowned upon and usually get yanked.....because it is an enfringement upon the original author's work. I would suggest learning and emulating the concepts.....but create something that looks totally different from any existing filter :)

Giving credit is not required, but I think just about everyone here likes to see credit given where it is due......good carma :)

Vivian C., Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:03:22 -0400
It really is a slight change. I took out his background color control and added an alpha instead. Basically, It was intended to "scratch an itch" that I had for a filter. Maybe I'll just mention it to him (her?).

I am really more of a filter "user" than a "creator" but we'll see what happens.

StevieJ, Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:14:19 -0400

Quote
Vivian C. wrote: Maybe I'll just mention it to him (her?).

Good idea.....I've never seen anyone have a problem when given the courtesy of being approached and asked first about doing something like that :)

Persidio, Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:12:17 -0400

Quote
It really is a slight change.

Hi Vivian~ Why not a big change?

Quote
I am really more of a filter "user" than a "creator"

Oh okay~ Well in that case may I make a suggestion? You could post it in one of the forums here and ask for component suggestions? Choose a component to learn and start with inserting that component and adjusting it. ??? Trying to help~ :)

Don't forget the help files with pictures. Just thinking that you might find more personal satisfaction from creating something that has more of 'you' in it.

Quote
I've been trying to figure out if that is allowed and how to credit if it is.

Credit can be formal or informal~ ;) It's as easy as saying.. 'Thanks to Joe/Jane Smith for the use of their filter'. That's credit. Or ... 'I used parts of Johnny's 'running down the street' filter. Thanks John'. You are not obligated to give credit, it's just a nice thing to do.

You don't have to do it this way, just showing the way I do it. You can word it anyway you like.

And if you choose to be formal.. 'thanks to such and such for the gracious use of their 'midnight' filter'.

Quote
but we'll see what happens

Starting off with making filters that's the winning combination. Play around alittle, read the help files. Plug in different components and ... see what happens. Looking forward to seeing what you make.

onnetz, Sat, 25 Aug 2007 12:36:24 -0400
What about the idea of making filters readable but not editable? That way you could learn from it but couldnt change one thing and then rename it..
It wouldnt be that hard to implement on the gui end but you would have to encode the file itself.

StevieJ, Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:39:56 -0400

Quote
onnetz wrote: you would have to encode the file itself.

That's why FF won't do it.....would drastically slow down the filter....

Kraellin, Sat, 25 Aug 2007 15:52:06 -0400
you own the filters you create. that's stated in the filter submission agreement. you hold the copyright. however, BY SUBMITTING TO THE LIBRARY you are licensing to FF the right to publish and re-license to the end users, the right to do almost anything to those filters, including the presets, and including making derivative, protected works, and to alter the filters and re-submit these as your own.

the ONLY restriction FF puts on this is the right to pull those filters it deems to be of a spurious or negligible change to the original. in other words, if you change something fairly simple and re-submit this minor change as if it were your original work, FF has the right to pull that filter from the library or disallow it ever being entered.

legally, you NEVER have to give credit to anyone for using a portion or all of their filter(s) in yours. legally. ethically and socially, it is the right thing to do and there's a note about this in the wiki help pages.

if you do NOT submit your filter to the library you are still the copyright holder of that filter, just as you are when you submit to the library, and as such, may make and use your filters in any manner you wish, including publishing derivative works or even in selling your filter (good luck on that one :) ).

you also, per the submission license, have the right to request of FF that your submitted filter(s) be removed from the library and they will do this. but they retain the right to maintain an archival copy once you've submitted a filter to the libary, even if you ask them to pull it later.

NONE of what i've just said is legal and binding. this is just what i remember of the various licenses, eula's, wiki helps, blurbs on the FF web site and discussions with vladimir on the forums about this subject. so, DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR ANY OF THIS. READ the licenses!! GO LOOK THEM UP!

and my personal opinion about someone being upset with someone else 'ripping off their filter' is, USE THE CONTACT FORM and WRITE FF! ranting and flaming and blaming and whining on a public forum just makes life for all of us a grievous mess and frankly, we dont want to hear your accusations, accurate or not. send it to the folks that can actually DO something about it and keep the boards clean!

and again, in my opinion, the licensing FF is very smart and very generous. they maintain the engine as a protected piece of property. but, the SUBMITTED filters ACT (not that they actually are), but ACT as if they were open source, to a large degree. they arent open source, but that's the feel of it to me. and i like this. this is freedom and free exhange of ideas and creative talent. it promotes an exhange of ideas and creativity. and it's been working pretty damn well as evidenced by over 3000 filters being submitted.

so, encrypting the filters, 'locking' things so others cant use them and all of the other ideas i've seen for curtailing use by filter makers is, to me, wrong. FF's strength is this open source feel, this free exhange. it works.

that there are those that might want to gain a freebie copy by doing a quickie job of alteration on an already successful filter, yeah, that's going to happen. so, notify FF when you see this or suspect it. the folks at FF are far from naive. they'll recognize one of these when they see it, just like you did.

that there are folks that are going to use parts of other's created filters to make their own and not give any mention of this, yep, that's going to happen too; sometimes knowingly and unknowingly.

but there's also a limited number of components in the editor. when do you claim that someone borrowed your idea? where do you draw the line? i plug a threshold into a set alpha, you plug a threshold into a set alpha, is that 'borrowing'? so, where do you draw the line? see, there is concurrent creation also. i've seen this more than one time. someone in china creates something almost exactly the same as someone in europe and at almost the same time. but neither knew or had any contact with the other. it happens. the same can happen with filters.

now, from all this you may suspect that i ignore when i really do borrow someone's filter or a portion of it. i dont, at least not when i submit a filter with a borrowed routine in it. it costs me NOTHING to say 'and thanks to steviej. i borrowed a part of his Windex filter here.'. steve gets some applause, i get some applause, and everyone gets a new filter. if FF thinks i've done only a minor change, they can pull it. when i think it's only a minor change, i usually just post it on the forum rather than the libary, with the intent that steve can use it to update his filter, if he wants. again, everyone wins.

so, yes, it's polite to give credit where credit is due. but no, let's not start closing up the architecture of the FF filters to 'protect us from evil'. that's the wrong way to go. this world is built on 'borrowing' ideas. we see something, get an idea from it and make something new. you wouldnt be on the internet here discussing all this if someone hadnt 'borrowed' someone else's idea to build something new. we'd still be back in the stone age. the statement of 'standing on the shoulders of giants' is very apropo to FF and filter making. going all insular and paranoid just isnt very workable. you might as well shut FF down right now. this works because we DO share ideas.

and frankly, though voldemort doesnt ask for any credit, i say give him credit when you borrow something of his. he's more than due! ;)

StevieJ, Sun, 26 Aug 2007 01:17:29 -0400
Craig, could you be more specific ;) :D LOL..... Very good!!! :)

Quote
Kraellin wrote: i borrowed a part of his Windex filter

I don't remember doing a "Windex" filter.....I must be getting senile ;) :D

ahimsa, Sun, 26 Aug 2007 02:10:03 -0400

Quote
no editores pics +2 .....but I haven't given up

You can have mine

Carl, Sun, 26 Aug 2007 05:37:10 -0400

Quote
StevieJ wrote: usually get yanked.....

Have they :?:

Kraellin, Sun, 26 Aug 2007 10:19:17 -0400

Quote
I don't remember doing a "Windex" filter.....I must be getting senile

with all those glass filters and you havent done a 'windex' filter? i'm surprised :)

StevieJ, Sun, 26 Aug 2007 11:24:24 -0400

Quote
Kraellin wrote: you havent done a 'windex' filter?

:devil: LOL.....

SpaceRay, Mon, 17 Jun 2013 04:35:12 -0400
I have just found this and can be maybe useful to some users

My First Filter Is Up In The Library!

Bill Roach — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 04:19:14 -0400

Bill Roach, Sat, 15 Jun 2013 15:18:50 -0400
It's called "Mayan Metropolis" - and yeah - I think it's kinda lame, but it's a start, lol ;)

My First Filter

Mardar, Sat, 15 Jun 2013 17:16:12 -0400
Good for you Bill. Hey we all had to start somewhere so don't worry as long as you are creating that is the main thing. I think all my filters are lame. LOL But someone uses some of them and that makes me happy. ;) I just checked and you have 40 download, not a bad start for a newbie. ;)

Bill Roach, Sat, 15 Jun 2013 20:41:10 -0400
Thanks Mardar,

I would like to do some image effects stuff since that seems to be the most popular, but I need to get the hang of learning all of the components. That - and I have very little experience with node based apps.

Skybase, Sat, 15 Jun 2013 21:22:43 -0400
First of all hello! And that's some great news :)

As a small tip: The key with FilterForge also stems from understanding basic image manipulation techniques. If you understand base methods in those programs, then you can emulate them in FilterForge and vice versa. In a lot of cases I guess node base programmers throw people off because variables can be used again and again. Basically thinking "Oh I can use this base element over and over" is the key to understanding programs like these.

And one last thing: once you get comfortable with FilterForge, you can really move on to other nodey programs out there! With an exception of a couple nodes a lot of things in FilterForge is readily available in other programs. If the structure is basic enough, you have a chance of translating the structure to other programs by simply copying stuff. So there's a lot of opportunity. :)

Good luck and have fun.

CFandM, Sat, 15 Jun 2013 22:30:39 -0400
Welcome Bill...You got one of the hardest parts down...That is just digging in and making a filter..... :)

SpaceRay, Mon, 17 Jun 2013 02:15:51 -0400
Welcome and Hello Bill, and as congratulations on deciding to take the step from using to making filters and decide to begin learning how you can build your own filters and if wanted share them on the online library or here in the forum.

SpaceRay, Mon, 17 Jun 2013 04:19:14 -0400
I have made this new thread for you and for all the new users of filter forge that want to learn how to make their own filters

Guide to new Beginner´s LEARNING making FF filters and tutorials

What makes Filter Forge the BEST filter maker that you can find now?

SpaceRay — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 02:24:17 -0400

SpaceRay, Sun, 25 Mar 2012 10:04:58 -0400
What makes Filter Forge (FF) the BEST filter maker that you can find right now ?

2 things:

1 - USER FRIENDLY WAY - The good and well done Visual Node Based System inside the Filter editor versus the scripting and programming environment of other software.

2 - FF FORUM - The Great Filter Forge Forum that have so many wonderful and kind persons that want and will help you with the possibles questions you may have about making them.

Fr om my own taste and opinion, Filter Forge is MUCH BETTER from the developer of filters point of view, there is NO other software available now, that makes it as easier and very well done as the FF node based system, even better than Genetica and SubstanceDesigner that are from my experience more complex and not so intuitive and so good than FF can be.

And of Course FF is WAY MUCH BETTER than either Pixel bender and Filter Meister for developing and building filters as this are based on scripting and programming environment

Although FF is not perfect at all and has some problems and needs more things and could be even better, as it is now is still very good.

Quote

Quote
GMM wrote: you can take a look at FilterMeister and compare 'user friendliness' of filter creation in FilterMeister and Filter Forge.

Vladimir Golovin wrote here
comparing FF and FM is a bit like comparing apples and oranges (a scripting environment and a node-based system). Obviously, a visual editor is more user-friendly than a script-based toolkit

For me personally is REALLY very difficult to learn to make a filter inside a scripting and programming environment, and even if I could do it, is not fun at all, and not a think that I like, because it is much better to do it in a VISUAL way than with coding and scripting

This why also I will surely never learn to use LUA for making FF filters.

As Ronviers said below very well "coding just isn't for my brain" :D and also totally agree with Carl on this

I'm a visual person and don't know how you can translate or work out something you can't see and wouldn't know wh ere to start

Quote

Carl wrote here

Quote
ronviers wrote: Are you embracing lua?

no, I'm a visual person and don't know how you can translate or work out something you can't see and wouldn't know wh ere to start ........ I guess my filter will suffer and never be EP's and my contribution to shared knowledge will become redundant ........ I know wrong answer but truthful, coding just isn't for my brain

how are you going with it?

and in the same thread

Quote

Quote
Carl wrote: don't know how you can translate or work out something you can't see

Quote
ronviers wrote: If I can't see it, I can't work it out. Even when I can imagine it clearly, I can only work it out with code in tiny steps. Anyway, I can get by in mel and I am learning to get by in python, but coding is not fun for me, and my enthusiasm for learning another language has waned. Things change, I will do what I need to do. But right now, I do not see lua happening.

An continue in the same thread

Quote
Carl wrote: oh LOL I wasn't expecting that, I thought with your skill base it would be easy for you. The best thing for me with FF was that it wasn't coding like filter Meister or such, I wonder if the the general user will learn lua

And Agree also with Totte that is much faster to learn how to make filters in FF than in any other software I have personally used

Quote
Totte wrote in the same thread: It took me about 4 minutes to make my first filter after I've downloaded FF, and ok, it wasn't a top notch filter, would never have gotten either HU or EP, but it was very easy to just get going.

I also agree much with the good text Morgantao have under his name "can´t script" :D

SpaceRay, Tue, 27 Mar 2012 02:30:39 -0400
I found this question here

Quote
Visual Node-Based 8bf Plug-in Creator? I was wondering if there is a visual node-based program out there (similar to Filter Forge's filter editor) that will allow me to create 8bf plug-ins?

ALSO here in the Adobe Forumswithout any answer

And the same also in this other photoshop forumand here too

And what is interesting about this is that in google searching for this even more it shows in the first examples from wikipedia

Filter Forge allows its users to build their own filters – seamless textures, visual effects, distortions, patterns, backgrounds, frames, and more. The key features of Filter Forge include a visual filter editor and a free online library of user-created filters.
:D

SO this is the best answer for the above questions :) Use filter forge if you do not like to use a scripting language and programming.

SpaceRay, Mon, 17 Jun 2013 02:24:17 -0400
Thanks to Skybase suggestion I have tried the new Node based app called Nodewerk from the very famous Aviary company, but although it seems to be very good and can do perhaps even more things than filter forge, I think that for beginners is not as easy to use and learn than filter forge that has a more clear filter editor and better interface and the easier way the image input is done.

Maybe I am doing it wrong as I have just had a very basic try at nodewerk, but while I see more about it I still prefer FF.

Violation of my rights

Ghislaine — Sun, 16 Jun 2013 22:22:15 -0400

Ghislaine, Wed, 05 Jun 2013 19:23:27 -0400
I'm asking to Filterforge if he knows a person called Piotr Siedlecki ?

I was searching on the web for the word spirogramme. But I was so surprised and very angry to see my own images created by me with my own filters on this website :

http://publicdomainpictures.net

Few of my creations are on this website without my permission. My work is Under CreativeCummonsCanada and the licence for all my images do not give the right to others to put my stuff under public domain. This guy mentioned above that my images are by him. It is a violation of my rights.

Go on this website and search for these words "spirogramme" and "cœur" and you will recognize my creations.

Is this Piotr S... is a FF member ? If yes, I will understand that he loves my filters and the variations coming with and he put on this publicdomain the images from my filters. But I just need to know if he is a member of FF or not ??? This will make the difference.

If this person is not a FF member, can FF explains me why this happens ? And who is Piotr S... ?

I will not put my new filters here anymore. And now you know why. Sorry for you, guys, but sure that you will understand me.

Casual Pixels, Wed, 05 Jun 2013 21:15:37 -0400

Quote
If this person is not a FF member, can FF explains me why this happens ? And who is Piotr S... ?

You can ask him yourself. If you follow the "Buy Piotr A Coffee" link, you'll see an email address associated with the PayPal account he's hoping people contribute to.

Also, I would definitely suggest you contact the administrators of the site and let them know that Piotr is passing off other's copyrighted work as his own.

Public Domain Pictures Contact Us Form

CFandM, Wed, 05 Jun 2013 22:54:05 -0400
This type of situation has been discussed many many times here...Sorry you had to be part of the club Ghislaine.. :| :cry:
If they are the images that you posted in the fourm then you might have something ...But if its from a filter then possible not... :|
Basically when you submit (from what I have always understood) a filter you give up the results of that filter and those images produced are under the FF EULA.....
However if you give a filter away on your own site then that is a different story as well...You can control what that result is used for......

As I mentioned this has been discussed to no end already in other threads...
btw just in the first and second year of FF there was a website that had nothing but FF results for lots of money in a bundle and on CD.....Myself I had no issue with this except there was no mention of FF at all....Nor Filter Authors.. :evil:

Skybase, Wed, 05 Jun 2013 23:01:48 -0400
[Warning: long reading ahead]
We kinda had quite a tremendous amount of discussion about "direct-sales" of results fr om filters. You can read them... well all throughout FilterForge if you'd like to dig up stuff from 2008! But in simple terms: the images derived from a filter by a 3rd party is basically their image to use and modify whether that'd be commercial or non-commercial, while the filter remains under your right to own and modify.

I've read through some of your descriptions and they don't state CC explicitly meaning these filters are probably under normal copyright governed by what you agreed on when you uploaded filters to the library. I also don't think CC can be applied to the filters provided this is a special case wh ere the library has to be maintained with a single license otherwise it'd be very uncomfortable for those who host your filter. It can also be interpreted that even with CC rights on a filter, it's the filter that's being protected, but not the output of the filter. (This otherwise creates another conflict with rights of 3rd party users who are using it for "legitimate" reasons.) (Please do also note I may be saying very faulty things here! I'm not an intellectual property lawyer. I'm deducing mostly from my past experiences with CC and legal reading.)

Personal Opinions and Thoughts on This Matter:
I do understand your feelings as the same artist/author of filters and otherwise. However, it should be noted... in the general public eye who don't really care about rights and otherwise... everything's "up for grabs." This is assumed behavior, but nonetheless it has happened and it will happen anyway without us artists knowing about it and it easily becomes a cat and mouse game of hunting images down which is detrimental to the time and resources.

In my philosophy, I typically decide early on that "this filter" will be a public filter for everybody to use and enjoy. I basically just prepare the filter to be made for public usage, enjoyment, as well as for educational experiences. This goes for all 60 filters. I also release more image-based filters because of issues like you've had. Image based filters require user image input. That kinda adds a bit of flavor from somebody else which I want to see. I basically work with legal terms.

Summary:
I don't mean to leave you with aggravating feelings and I certainly hope I haven't left you feeling upset, I really don't intend on causing stirs.

I really don't like people who just blatantly upload renders. It sucks seeing them really, especially for profit. I'm pretty much on your side, but we can't dismiss what the library has to entail legally. As authors, we do have to remind ourselves how the public interprets "usage" and "rights" as well as discussions like these. I do hope blatant stock-image renders stop, but it is also the reality that it can't be stopped entirely provided the current conditions. In some ways, we might have to work with the way people behave.

I hope this clarifies something about intellectual property in general. It's very complicated and I myself have a lot to understand from it.

If there's anything wrong with any of the statements above factually, let the discussions correct or clarify that. ;)

Ghislaine, Wed, 05 Jun 2013 23:09:48 -0400

Quote
Also, I would definitely suggest you contact the administrators of the site and let them know that Piotr is passing off other's copyrighted work as his own.

That is what i did already 3 weeks ago but my email stills without reply.

CFandM, Wed, 05 Jun 2013 23:42:47 -0400
Well there is a post made by jffe in one of those "copyrights" threads about posting in a guerrilla fashion....Just render some of the results from your filter (the same filter) and post them on that site but with links back to your filter and FF..;) :)

Ghislaine, Wed, 05 Jun 2013 23:48:48 -0400
Thank you Skybase. Your words do not shock me, but make me think about some things.

Thieves, it's everywhere. As moderator of forums, I often intervene and remove sites that violate our rules.

Worse, a day like this, I type my name in google search to discover that one of my books that I wrote can be found published by another publishing house and in another country.

To return to my filters, and even the images published in the forum,
I can understand that they become public. On the other hand, our softwares sometimes pays the price in order to create when one is an artist at heart,
but also with the intention to earn money with our creations. I put almost all my filters (in images and descriptions) on my website to show all my graphics are from my filters and that people could get them through Filterforge. This is free advertising for FF. Finally, what we harvest work? And what about the money invested in software whose profits do not go to the authors but to anyone! That's what's shocking.

I'll remember this lesson and I will do things differently. This makes me sad not to be able to share with you my future works.

Sorry for my English...

It is a good idea CF. Thanks !

Mardar, Thu, 06 Jun 2013 00:00:11 -0400
He has some of my flower frames up there too, but I also understood when I submitted my filters here that I pretty much gave up any claim to them. It is nice if someone gives credit to the filter builder, but very few people do it. It is sad, but it is the way this whole thing works. :( I decided when I first started submitting filters that I had to let them go. Ones I didn't want to share I never submitted.

Ghislaine, Thu, 06 Jun 2013 00:39:40 -0400
We can not sell our own filters and it is deplorable. The fact is that we can not even rely on the sale of our creations because someone will take them and give them free on its website. In fact, it is unfair and disrespectful of the fundamental and inalienable rights. It's disheartening.

I thing that I'm better continue to create my 3d animated screensavers. Because they have to pay to get it. They can not take without paying.

