4000 registered beta-testers

We've just passed the 4000 registered beta-testers milestone!

:afro: Hurray

Quote
voldemort wrote: Great --now if only we can get some more to generate filters --Shows just how attractive this product is once you see it in action

----They're too busy going through the volde archives currently

jffe

By the time the've checked out the 1432 filters they're probably too scared to submit.

That's even worse stats than voting in the U.S.

jffe

Quote
voldemort wrote: Well one of theese day's Ill finally maybe whip out one that everyone likes still havnt figured out why some of mine are not more warmly received I swear Im actually trying to make stuff thats usefull to folks

----Don't feel bad, I've been purposely toning my stuff down since after the 12th-15th filter or so, and aiming for more usability/simplicity/function, and I've still only hit *popular* with one of them so far. Once this program goes public, then the real stats will start pouring in. No offense to anyone who's already made a lot of *popular* filters, but geeks geeking out over geek stuff, doesn't really count for the most part ha-ha.

jffe

Quote
voldemort wrote: Well one of theese day's Ill finally maybe whip out one that everyone likes Smile still havnt figured out why some of mine are not more warmly received I swear Im actually trying to make stuff thats usefull to folks

Maybe I can illuminate by providing a few of my humble thoughts on the voluminous 'volde archives' and filter authoring in general.

In my experience, filters that are tightly focused on specific tasks and easily controllable (i.e. with 7+-2 controls) are the most attractive, simply because they present solutions to specific problems in a clear and tightly focused way. Sandboxes for creative exploration do have their uses too, but most of the time, one is looking for solutions to visual design problems. Thus specialization is not a filter's weakness, but its strength.

Simplicity. If you look at the standard PS filters, you'll notice they're all tightly focused on specific tasks. Often, a PS user will use many different filters in succession on an image, but there simply can't be a filter that accomodates for everything he could possibly want to do. Therefore, strip a filter down to the basics, remove anything that distracts from its area of speciality. This is always painful, since one always wants to do more with this newest filter, but again: Less is more, for most cases.

Clarity and Focus. Try to make a clear distinction whether its an effect or a texture (It helps to set a theme for the filter early on, that one can adhere to when constructing it). The lifesaver image is all over your filters, even over many of obvious textural character. If its supposed to be a texture, do away with the lifesaver, so that essence of the texture can become clear. If I wanted an image blended over a texture, I'd usually do that via PS layers rather than inside my texture filter. Try to remove any functionality from the filter that really belongs elsewhere. This is what I'd call 'tightening up a filter'.

Controlling your Controls. Choose your favorite 7+-2 controls, and try to do away with the rest. This is not always possible or desireable, but a good rule of thumb. It's a Good Thing™ that the 10 control limit is gone, yet this used to be an excellent constraint that led to filter streamlining. Reduce controls by internally automating as much as possible via remappers. Try to give your controls the most precise and descriptive labels you can think of. Humor and creative lunacy in naming your controls can also go a long way in making the charm of a filter. Sometimes the filter name alone can set a theme for the whole filter, from naming the controls, to giving a fitting description and to providing themed presets. (On a sidenote: It is my taste and conviction that any filter that deserves its name also deserves to have it spelled with first letters capitalized.)



Noise VS. Texture. Be aware that noise is just that: noise. A background phenomenon. It's flashy for a while, but when Perlin and Worley get administered over prolonged periods of time, they become distracting and annoying to the neurons, and simply get filtered out. What's my point? For a filter to really be 'texture', one needs way more than noise. Noise is a necessity for photorealistic textures, but what is really essential is a strong idea that gives birth to form, pattern, geometry. The Organics textures category sure is a fine thing, but I fear it is swelling steadily towards the point of supersaturation. This is tragic, since in the realm of patterns and geometries there is so much to explore...

Well then, I'm concluding my torrential ramblings by putting on record that these words are just my personal perspective, and that in no way anything I wrote here is meant to be taken as absolute.

voldemort, I salute and respect your productivity and effort. It is my sincerest hope that your filter authoring soon looks to the largely unexplored fields beyond the amorphous, the formless, and enters into the world of concrete form, where - as the filter library clearly shows - the twin deities 'Editor's Pick' and 'High Usage Rank' are usually found lying dormant...

well said, crapadilla.

i'll just add a few more notes to all this. we now have over 1400 filters! it'll be 1500 or more by the time FF is released. and i dont mean to poke vlad or any of the FF team by bringing this up again, but the fact is, it's somewhat difficult still to find any given filter in the library. hopefully, that will change down the road, but for now, getting your filter even looked at a first time is somewhat remote. who's going to go looking through 1500 filters... ok, well, i do, but i'm an oddball with too much time on his hands. so, folks not picking your filter can be no more than just a numbers game.

and crapadilla also makes some very good points on focus and purpose. you could somewhat categorize filters as 'streamlined' and 'exploratory' (or experimental). the streamlined has a specific effect it's conveying, with some variations. the exploratory is generally much broader. it's more of a 'let's see what we can come up with' type of filter. the latter might have 40 controls, the former would probably subscribe more to what crapadilla is talking about