So, Mardar, I'm sorry that this guy took also your work. As you said, I will keep for me my work and be sure that creations from my next filters will be in exclusivity. And I will not forget to put a mark on all my graphics.

SpaceRay, Thu, 06 Jun 2013 05:46:25 -0400
deleted

SpaceRay, Thu, 06 Jun 2013 07:14:42 -0400

Quote
Go on this website and search for these words "spirogramme" and "cœur" and you will recognize my creations.

When searching for this words in that website it seems that now there is no results, so perhaps they have removed the images, or I have done it wrongly

Quote
GMM wrote If you download filters from the Filter Library and render textures using these filters, the respective filter authors will own the copyright for the filter files, and the end user holds the copyright for the final images

Quote
Skybase In simple terms: the images derived from a filter by a 3rd party is basically their image to use and modify whether that'd be commercial or non-commercial, while the filter remains under your right to own and modify.

As I explain below I think is bad that ANY output from ANY filter will be owned by the person that will render the result and the author will not have any right over it and is only up to the person to give credit for it.

I think that to avoid feeling bad as Ghislaine that someone could steal your work I follow Skybase suggestion

Quote
Skybase I also release more image-based filters because of issues like you've had. Image based filters require user image input. That kinda adds a bit of flavor from somebody else which I want to see.

Yes, in this way I agree that the result copyright belongs to the end user as the images used for the filter will be his/her own and so it involves some work form the FF user.

----------------------------------------------
I am sorry for you Ghislaine and that this person has done this to you, but it seems that according to the Filter Forge legal rules, it is allowed that anyone can use the results of any filter for personal or commercial use AND even they can sell it as it is without any modification (just the render out of the filter) and so they get a profit from others people work when the author of the filter does not get nothing for his work

I think is very bad that FF Inc. allows to sell the results of filters and that people may have profits from the work of others without doing nothing else than render the result, and the author that have spent works on learning FF and making the filter does not get nothing.

SpaceRay, Thu, 06 Jun 2013 07:15:22 -0400
And is even worse, that they tell that this is THEIR OWN WORK and they have worked hard to make them :( :evil: or lie about how they made it

For example you can see here this product for sale that clearly is also a violation of rights to the Volcanic Ash by Elentor

And for me what is even more worse is that, not only they do not give any credit to the author or the source of the textures, they also LIE much in how they have done it !! :evil:

Quote
On the link given above you can read With several years in the commercial game texture industry, many of our texture collections are made from photographs from our own stock site and edited in Photoshop. Original photographs taken with a professional SLR digital camera and hand edited in Photoshop CS4. Lots of time and attention was spent on the seamless detailing

How they can lie in this way? So they really went to a real volcano during an eruption and risked their lives to be able to make photos with a professional SLR to get this images???? :?: AND they spent lots of time making the seamless tiling ??? :?: When all this is not true at all and all they have done really is sit in the computer with filter forge and use the Volcano Ash filter choose some preset or modify settings and click on the seamless tiling checkbox and that is all they have worked for it. :evil:

I have sent an email twice to the company and have not had any answer yet

------------------------------

And this is not the only one, I also found in another place someone that was selling also some renders of this same volcanish ash filter and he was saying that he was very proud of what he had made, and then I commented that he DID NOT make them and it was not his original work, and then he got angry with me and said that I was lying and I wanted to go against him and more bad things, when I knew for sure that this textures have been done with FF as one of the them was the first preset of the filter.

Now I have seen that this is not available anymore, so I can´t show it.

SpaceRay, Thu, 06 Jun 2013 07:15:43 -0400
I have this answer in 3 posts as the forum did not allow to put all into only one, so please if you see this post, see also the other 2 above this one, thanks

Quote
CFandM This type of situation has been discussed many many times here...Sorry you had to be part of the club Ghislaine..

LIST OF THREADS I HAVE FOUND

"All your filter are belong to someone else!"

This thread above has already 10 pages of comments!

Claiming "created by"

"I just can't get no respect ..."

Second Life "merchant" may have your textures

Use Of Filters?

More questions on legal uses of FF output?

This thread above is the latest one that is from June 2013

Usage of copyrighted photos, and about Copyright and/or Royalty free

On this link above there are a lots of links about copyright and image rights

is this allowed?

Copyright Infringement?

Can you license someone's filter's outcome?

Is it ok to use Filter Forge filters from this site in ads?

Copyright Question...Sorry if this is redundant

How can i use filter forge textures

Skybase, Thu, 06 Jun 2013 09:10:09 -0400

Quote
I have sent an email twice to the company and have not had any answer yet

SpaceRay, I don't mean to pick on you but what did you send?

Quote
I think is very bad that FF Inc. allows to sell the results of filters and that people may have profits fr om the work of others without doing nothing else than render the result, and the author that have spent works on learning FF and making the filter does not get nothing.

What's FilterForge got to do with this? It's not their fault at all. FilterForge makes the software and in legal views rendering and selling is a perfectly valid usage of the software. It's not under the company's jurisdiction to govern what comes out of the program. The "program" is what is being "used" here not the "work of art" by user. You paid for the rights to use the software, not the rights to use somebody else's filter. So is the company going to write "no selling of direct renders on stock websites" or something along the lines? No way that's happening. There are too many vague terms. And I've never seen a software company do that ever. That's just wrong.

This issue is an ethical and moral issue and while it can be solved by law, there's little law can do for you since there are so many gray zones. At the point we're posting any form of creative idea online, as authors we're very susceptible to people just taking our work regardless of how we protect our intellectual property. Even watermarks are ignored in some cases.

Once again, correct me if I'm wrong. I'm saying this out of my experiences and I don't provide legal advice. All I say is what I understand.

Addendum: Oh oh and also as a extra note... SpaceRay, you have a lot of idealism going on!

Quote
As I explain below I think is bad that ANY output from ANY filter will be owned by the person that will render the result and the author will not have any right over it and is only up to the person to give credit for it.

On legal grounds, it can be very itchy. I can tell you as an author to credit me in every single picture as a "contributor". I can even go as far to say "I don't like the way you credited me, remove all the pictures, I'm also making you pay for the damages you've caused on my reputation." Yes yes... extreme extreme but it seems troubling to me that somebody should own the output of what's available publicly to be used. It's like Adobe asking you to slap down "Powered by Adobe" on every image you make out of Photoshop. Sure, the stakes are different... Adobe is paid and we aren't, but I think you can see the absurdity of what can happen with it.

Closing notes:
So you know... there are a ton of ways of dealing with the situation. It's a very gray zone discussion... and sometimes the legal documentation actually doesn't help us. What approach you want to take to solve the issue is your choice.

In the end people should think about putting stuff for the public to enjoy. You can't expect everybody to be a good citizen and there are consequences for putting your work in public. You have to think things through especially with things like filters wh ere you're giving "attribute" to change and to be outputted as a "result". I've personally removed chunks of features from filters so I can have something for myself that's different from what other people may make! :) But again, there are lots of ways of thinking things through.

Sorry folks... it's a lot of writing I've done. I hate long forum posts myself and I've done it yet again. I've had experiences like this and I thought I'd just share my understanding of the situation. Thanks. Hope this doesn't bother anybody. ;)

Mardar, Thu, 06 Jun 2013 11:25:12 -0400
Gigi, I'm not upset at him using my filter. Just sad he didn't give credit but I have learned to just let this kind of thing go. I understood the agreement with filter forge when I submitted my filters. (Yes I'm one of those geeky people that actually reads the fine print. LOL)So I knew that other users could make renderings with my filters and sell or give those renders away. I agree with Skybase too that it is not Filter Forges fault. They have always been up front about the terms. Really the only filters we "own" are the ones we make and do not share. Now, having said that, it is completely a different issue if some one lifts an image directly from your website and claims it as their own. I had that problem with Ebay users taking images of my craft items from my website and selling them. I got several of them shut down, but I can't stop it all. It's a sad truth about the internet. :(

Mardar, Thu, 06 Jun 2013 11:51:59 -0400
Spaceray here is a link to one of the images from this guy. I see he did add that it is rendered in a paid FF 3 program, but he didn't add it to his other renders. Click on his name and you can see all his images.

http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/v...-spirogram

Ghislaine, Thu, 06 Jun 2013 12:10:57 -0400
Public Domain Pictures - Free Stock Photos
www.publicdomainpictures.net
PublicDomainPictures.net is a repository for free public domain images...

If Piotr Siedlecki is not a member of FF, I think I know what could have happened. Either it is entered on the page filters in the library FF or it went on my pages of filters by clicking on my name. Then he took the variations shown in the library and has the appropriate as his own and he has changed colors for 2 of them. He did not take these pictures on my site because they are not there. The colors he got on his public domain website are those on the FF library for the heart and for one of my spirograms.

Go see http://gisoft.t15.org and see yourself, the same heart that he took is not on my website. So he has taken it in the library filters Filterforge.

http://www.filterforge.com/filters/10305.html -- GF Heart Generator filter v2
http://www.filterforge.com/filters/10626.html -- GF Spirograms Generator v3 as is
http://www.filterforge.com/filters/10722.html -- GF Spiro Generator v10
http://www.filterforge.com/filters/10759.html -- GF Spirowires Maker

Look on his website, he says: Royalty free stock photos. All pictures are free for commercial and personal use. Is this is written on FF filter library page?

I saw the Filter Forge Terms of Use. If you are a user of filterforge, you get somes rights, but if you are not a user, and take stuff on FF, EACH page of FF is copyrighted. So this guy is not Supposed to use our stuff.

He did not take these images on my website because I did not add these images, few are on my website but not with the same colors. The colors he got on his public domain website are those on the FF library and he has changed few.

And why do not watermark our FF default and our others 7 variations on the filter's library to protect our work?

So, SR, my FF stuff stills on his website.

Look : I just take these images

Ghislaine, Thu, 06 Jun 2013 12:15:56 -0400
And this one

Ghislaine, Thu, 06 Jun 2013 12:16:42 -0400
Here a last one

Ghislaine, Thu, 06 Jun 2013 12:26:23 -0400
I forget this one

Mardar, Thu, 06 Jun 2013 12:36:40 -0400
Gigi I don't think these were taken from the FF site because they are too large. they are all 3000x3000 pixels in size. FF does not have them rendered that large on the site. So I think he just was to lazy to hit the variation button and make a different image from what came with the filter. The only thing he did was render to a larger format and just used your preset instead of making some tweaks to them.

Skybase, Thu, 06 Jun 2013 12:39:39 -0400
Ghislaine, before we jump to conclusions I want to point out that these image resolutions he's posting are higher than that of what's presented on the FilterForge filter page. The filter pages have previews at 600x600. However the posts are 2000x2000px or 3000x3000px and higher. Suggests the man in question here is rendering the output himself. (Madar said it already)

Quote
And why do not watermark our FF default and our others 7 variations on the filter's library to protect our work?

Remember: FilterForge is a piece of software. The creators of the program don't govern your creations and output. They govern the software. As much as I understand your feelings, they don't have the power to enforce restrictive measures on what you submit on your behalf. And even if they should, it'll only encourage people to download and render presets at a higher resolution.

I hope I'm understanding you correctly here.

I understand you're going through a lot of disagreeable stuff here, but we must stay with the facts and evidence. There are proper ways of solving the situation and it doesn't come easy.

Ghislaine, Thu, 06 Jun 2013 13:07:56 -0400
Suppose that I'm not a user, I come here and save the heart on my pc, and with one of my softwares, I create a larger resolution of the heart. And I have just to add this hires on my website. That is probably what the guy did. I know that the res is 600x600 on FF. But as said, it is very easy to enlarge an image.

Skybase, Thu, 06 Jun 2013 13:20:05 -0400
Ghislaine... I'm so sorry... I just don't mean to be the guy here who keeps giving the bad news... I really don't like to be the person who disappoints you (and anybody else) but even with dedicated software, enlarging a 600x600 image won't result in something as high resolution as this: http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/v...am&large=1

In my professional carrier as an technical artist, I don't think this was enlarged at all.

Also, this man also writes in his description: "Beautiful simple wire spirogram created using paid Filter Forge 3" I don't think he's lying....

Indigo Ray, Thu, 06 Jun 2013 13:44:06 -0400
I am not an artist (I don't sell and exhibit art), and I submit filters for 2 reasons:

1. My filters help advertise FF, so FF Inc. can make money, so they can continue developing their awesome program for you and me and others to enjoy.
2. If no one uses my filters, then they are a waste, and I'm not very good at using them, but others may be.

Now, Piotr and many others aren't very good at using them either. But there's no way our filters are putting bread on the tables of these lazy oafs that just click "save image". Come on, you know you can do much better! No need to feel threatened!

Of course, there are also some true artists who use our submitted filters in ingenious ways. Just look at the FF gallery, or the FF facebook page, or search "filter forge" in deviantart, etc...

Make a decision: Keep quality filters for yourself and use them, or submit them for others to use. Or both.

Mardar, Thu, 06 Jun 2013 16:05:10 -0400
Gigi I know you are upset about this whole thing, but as Skybase said you can not enlarge a small jpg image and make it look like the one on his site. He has a FF program and just was to lazy or unimaginative to know how to make it his own. He also is giving his images away so he isn't making any money from them. I hope you continue to share your filters because you make some very unique and beautiful things, but if this issue really bothers you so much, then maybe you need to keep your filter private. I hope you continue to stay as I will miss you on here very much. :(

Cierra, Thu, 06 Jun 2013 16:37:33 -0400
A simple solution to prevent people from downloading the preset examples on the FF website, and then selling or giving them away as their own, is to have a watermark over the image. I don't understand why FF has never done this. The images on the website should be protected. The preset would still be available for anyone that has FF to do whatever they want with it, but would require that the person has at least taken the time to download FF.

Vladimir Golovin, Fri, 07 Jun 2013 04:20:38 -0400
<CEO hat on>

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, so my text below can't be considered qualified legal advice.

Quote
I'm asking to Filterforge if he knows a person called Piotr Siedlecki?

No, he is not affiliated with Filter Forge, Inc. in any way.

Quote
Few of my creations are on this website without my permission. My work is Under CreativeCummonsCanada and the licence for all my images do not give the right to others to put my stuff under public domain. This guy mentioned above that my images are by him. It is a violation of my rights.

According to our Terms of Use, "You retain all of your ownership rights, including but not limited to Copyright, in your User Submissions." "You" means Ghislaine. Further in the TOS, you give us (but not Piotr) some additional rights that are necessary for us for displaying user submissions on the site etc. Also, the Upload License Agreement (shown in Submit Wizard) explicitly mentions that you retain the copyright to your filters.

IMO, the best course of action would be to contact http://publicdomainpictures.net and ask to remove these pictures.

<CEO hat off>

Skybase, Fri, 07 Jun 2013 04:42:44 -0400
Well... I figure just writing a letter would be really the only way of contact.

Ghislaine, Fri, 07 Jun 2013 09:48:01 -0400
Thanks Vlad ! This is now clear for me and also for everyone here. ;)

I will contact this person today for what you said. Plus, I will give to him this page link, so he will see by himself what is going on.

Mardar, you can do the same for the pictures that Piort took to you without permission.

Now I can see the light in this tunnel LOL :)

I think that I'm feeling much better since you came here to write this Vlad. Thanks again. We has needed your kind intervention.

Skybase, Fri, 07 Jun 2013 09:53:10 -0400
[Deleted original]

Alright, seems like stuff's moving in some direction.... BUT I only hope you've read what I had to say about this guy, especially the last couple posts. I worry that we're actually framing somebody who innocently uses FilterForge just like we do. I have very deep doubts about many things regarding this case. It's kinda got some worrying remarks about usage of a filter. The more I looked into it, the more it just seemed like a guy just rendering images from filterforge for fun. They weren't put on sale at all, they were "public domain." Either way, I'm just simply left with doubts regarding the ownership of renders.

If authors of filters basically started claiming rights or some form of authorship to rendered outputs, I can't use FilterForge ever for any commercial or non-commercial instance. I know this isn't the case, but the judgements here appear that way. Even if I credit people, I still fear that somebody would ask for compensation for use of a filter. Sure, this isn't the case... but there's something here, in this thread that entails this notion which I feel concerned for.

Please do note me if I'm reading it too deeply. But I assure you, I've been following this thread very thoroughly.

But anyway! Well I'm glad something moved along here! :) Hope it works out for you at least. :D Goodluck Gigi!

Ghislaine, Fri, 07 Jun 2013 11:29:20 -0400
I wrote to the administrator of publicdomainpictures.net. I invited him to come here to read this thread, my filters link page and also my website link.

Before, I saw all pictures of Piotr S... and I have recognized a lot of your work overthere guys ! He has put 16 images from my work. Now I know how he proceed : he changes color or our images, the size, etc...

I do not know if this administrator will reply or will delete my images. I will let you know anyway.

Skybase, Fri, 07 Jun 2013 11:47:02 -0400
Ghislaine, I know you're convinced but have you read Mardar and my messages posted around: June 6, 2013 1:20 pm and 4:05 pm? I am thoroughly convinced, provided 2 pieces of evidence, he more likely rendered images using FilterForge and not taken from this website. That is my objective understanding and also what I see. If I happen to be wrong on this, I'll just take down my case, but I'm simply not convinced that he processed preset renders from this website as you claim.

I know I'm stressing you over this. I know I've left you a bunch of disagreeable messages, but please do be very careful with it all. Don't get me wrong, I'm against image theft, but we also have to take things objectively especially when we're dealing with sensitive issues. I'm glad you least emailed the administrator. I hope it all goes well for you.

Ghislaine, Fri, 07 Jun 2013 18:23:10 -0400
The subject is closed. The admin of publicdomain..., a kind gentleman, has removed all my images.

SpaceRay, Sun, 09 Jun 2013 16:23:47 -0400

Quote
Ghislaine The subject is closed. The admin of publicdomain..., a kind gentleman, has removed all my images.

Good news!! nice to know this has a happy ending, and it was the good thing to do and let them know about it, and they did recognize it and have removed the images.

Thanks to Skybase for all the very good, clever and well done thoughts shown in this thread, specially after my 3 posts, showing very good reasons and good words, that I agree with him totally I like the way you think and is good and like much to read the things you write and have good common sense and wit.

Quote
Skybase SpaceRay, I don't mean to pick on you but what did you send?

Well, I sent them an email telling that the authors are lying when they say that THEY have made the volcanic textures AND that they were taken with their own SLR camera, as all these shown photos have NOT been done with a camera, and are from the a filter from the filter forge software and is obvious and very easy to spot that both are the same.

And I did not say that they should remove the product, what I said is to remove the wrong text that this not true at all.

I think is very bad that FF Inc. allows to sell the results of filters and that people may have profits fr om the work of others without doing nothing else than render the result, and the author that have spent works on learning FF and making the filter does not get nothing.

Quote
Mardar Spaceray here is a link to one of the images from this guy

Quote
Ghislaine So, SR, my FF stuff stills on his website

Thanks, and sorry that I do not find them when searching, by the way, now the link have changed to a hot chilli pepper ;) :D so this is a hot and spicy topic ;) :D

Quote
Ghislaine He did not take these pictures on my site because they are not there. The colors he got on his public domain website are those on the FF library for the heart and for one of my spirograms

As already has been said above, I do not think at all that he has taken the image straight and directly from the FF website and the FF library, because all these are only 600x600 images and even if you resize them you would have a bad quality, and I think that what he did is to have a FF licence and have rendered in high resolution the SAME preset that is found on the FF website.

Quote
Ghislaine And why do not watermark our FF default and our others 7 variations on the filter's library to protect our work?

I think that this would be silly to have, as all these are 600x600 images and I do not think that anybody would want to download these low resolution images to do something useful with them, and even more considering that they could download a free trial and have them for free in high resolution downloading the same filter. And that is said in the agreement submission that you allow to put these images in the FF website.

Mardar, Mon, 10 Jun 2013 13:57:45 -0400
Gigi glad you got this settled. ;)

SpaceRay said

Quote
I think is very bad that FF Inc. allows to sell the results of filters and that people may have profits fr om the work of others without doing nothing else than render the result, and the author that have spent works on learning FF and making the filter does not get nothing.

DUH!!! That is the whole point. I download a filter, I render a new image, it is mine to do with as I please. How hard is that to understand? Gigi was upset because her PRESETS were being offered. We all can make a profit off any of the renders we make in any of the filters in the library, as long as we don't just use the presets which are part of the original filter and belong to the filter author. Understand? Sheesh I'm in a grumpy mood today. :evil:

Skybase, Mon, 10 Jun 2013 14:29:59 -0400
yeah... I mean, I only hope Ghislaine's ok with what I've been yapping all along. I really honestly feel bad pressing issues right up, and towards the end, I never got responses. I wouldn't know what exactly happened but all I can really say is that I'm sorry if I were too blatant.

I've been muddling in the creative industry for several years now and I've seen my fellow artists as well as myself get frustrating scars dealing rights. But I'm cautious and careful regardless, this is my attitude and my professional facade I wear. I hate hurting others and I prefer to work out deals. It turns out a lot of people are willing, they just didn't know what to do. But that's my experience living as an artist in this formidable world and I don't mean to press that philosophy any further into anybody.

One of the last things any artist wants to experience is seeing copyright get played with. About 3 months ago I signed off some of my rights to a company making games. Instead, they began claiming it was all theirs, and that I had no rights to them. I asked if I could display them in my portfolio and they responded no. I spent around 80+ hours working on several different assets and I lost all what I can say about them. I have the files, but I can't display them. I can't talk about them specifically. I can't even claim them. At this rate I fear they won't credit me. I only got paid half the amount of what normal studios paid. In my short living memory, that was the worst situation I ever ran into. One day I'll have to stomp on them and ask for everything back but I as far as I researched, the law isn't on my side. It's become a "moral obligation" gray-zone thing.

This whole thread kinda reminds me of that bitter feeling, where it's a constant struggle dealing with rights and those who abuse them.

Of course on FilterForge the whole story's different. The fact that we're uploading filters to be enjoyed by others is already a giant thing to consider. Authors should least be careful what they give away and should expect consequences. And let it be understood that nobody is on the same page with anybody. You can only assume certain levels of trust.

McGyver, Sun, 16 Jun 2013 13:47:54 -0400
I'm sorry to see Ghislaine stop posting filters... they are a great asset to the Filter Forge Library and all quite beautiful.

Before I write anything else, I want to point out what I am musing about is not directly about Ghislaine's situation and only in regards to my personal experience/feelings...
Like Skybase I have mixed feelings about the creativity game... For many years I've been making things both as physical prototypes and as virtual 3D models (3D stuff being more recent) and I have seen amazing feats of audacity in regards to individuals having their ideals and work stolen and those who take credit for the work of others... I hate thieves and those talentless trolls who plagiarize the work of others... In a couple of cases where I've noticed others plagiarizing someone's work I've gone out of my way to alert the actual artist/creator of the theft and see that the stolen items removed fr om the sites.
It just plain bothers me.

That having been said, I often find it quite confusing in situations like these as to what the usage rights are for... lacking at the moment a better term then "software that that generates an image or model, based on different adjustable settings and dials"...
When I first came across Filter Forge my assumption was the filters were donated to the library
1- by the FF staff/creators
2- by the community to share.
3- by people hoping to earn points...
sort of a win-win situation...
1- new filters by the staff/FF creators, helps sell the software...
2- Community shared filters is people sharing what they have learned and made, thus promoting a "give back" or "pass it on" environment...
3- uploading filters in hopes of rewards is fine too... you do so for a reward...
FF seemed just like Photoshop... a tool you buy and use to make stuff... but within the first week of owning Filter Forge I came across a thread wh ere someone was mad that their filter had been used without their permission or crediting them... some responding to the thread agreed and some did not really...
But to me it was quite confusing and worrisome... I still have yet to use Filter Forge to produce anything that I have earned any money from- it is used to create textures for my free models at ShareCG... But... What was a filter doing there if its not meant to be used?
This created an issue for me, one that I'm still not clear on and thus I don't use any Filter Forge Filter unless I've 1- used the dials to change it from the presets and 2- Altered it by at least 30-70% in Photoshop as postwork (not by the FF-PS bridge) or
3 Know for sure the creator says USE IT AS YOU LIKE (and even then I never use the preset and still add postwork 90% of the time).
Being that is the case, there are bunch of filters I won't use because I'm not sure of the creators intentions...
Now I understand that for some, all they want is for you to alter it from the preset... But HOW? To what degree or by what percent? With some filters, the preset is the only really usable variant... so I avoid those.

A few months ago I uploaded some filters... ones which I made for something I was working on... I made the filters because I could not find something like it in the library... close, but not the same... I based them on parts of other filters... and hopefully I gave sufficient credit to those whose parts I used... But once again, not long after I uploaded them I came across another discussion about filter creation using parts of other filters... which made me wonder if what I did was okay... Am I being lazy because I did not study the mechanics behind Filter Forge and just busted out a amateur filter and passed it on or am I doing a good thing and passing on something I needed and which someone else might be able to use and by some small degree adding an asset to Filter Forge?
I felt there was nothing like it for those end results, so if someone else needed what I did, this might help... Is that good or selfish?
I have around 20 filters I've made which might be useful but probably will never upload because, even though I've independently come to more or less the same end result... some people might think its their filter... even though I came across their filter long after I made my own AND it is intended to produce a different result...

I've created a bunch of 3D models that I posted to ShareCG, free for commercial use... they are not based on anything other than my own imagination, I made them entirely by myself quite a few have textures that are either entirely hand made or based on my own photo textures and they all usually have many hours invested in them... what would I do if found one of my models somewhere else and someone claiming it was theirs?
Be pissed off as all hell and go after them as best I could.
Would I remove my models from ShareCG?
No.
Why?
Because somewhere some kid who is just discovering CGI, some older retired guy or girl who never had the time to pursue art and only now has the time (but not the money) to discover CGI... they might be able to use my stuff and if there is even a small chance I can help someone else out... then so what if some jerk is in not playing fair, its not the first time and not the last... why make someone else pay for the sins of a thief?
Not to mention, it seems a waste of effort to lock up the work because of that... I spent that time, I'm not getting it back, who am I really punishing?

None of this is meant to question anyone's motives, feelings or judge anyone... its just a pointless musing based on the OP...

It can be confusing, depressing and quite frustrating to pursue creativity.

tigerAspect, Sun, 16 Jun 2013 15:38:14 -0400
Ok, I had to jump back into this, i've not really posted for quite a while and my own filter authoring's been minimal recently, but I had to say this:

Not. Cool.

Specifically Vlad's post. This is absolutely not appropriate. There's a reason the dev team is so hesitant to answer these questions, and it's because of stuff like this. Vlad's post throws the whole legality of FF into question, and I'm actually going to have to stop using FF until this gets clarified (AGAIN). I can't risk basing assets on FF results unless I've made everything from scratch, as even parts of filters would come under copyright.

It's been clarified several times that any filter results are available to use in commercial applications without compensation or credit. This is the only possible way for this to work, if restrictions start being placed, there's a whole mess of grey area and it gets nasty very quickly.

Skybase, Sun, 16 Jun 2013 22:22:15 -0400
TigerAspect, if I'm interpreting this right, I think Vlad responded to the user's claim that her preview images for the filter were manipulated and used online. Not as a direct render of a filter. So Vlad's response was explaining that the previews are subject to copyright and authorship still.

This is the part:

Quote
"Further in the TOS, you give us (but not Piotr) some additional rights that are necessary for us for displaying user submissions on the site etc."

He's talking about "displaying user submissions" which I interpret as previews, not about the output rendered imagery. I'm sure your rendered images are fine.

This case really shakes me up because the user was able to take down 2000x2000 rendered images from a website. I strongly hold evidence that they weren't blown up - manipulated 600x600 previews, that they were proper renders from FilterForge. It seems like there was a mixup in understanding. Oh well... :(

So I'd honestly like to hear from Vlad as well. I think there was a giant mixup in this thread.

Question re Transparency in Png/Filter Forge

KendraSchmidt — Sun, 16 Jun 2013 16:37:01 -0400

KendraSchmidt, Sat, 11 Jun 2011 08:18:17 -0400
I have about five items placed onto a transparent layer and I've saved the image as a png with a transparent layer and no white background, etc. However, when I open the image in Filter Forge, it immediately inserts a white background. When I save the image in Filter Forge as a png and check "include transparency", it saves the image with a white background still. How can I prevent this? I would like for my image to just have its transparency and nothing else. Please help!

SpaceRay, Sat, 11 Jun 2011 12:08:16 -0400
Hello, I have no problems in opening a PNG file with a transparent layer, but is should have been saved as PNG 24 with transparency, and filter forge keeps the transparency.

You have told you have five items onto a transparent layer. Does this mean that all five items are on the SAME layer with transparency? Or there are 5 layers all with one item and with transparent layers ?

From what I know is not possible to save a PNG file with multiple layers because is not allowed, only ONE layer is allowed with transparency, and should in PNG 24 because this way it supports 16 millon colors or 24 bit graphics, as normal PNG is only 8 bit.

You can see here a explanation --> The Difference Between PNG-8 & PNG-24

http://www.ehow.com/info_8211357_diff...png24.html

"However, when I open the image in Filter Forge"

Does this mean that you are using the standalone version ? I mean you do not use Filter Forge inside Photoshop as a plugin.

"Filter Forge, immediately inserts a white background"

Are you SURE that is really Filter Forge that puts the white background ?

Are you SURE that the file is NOT already with that white background?

Can you open the file you try to open in Filter Forge in another software and can see the transparency ?

How have you saved the PNG file ? From what I know it must be PNG 24 to be able to use transparency as PNG 8 (NORMAL PNG) is not allowed, and it puts a white background.

Through Which program have you saved the PNG file ? Is it photoshop ? If it is photoshop I have to tell that photoshop CAN´T (even CS5) directly save a PNG with Transparency and always put a white background, because from what I know is NOT PNG 24 compatible. I have tried to save PNG 24 on photoshop and is not possible.

SAVING PNG 24 WTH TRANSPARENCY IN PHOTOSHOP CS5 or below version

To be able to export and save a PNG 24 with transparency in Photoshop WITHOUT the white background you must use EXPORT LAYERS TO FILES in the automate menu.

Here is a tutorial to show you how to do it --> http://www.pretentiousname.com/ps_exp...index.html

In the tutorial uses PNG 8, and as you can see the transparency option does not appear, so you must choose save in PNG 24 and then click on transparency option.

OR there is another posible way in Photoshop, that is to use "SAVE FOR THE WEB" wh ere there is an option to save in PNG 24 with transparency.

KendraSchmidt, Sat, 11 Jun 2011 13:08:25 -0400
"Hello, I have no problems in opening a PNG file with a transparent layer, but is must have been saved as PNG 24 with transparency, and filter forge keeps the transparency.

You have told you have five items onto a transparent layer. Does this mean that all five items are on the SAME layer with transparency? Or there are 5 layers all with one item and with transparent layers ?

I am asking this because I think that if the file have multiple layers, perhaps can be incompatible, as normaly to be able to use transparency I think that on some software you are only allowed to have just ONE layer with transparency, I do not know if Filter Forge supports files with multiple layers. "

Hello, thank you for your response. I tried your suggestions and put the five items onto one single transparent layer (they were previously on five different layers), and then saved the file using Save For Web in PS with the transparency as a PNG-24 file. I then opened it directly in Filter Forge, instead of using the PS plugin (since the plug in does not work for me for some reason), and it opened the file with a white background. I made my changes to the file, saved it as a png 24 and asked to include transparency. When I opened it again in PS, it was a single layer file with a white background. I'd really love to know how to make this work properly. I'm using the trial version of FIlter Forge 2. I am using Photoshop CS4. Please help!

KendraSchmidt, Sat, 11 Jun 2011 13:11:52 -0400
"To be able to export and save a PNG 24 with transparency in Photoshop WITHOUT the white background you must use EXPORT LAYERS TO FILES in the automate menu.

Here is a tutorial to show you how to do it --> http://www.pretentiousname.com/ps_exp...index.html

In the tutorial uses PNG 8, and as you can see the transparency option does not appear, so you must choose save in PNG 24 and then click on transparency option. "

Photoshop always saves my transparent layers. I just tried opening the same file in Preview and my transparent layer is there, without a white background. I'll still try the advice you recommended in the tutorial. The Filter Forge software still inserts a white background even when I use Save for Web in Photoshop and then open the file directly in Filter Forge. Maybe this tutorial will help solve this problem, I'll give it a shot. Thank you!

UPDATE: This didn't work either. The file was still saved via PS with the transparency, but it opened in Filter Forge with a white background again. I found the following in the help files. Could this be the problem I'm having?

"The Set Alpha component replaces the alpha channel of the Source image or color with the new alpha channel. The original alpha channel is discarded. This is a map component, it can be located in the Channels category on the Components Bar. This component can output HDR colors.

Source: Map Input (HDR)
Provides the source image or color whose alpha channel will be modified. This input can accept HDR colors.

New Alpha: Map Input
Sets the new value of the alpha channel in the range of 0 to 255. Low alpha channel values lead to high transparency, while high values lead to low transparency. Since New Alpha is a map input, its value can be controlled separately for different image areas by connecting a map component. In this case, the output brightness of the map component defines the alpha channel value: black areas correspond to value of 0, white areas to 255, and the alpha channel values in-between are represented by intermediate brightness levels.

Invert Alpha: Control Input
Inverts the alpha channel value."

CFandM, Sat, 11 Jun 2011 14:05:53 -0400
Hello Kendra...It depends on the filter being used....If the filter itself is using the alpha component....What filter are you using that will not keep the alpha...That would be a help in determining how to proceed....If you can edit the filters you can edit it yourself and put in that function.... :)

KendraSchmidt, Sat, 11 Jun 2011 14:44:19 -0400
Thank you CFM, I'm using the Watercolor Painting filter by Kochubey. I just tried using the same photo for various other filters and my transparent layer is displaying on the screen as transparent with those other filters. But when I use the Watercolor Painting filter, it doesn't show the transparent background as transparent. I'm a newbie and a graphic artist and have no idea of how to insert the function. :( Any suggestions? Or maybe there's someone here who inserted that functionality? (I'm praying.)

Thanks so much for your help, I appreciate it.

CFandM, Sat, 11 Jun 2011 18:25:30 -0400
With the trial you can edit the filters but...Its better to do this next bit with your image open in your graphics app and using it on the test photo that you have with the alpha...That way you know if it works or not...Open filter forge like you normal do then choose the Watercolor Painting filter....Now sel ect Edit Filter to edit that filter. Disconnect the the blend from the results component...Then make it look like the picture below to retain the alpha fr om your image.....When you are finished choose to save the filter.....It will now be saved in the My Filters folder...So now every time you open an image with an alpha channel it will read that... ;) :)

The apple in the pict below had an alpha channel....Using PS and the apples original alpha....

KendraSchmidt, Sat, 11 Jun 2011 21:12:45 -0400
Thank you so much CFM for this. I'm working on it right now, but I see that Image is attached to "Blur". Do I detach it from "Blur"?

KendraSchmidt, Sat, 11 Jun 2011 21:29:17 -0400
I just made the changes, but my screen doesn't look like yours. I don't see the transparency in my PNG, and my arrows are not on the same sides as yours are. :( I'm including a screenshot, but it seems as if something I've done is not the same as yours? Any ideas? Please? :(

CFandM, Sat, 11 Jun 2011 22:09:07 -0400
Not to worry simply open that same filter up again...Not the one you have edited but start over fr om the beginning.....That's the good part..You can edit the library filters and not worry about messing them up while editing... :)

I have changed my editing direction to match yours......Heres from the beginning and wh ere to unattached from......Just disconnect the blend component from the Result component.....

CFandM, Sat, 11 Jun 2011 22:10:42 -0400
Then add another image component, get alpha and set alpha component like the pict below....
The blend component that you see attached to the set alpha is the blend component that was just unattached from the Result component in the previous post.... :)

So we are only working between the blend and result components...

CFandM, Sat, 11 Jun 2011 22:17:07 -0400
Sorry I should have asked which direction you are working in.. ;) :)
That's in the options in FF...I always work the other direction its easier for myself to read for some reason.. ;) :) :D

You can grab the new components by going to the top right of the screen and clicking components...The list should pop up...I choose "All" then you can select the component you want to add by....click and drag or double click the components to put them on the workspace...

KendraSchmidt, Sat, 11 Jun 2011 22:34:11 -0400
IT WORKED!!!! THANK YOU SO MUCH!!! I am so relieved, I'm so happy that there was someone here to help!!

Do I perform these same steps anytime a filter does not include transparencies? Thank you for your help, I really appreciate it!

CFandM, Sat, 11 Jun 2011 23:00:44 -0400
Glad I could help out in getting that to work for ya... :hammer: :loveff:

Most of the time you can use these same steps in filters that do not have that certain function....There are some filters that require a little more components and more TLC so as not to change the filter itself....But you can always post those if you come across them... ;) :)

Now you got some filter editing time in also.. ;) :D

uglyboys, Wed, 22 Jun 2011 00:40:41 -0400
I think u can use it as layered transparency enable photoshop file using FF as plugin.cause i know it either inserts life saver or white BG in standalone mode

xnecrossx, Sun, 21 Aug 2011 17:25:41 -0400
Hey there, I hope this thread isn't too dead yet. But, this worked nicely for one filter, but there is another filter that needs a little more "tender love and care" and I would really appreciate it if you could assist me.

The filter is True 3d by 3dsblend - here is a link to it - http://www.filterforge.com/filters/7671.html - and I would like to stop it fr om automatically putting a background wh ere there is supposed to be transparency, just like the one above. Much thanks !

CFandM, Mon, 22 Aug 2011 04:20:13 -0400
Hello xnecrossx and nope not a dead thread.....That filter does need a little more then the above filter but not to much more....The filter you are talking about needs two of the set alpha components....One for the "surface color" and one for the "height"....Position them like this...
The red circled ones are the new components to add...

xnecrossx, Mon, 22 Aug 2011 08:10:25 -0400
Thank you very much, works great !

CFandM, Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:28:08 -0400
Good to hear... :)

SpaceRay, Mon, 29 Aug 2011 16:03:42 -0400
THis thread is very interesting as there are some interesting and beautiful filters but that can´t be used with transparent images and alpha components.

Thanks very much CFandM for your help and sharing your expert skills of FF

CFandM, Wed, 31 Aug 2011 09:23:20 -0400
Always happy to share :) :D

bobbijake, Thu, 21 Feb 2013 00:49:05 -0500
CFandM you rock. Just googled this problem and found your post. Followed your great instructions and painted a copse of trees on a transparent background. Thank you. You Rock!

bobbijake

CFandM, Thu, 21 Feb 2013 11:10:28 -0500
Thanks bobbijake and you are welcome... :) :loveff:

SpaceRay, Fri, 14 Jun 2013 17:16:00 -0400
Thanks again CFandM for explaining this very well, as I had forgot to do it, and had to come back again to this thread to know how to convert filters that do not work with images with alpha channels and make them compatible with the corresponding alpha channel

One of the filters that does not allow alpha channel is the great and well done Comic Book Filter by Inujima

And the conversion can be done easily in the same way as you have suggested already for the watercolor filter, detach the last multiply at the end of the filter and add the new components as shown here below

SpaceRay, Fri, 14 Jun 2013 17:26:26 -0400
In the same ways as above here, also happens with the also great Edge And Tones by Inujima and again the conversion can be done easily by detaching the last add component at the end of the filter and add the new components as shown here below

CFandM, Fri, 14 Jun 2013 17:30:25 -0400
See its still a handy thread.. ;) :D

SpaceRay, Fri, 14 Jun 2013 17:34:40 -0400
And in the same way as above, this can be made with many other filters that has not been prepared or been done to work with images with transparent background or alpha channels like for example Felt Pen Drawing by Northernshadow

SpaceRay, Fri, 14 Jun 2013 18:44:10 -0400

Quote
CFandM See its still a handy thread..

YES! It is still handy and useful and not dead at all as you have said also.

The three examples above I have put are all with non-surface filters (the ones without lighting tab setting)

Then above xnecrossx asked how to modify add the alpha channel to a surface filter and is the same way but doubling the effect like for example in the good Organic Rust by Thomas Helzle as shown below, although it depends on how the filters works and how is done.

The components inside the red boxes are the new components added

angelize, Fri, 14 Jun 2013 22:26:59 -0400
This thread has been very helpful to me so Thank You All :) I've been working on using an alpha channel to apply filters to a selected object in Xara Designer Pro. Since Designer Pro is a vector illustration program that is capable of using PS plugins even a photo in DP is inside a vector object.I found I can bring a designer pro selection into FF using an external image but then I need to set an alpha channel or else FF fills the whole bounding box for the selected object as this is what it sees as the selection. This thread helped me to understand how the get alpha channel creates the mask and works with the set alpha. It was one of those "Duhhh!" moments lol :blush:

SpaceRay, Sat, 15 Jun 2013 04:08:43 -0400
This tip shown here by CFandM does not work well with filters that the effect goes away and beyond the edge of the source image as you would loose all the effect, for example in this filter Daub by Mike Blackney or Splatterpainting by Tim2501

Quote
This thread helped me to understand how the get alpha channel creates the mask and works with the set alpha. It was one of those "Duhhh!" moments

I agree with you and is true

CFandM, Sat, 15 Jun 2013 06:31:56 -0400
Well you are kinda wrong on that part SR.....Remember when I said

Quote
There are some filters that require a little more components and more TLC so as not to change the filter itself.

So a little more more components and TLC is needed for these effect type of filters...At that point using an alpha in the filter is on a case by case basis....

SpaceRay, Sun, 16 Jun 2013 16:37:01 -0400
CFandM, you are right, sorry, I already knew after writing this above that I was wrong in the way that of course there are many filter that could NOT be easily added masking or make them alpha channel compatible because in the way they make work and the effect they make it would involve much more work and can be perhaps a complex solution and needs more components than what simply described above.

Quote
CFandM So a little more more components and TLC is needed for these effect type of filters...At that point using an alpha in the filter is on a case by case basis.....

Yes, that if the filter does not work with the suggested fixes above then as you say it would be needed to make a special fix for each one of this filter and specifically done for this one and very good examples of complex way is trying to add alpha channel to the awesome and amazing following filters: ( I do not know how would be possible if it is really possible)

Cubes by Inujima

Cube Wall by ThreeDee

Top Secret by ThreeDee

Why some filters works with transparent background and others don´t ?

SpaceRay — Sat, 15 Jun 2013 03:48:16 -0400

SpaceRay, Sat, 15 Jun 2013 03:48:16 -0400
I have seen that using some filters with a image with transparent background (Alpha Channel) shows the result right and it keeps well the same transparent background and what is more important for this thread and question, these filters does NOT have any Get Alpha/Set Alpha components to make them compatible with alpha channels.

Then other filters are not compatible with a transparent background as it is all filled with a solid color or filled with the filter effect, and to be able to make them compatible and keep the alpha channel it needs to be modified as shown very well by CFandM in this thread here

So I wonder why some filters keep well the alpha channel from the source and others filter do not and fill it all?

I think that maybe is because the components used, and there may be some components that when using them they do not work with alpha channels and so they need to be added the Get Alpha/Set Alpha combo, this may be like the seamless tiling that is incompatible with some components.

SOME FILTERS COMPATIBLE WITH ALPHA CHANNEL (without having Get Alpha/Set Alpha combo)

Fake Buzz by Gene S Morgan

Trangliar Pixel Painter by jffe

Silver Surfer 1b by Kraellin

Polygon Painting by Vladimir Golovin

And then most of the other filters that I have tried do NOT work with alpha channels unless they have specifically built-in alpha channel compatibility made by the author of the filter and most usually the filters do not have this included.

On some filters is not possible to simply use the CFandM tip shown here and needs a more complex solution as happened with this Sketchy Painting Alpha by emme that kindly was done by emme

On some filters because the way they work and the effect they make are not possible to keep the alpha channel and if possible would need much more work than just adding the Get Alpha/Set Alpha combo and possibly rebuild the filter again

Contest on DeviantArt

Burt — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 17:44:18 -0400

Burt, Wed, 22 May 2013 11:04:43 -0400
Well I got my 3rd reward point and decided to use it to create a contest on DeviantArt with the FF Pro as a prize. I'm not sure if anyone here is interested but figured I'd post the notice here http://fav.me/d665npl

SpaceRay, Fri, 14 Jun 2013 16:58:39 -0400
I have seen this but it seems that nobody is sending anything for the contest or perhaps I am seeing it wrongly.

I wish that you can get what you want anyway

Burt, Fri, 14 Jun 2013 17:44:18 -0400
No word yet but now I have to wait as it could be that someone submits. I gave myself an out and stipulated I could extend the contest if I got less than 5 entries as I don't want to end up with a ingle scrible and have to award it. I was hoping it might appeal to some of the good concept artists on DA but it is what it is.

Getting v4 Filters

Ozmandias — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 13:34:38 -0400

Ozmandias, Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:20:02 -0400
Currently I own FF v3. I'm not planning to upgrade to v4 at the moment but likely will in the future. In the mean time, I see lots of filters being released that require v4, a few of which I know I'll want. Is there any way to grab the ffxml now and save it for the future when I'll have v4 and if so, how? The only way I know of to get the filters is via the "Open In FF" button, which I can't do because I don't have v4. I'd rather save the filters as I see them come up instead of trudging through the whole list when I finally do upgrade.

Oz

GMM, Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:31:53 -0400
I'm afraid there's no way to do this without FF4 installed. You can bookmark filter webpages in your browser instead.

Ozmandias, Fri, 14 Jun 2013 13:34:38 -0400
Okay... thanks, GMM

Paint HDRtist: How long to render?

Daniel Paxton — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 11:13:45 -0400

Daniel Paxton, Fri, 07 Jun 2013 17:05:14 -0400
Hi,

I am wondering just how long one should wait on a rendering while using the filter, Paint HDRtist? I am using FF3.0 Professional on a MacBook 2 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo with 2GB 667 MHz RAM. The size of the image is 3872 X 2592 (72dpi). I am using FF as a standalone and tried using the filter in the default setting. I have been waiting 24 hours and the rendering looks to be about 30% (the progress bar hasn't appeared to move forward for a couple of hours now). Any ideas?

Thanks,

Daniel Paxton

Skybase, Fri, 07 Jun 2013 22:14:30 -0400
That filter shouldn't take 24 hours nor should it take an hour to render anything at that resolution. I think something's wrong there! Might want to just quit out and try a different filter.

Ozmandias, Sat, 08 Jun 2013 08:15:48 -0400
Yes, something is wrong. It may be your computer specs (low amount of quite slow RAM and I'm guessing there is no dedicated graphics card in it)... as they barely meet the minimum requirements. Probably choked the computer and now it's locked up.

Just to give you something to compare it to, I just tested the filter on a 3000x3000 image (limits of FF3 Basic version)on a desktop with C2D 2.9GHz, 8GB RAM, Radeon 4350 GPU and 64bit Vista. Came back to computer after 20 minutes and it was done rendering.

I'll test it on my slower computer later today.

Hinson, Sun, 09 Jun 2013 13:42:06 -0400
I did the same with an HP 'puter set up about the same as Ozmandias' (faster cpu, less ram) and rendering took about 20 minutes. (hate this 3000 pixel limitation)

SpaceRay, Sun, 09 Jun 2013 15:51:45 -0400

Quote
Daniel Paxton 3872 X 2592 (72dpi). I am using FF as a standalone and tried using the filter in the default setting. I have been waiting 24 hours and the rendering looks to be about 30% (the progress bar hasn't appeared to move forward for a couple of hours now). Any ideas?

With this 3872 x 2592 and the Paint HDRtist filter it can´t never take more than one hour (unless it was a very slow computer), Filter Forge may be very slow sometimes and you ahve to wait a lot but would never take 24 hours to make a result and even much less that it had a 30% render result in 24 hours :?: :?: if the progress bar hasn't appeared to move forward is because something has happened in the computer and have entered probably an infinity loop, and the only possible thing is to restart it and try again.

Does this happens always that you try to do it?

Does it happens the same with other filters?

Is there any other software working at the same time in the background or together with filter forge?

How much time does it take to make the preview image before rendering?

Djekki, Tue, 11 Jun 2013 05:53:37 -0400
Daniel Paxton, we have the same problem with this filter on Mac. Our developers'll try to solve this problem as soon as possible.

All I can suggest for you at the moment is not using PaintHDRtist now.

Daniel Paxton, Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:26:56 -0400
Thanks

Daniel Paxton, Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:30:21 -0400
Thanks for your help. If I cut the image size in half the filter works well. Other filters that I have tried appear to be working well.

Daniel Paxton

Quote
Daniel Paxton, we have the same problem with this filter on Mac. Our developers'll try to solve this problem as soon as possible. All I can suggest for you at the moment is not using PaintHDRtist now. Regards, Jane

Daniel Paxton, Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:35:28 -0400
Thanks for your input. Once I cut the image file in half PaintHDRist worked OK. I don't have this issue with other filters (yet). I have only tried a few. When I use it as a stand alone it is the only substantial piece of software running and it uses most of the available cpu. It usually take a few minutes for the preview. Thanks again.

Daniel Paxton

Quote

With this 3872 x 2592 and the Paint HDRtist filter it can´t never take more than one hour (unless it was a very slow computer), Filter Forge may be very slow sometimes and you ahve to wait a lot but would never take 24 hours to make a result and even much less that it had a 30% render result in 24 hours if the progress bar hasn't appeared to move forward is because something has happened in the computer and have entered probably an infinity loop, and the only possible thing is to restart it and try again.

Does this happens always that you try to do it?

Does it happens the same with other filters?

Is there any other software working at the same time in the background or together with filter forge?

How much time does it take to make the preview image before rendering?

Daniel Paxton, Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:36:55 -0400
Looks like I need to get more ram.

Thanks,

Daniel Paxton

Quote

Yes, something is wrong. It may be your computer specs (low amount of quite slow RAM and I'm guessing there is no dedicated graphics card in it)... as they barely meet the minimum requirements. Probably choked the computer and now it's locked up.

Just to give you something to compare it to, I just tested the filter on a 3000x3000 image (limits of FF3 Basic version)on a desktop with C2D 2.9GHz, 8GB RAM, Radeon 4350 GPU and 64bit Vista. Came back to computer after 20 minutes and it was done rendering.

I'll test it on my slower computer later today.

Ozmandias, Fri, 14 Jun 2013 05:40:58 -0400

Quote
Looks like I need to get more ram.

That's probably a good idea. I did the test on my slower computer (sorry for the delay... I thought I could get it done before I went out of town). Same 3000x3000 image. Computer has very similar specs as the other one except that it has half the RAM (4GB) and a 32-bit OS (Win XP).

The render of Paint HDRtist took 2 hours.

Daniel Paxton, Fri, 14 Jun 2013 11:13:45 -0400
Thanks :)

Quote
That's probably a good idea. I did the test on my slower computer (sorry for the delay... I thought I could get it done before I went out of town). Same 3000x3000 image. Computer has very similar specs as the other one except that it has half the RAM (4GB) and a 32-bit OS (Win XP). The render of Paint HDRtist took 2 hours.

GPU rendering?

meyendlesss — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 08:52:06 -0400

meyendlesss, Wed, 27 May 2009 16:43:55 -0400
Can FF use the GPU for rendering yet?
If so... how...?
If not... when...?
I'm in the market for a new card.
I'll likely go with a GTX275.
Would be really great if FF could utilize that power.

GMM, Thu, 28 May 2009 03:55:52 -0400
Please review this forum thread.

meyendlesss, Thu, 28 May 2009 04:31:13 -0400
Thanks
So it looks like the answer is no...
Well that's too bad.

StevieJ, Thu, 28 May 2009 11:59:22 -0400
Ah, so if you're using any GPU rendering, you want to check out the color differences.....do I have that right???

meyendlesss, Wed, 10 Jun 2009 13:04:03 -0400
Check out Nvidia's CUDA Zone for some interesting stuff...

http://www.nvidia.com/object/cuda_home.html#

xirja, Wed, 01 May 2013 18:44:59 -0400
From:

http://arstechnica.com/information-te...in-kaveri/

"...the inconvenience and inefficiency of mixing between CPU and GPU code, due to the memory copying and pinning that has to take place. HSA eliminates these steps. While this still doesn't make programming the GPU easy—many programmers will have to learn new techniques to take advantage of their massively parallel nature—it certainly makes it easier."

"We asked company representatives if Intel or NVIDIA were going to implement HSA. We're still awaiting an answer."

?

Skybase, Wed, 01 May 2013 23:44:54 -0400
... kinda bumped a 2009 thread here heh.... although I can still add on a bit.

One of the main issues that I've personally observed with running stuff on the GPU is simply that not everybody has the same, uniform specs for it. Meaning depending on your set up, you can either have a smooth running, amazing program or a clunky annoying, and almost unusable program and there's a great disparity of reported performances. I think it's safe to say that most people probably don't have the best specs for GPUs more also on the end that they can't afford one so easily.

So we typically get dazzled by buzzwords and demo videos but the reality is the technology is still in its infancy and not everybody would have full-on access like the demo videos show.

Betis, Thu, 02 May 2013 20:03:03 -0400
Yeah but... any program can run that way, CPU or not, depending on your setup.

In fact FF already runs a lot more slowly for some people with old processors than people with fast new processors and more cores

SpaceRay, Sun, 05 May 2013 18:59:54 -0400

Quote
Skybase One of the main issues that I've personally observed with running stuff on the GPU is simply that not everybody has the same, uniform specs for it.

Of course that this happens with the GPU, and it will obviusly depend on what graphic card you may have, BUT this happens exactly the same with the CPU and in the same way, not everybody have the same uniform render speed on their computer, and will depend on the CPU speed and perfomance they have.

I agree much with Betis too

Quote
Betis Yeah but... any program can run that way, CPU or not, depending on your setup.

Quote
Skybase Meaning depending on your set up, you can either have a smooth running, amazing program or a clunky annoying, and almost unusable program and there's a great disparity of reported performances

Well, I have to maybe disagree with this, because for GPU that is NOT going to be used for 3D Rendering or for really powerful hungry big and complex softwares, you will NOT need a very expensive and new graphic card, and even a very old graphic and mostly cheap (well at least from the last 5 years) will work well and right with a GPU optimized software.

I have a very old Nvidia 9600 GT graphic card that is very low on the Graphics cards benchmarks and really much slower than most of the modern and new graphics cards and all the GPU optimized software I have tried (not 3D rendering software) work very well, fluid and fast, and do not have any problem to run them in REALTIME and work very smooth and fast without any glitch.

For example I have Photoshop with GPU, a few of Photoshop Plugins GPU optimized and enabled hardware accelration, and also Adobe´s Pixel Bender that works very well with my slow GPU and makes everything in realtime, and there is also some other software that are also working with GPU acceleration and I do not have any problem.

Also have tried the DAZ 3D Studio software with GPU preview and works very well and smoothly, so from my experience and point of view you do not need to have a very high quality Graphics card for using GPU optimized software.

FF GPU SETTINGS AND PREVIEW

As it happens in DAZ 3D Studio, you can have the GPU optimized ONLY for the settings and preview and NOT have it for rendering that is done without any GPU rendering acceleration.

What I really would love and like would be that Filter Forge could use the GPU for the adjusting and modifing the settings of a filter in realtime with GPU acceleration, and so it would be much smooth, faster and better to really customize the result you may want, and then I do not care much if the final result render would not be GPU enabled.

Although thinking HOW FF works this would NOT be possible and only a full GPU acceleration would be possible as any preview is already done with the real render engine, so it is always like rendering the final result.

BUT a possible alternative could be to have only a GPU enabled acceleration only available for a 600x600 preview that could be done in realtime and that modifying each setting would be done much faster than is now that you have to wait until the result is shown until testing a new setting, and this again and again.

IF Filter Forge could have GPU acceleration, it would really be much more popular and would sell surely much much more.

xirja, Sun, 05 May 2013 22:55:34 -0400
Right, but the software having to be completely rewritten for GPU processing is the issue I was hoping to address here. Hopefully with AMDs HSA method or something similar, it will be a matter of a few tweaks in the code, rather than a complete exhaustive and painful overhaul. Not being too familiar with these matters I thought it might be a noteworthy update to the initial questions posed.

Skybase, Mon, 06 May 2013 00:02:32 -0400
Conclusion: Probably rewrite the program from scratch to incorporate it. That's the best.

Boy what are we going to do about it now? haha... guess more discussion? Please please threads? lol you name it we've extinguished it all. Your turn FilterForge lol! I don't mind waiting 3 years before you come up with something.

*yawn*

SpaceRay, Sun, 09 Jun 2013 17:53:30 -0400

Quote
xirja Right, but the software having to be completely rewritten for GPU processing is the issue I was hoping to address here

Quote
Skybase Conclusion: Probably rewrite the program from scratch to incorporate it. That's the best.

So, for making filter forge use the GPU power processing NEEDS to be completely rewritten all the code? :( :?: :?: and there is none other possible better alternative? :?:

Then if this is the only best and possible way, I think that we will not have a GPU FF :( :cry: as I doubt that FF Inc. will rewritten everything to be able to make this possible.

Sorry that I do not know nothing about programming, and thought that probably would be possible to make an adaptation or add the additional GPU programming WITHOUT having to rewrite everything again.

Quote
Boy what are we going to do about it now? haha... guess more discussion? Please please threads?

:D :D yes, more please please, threads :D :D when I have done this I did not know that to be able to have GPU you would have to rewrite everything, and so even putting a please x 10 would not help.

Quote
Skybase Your turn FilterForge lol! I don't mind waiting 3 years before you come up with something.

YES!!! I hope and wish that Vladimir or any of other FF team members could find a way to make FF faster by GPU (OpenGL, CUDA, OpenCL or whatever) or find a different way to render the results that would be faster and even more important is to be able to have a faster previews so using the settings would be better.

I really think that if FF could have a faster rendering would surely be the real king of graphics processing and would rocket sky high in popularity and gave much more sells and FF would earn much more.

GMM, Wed, 12 Jun 2013 08:52:51 -0400
<UNOFFICIAL MODE>

I've just returned from a short vacation and can't resist a little teasing:

Quote
wish that Vladimir or any of other FF team members could find a way to make FF faster

why don't you wish that filter authors create faster filters instead? ;)

</UNOFFICIAL MODE>

SpaceRay, Wed, 12 Jun 2013 17:54:31 -0400

Quote
why don't you wish that filter authors create faster filters instead?

Because even if the best filter forger makes the best filter and most optimized would not be fast if it depends on the actual FF render engine.

The only fast and really usable filters are the simple ones, the photo effect ones and also some other ones, but the more insteresting and that makes really FF shine and standout depends much on how FF process the components and the speed limit you can get.

I will tell more later why this is not true that it seems that all depends on the filter, when this is only a part of the problem.

Skybase, Wed, 12 Jun 2013 22:15:48 -0400
lol Spaceray, don't you have a pretty spoiled multi-core computer? Or was that a figment of my imagination? I thought I read in some other post about your computer specs.

And regarding filter speeds I think 60% of those filters can use some decent level of optimization. It takes some deep level of skill to really optimize something. If you know algorithms you win this game. But how many people are expert level programers? Hint: I'm not one and you obviously aren't. But I'm learning, isn't that better than not?

Also, at the point that you're making lists and threads (for the 5th or 6th time) and justifying yourself over this same issue, you should be 1. Doing art. 2. Making filters. 3. Improving your own methodology. 4. Doing things manually and finding faster ways of doing something. 5. Learn programming and make yourself some C++, dedicated photoshop plugins. 6. Or learn QuartzComposer, VVVV, MAX and other visual programming languages to make real-time dedicated filters. Is 60fps enough?

Should I compile you a "Book of Arguments" of all the posts and threads you've made regarding speed? I'm sure it'll be the best selling novel of the year. Probably after chapter 2 or 3 you start repeating yourself... oh right the same argument from 2010! Next page... oh the same thing.

Look, these forum replies I make to you are becoming a farce. I can write a comic with what we're saying. I swear I can, it'd be funny.

One of the reasons why I pick on you is because you're this "one big voice of all users" and the guy who parrots statements by others at a totally different level. You're this one dominating guy who just has everything to say, but your statements are basically the same thing, vague and sometimes unruly. And to me, and I'm sorry I have to say this so blatantly, you just aren't the expert if you were to make a debate that convinces people. I don't mean to tell you to stop saying stuff, by all means don't stop, I'm saying your mannerisms aren't helping the actual argument for something.

Look, I'm sorry I have to be so flat out blatant especially on a friendly forum like this. But I'm the type of guy who cares about stuff. I like things to be better and if something isn't happening, there's something wrong. We have to change the way we approach the issue!

Aye, I'm done. Now get back to doing art. Make some filters. Learn something fresh. Don't waste your life writing petty arguments. You have better things to do! :D

GMM, Thu, 13 Jun 2013 06:49:44 -0400
<UNOFFICIAL MODE>

Quote
The only fast and really usable filters are the simple ones <...> but the more insteresting and that makes really FF shine and standout depends much on

I think I have a strong argument against this.
IMO the best filters were created in the times of FF 1.0 and 2.0. (This is not to say modern filters are worse or useless, but the larger part of our best filters are 1.0-compatible). SpaceRay, go to the online library and pick out any 1.0-compatible filter (one without the "2.0/3.0/4.0" plaque on it): you'll be surprised how fast it is. Nearly all 1.0-compatible filters are pretty fast, with a few exceptions among 3,500 filters for FF1.0. Speed is in the eye of the beholder.

And yes, I fully agree with the above Skybase's comment.

</UNOFFICIAL MODE>

Skybase, Fri, 14 Jun 2013 08:52:06 -0400
Yeah... methods in 1.0 were heavily restricted by what nodes we had, which forced us to do interesting tricks constructing elements of a filter. And a lot of the best 1.0 filters do follow optimal techniques that's usable in many other node-based compositing programs!

So in my view, regarding "speeding up" I always thought of it as "using what's already available in the best possible way."

Here's a little story:
If anybody's interested in 3D, maybe you heard of mental-ray. It's one of the top-notch render engines out there for photo-realistic imagery. The catch is, the render engine often gets called out being "slow" when it's not. If settings are tinkered properly it can run at a ridiculous speed. In fact, if you do even more prep work to the scene you're making, you can get a render done in 5 seconds with all the bounce lighting, shading, and anti-aliasing. Nowadays mental images does have iray which is their updated alternative render engine. It must have taken at least 10 years of in depth research and development before even coming to a point where they were able to say "hey we have something."

To me, having the sort of in-depth technical knowledge is pretty difficult. I personally think this is something people have to find for themselves and see for themselves as much as I can help along the way. I've written some tutorials and video tutorials but they can only go to certain levels. The rest is some careful study and observation.

Of course, don't get me wrong, I don't think FilterForge's speed development should end where it is. I just think everything in the world can improve one way or another. ;) My thoughts people!

More info on Filter Forge subscription to professional version..?

Cybersparkle — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:50:12 -0400

Cybersparkle, Fri, 31 May 2013 19:54:05 -0400
Hi!

I've been around since FF 1 and have always had basic. I am unclear on how the subscription to Professional works.

First, do the quarterly installments of 89$ stop when you have reached the 399$ fee?

Do you just keep paying 89$ forever or is it 29$ ???

How long is a quarter, 3 months, 4 months, 6?

Where does the 29$ fit in?

If there is a page on this site that explains in more detail, I could not find it.

I am quite confused, can someone explain ... ??? :?:

I would like to have Professional with the discount, but I need to understand the subscription process before I upgrade to this method.

Thanks for listening, hope someone replies before the discount is over ...

SpaceRay, Fri, 31 May 2013 23:51:59 -0400

Quote

THis is the information found here

Professional Edition by Subscription (Windows) NEW!

Optimize your license payments by purchasing a subscription for the most functional Filter Forge edition.

You will get a new license key each time you make a small quarterly installment. Note that the subscription always provides you with the latest Filter Forge version – all upgrades will be free!

The initial setup fee is available at a discount – you save $70. The discount expires soon, so act quickly!
$159 original price without discount first quarter
$89 price with the discount first quarter

+ $29
every following quarter

So following this that is written above you would have to:

1 - pay now 89$ when buying filter forge, and you get the first license key,

2 - then after the next 3 months (a quarter) you will have to pay 29$ and get a new license key,

3- then after another 3 months, you pay another 29$,

4 - and then the following 3 months pay 29$ and so on.

So after the first time that you pay the initial amount, you would pay 116$ (29*4) each year and get all the upgrades for free.

Cybersparkle, Sat, 01 Jun 2013 03:27:04 -0400
ok- now I get it! Thank you for responding Space Ray!! :) :)

GMM, Mon, 03 Jun 2013 04:23:04 -0400
SpaceRay is right.

I'd also like to highlight the free upgrades clause: as long as your subscription is active, you always get the latest version. That is, if you purchase an FF3 subscription now you'll automatically get upgraded to FF4 when it is released -- at no extra charge (compare to the $129 upgrade fee for those who have a permanent license).

Cybersparkle, Mon, 03 Jun 2013 21:58:09 -0400
Sounds really good! Nice to have more options ... :)

ddaydreams, Tue, 04 Jun 2013 11:22:56 -0400
If you stop paying the subscription are you left with nothing like an Adobe subscription? or if you've made a certain amount (maybe a year)of subscription payments does that entitle you to keep the version you got when you first started paying the subscrption like e-on software does with Vue?

GMM, Wed, 12 Jun 2013 08:43:43 -0400

Quote
If you stop paying the subscription are you left with nothing like an Adobe subscription?

You are left with good memories of the past :)

By the way, you can resume the payments at any time and get a new key for 3 more months. I'm not sure how Adobe handles resuming subscriptions after a pause.

Cybersparkle, Wed, 12 Jun 2013 11:39:44 -0400
Yes, I would like to know this as well. Months ago, I pre-ordered FF Basic 4.0. Just a few days ago, I signed up for the subscription to have FF Professional.

So, if I miss a payment for the FF Pro subscription, am I still able to us FF 4 Basic because I purchased it separately beforehand? Also, am I still able to use my previous versions of FF 1, 2 and 3 Basic if I miss a payment on the Pro 4 Subscription?

So, is it true that if someone only has a pro subscription and they do not have any previous versions of FF and they miss a payment, they would not be able to use FF at all until they make another pro payment? When you resume payments, do you have to pay the installment fee again?

Can you have a regular FF license and also a Pro subscription at the same time?

GMM, Thu, 13 Jun 2013 07:08:18 -0400
There are a few things to be clarified.

1. Treat different major versions of Filter Forge as separate programs. They have separate library locations, separate license keys, separate everything.

2. We have only one executable for all editions, and the functionality is determined by the license key. That is, if you have a Basic license and a Professional license you can switch between them without reinstalling – just fill in another key.

Does this answer your questions, Cybersparkle? And no, you don't need to pay the installment fee again when you resume your payments.

Cybersparkle, Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:50:12 -0400
Yes!! Thank you very much!!

What filter is used on FF home page

EAdams — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 17:45:49 -0400

EAdams, Tue, 23 Apr 2013 11:34:33 -0400
What filter is used on the picture of the flowers on the FF home page?

GMM, Wed, 24 Apr 2013 04:27:42 -0400
It is StevieJ's Chipped.

EAdams, Tue, 14 May 2013 18:38:12 -0400
Thanks for the reply! I find that some filter effects just don't stand out with the default image but on other images they are spectacular. This is one of them!

Thanks, Eve

SpaceRay, Wed, 15 May 2013 02:35:32 -0400
Good to know that this was the filter used and I like it too and gives a beautiful and good effect

Quote
EAdams I find that some filter effects just don't stand out with the default image but on other images they are spectacular

This is very true on some filters I have seen, that with the default thumbnail or presets you do not see the effect right, and is much better when used with your own images selected.

Hinson, Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:54:11 -0400
Most definitely. I wish everyone would use an original image for the filter display rather than the few images provided by FF.

SpaceRay, Wed, 12 Jun 2013 17:45:49 -0400

Quote
Hinson Most definitely. I wish everyone would use an original image for the filter display rather than the few images provided by FF.

Yes, it would be very good that if anyone uploads a filter would also show some images with his own images showing what the filter really can do without the built-in images in FF, as sometimes it changes very much and makes the filter really shine.

I myself have not done it with my own filters, and only have done it with the filters I like and test them with my images.

Buying Filter Forge

Ian MacRae — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 08:43:53 -0400

Ian MacRae, Sun, 10 Mar 2013 14:00:33 -0400
I own a sign shop and use Signlab for sign design
I occasionally need to add texture (metal / wood etc) to designs
Trying to decide to buy Basic or Standard Pkg
I can't see where I would design filters but
Does the Basic pkg give me access to the full library and when it says access to I assume that library free? Right?
If you buy basic and soon discover you want to progress, can you upgrade to Standard
for a nominal?

SpaceRay, Mon, 11 Mar 2013 04:15:58 -0400

Quote
Does the Basic pkg give me access to the full library and when it says access to I assume that library free? Right?

It is clearly put in the buy page that you will have acess to ALL the whole and complete filter library without any limit, the only problem is that you will not be able to modify any of the filter in the basic edition

Quote
If you buy basic and soon discover you want to progress, can you upgrade to Standard for a nominal?

YES, as far as I know, you can always upgrade from one version to another even inside the same number version and pay the difference, even from one number to another, for example upgrade Basic FF 3.0 to Standard FF 4.0 (when available)

Quote
Trying to decide to buy Basic or Standard Pkg

Well this may be easy, as the only difference is that you may be able to modify or create your own filters.

Maybe you wil not want to create your own filters, but perhaps you may want to modify existing filters in some way

DIFERENCE BETWEEN Basic and Professional

Are you going to use or need textures of more than 3000 x 3000 pixels?

Do you want to have a faster rendering time by using Multi-core cpu rather than just a simple and loney core?

Considering that Filter Forge is already usually slow with many filters in Multi-core cpu, I think that would be really worth to try the basic version, and see if this is good for you.

Would you need to have render maps for 3D software or are you only going to make simple 2D textures?

Lizzy, Mon, 10 Jun 2013 13:14:58 -0400
Hello

I have some questions too.

When I buy v3 now, will I get v4 as well since it seems to be just around the corner? Or do I better wait till v4 is released? The website just mentions a beta key, but what about when the beta is done and the final version is out?

What do you mean it uses just a single lonely core?
I've a quadcore... I've had a quadcore for 3-something years and you want to tell me there is modern software out there that purposfully uses just one core?

I actually would be pleased with the basic edition but as you mentioned, one may want to alter the filter settings and if that's only possible with the standard version I guess I'll take that one then. Unless it is really true that the software won't use my quadcore. I def. won't pay 120 dollars for a feature that is standard anywhere else.

Regards,
Lizzy

Djekki, Tue, 11 Jun 2013 06:38:29 -0400
SpaceRay, thank you for such a detailed answer! You really help us to cope with the forum! ;)

Lizzy, and here are the answers to your questions.

Quote
When I buy v3 now, will I get v4 as well since it seems to be just around the corner? Or do I better wait till v4 is released? The website just mentions a beta key, but what about when the beta is done and the final version is out?

If you buy Filter Forge 3.0 you'll not have Filter Forge 4.0 automatically when it is released. It is another version and you'll be able to upgrade to it (when it'll be released, again). If you preorder Filter Forge 4.0 and ask for a free 4.0 Beta key (yes, you need to ask for it separately) you'll be able to use 4.0 Beta version until Filter Forge 4.0 is released (the 4.0 Beta key will expire right after the official release of Filter Forge 4.0).

Quote
What do you mean it uses just a single lonely core?

You can see the Compare Editions table on this page (at the bottom of the page). There you can clearly see there's a limit on the number of CPU cores in the Basic and Standard versions (they can use max 2 cores). In the Professional version you can use all available cores.

Quote
I actually would be pleased with the basic edition but as you mentioned, one may want to alter the filter settings and if that's only possible with the standard version I guess I'll take that one then. Unless it is really true that the software won't use my quadcore. I def. won't pay 120 dollars for a feature that is standard anywhere else.

Did you know about the new Filter Forge Professional by Subscription? You can use it: this way you'll receive all the features at once, unlimited number of cores, free upgrades (subscription always provides you with the latest Filter Forge version) and a small quarterly fee to pay.

And by the way, now we have 70% discount for all editions

Lizzy, Tue, 11 Jun 2013 15:17:01 -0400
Thanks for the reply. The Buy page only shows version 3. No mention of a v4 pre-order. All I found was a pre-order upgrade. But I want v4 not v3+upgrade. I guess I have to wait.
I know the compare table, but since there is no word about how many cores the other versions use, I assumed 'no limit' meant 6+ cores.
Just now that I wanted to copy the line I noticed that there's a 'mouse-over' tip with additional info. Honestly who would expect that? No reason to move the mouse there. There should be a note.

Why can't the standardversion support a quadcore and the pro six and eight cores? Quadcores are sooo old. Support for quadcores is normal by now (except for games, but some do already). Now is the time in that GPU support for rendering becomes a standard... slowly.

edit: The render speed of the trial is good, for the reduced preview :) That's how software is supposed to work, like my video editors. Only gpu acceleration missing now ^^ I think for larger textures gpu acceleration would be a bliss.

Will there be plugins for other image editors but Photoshop?

Since Adobe dropped their sell and force rent-only upon their customers I'll have to leave them in a few years (CS6 will last a while) and switch to Gimp... or maybe Corel Paintshop Pro (haven't tried that one out yet; Gimp seems nice except for its lack of non-destructive editing).
Renting software is more expensive over time than buying.
I don't make a living out of my hobby.

GMM, Wed, 12 Jun 2013 08:43:53 -0400

Quote
But I want v4 not v3+upgrade. I guess I have to wait.

Exactly. We haven't launched preordering of new licenses yet.

Quote
Will there be plugins for other image editors but Photoshop?

Please review the list of supported host applications.

Pixelated Output

Tayalex — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 06:24:45 -0400

Tayalex, Tue, 11 Jun 2013 05:25:58 -0400
Hi, I am new to FF, have tried searching for this topic maybe written already, but couldn't seem to find.

When I make a 256 x 256 px image and use a filter, it looks great in FF. As soon as I use it on a 256 x 256 3d mesh, teh entire thing stretches and looks very pixelated and unsharp .... what am I doing wrong? Help appreciated :)

Skybase, Tue, 11 Jun 2013 05:55:41 -0400
You need to unwrap the UVs on your 3D model and then apply the texture. Using a larger texture resolution may avoid issues, but if the texture is seamless you just need to tile it the correct number of times.

What software do you use?

Djekki, Tue, 11 Jun 2013 05:57:52 -0400
We can't answer this question exactly. You can try to contact with your 3D proram's support team.

The image can't become smaller by itself, the problem can be in the settings of your 3D software. :)

SpaceRay, Tue, 11 Jun 2013 06:24:45 -0400
If the output of Filter forge looks right, the problem may be in the 3D software and not in filter forge, unless you are exporting or saving the texture wrongly for the 3D mesh.

Quote
Tayalex teh entire thing stretches and looks very pixelated and unsharp

I think that maybe you are wrong doing the tiling of the texture in the 3D mesh and so instead of tiling it the 3D software program is enlarging just one copy of it to cover all the mesh instead of tiling it, so it would look very pixelated.

Depending on the 3D software you are using, it may be different settings and way to wrap and tile a texture over a 3D mesh, and all of them give a very different result

Would be beter that you show a screenshot to see what is really happening and so know more about it

Homepage Suggestion

StevieJ — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 05:25:22 -0400

StevieJ, Fri, 31 May 2013 12:33:54 -0400
Suggest mentioning on homepage that FF is a stand-alone program as well as a PS plugin...for those who might not have PS...

ddaydreams, Fri, 31 May 2013 14:55:39 -0400
StevieJ is right.

I found this statement in the download tab page. "Can be used either in the plugin or standalone mode"

That is a really important fact and should be on the home page and maybe on the feature page it should say something like that.

Perhaps saying "Can be used either as a plugin for Photoshop or in standalone mode"
You might also mention other apps that this works as a plugin in, such as Elements or any Corel products that this works with.

I'll bet you would see a bump up in sales. Plus some people are moving away from Photoshop because of forced Adobe subscription. Stand alone would be good news for those who never knew that FF can be standalone.

GMM, Mon, 03 Jun 2013 04:28:08 -0400
Yes, our homepage long needs an overhaul.

StevieJ, Mon, 03 Jun 2013 12:33:23 -0400
I mentioned this because I sent some students to try the program...and they didn't because they thought that they needed Photoshop to run it...

Personally, I use FF as stand-alone anyway...it runs much better...and Photoshop ends up being more of a hindrance to using it...

SpaceRay, Tue, 04 Jun 2013 15:20:10 -0400
I agree that it would be very important to show and highlight that FF is NOT ONLY a photoshop plugin and that it would seem that it ONLY works if you own photoshop, and also would be good to mention that if you have windows, there is also others software that could be host to FF instead of Photoshop.

Specially now that Adobe have done the subscription only photoshop

ddaydreams, Tue, 04 Jun 2013 15:44:19 -0400

Quote
Yes, our homepage long needs an overhaul.

Maybe so, but an overhaul takes time and might get put off. For now all you need to do change the one line on homepage that says. "A plugin for Adobe Photoshop that allows you to build your own filters"

I sell software for a living, trust me on this. The profit from changing that one line will be well worth the minutes spent to change it to

"Filter Forge as Photoshop plugin or as a stand alone app, lets you build your own filters."

Just my 2cents, trying to help.

Frank

Djekki, Wed, 05 Jun 2013 05:40:46 -0400
Frank, thank you for the suggestion, the renewed text on the homepage will come out shortly!

ddaydreams, Wed, 05 Jun 2013 10:00:18 -0400
Alternate text
"Filter Forge lets you build your own filters. It's both a Photoshop plugin and stand alone application"

Longer Alternate text for those not familiar with the term "stand alone".

"Filter Forge lets you build your own filters. It can be used with or without Photoshop. It's both a Photoshop plugin and stand alone application"

SpaceRay, Tue, 11 Jun 2013 05:25:22 -0400
I have found this description of Filter Forge that I think is very good and describes better what is really Filter Forge and that is not ONLY a photoshop plugin

Quote
Filter Forge is a standalone application and also a plugin for Adobe Photoshop and other compatible 8bf plugin hosts that allows users to apply programmable image processing filters and to define them with a visual node-based filter editor.

Really I use 95% of the time I use the standalone version as I find it easier and better for what I want to do.

Output texture use legalities? - Follow up addendum.

Bill Roach — Wed, 05 Jun 2013 05:45:42 -0400

Bill Roach, Tue, 04 Jun 2013 19:05:14 -0400
Hi guys,
Earlier I wrote a request for info about the legal use of outputted textures - the former post as follows:

"Hello - another noob here kids, great to meetcha!

I have been making texture images using the demo / trial version of FF, and quite a few user submitted plugins in the library here. Let me explain what I want to do with them:

I want to use them to make material presets ("Mats") for the DAZ 3D application "BRYCE" (Versions 5.5 to 7), which is a 3d scene / landscape / modeling / animation application available through the DAZ 3d website.

I would then like to package these new BRYCE presets, made with both BRYCE and FF (using the user submitted plugins in the library), and post / distribute the package for free on my SHARE CG page (I may also include the textures, bump maps, and normal maps that I made with FF and the library plug ins) for Bryce users and other 3D app users to use in their projects.

#1, Are the textures made from the library plugins truly ok for both commercial and personal use?

#2, Is my intended use of these outputted image textures NOT permitted by the EULA (since I have a hard time reading legalese)?

#3, What restrictions should I place upon this package that I am making for other users?

#4, Since I have already made over 200 images with FF using the user submitted plug in library, but failed to keep track of the plugin authors, would a mentioned link back to the FF website - coupled with a universal thank you to all of the plug in creators on the FF site be a suitable credit?

#5, Do I truly "own" the Filter Forge outputted images / textures, and subsequent BRYCE presets that I derive from them - or are they owned by FF / the plug in authors?

#6, In short - am I ok with doing this, or will I have to marry a really big dude on cellblock "E" at Fort Levenworth federal penitentury in order to survive prison life, lol, inquiring minds want to know!"

Now I need to further that by first reiterating that the BRYCE presets would be FREE / NO PAY. A resource for everybody.

Also - the reason why that I wanted to create them was that the number of available presets for BRYCE - although numerous - do not touch on those types of 3D materials that users actually need for truly realistic renders. Most available presets for BRYCE are either overly "cartoony" or too "psychedelic".

I create a lot of free tools for people - and I would LOVE to make a lot of fresh filters for this community as well. I want to know exactly what I can and cannot do with outputted textures in plain, easy to understand layman's terms.

Thank you - B.R.

Djekki, Wed, 05 Jun 2013 05:45:42 -0400
Bill, I think my previous answer can work for these additional questions as well.

All the renders you make in Filter Forge is your intellectual property. Filter authors hold the copyright to the filter files proper (.ffxml files).

Filter Forge is 7 years old since first beta release. Happy Birthday!

SpaceRay — Wed, 05 Jun 2013 05:24:19 -0400

SpaceRay, Mon, 27 May 2013 14:32:44 -0400

Quote
Filter Forge news Filter Forge is 7 years old now. We released the first Filter Forge 1.0 Beta in 2006, and since then it has become only better!

As shown in the FF versions date release thread I made here you can see that the first beta of version 1.0 was released on the 25th May 2006

Congratulations and is true that since the first beta it has become only better and now has 9597 filter available.

I want to thank to all the Filter Forge team for all the work they have done through all these 7 years and wish you all the best and that you keep improving and making FF even better each year and it becomes more and more popular, and is growing as it has more than 14.000 likers in facebook.

Of course a special thanks goes to Vladimir Golovin that is the man that have created all this company and behind all the project.

Thanks for making this great, useful and awesome software and helping many artists, designers and any user that would need something FF could give.

Also a special thanks to GMM to keep the forum and for the customer support and help in the forum.

SpaceRay, Fri, 31 May 2013 03:25:10 -0400
Nobody else is making any comment of this?

When it was the first FF birthday there was more comments and enthusiasm for being the first year, but it seems that now after seven years and the forum much less visited is not the same.

SpaceRay, Tue, 04 Jun 2013 15:17:54 -0400
Is curious that this has 78 views and there is 0 comments from anyone :?:

Nobody else wants to give a happy beta birthday to FF?

Sorry to bump this thread again, this is my last post here, so do not worry.

Djekki, Wed, 05 Jun 2013 05:24:19 -0400
Dear SpaceRay, thanks for the kind words and greetings! I think everybody's silent because they're busy buying Filter Forge with the birthday 70% discount ^_^

By the way, today we had a cake at last but it appeared not a Filter Forge birthday cake but a 60th or 70th or even 80th anniversary cake of our office cleaner. :)

Second Life textures

WolfRayet — Fri, 31 May 2013 06:19:19 -0400

WolfRayet, Tue, 28 May 2013 16:57:01 -0400
Hi ya-all
Does anyone here do any textures for 2nd Life? For some reason, Gold Textures just come out Dull and Life-less. The mesh Textures is a different story, those textures have a great reflective quality.

I just wondering if anyone made any good gold textures for jewelry. That's been eluding me.

Mongoose King, Wed, 29 May 2013 10:17:25 -0400
Gold is hard to do as a texture, without the metallic sheen gold is just a kind of dull yellowy colour so using just a texture is always unimpressive in a 3D environment, the trick in SL is to use a low or medium shiny effect on a fairly bright yellowish metal texture, and add a little of the glow effect (usually not more than 0.1) to brighten it.
Using twin layers of texture, with a shiny surface, then a partially transparent texture on a layer above it can give a nice effect too.

It's not perfect as Second Life doesn't support the fancier metallic specular effects that better engines do that you'd need to make a really good gold look but you can get a decent look from a bit of tweaking.

WolfRayet, Wed, 29 May 2013 15:41:51 -0400
I don't know how you do a double layer unless you make a shell just a touch bigger than your object.

I've seen 1 Silver dollar dress that has reflections and gold looks great. I think it's mesh. SL's engine actually works with reflections on this object.

Mongoose King, Thu, 30 May 2013 07:49:02 -0400
Yes, making a slightly larger shell is the way to do it, although I have heard that if you make two objects of identical size and position and set one to have a solid texture and one to have a transparent texture then the transparent texture will always be seen on top, though i've not tried that.

Whether an object is mesh or prim has no effect on the textures, you should be able to get the same effects on any object, however shape affects how well reflections will show, slightly curved surfaces show reflections a lot better.

WolfRayet, Fri, 31 May 2013 06:19:19 -0400
Well,, my goal is to get a good looking gold... So, I'm trying this out..

I found this out yesterday. Take a Prim, any prim.. remove the default texture in the texture window, then add a color or another texture.. go to Shiny and select High, Med, Low--what ever and then add Brightness,,, and you do get good reflections. A low bit of Glow,, helps... Not too much.

Speaking of Gold Texture.. I haven't seen all that much good Gold in Filter Forge,, and I think I downloaded all of the gold ones.

2nd Life is interesting, I actually made some real US Dollars there.. Making money in a computer game is just a ground breaking idea.

I should get a Avatar..

Good News! New FF 4.004 and ENABLES submission of filters to library!

SpaceRay — Mon, 27 May 2013 12:51:47 -0400

SpaceRay, Fri, 24 May 2013 13:56:48 -0400

Quote

Filter Forge have put this news

Today we released the minor upd ate 4.004 to the beta version of Filter Forge 4.0!

The current update fixes several bugs, and enables submission of user-made filters to the online Filter Library. So 4.0 compatible filters will come out soon.

To download and install the update 4.004, sel ect Tools > Updates from the Filter Forge main menu. The update preserves all downloaded and user-created filters, as well as user se ttings and the license key.

Happy New Beta!

WOW! This is a very good news as finally we will see some coming new filters for FF 4.0, although really the only new things available that is different fr om FF 3.0 is the Loops con groups components, at least until now, maybe there could be more later.

Will see when it finally will see these 4.0 filters will be available.

I could send a filter but I still have a lot to learn with the Loops to make something more useful, the only thing I have done is the Multiple Randomizer with modified shapes

Skybase, Fri, 24 May 2013 20:39:03 -0400
Well you'll least see some of the example filters officially available now.

Bionic, Fri, 24 May 2013 20:44:04 -0400
Great, let's take it for a spin :)

CFandM, Fri, 24 May 2013 21:51:56 -0400
Submitting some this weekend...Tiding them up and all that.. ;) :)

SpaceRay, Mon, 27 May 2013 12:51:47 -0400
Thanks very much to CFandM (3 filters) and Skybase (1 filter) for having started to submit the new FF 4.0 filters and so today there is already 4 new filters for FF 4.0 :)

FF should make an iPhone app! (warning: crazy idea)

CorvusCroax — Fri, 24 May 2013 06:00:19 -0400

CorvusCroax, Thu, 09 Sep 2010 12:55:41 -0400
Hey: I just had a crazy idea: :!:

FF inc should make a miniature iPhone version of Filter Forge, so that people could use some of the image filters on the camera. Sort of like Plastic Bullet or Hipstamatic

It would be simplified, only allowing the use of filters and no editing, of course.

Maybe it would only allow use of presets, or tweaking of settings in the 'create preset mode', not in the image itself (for simplicity and performance).

Think of it like the FF freepacks, but even smaller and on the iPhone. FF inc might even exert some editorial control over what filters are made available for the iPhone version (since the iphone camera roll won't have all of the inputs available).

Image filter apps are popular on the iPhone, but none of them I've seen have anything even close to the breadth of the FF filters.

There are a bunch of filters which would would be great on the iPhone, and which could almost be apps in themselves:
Aether http://www.filterforge.com/filters/9008.html
http://www.filterforge.com/filters/7651.html
Technical Drawing http://www.filterforge.com/filters/1979.html
Grunge http://www.filterforge.com/filters/5074.html
LOMO, Shark Tank!, Sketchy Painting, Watercolor Painting, and many others.

/end crazy idea mode/

Mongoose King, Thu, 09 Sep 2010 17:58:36 -0400
I'm picuring people's iphones melting in thier hands as the processor turns into a tiny sun... :P

GMM, Fri, 10 Sep 2010 08:17:23 -0400
<official mode off>

iPhones are not x86-compatible. I think it's more plausible to wait until Parallels port their virtual machine to iPhone :)

</official mode off>

joel collins, Fri, 24 May 2013 06:00:19 -0400
Sounds good if they made this possible.

FF ordering system is down. (UPD: Fixed)

GMM — Thu, 16 May 2013 14:01:51 -0400

GMM, Thu, 16 May 2013 14:01:51 -0400
Our apologies for those trying to order Filter Forge at the moment: Shareit.com, our e-sales partner, is experiencing technical issues. Please try later today.

We'll extend the duration of the 60% discount so that noone misses it.

Romancing the Gorilla

Amy Hutton — Tue, 14 May 2013 06:32:00 -0400

Amy Hutton, Sun, 29 Jul 2012 13:18:57 -0400
What happened to Carl's Romancing the Gorilla Filter? That's one of my all time favorite filters!

And why did some of my filters disappear when I upgraded the software?

Disappointed.

Amy Hutton

SpaceRay, Sun, 29 Jul 2012 14:10:28 -0400
I have just made a search for Carl's Romancing the Gorilla Filter in the FF library and is true that is NOT there and has been removed :?:

As far as I know this only happens when the author decides himself to ask FF Inc. to take it out from the library.

So I do not know why Carl has decided to remove it.

So when the filter is removed, it is also removed from all the lists of any Filter Forge software, because you can´t have a filter in the list that is not in the FF online Library.

BUT it is NOT deleted, it is just moved to the "my filter" folder of your filter list.

Another way of keeping it safe and secure is to have a backup of all your downloaded filters

Carl, Sun, 29 Jul 2012 20:11:07 -0400
It is getting redesigned, after I received numerous email complaints about it and including one on FF's FB page. After X-Ray's redesign where it excluded the original look or the drastic changes to Film Noir, I thought it would be better to resubmit a fresh version of Gorrilla where no one can complain that it's lost this or that. The good news the new version will be faster, more user friendly and believe it or not with more choices, and very close to the look of the old one. Hopefully every one will be happy then :)

SpaceRay, Sun, 29 Jul 2012 22:10:18 -0400
Great news and good thing.

Quote
The good news the new version will be faster, more user friendly and believe it or not with more choices, and very close to the look of the old one.

Thanks for making a redesign of it and that it will be better than the previous one

This is for sure one of the many selected jewels available in the FF library and like it much and have such beautiful and awesome artistic results.

USING OLD VERSION UNTIL RELEASE OF THE NEW

Anyone that STILL wants to use the old version will be able to do it if you have already downloaded it before, as it has been transfered to the "my filters" folder.

Morgantao, Thu, 02 Aug 2012 00:58:06 -0400
You scraed me there for a bit, Carl :D
Don't delete such awesome filters and leave us in the dark like that again! :D

Christiane B., Thu, 02 Aug 2012 03:00:45 -0400
Hi Carl,

sorry for asking you twice : at FB and via mail, but the "Gorilla" is one of my favourite filters and i was so upset to see you removed it :D

Thank you for redesign it ! I´m looking forward for the new version of it !! :loveff:

And at least: sorry for my bad, bad english :D

greetings

Christiane :)

Ozmandias, Sun, 06 Jan 2013 17:55:52 -0500
Any word on this filter? I'd love to get it.

SpaceRay, Mon, 07 Jan 2013 16:55:11 -0500
Carl, as you have not been able to make the redesign of your awesome and excellent filter in the last six months:

Would you allow for the release of the old filter here in the forum, for others that want to use it and can´t wait until the next version comes out whenever you make it?

I have it, but I do not want to put it here without you allowing it.

ORIGINAL THREAD HAS NOT BEEN DELETED

When this filter appeared it has it´s own thread and happily after the removal, the original thread has remained in the forum so you can see it

Romancing The Gorilla - The original comments thread

Carl, Tue, 08 Jan 2013 00:54:17 -0500
been distracted by other creative work returning an income ;) Their is a fatal error that can occur under random renderings, that was why after several complaints it was removed from circulation. I would not want the defective gorrilla on the loose, please don't post it.

the good news, the sky isn't falling, a stripped back re-loved gorrilla is under surgery. :banana:

Ozmandias, Tue, 08 Jan 2013 07:54:05 -0500

Quote
the good news, the sky isn't falling, a stripped back re-loved gorrilla is under surgery.

Thank You, Carl! I'm new to Filter Forge and have heard that Romancing The Gorilla is one of the very best filters. You can't imagine how disappointed I was to find that it was no longer available!

You've made my day! :D I eagerly anticipate its re-release.

Thank you once again!

SpaceRay, Sun, 27 Jan 2013 01:17:17 -0500
How is it going the romancing ? Has the Gorilla got already romanced or there is still work to do? ;) :D

I am not needing it urgent at all (I already have the original and like it as it is), and does not matter if it will take more time, I am just curious to know how it is going, and do not want to hurry you up in any way.

SpaceRay, Tue, 14 May 2013 06:32:00 -0400
What happens with the great and awesome Romancing the Gorilla filter?

I that if you do not have time to make it better, or any other reason, would be good for newer owners that has not been able to download this wonderful filter, that you could submit it again as it is, and then after make the upgrade when you have it ready.

I fortunately have downloaded it in time and can use it.

Can Basic Version save new presets?

Andrew B. — Sun, 12 May 2013 13:38:24 -0400

Andrew B., Sun, 08 Jan 2012 23:29:21 -0500
Can a person using Basic Version save slider adjustments to a new preset?

GMM, Mon, 09 Jan 2012 01:58:12 -0500
Yes this is possible.

Drookit, Sun, 12 May 2013 13:02:25 -0400
:?: would be nice to know how and where in the menu stack :)

CFandM, Sun, 12 May 2013 13:35:16 -0400
After you mess with the sliders and get a look that you like you can click the arrow above the presets. To the right above the presets is where the arrow is and there will be a menu that pops up..Then choose "Add Preset"

Andrew B., Sun, 12 May 2013 13:38:24 -0400
deleted my post because it's redundant.

What happens with the usage ranks AFTER a filter has got a HU?

SpaceRay — Sat, 11 May 2013 03:57:57 -0400

SpaceRay, Wed, 08 May 2013 17:35:29 -0400
The usage rank is to reward the author for the work on the filter made, and this helps to reach the wanted HU award that is given.

BUT what happens with all the usage ranks received AFTER the filter has got this HU award? ( as there is no more higher lever than "High")

Are all the usage ranks lost and does not count anymore?

Or it is used to keep the High level because if the filter is not used anymore could loose the "high" rank and go back to "average" or perhaps even "low"?

I wanted to suggest also if perhaps could be possible to have a even higher level than "high" for filters that are even more used after the HU award, although without giving any further award.

I mean if would be possible to have a "Very High" level for the filters that are used much after a HU award?

HU = High Usage

GMM, Thu, 09 May 2013 04:10:29 -0400
No ranks are lost: filters that lose their popularity will be eventually relegated to the 'Average' or 'Low' ranks.

SpaceRay, Sat, 11 May 2013 03:57:57 -0400
Thanks for the answer GMM, this is what I have thought that they were for keeping the level of usage rank, but was not sure about it.

Video Tutorial Test

CFandM — Mon, 06 May 2013 15:26:37 -0400

CFandM, Sat, 09 Jun 2007 11:14:32 -0400
I have been working on some video tutorials and finally got one to where it looks decent. But then as you know when you post it on those video sites it gets shrunk down and it loses it luster and quality...So heres a test video..Using the download library
option in FF...Don't make fun of my voice it was a long week.. :D

http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...pr=goog-sl

Carl, Sat, 09 Jun 2007 11:57:05 -0400
Had look at your tutorial well done for me very informative I've actualy not downloaded that way and had wonder how you multi-selected. What are your other tutorial videos on? Keep them rolling I'm always interested in learning more as I'm sure alot of other people are. It is a shame you lose the gloss as you say, it would be nice to be able to read the writing.

You'll notice I even reframed from from making a joke out of your h-hhmmm voice :) :D

Really good 8)

StevieJ, Sat, 09 Jun 2007 12:55:13 -0400
CF, excellent idea!!! :) I was actually hoping that something like this would be done. I especially look forward to your "advanced" tips and tricks instruction videos.....the "secrets of the FF pros" series ;) :)

jffe, Sat, 09 Jun 2007 14:39:43 -0400
Great idea and all, unfortunately, even at 3/4 screen size, flash videos suck, and ya can't really read enough to teach anyone how to really modify/make filters too well eh. The voice isn't too bad, cut the highs around 10Khz, and boost around 100Hz, or better yet, run it through a pitch shifter -1 octave, and add a goodly amount of reverb for that monsta truck announcer voice, that and sample a Harley or a chainsaw for the background. :D

jffe

CFandM, Sat, 09 Jun 2007 18:44:23 -0400

Quote
Carl wrote: You'll notice I even reframed from from making a joke out of your h-hhmmm voice Smile Big grin

Yea thanks for not making the joke.. :D :D

Quote
Carl wrote: What are your other tutorial videos on? Keep them rolling I'm always interested in learning more as I'm sure alot of other people are. It is a shame you lose the gloss as you say, it would be nice to be able to read the writing.

Yep hopefully I will keep them rolling. Trying to get the basics out of the way first.
There was the downloading one. Then most likely an overveiw type of thing for using the exsisting filters such as the presets and settings to using them with images and such..It seems like I would need to have those also for the people who purchase the basic version and can't edit the filters...But they can also come to the fourms for that info also.
Then the editing of exsisting filters then leads into the putting together filters.
Such as basic techniques to advanced techniques...
I do have an idea or two that I didn't try on that first one..So I will try it on the second one and if that works I most likly update the first one with it also... :) :) :loveff:

CFandM, Sat, 09 Jun 2007 18:53:23 -0400

Quote
StevieJ wrote: CF, excellent idea!!! Smile I was actually hoping that something like this would be done. I especially look forward to your "advanced" tips and tricks instruction videos.....the "secrets of the FF pros" series Wink Smile

Guest apperances.. :?: :D :?: :D
Yep I was kinda hoping also that something like this would be done...Guess I can start it... :D :D

Quote
jffe wrote: monsta truck announcer voice,

heeh Fitler--Fitler---Forge--FOrge--Sunday--Sunday--

Quote
jffe wrote: Great idea and all, unfortunately, even at 3/4 screen size, flash videos suck, and ya can't really read enough to teach anyone how to really modify/make filters too well eh.

Yep flash videos do suck...I hope Adobe is listining..No offense by the way, just hoping the quality of flash video can get better...When its resized....
Yep what I'll have to do is some trickery when making the video..Is zooming and panning with the cursor so when the video is playing it will be close to the action..Then see the whole screen when needed...But we'll see how this goes...:)

Kraellin, Sat, 09 Jun 2007 18:53:45 -0400
what program did you use for the capture?

CFandM, Sat, 09 Jun 2007 19:05:08 -0400

Quote
Kraellin wrote: what program did you use for the capture?

Its a cool little free app called "Camstudio" found here.
http://www.camstudio.org/

Kraellin, Sat, 09 Jun 2007 19:55:46 -0400
ah, thought maybe. have it, but havent installed or used it yet.

StevieJ, Sat, 09 Jun 2007 22:37:27 -0400

Quote
CFandM wrote: Guest apperances..

LOL..... run it live every night like the Tonight Show....."Our next guest this evening, Craig "Kreallin" Waters, renowned Filter Forger, will demonstrate how to construct crystaline pattern filters.....but first, a word from our sponser" :D LOL....

Quote
CFandM wrote: monsta truck announcer voice, heeh Fitler--Fitler---Forge--FOrge--Sunday--Sunday--

LMAO..... :)

CFandM, Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:16:07 -0400
Weird just checked and the video is no longer up at google..Heres the you tube link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ToH-xhp43Q

You can watch it full screen..Quality still is not great but theres no squinting..

Carl, Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:15:35 -0400
It's just like being at the movies now except no ones rolling jaffas down the aisle :D
I just hope you have jaffas or that line is totally meaningless LOL

CFandM, Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:28:02 -0400
Well I know of jffes but not jaffas..I actually have not gone to the movie theatre in quite a while...A personal boycott if you will...I wait for the DVDs usually..But I did look up jaffas..They sound tasty...

Carl, Fri, 15 Jun 2007 01:24:14 -0400

Quote
CFandM wrote: They sound tasty

yummy ;)

Quote
CFandM wrote: I actually have not gone to the movie theatre in quite a while..

It's probly been 20 years since I've been

Quote
CFandM wrote: A personal boycott if you will

:?: interesting - philosophical ?

Torley, Sat, 23 Jun 2007 11:47:59 -0400
Oh rite on! I'm a general fan and advocate of video tutorials (vidtuts), since good ones give you an excellent sense of "over-your-shoulder" learning. *checks it out*

CFandM, Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:36:55 -0400

Quote
Torley wrote: Oh rite on! I'm a general fan and advocate of video tutorials (vidtuts), since good ones give you an excellent sense of "over-your-shoulder" learning. checks it out

Yep I do like the video tuts also. Got some more coming had to put them aside for the moment to focus on other things. But I'll be back at it..
Ya "Over the Shoulder" is right. But without the frustration of teaching someone who does not know how to turn on a computer... :)

Redcap, Fri, 13 Jul 2007 18:08:10 -0400
Wonder if we could do a tutorial podcast? :)

CFandM, Sat, 14 Jul 2007 06:51:20 -0400
I don't see why not... :)

CFandM, Mon, 06 May 2013 15:26:37 -0400
Well thought I would bump this thread instead of starting a new one since they are video tutorials of sorts.... ;) :)
There are a couple of images in the Beta Gallery of filters that I have created some tutorials for...These are the links to the videos...

Box Fractal

Geometric Abstract of sorts

Don't forget to click on the gear in the youtube player and select HD it helps as you can see what I am doing.....

Soon will be 3000 Facebook likers of Filter Forge !!!

SpaceRay — Sun, 05 May 2013 18:28:59 -0400

SpaceRay, Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:08:22 -0400
I have seen that now there is 2922 in Facebook and I hope that very soon will be more than 3000 !!! and wish that there could be much, much more in the future and than could enjoy, love and use this great Filter Forge !!! :)

SpaceRay, Fri, 29 Apr 2011 22:58:16 -0400
It keeps raising now today there is already 2942, 20 more in only 2 days. :)

I have to say that I do not use Facebook, but as I know that this is a good thing for promotion of companies, so it is good to have as many facebook likers (or friends) as you could have so it becomes more and more popular and known by more people.

TBH-1138, Fri, 06 May 2011 22:13:54 -0400
It doesn't matter until it's over 9000. ;)

jitspoe, Sat, 07 May 2011 02:07:07 -0400
WHAT, 9000?!

SpaceRay, Sat, 07 May 2011 15:04:13 -0400
9000 ??? :?: :D Why over 9000 ? Is this a mystic and special number ? :D

By the way, now is 2976, so only 24 more to reach 3000.

TBH-1138, Sat, 07 May 2011 17:30:12 -0400

Quote
jitspoe wrote: WHAT, 9000?!

THERE'S NO WAY THAT COULD BE RIGHT!!! CAN IT?!

GMM, Mon, 09 May 2011 02:45:38 -0400

Quote
SpaceRay wrote: Is this a mystic and special number ?

SpaceRay, I guess you haven't seen Dragon Ball :D

SpaceRay, Sun, 18 Sep 2011 16:02:00 -0400
Yes, you guess right GMM I have not seen Dragon ball, well I know what it is and have seen some short pieces of some episodes, but really know nothing about dragon ball.

By the way I put again this thread up because the Facebook likers have raisen until 3938 !!! so soon will be 4000 !!!

Ok, it does not matter until 9000 :D but there is now is at least 1000 nearer, only 5000 more to 9000 8)

SpaceRay, Sat, 01 Oct 2011 00:33:45 -0400
CONGRATULATIONS FF !!! There are now 4005 Persons in Facebook that like FF. Great!

I hope that there will be many thousands more in the coming future.

Now there is only 4995 left to reach 9000 :D

Crapadilla, Sun, 02 Oct 2011 04:48:02 -0400
At 9000 FF would be totally over-liked, and we don't want that! :D

SpaceRay, Tue, 13 Dec 2011 05:34:50 -0500

Quote
Crapadilla wrote: At 9000 FF would be totally over-liked, and we don't want that!

we don´t want that ? Why not ? Sorry, Is this a joke that I do not understand as before ?

When reached at 9000 it means that much more people likes FF and so is more popular and better known, and this must be a good thing for FF and I hope that it reaches 18000 and beyond much more.

By the way now is 4372 :D

SpaceRay, Sat, 21 Apr 2012 13:07:21 -0400
In April 2011 there was 3000 FaceBook Likers, now one year after it is reaching already 5000 !!

Congratulations for keep raising the persons that like FF and it is getting more popular, although Crapadilla do not want it to get MORE popular ;) :D

SpaceRay, Sun, 05 May 2013 18:28:59 -0400
As shown in the post above here, in 21st April 2012 was reaching 5000 Facebook Likers, and now one year after there is 11.912 F. Likers, WOW! more than double amount.

I am happy and glad that FF is getting much more popular and known and many more people likes it, altough I am not one of them as I do not have a facebook account.

I think that Crapadilla will not be happy to know this according to his comment above ;)

Now that it has reach to this high amount I wonder about the comment TBH-1138 has made above

Quote
TBH-1138 It doesn't matter until it's over 9000

Well, now it has finally reached and is way over 9000, so does it matter now? ;) :D :D

Advantages and Disadvantages of using the OL and OLIFF Filters Library

SpaceRay — Sun, 05 May 2013 18:14:59 -0400

SpaceRay, Sat, 15 Oct 2011 18:05:25 -0400
I know that there are two ways to download filters from the Filter Forge (FF) Filters Library:

1 - Using the OL (Online Library) which is in the FF website.

2 - Using the OLIFF (Obsolete Library Inside Filter Forge)

I just want to list the Advantages and Disadvantages I have found using the OL and OLIFF Filters Library and which one is better and gives the best experience.

ACTIVATING AND USING OLIFF

By default is NOT activated, and you have to go to inside FF to:

Tools --> Options ---> Online and choose "Library browser obsolete" and click OK

Then to be able to enter to this FF Browser you go to the main window of FF and look in the top right corner wh ere is put "Download more filters" and when cliking on this it will appear.

Then if what you need to download is very new filter, you have to configure it to see "new filters first" so it appears in the first positions.

Here you have to choose all the filters you want and then click on "download" button on the bottom right corner.

ADVANTAGES OF OLIFF vs DISADVANTAGES OF OL

1 - If you use the 'OLIFF' method of downloading , you can see all the filters you have downloaded already as they will have a small 'v' in bottom right corner of the thumbnail preview. In the OL there is no way to see which ones you have downloaded already and this is a bad thing.

2 - IN OLIFF you can have filters thumbnails preview shown in a big screen with rows of thumbnails of the filters, that contains much more previews than in the OL and fills all your available screen space, which is very good. The size of the thumbnails are the same in both.

3 - You have the option to HIDE all the filters that you have already downloaded so you are shown ONLY those filter that you still do not have downloaded to FF and be able to discover new filter gems. In OL you can´t do it.

4 - The preset thumbnails preview are much bigger in OLIFF than in OL.

5 - The best and probably most useful is the ability to Mass or Batch download a group of choosen filters instead of downloading one by one as in the OL, which saves a lot of time and is much easier to download and select the filters you want. In OL you must search and open the filter page for each one and download one by one going to each one of the filters pages.

ADVANTAGES OF OL vs DISADVANTAGES OF OLIFF

1 - In the OL you have preview image thumbnails for all the presets available of that filter and in OLIFF you have only one preview window wh ere is shown all, and the presets are only shown as numbers without any kind of preview image and have to click on each one to see them (or hit the space bar on keyboard)

2 - The preset thumbnails in the OL are already rendered and instantly available, in the OLIFF all the presets previews MUST be rendered in the moment you want to see them and takes some time to do it, so is much slower to preview that in OL.

3 - The preview image of the filter is MUCH BIGGER and MORE DETAILED in the OL and you can see much better what does the filter look like and the effect it makes, because in the OMIF the preview image of the filter is MUCH SMALLER.

4 - The large preview of filter in OL is instant and already rendered and in the OLIFF the much smaller preview must be rendered each time is choosen and is much slower compared to the instant website preview, even in FF 3.0.

5 - In the online FF Filters Library you can search by keywors, filter by theme and topics and select how to view the filters, and in the included "obsolete" library inside FF you can´t do it in the same way, and when going to search it does not work so well, and most of the times, at least for me it does not work search in OLIFF.

6 - In the OL you can see the Filters list of FEATURED, RECENT, POPULAR and so you chose how to see the filters, and in OMIF there is NONE of these choices. Well is supossed to be available a kind of "popular" or "recent" built in OLIFF but it does not work, at least for me. Both OL and OMIF have ALL FILTERS BY CATEGORY menu to choose.

7 - The OL Browser can use the Zoom feature to enlarge the previews and preset thumbnails and in OLIFF has fixed size always.

8 - In the website filter page OL you can see the filter controls list, in OLIFF you can´t because what is included is only the "about" information included inside the filter.

9 - OL is loaded instantly, just the time it takes to load the page of the file, the OLIFF takes much more time to load, and I agree that is because it has much more information to load.

Quote
ONE BIG AND IMPORTANT QUESTION

Wouldn´t be MUCH better that the OLIFF could have all the preset and filter previews already rendered and instant available as in OL?

Perhaps you could say that this would make Filter Forge software bigger, as they should be included inside FF, but this is not all true, because after installing FF in your computer the OLIFF could connect to the FF website and download all the preset and preview of all the filters and keep them inside the FF folder to use them and it would not take much as I think that they are very small files.

IF OLIFF could have instant previews and preset as it happens in OL, without having to render them, it woud be much better and much faster

Also if the preview window of OLIFF could be resizable or fixed bigger and could fit the big filter main preview of each filter as seen in OL

SpaceRay, Wed, 01 Feb 2012 23:51:56 -0500
Hello, I have updated and added some more data, especifically the:

ACTIVATING AND USING OLIFF

It has been good that nobody answered here so I have been able to fix and update the above post, because I forgot on HOW TO USE OLIFF

I do not like at all that you CAN´T modify any previous OF YOUR OWN if anybody have already posted after, in others forum you can always modify your own posts.

SpaceRay, Sun, 07 Oct 2012 17:29:55 -0400
In the first post I have told how to activate and be able to use the Filter Forge Browser BUT I want to show it now graphically with a screenshot

SpaceRay, Sun, 07 Oct 2012 17:34:04 -0400
And then after this, clicking OK will close the options windows and now you only have to go and click on the "Download more filters..." button

I am glad that this is still included in FF 4.0 and is available in the same way although it keeps being the same as before.

SpaceRay, Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:53:42 -0500
I hope and wish that the OLIFF (Obsolete Library Inside Filter Forge) will still be available in FF 4.0 final version as it is already now in FF 4.0 Beta 1, as from my point of view is very useful and good to have and not "obsolete" and not needed.

And even if the FF 4.0 library will be made all new and much better I think that this will continue to be useful and not be replaced by the new filter manager, as they are different things.

Burt, Wed, 27 Feb 2013 17:45:43 -0500
Thanks for dissecting and explaining this SpaceRay.

SpaceRay, Sun, 05 May 2013 18:14:59 -0400

Quote
Burt Thanks for dissecting and explaining this SpaceRay.

Thanks to you for having found this useful and hope it could help you, good to know and glad for having done it.

And it seems that in FF 4.0 will not change and will be the same (at least in FF 4.0 beta 2), so this will continue being useful and the same in this new forthcoming version.

Thank for all the effort getting rid of Bad allocation error

ddaydreams — Sun, 05 May 2013 18:05:17 -0400

ddaydreams, Fri, 03 May 2013 15:57:41 -0400
I can't say enough how grateful I am that I'm not seeing the Bad allocation errors anymore. Keep up the great work.

SpaceRay, Sun, 05 May 2013 18:05:17 -0400
Yes, is true that now the bad allocation is much more often missing and almost does not appear, although sometimes it still happens, but as said really much, much more less often, and I also want to give thanks for this and having been able to solve it at least in this way, I mean it has not been totally eliminated but as it is now is much more usable and much better working than before.

Keep up the good work and hope and wish that it could be totally eliminated forever.

Is FF Slow ? Get a new Dual Socket 16 cores/32 Threads Intel CPU

SpaceRay — Sun, 05 May 2013 18:01:13 -0400

SpaceRay, Fri, 20 Apr 2012 22:55:19 -0400
Filter Forge is SLOW when you use it on higher resolutions of 2000 x 2000 and will take MANY minutes to get the result done, and much more slower from 5000x5000 and reach up to 40 or 50 minutes or more.

And not only the final result, the preview on many filters on reduced 600x600 view is ALSO SLOW

As from the news available until now, FF Inc. will not improve the render engine speed and will not add GPU support, so it seems that future version will have the same speed as FF 3.0.

So the only solution that is really possible is to upgrade the CPU and make it faster as FF is optimized to use the most of the CPU cores available and works well with this. RAM and GPU is not important.

Of course that this is not a cheap upgrade or solution, but really will be the ONLY way to speed up Filter Forge as FF Inc. will not do it for us.

ENTER THE NEW DUAL SOCKET MOTHERBOARDS WITH 16 CORES/32 THREADS INTEL CPUS -

I have seen some news that at the end of April 2012 Intel will release a whole new bunch of CPU chip processors that will change the market and lower the prices.

Also the trend until now has been to add multiple cores to the CPU to make it faster, BUT it seems that this is not enough for many users that want even faster computers, so it seems that since beginning of 2012 the Dual Socket Motherboard have begun to be more available to domestic customers and not only for high end business, and now in April/May 2012 will appear more.

I have a Intel i7 2600k Quad Core/8 threads and this is not enough at all for making Filtter Forge work fast or in a good usable way. And I have no hope from the news available for the future that FF Inc. will make something about it.

SO Imaging having QUADRUPLE Power of a i7 2600k CPU chip, it would make Filter Forge 4 times faster !!! (This is true to according some benchmarks I have seen)

SO 40 MINUTES WAITING FOR THE RESULT WILL BE REDUCED TO 10 MINUTES !!!

AND THE PREVIEWS AND CHANGE ON THE SETTINGS OF FILTERS COULD BE PROBABLY DONE IN REALTIME OR A VERY FEW SECONDS.

And this would be possible with FF 3.0 NOW

THE BAD NEWS

Now is time for reality check, as the bad news is that buying a new dual socket motherboard LGA 2011 with two Octocores CPU will cost about 2000$ / 2300$ :( :cry: :cry:
Probably this price could be lower in May/June 2012.

Of course that this is not at all affordable for most of us, BUT if you are using Filter Forge for work and are earning money with it and so you are getting profit from this it would be perhaps a good idea to invest in this new motherboard and CPU combo to make FF really much faster NOW and do not keep dreaming and waiting that FF Inc. will sometime in the future could probably make a faster and optimized version.

DREAMING IS FREE

From the news that are until now from FF Inc. there is no point or hope to keep dreaming and wishing that FF inc. will possibly make something to make FF faster

So now I will stop my dream and wish that FF improves and optimizes FF and will change and continue dreaming on upgrading my computer to this BEAST computer above said

AND do not keep complaining and requesting FF Inc. uselessly for something that FF Inc. can´t do according to the way FF is built and that needs a whole overhaul and rebuilding and as said by FF Inc. this is TOO MUCH WORK.

Dreaming is free :D

AMD 8 CORES = INTEL QUAD CORE

If anyone think that AMD has already some 8 Cores chips available much cheaper, PLEASE, look at what PERFOMANCE AND SPEED they really give and NOT on the number of cores, because on lots of benchmarks the AMD 8100 Series that have 8 Cores is nearly equal (and even sometimes lower) than a Intel i7 Quad Core 2600K.

SpaceRay, Sat, 21 Apr 2012 15:53:42 -0400
I will see if there would be good in value for money with near close perfomance to use the new 6 core Intel Sandy Bridge E chips that are much cheaper than this 8 core chips and both have the same LGA 2011 sockets and chipset and use the same new dual socket motherboards

will put some links to this above as news so you can see them.

SpaceRay, Sun, 22 Apr 2012 03:03:48 -0400
Meanwhile I find more information I leave this links here

Dual socket LGA 2011 motherboard (this is only one of the many available now or soon)

http://www.ocaholic.ch/xoops/html/mod...ng=english

Intel launches long-awaited 8-core Xeon processor E5-2600 product family

http://slideshow.techworld.com/334280...ct-family/

Preview of the Sandy Bridge E 6 core chip

Intel Core i7 3960X (Sandy Bridge E) Review

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5091/in...-end-alive

AND THE MOST IMPORTANT PART IS THE REAL PERFOMANCE AND BENCHMARKS

http://www.ocaholic.ch/xoops/html/mod...537&page=2

THE BENCHMARK IS FOR ONE CPU IN MULTICORE SUPPORT

Intel Xeon E5-2600 3.0 GHz_________________22 sec______8 cores + 8 virtual cores HT

Intel Core i7 3930K 3.20 GHz DDR3-1600_____25 sec______6 cores + 6 virtual cores HT

Intel Core i7 2600K 3.40 GHz DDR3-1333_____37 sec______4 cores + 4 virtual cores HT

AMD FX-8150 3.6 GHz DDR3-1600__________41 sec______8 Cores

Here you can see that the AMD 8 cores is even slower than the intel quad core and nearly half the speed of the Intel 8 core.

Also is interesting that the new 6 core is not much away and better than the 8 core (they have different technologies so really can´t be compared much) chip, and what is very important about this is that the i7 3930K 6 core is much cheaper.

I will put more information about this later.

SpaceRay, Mon, 23 Apr 2012 02:23:51 -0400
We will have to wait until the official announcement from Intel that is supossed to be done on the 29 of April 2012 to know really what will happen, and what will be the real prices of the new chips and if they will lower the prices of other previous chips like the ones above that are already available.

I have seen also that it would be much better option to but a dual socket motherboard LGA 2011 with two Intel Core i7 3930K 3.20 as this would be about 1200$/1400$ instead of the 2000$/2300$ of the octacore Xeon chips and from the benchmarks that I have seen there is no point to pay nearly 1000$ more for a LITTLE more speed.

SpaceRay, Thu, 26 Apr 2012 23:36:25 -0400
Intel have released already the new Ivy Bridge Chips BUT for now they are ONLY QUAD CORES :( and the announced 6,8 and 10 cores will come later in summer or auttum this year, and is possible that the 10 cores will arrives for next year.

And also the news of reducing prices is only applied by now to quad cores chips and not to the 6 or 8 cores :(

The speed increase from the Sandy Bridge 2700K chips is between 2 and 8% depending on the application so there is no point at all to upgrade to this new chips, is not worth in any way.

Here is the FULL review with some benchmarks to show the speed difference if you are interested

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/i...,3181.html

This is the specific page for Professional graphic applications benchmarks

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/c...133-7.html

SpaceRay, Mon, 30 Apr 2012 05:25:26 -0400
Here is a explanation of why the new Intel Ivy Bridge are STILL only quad cores.

Why Ivy Bridge Is Still Quad-Core

Mainly for marketing as for higher cores they want to sell the new Sandy Bridge E with 6 cores.

The Ivy Bridge E with 6 cores seems to be released in 6 or 8 months from now, although this is ONLY a rumour because there is no confirmation that this is true, could be earlier or later.

Here is another benchmark comparison of quad cores chips including the new 3770K

SpaceRay, Mon, 16 Jul 2012 03:57:45 -0400
I have been looking to see HOW MUCH one of this new dual CPU computers can cost and regretably they are MORE EXPENSIVE than I thought or wished

Dual Socket LGA 2011 CPU are about 525€ (about 640$) !!

Hexacore LGA 2011 CPU Intel Core i7-3930K 3.2 Ghz - LGA 2011 - another 530€ (about 650$) each one

So it would be a minimum of 1940$ for ONLY the motherboard and the CPU chips :( :( to get a 24 cores computer (6 + 6HT x 2 = 24)

And there is the option of choosing the much the half price Quad Core CPU Intel Core i7-3820 3.6Ghz - Socket 2011 that cost about 260€ (about 320$)

So it would be 1280$ instead to have a 16 cores computer (4 + 4HT x 2 = 16)

But this would probably ONLY make Filter Forge only double faster than a single i7 2700k cpu chip and would not be worth to spend this great amount of money to get only the double speed.

So regretably this is a very expensive way to make FF 3.0 faster and I can´t afford to pay for this so I have to keep having spider webs around my arms waiting until FF renders the results of many of the filters at high resolution

uberzev, Mon, 16 Jul 2012 04:02:47 -0400
See, here I'm now sitting by myself, uh, er, talking to myself. That's, that's chaos theory.

Carl, Mon, 16 Jul 2012 04:29:21 -0400
LOL you have a cruel streak, I bet you pulled wings of flies as a kid ;)

uberzev, Mon, 16 Jul 2012 05:07:06 -0400
That's a Jurassic Park quote. I'm not cruel. :evil:

SpaceRay, Mon, 16 Jul 2012 05:14:27 -0400
I do not think this is a cruel comment. I do not understand why you are saying this in this thread, but I do not think that it could be a bad thing, anyway I do not care about it.

I have wrote this thread as a POSSIBLE AND REAL alternative to making FF 3.0 faster NOW and without waiting for FF 4.0, although I done it without knowing how much really could cost buying this new computer, so now I know that this is only affordable and possible for someone that uses FF for business AND has enough money to spend on this and finds it really worthy to upgrade the computer to make FF faster and so be able to make works faster and could earn more money to justify upgrading the computer.

ALSO I think that this will be the ONLY real way to make FF 4.0 faster, because unless Vladimir confirms that FF 4.0 will have any kind of speed optimization I think it will have the same render engine and speed of FF 3.0

uberzev, Mon, 16 Jul 2012 05:20:53 -0400
If I had some money I might have paid attention to what you posted. SpaceRay. :)

I'm just bored and messing around. The Forums are way too quiet these days.

And Vlad has been ignoring my annoying emails.... :(

Carl, Mon, 16 Jul 2012 05:32:46 -0400
Sr you never realize when Ubervez is taking the piss out of you, so be it, I really have better ways to spend my time

SpaceRay, Mon, 16 Jul 2012 05:34:03 -0400

Quote
Uberzev wrote: If I had some money I might have paid attention to what you posted.

Wel I am in the same situation like you, I also do not have money and do not have a work from the one I could earn money, so this was just a possible dream I could have and find a way to get some money to change the computer, but would never be able to spend this amount on a new computer :(

Quote
Uberzev wrote: And Vlad has been ignoring my annoying emails....

Does really Vlad or any other from FF Inc. answer emails that are not related to FF support or bug fixes ???? :?:

I have sent already some emails about some suggestions and features requests and never got any answer

Skybase, Mon, 16 Jul 2012 07:13:56 -0400
lol this is why I like working with what I have.

Sometimes... can't expect people to return you stuff. You just have to hope the people on the other side to be thankful about the little suggestions and a comfortable sign that there are users out there who love the software they make. :p You just have to be like "Oh they must be busy working on the new version of FilterForge." and just sit and wait.

I mena :p I'm PRETTY BORED TOO YOU KNOW. I'm just messing around on this forum more often lately.

SpaceRay, Mon, 16 Jul 2012 09:54:37 -0400
Sorry for boring you Skybase, but you are not forced to read all the I write if you know already what is about and you do not like it ;) :D

Anyway, Finally Vladimir has confirmed that FF 4.0 will NOT have any kind of speed optimization so I will not continue asking them about this in the same way as I have been doing.

And really this Thread suggestion and idea seems that is the ONLY way that will be possible to make FF 3.0 or FF 4.0 faster, BUT a really very expensive way. :(

SpaceRay, Mon, 16 Jul 2012 10:13:42 -0400
I forgot to say before that in the title I have put to buy the new 8 cores Intel chips that are put in the title to be able to get a 32 cores computer (8 + 8 x 2 = 32)

This costs about 1200$ EACH one !!!

and so this 32 cores computer costs 3040$!!!! :( :cry: :cry:

1200 + 1200 + 640 = 3040

And this is ONLY the motherboard and 2 CPU chips

Morgantao, Mon, 16 Jul 2012 14:40:14 -0400
SpaceRay, if you dream, why not dream BIG?
In my dreams, I have a cray supercomputer that laughs at the puny little programs like FF, and prefers to unfold proteins, crack all the encripted data on the internet, make super accurate models of the weather for the next 100 years, and unlock the secrets of the universe before the big bang. All at once. ;)

Skybase, Mon, 16 Jul 2012 19:14:13 -0400
Probably have some Higgs Bosons dancing on that computer right now. Probably makes it go faster. You know, just for FilterForge.

And in all honesty, you'd rather build a computer towards a situation and not towards a software unless you're convinced this would help you which is OK. This computer would be WAY too good for 3D and most things 3D (and a portion of 2D) go obsolete really quickly. There's almost no point in getting all of that since you'd be dealing with new hardware in 2 years to come. You wanna make a computer that's more adaptive to the situation rather than just buying everything fast you can at the time.

uberzev, Mon, 16 Jul 2012 19:43:29 -0400

Quote
Sr you never realize when Ubervez is taking the piss out of you, so be it, I really have better ways to spend my time

Tis true, I make fun of SR a lot.

But at the same time I seem to be the one helping him out the most.

So there's a balance. :D

Carl, Tue, 17 Jul 2012 03:11:48 -0400

Quote
SpaceRay wrote: I do not understand

That was the point SR, but if your happy to be ridiculed, igorance is bliss as the saying goes

Quote
uberzev wrote: But at the same time I seem to be the one helping him out the most. So there's a balance.

Fair enough, he doesn't mind so go for it :D

SpaceRay, Thu, 22 Nov 2012 21:39:47 -0500
There is news about this topic and there are some new prices for the low level of the new Xeon Processors

Intel Xeon E-2620 2 Ghz 6 cores for 415-450$ each one

And the Dual motherboard (ASUS) needed would cost 450-500$

So a 12 core (24 threads) 2 Ghz computer would cost less than 1500$ (well only the cpu and motherboard)

Obviously this is not the greatest and fastest computer because this is the most lowest version of the Xeon processors and with a low 2Ghz, BUT 2 Xeon of this is much faster than a single Quad Core and even Six core even when overclocked at 4Ghz

THE MAIN PROBLEM WITH THIS IS THE SOFTWARE

To be able to get real benefit from this Dual CPU the software must have been programmed and been optimized to be able to use this 12 cores in the best possible way as this is very important because normal and usual standard software are not prepared for multi core computers.

FILTER FORGE IS SLOWER WITH 12 CORES THAN WITH 4 CORES?

I have just seen a very curious thing that happened when making a render test speed to compare some speed results

And is a great surprise to see that a 12 core computer is SLOWER than a Quad Core computer, although there is not enough information and not enough test done to confirm it and should be investigated more, but

Could this be true and the title of this thread be wrong?

Please, see this other thread for more information

Please, anyone have Mac Pro 12 cores to make a filter forge benchmark?

SpaceRay, Fri, 23 Nov 2012 14:51:11 -0500
I have been searching comparisons, benchmarks and tests to see if a simple one 6 core chip Intel i7 3930K 3.2Ghz overclocked to 4 GHz could be also good to be near the perfomance of the two Xeon E-2620 at 2GHz.

Although the i7 3930K cost around 500$ you have only to buy ONE, and also the motherboard cost is much cheaper at nearly half price of the one needed for the dual Xeon, and the case can be also anyone compared to the expensive EEB needed for the Dual CHIP motherboard for desktop use as a workstation.

As I have seen is NOT so much important HOW many cores it has, is important the final perfomance and efficiency result, and having more cores does not been it is much better.

Tysus, Thu, 04 Apr 2013 15:07:06 -0400
Hey SpaceRay

I don't mean to be a downer, but I currently own a 12-core (hyper threaded) machine and can tell you that FF is defiantly not optimized for dual processors. In fact, I'd go so far to say that it doesn't support hyper-threading all that well either.

For example, my kids have a Core i5 2500 (overlocked to 4.5GHz), which does not support hyper-threading, but renders FF filters 2-3 times faster than my 12-core 3.2GHz machine. This leads me to believe that FF takes advantage of multiple cores, but not multiple processors or even hyper-threading.

I've run the same tests on FF version 3.0, and the beta for 4.

If you really want to improve performance, I'd recommend something like the Intel Core i7-3930K. When over-clocked it will deliver raw horsepower, and FF will defiantly recognize the additional 2 cores.

SpaceRay, Thu, 04 Apr 2013 15:24:18 -0400

Quote
Tysus I don't mean to be a downer, but I currently own a 12-core (hyper threaded) machine and can tell you that FF is defiantly not optimized for dual processors. In fact, I'd go so far to say that it doesn't support hyper-threading all that well either.

Please, What 12 cores do you have ?

If you say that you have a dual processor with 12 cores, does it mean that each processor has 6 cores and then two would have 12, and with hypertreading would have 24 cores?

Which processors are they?

Also it could be true that Filter Forge as you say is not optimized for dual processors, as I have seen in other information I have found that the software must be made specifically for dual and multicore processors and there are many that are only optimized for just one cpu and not two.

Quote
Tysus For example, my kids have a Core i5 2500 (overlocked to 4.5GHz), which does not support hyper-threading, but renders FF filters 2-3 times faster than my 12-core 3.2GHz machine. This leads me to believe that FF takes advantage of multiple cores, but not multiple processors or even hyper-threading.

:eek:
:eek:
:eek: So do you mean that a Core i5 2500 (overclocked to 4.5Ghz) is 2-3 times faster than a Core i7 2700 (overclocked at 4.5Ghz) ???? :eek: :eek:

This could be true and solve the mistery of Totte that gets no benefit from his dual processor computer.

very good information, and thanks to this I think that now would be good to make some tests with just 1 cpu and no multicore and without any hyperthreading, and then with multicore, and then another test with full multicore and hyperthreading, and finally the same with dual processors with also these 3 options.

I can make the test of the first 3 but can´t make the dual processor test.

found this --> Does disabling Hyper-Threading increase performance?

And here is a video to show how to disable the Hyper-Threading, it is done inside the BIOS in the CPU properties.

Also have just quickly tested how FF uses the CPU and it uses all the 8 cores of a quad core + HT as shown here below AND when using FF there is nothing else at the same time.

Tysus, Sat, 06 Apr 2013 12:05:18 -0400
My mistake, my computer multiprocessor machine runs at 3.3GHz - not 3.2GHz.

The exact machine is 2010 MacPro
The machine has 2 x Intel Xeon X5680 Westmere 3.33GHz (6-cores each) processors for a total of 12 cores (24 hyper threaded).

Theoretically this system should run circles around my Core i5, but this isn't the case. The over-clocked Core i5 outperforms in every FF filter I tested - by a long shot.

This isn't the case when I do renders with Cinema4D and/or After Effects; the Mac Pro destroys the Core i5 in terms of rendering speed.

I hope that helped...

SpaceRay, Mon, 08 Apr 2013 04:08:45 -0400
Thanks very much for the additional information, good to know and was very helpful to have another opinion of a user of dual processor like the one Totte also own.

So you are having one of the very good MacPro dual processors, although is expensive to have, and if you want a similat thing in Windows PC is even more expensive. :(

Quote
Tysus Theoretically this system should run circles around my Core i5, but this isn't the case. The over-clocked Core i5 outperforms in every FF filter I tested - by a long shot. This isn't the case when I do renders with Cinema4D and/or After Effects; the Mac Pro destroys the Core i5 in terms of rendering speed.

YES, theoretically your great double processor computer should be surely much better than an overclocked Core i5 and should outperform it in everything as it happens with the other software you have tried it, but seems that there is some problem with Filter Forge with Dual processors and perhaps also multicore, as I have tested myself and you also the renders are NOT faster.

So the title of this thread is wrong

Thanks again

Vladimir Golovin, Wed, 10 Apr 2013 05:02:33 -0400

Quote
For example, my kids have a Core i5 2500 (overlocked to 4.5GHz), which does not support hyper-threading, but renders FF filters 2-3 times faster than my 12-core 3.2GHz machine. This leads me to believe that FF takes advantage of multiple cores, but not multiple processors or even hyper-threading.

FF treats separate processors, physical cores and hyperthreading cores the same way -- it does not distinguish between them.

Burt, Mon, 15 Apr 2013 20:21:37 -0400
Well the next speed upgrade I would like to try (after a new computer as my desktop is 12 years old) would be a solid state drive or something like this http://ocz.com/consumer/synapse-sata-3-ssd

SpaceRay, Sun, 05 May 2013 18:01:13 -0400

Quote
Burt Well the next speed upgrade I would like to try (after a new computer as my desktop is 12 years old) would be a solid state drive

WOW, you have a 12 years old computer? then I think that a new SSD (solid state drive) Drive would be not be possible to be used in your computer, at least in the right and most useful way as your chipset will not have USB 3.0 that is needed for these to work, although you could buy an external USB 3.0 card to use it with the SSD drive, although I think that most of the USB 3.0 PCI internal cards are for PCI Express and not the old PCI that you may have, altough there could be perhaps a USB 3.0 for the old PCI, but do not think it would work as it would be slow PCI bus for the high amount of data.

FF will NOT get any speed increase when using a SSD drive at least when using filters and renderings, what gets faster in FF using a SSD drive is when loading the software or plugin and when loading the filter list that this is done much quicker than in a normal and old hard drive, more specially when you may have many thousands of filters.

FF Question re filters and downloads...

EA6B — Sun, 05 May 2013 17:20:13 -0400

EA6B, Sun, 05 May 2013 12:23:40 -0400
I just downloaded the program yesterday, in anticipation of purchasing. If I want to use a filter, I know to click on it and use it in PS.

What I want to know is whether the filter is downloaded and stored w/the program or whether I have to go online every time I want to use the same filter again?

Thanks. :?:
E

CFandM, Sun, 05 May 2013 13:43:41 -0400
Yep when you download a filter it is stored locally on your hard drive so no need to download it again...

EA6B, Sun, 05 May 2013 14:21:28 -0400
Thank You!

SpaceRay, Sun, 05 May 2013 17:20:13 -0400
As said by CFandM, when you install Filter Forge for the first time is created a new folder to store on your computer all the filters that you want to download fr om the library and as said you only need to download it just once and it will appear always after in your filter list, unless you uninstall Filter Forge.

Also when you install a new version of Filter Forge you have the option to import and copy your own existing filter library to the new version so you do not have to download them again.

To know WHERE does all these filters you download are located in your computer, please see this other thread

Where are the downloaded Filter Forge filters located physically?

Also have to say that would be a good idea to make a backup of the filters that you have already downloaded, because if something bad (wish it does not happen) would happens to your computer and you loose the data, you would have to reinstall your Filter Forge and download again all the filters unless you have a backup copy saved in another place outside of your computer.

Guide to how to backup your FF filters library from your hard drive

It would be very good if there could be a direct and easy option already available in FF 4.0 but there is no news about this, it would be good that you did not have to go to the filters folder to make a copy, and be directly made by the Filter Forge software.

TWO WAYS TO DOWNLOAD FILTERS FROM THE LIBRARY

Also as you are new, I want to say that there are TWO different ways to download filters into Filter Forge

Please see this other thread

Advantages and Disadvantages of using the OL and OLIFF Filters Library

Quote
I know that there are two ways to download filters from the Filter Forge (FF) Filters Library: 1 - Using the OL (Online Library) which is in the FF website. 2 - Using the OLIFF (Obsolete Library Inside Filter Forge)

Concerning forum spam

GMM — Sun, 05 May 2013 17:06:56 -0400

GMM, Wed, 06 Jan 2010 04:44:53 -0500
As more spammers start to post on the forums I would appreciate if you:

- do not alert the support team using the Contact tab — this will just make the chain to me longer;
- do alert me here, in this thread.

Thanks for helping us keep the forums clean :)

CFandM, Wed, 06 Jan 2010 17:19:16 -0500
Thanks for the thread GMM...To bad there needs to be one...Oh Well! :)
At least the clean-up will be tidy.. :)

Kraellin, Wed, 06 Jan 2010 21:35:32 -0500
if i spam gmm's thread on forum spam, do you think he'll remove the thread? ;) :D

KGtheway2B, Sat, 09 Jan 2010 15:00:29 -0500
I noticed this:

http://www.filterforge.com/wiki/index...nstruction

It seems the bots are editing the wiki now too.

Indigo Ray, Sat, 09 Jan 2010 15:48:54 -0500

Quote
KGtheway2B wrote: I noticed this:

Don't worry, Crapa's original article is still there.

Crapadilla, Mon, 11 Jan 2010 02:15:27 -0500
Still, its pretty annoying, don't you think?

Maybe some tighter security measures should be put in place, like disallowing new accounts with less than N posts to edit the wiki.

CFandM, Fri, 05 Feb 2010 10:17:12 -0500

Quote
GMM wrote: As more spammers start to post on the forums I would appreciate if you: - do not alert the support team using the Contact tab — this will just make the chain to me longer; - do alert me here, in this thread. Thanks for helping us keep the forums clean Smile

Another spammer hiding as a poster.. ;) :)
http://www.filterforge.com/forum/read...5&TID=7037

Same Spammer
http://www.filterforge.com/forum/read...6#postform

StevieJ, Mon, 08 Feb 2010 02:08:38 -0500
***cough*** :D

http://www.filterforge.com/forum/read...5&TID=6994

Quote
Crapadilla wrote: Maybe some tighter security measures should be put in place, like disallowing new accounts with less than N posts to edit the wiki.

Very good idea.... :!:

GMM, Mon, 08 Feb 2010 02:56:42 -0500

Quote
StevieJ wrote: *cough* Big grin

The link has been removed. Personally I don't think it's a good idea to reply to a spam post, like people do in that thread.

StevieJ, Mon, 08 Feb 2010 02:58:23 -0500
Sorry.....knee-jerk reaction.... ;) :D

Vladimir Golovin, Mon, 08 Feb 2010 04:38:46 -0500

Quote
Crapadilla wrote: Maybe some tighter security measures should be put in place, like disallowing new accounts with less than N posts to edit the wiki.

That would require a full-blown karma system, which is definitely a good idea but too much work at the moment.

Totte, Thu, 18 Feb 2010 00:26:30 -0500
http://www.filterforge.com/forum/read...0&TID=7070

Spampost

GMM, Thu, 18 Feb 2010 03:30:10 -0500
Thank you, post removed.

CFandM, Sun, 21 Oct 2012 09:56:19 -0400
Even more spam....They will never learn and are not very good at spamming...
http://www.filterforge.com/forum/read...sage114916
http://www.filterforge.com/forum/read...sage114917

SpaceRay, Mon, 29 Oct 2012 04:27:39 -0400
EVEN MORE SPAM appeared now

demanded to locate a terrific great deal.

very likely as a result of amending an ongoing Expense.

I found this easily as the title is NOT really very understandable and is weird and not much related to this forum :D

Sharandra, Sat, 08 Dec 2012 07:37:12 -0500
More spam

Totte, Sat, 08 Dec 2012 12:53:51 -0500
Spam:http://www.filterforge.com/forum/read...sage115628

lipebianc, Thu, 13 Dec 2012 02:46:55 -0500
SPAM:

1)http://www.filterforge.com/forum/read...sage115788

2)http://www.filterforge.com/forum/read...sage115786

Sharandra, Sun, 23 Dec 2012 08:25:25 -0500
Spammer spamming filter comments now: iusdfuysdf

Ammonite by Sjeiti

AlienMetal1 by John Michaud

Sunburst by Vladimir Golovin

Embroidered Knits by ahimsa

SpaceRay, Mon, 24 Dec 2012 03:57:06 -0500
There is 10 TEN more spam threads or posts from the user phoebe posted just now on the 24 of december

Sharandra, Wed, 13 Feb 2013 18:07:08 -0500
Not directly spam, but that user flooding the forum with empty comment posts gets a bit annoying... o.O

CFandM, Sun, 05 May 2013 08:28:38 -0400
What is this the legal fourm :?: ;)
More Spam....SPAMMER

SpaceRay, Sun, 05 May 2013 17:06:56 -0400
I agree with you CFandM, this post and thread does not seem to have any connection and does not make any sense in this forum.

Pausing a render ?

ddaydreams — Fri, 03 May 2013 10:41:48 -0400

ddaydreams, Fri, 03 May 2013 10:38:35 -0400
Can ff pause and resume a render ?

Skybase, Fri, 03 May 2013 10:41:48 -0400
Can't really pause renders in FilterForge unfortunately... but +1 for a feature request :)

filter for ores, gems etc on a transparent background

trond — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:01:16 -0400

trond, Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:14:10 -0400
Hello, i am making a game where you will find ores to mine. There are alot of awesome filters here to create awesome ores with, but there is one problem. I need to render only the ore itself with a transparent background. I plan on putting the ores on a flat plane and apply DX11 tesselation on it so make it into a 3D shape, but for this to work its important that only the gem itself is rendered, no dirt/rock/other details.

Do any1 know a good filter for this, or is there a way to change an existing filter to do this? I have been looking around for ages, and think its time to ask for help :)

CFandM, Sun, 28 Apr 2013 11:57:55 -0400
There is this thread that I responded to some time ago....You can also post the link to the filter in question or ask/email the original filter author..

Question re Transparency in Png/Filter Forge

CorvusCroax, Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:01:16 -0400
Hi Trond,

It's usually fairly trivial to create a filter with transparency. It's really not hard to create a filter which separates out one type of part.

Just open up the filter, start poking around, and there is probably something which could function as an alpha for that part; put it all on a switch and you're good to go. Sometimes you might have to subtract thing A against thing B, or put it on a threshold, but it's all pretty minor.

Best, -CCX

Just getting started

Spiritman — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 20:12:19 -0400

Spiritman, Thu, 11 Apr 2013 23:45:34 -0400
Is there a way to return to the settings that came with a filter?

I'm using Sketchy Paint and after moving some sliders in settings I'd like to return to the default but if you go to the presets Tab and then back to the sliders, they remain unchanged...even if the Default preset gave the original results, one cannot see what they are.....

Spiritman, Fri, 12 Apr 2013 00:12:23 -0400
I figured it out...the double click changes the sliders....sorry for the bother

Burt, Mon, 15 Apr 2013 20:12:19 -0400
No bother. Looking forward to seeing what you come up with. You have some beautiful photography on your web site.

Half a month with no new filters

ddaydreams — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 01:56:12 -0400

ddaydreams, Wed, 03 Apr 2013 10:20:04 -0400
I noticed the last filter submitted was last month on the 19th. Is the filter submission Que broken?

GMM, Wed, 03 Apr 2013 10:24:56 -0400
We're performing some maintenance works on the library filters. Expect the new/updated filters to be listed by the end of this week.

ddaydreams, Wed, 03 Apr 2013 10:28:35 -0400
Thanks for the new filters ETA :)

voldemort, Thu, 04 Apr 2013 13:17:25 -0400
Does this mean we will need to resubmit our filters?

SpaceRay, Thu, 04 Apr 2013 16:01:48 -0400
I was going to ask the smae thing as I could not believe than no one have not submitted at least one filter in 15 days.

Thanks GMM for let us know that for next week it will be solved and back again

Skybase, Fri, 05 Apr 2013 01:56:12 -0400
One of these days.... Haha there will be a giant flood.

Lol spaceray cheer us up with new filters if you're having trouble believing nobody's submitted stuff in 15 days.

v3 update

Ghislaine — Tue, 02 Apr 2013 12:44:07 -0400

Ghislaine, Mon, 01 Apr 2013 16:47:18 -0400
Hello everyone !

Where can I update the v3 ? Thanks in advance ;) for the reply.

ddaydreams, Mon, 01 Apr 2013 20:05:07 -0400
open your ff, then main menu>tools>update

GMM, Tue, 02 Apr 2013 07:56:01 -0400
You can also update it manually from the download page.

Ghislaine, Tue, 02 Apr 2013 12:44:07 -0400
Thanks GMM ! :)

And thanks to ddaydreams ! :)

30 day trial expired after 6 days...

namrettek — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 19:40:35 -0400

namrettek, Fri, 22 Mar 2013 17:23:48 -0400
I launched filter forge 3 today and it said my 30 day trial has expired.

I installed it (and downloaded it) on the 16th of March.

I'm a bit disapointed that I could not try it out more than a couple of times.

SpaceRay, Sat, 23 Mar 2013 07:20:55 -0400
this has happened before also, and then you should contact the FF customer support or wait until the forum moderator GMM can see what could be happening

Here are other threads about this

30-day trial period has already expired ! (I had 27 days remaining)

Trial period doesn't last 30 days — FIXED

30 day trial - expired on first run

or perhaps more here in this FF forum search

namrettek, Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:14:21 -0400
Thanks for your reply. I sent in an email to customer support.

namrettek, Fri, 29 Mar 2013 19:40:35 -0400
Forgot to add - Support contacted me on the Weekday after this problem and gave me a temp liscence. So I am trying it out.

Computer died, now trying to find a filter

Jac — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:47:36 -0400

Jac, Wed, 27 Mar 2013 05:37:10 -0400
Hi all,

My computer died a bit ago and I had a ton of filters installed, but now having a problem finding one that I used sometimes. Would anyone here happen to know which filter might have made the below two images?

Thank you!

ThreeDee, Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:35:36 -0400
Looks like this one.

Jac, Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:47:36 -0400
Thank you so much ThreeDee!

I was searching for hours and couldn't find it.

Freepack Installation

RobWize — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 04:59:30 -0400

RobWize, Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:46:02 -0400
Hello FilterForge, I'm trying out the freepacks (found here: http://www.filterforge.com/download/) and I'm wondering how to install them for use in CS6E. I've recently upgraded CS5E and I know that in that version after installation a FilterForge section appeared under the "Filters" drop down menu. That doesn't seem to be the case in CS6E. I've installed Freepack 1 - Metals, opened the image I'd like to play with in CS6E and opened the Filters menu, but I don't see any "Metals" or "FilterForge" selections.

Is this something that can be used in CS6E? If so, where is it located after installation? If not, is this a stand alone only?

GMM, Mon, 25 Mar 2013 04:59:30 -0400
Hello RobWize. What OS version do you use?

Freepacks do support CS6, I'm not sure why your copy failed to install as a plugin. Please uninstall it and reinstall; if it fails again try placing the plugin files manually.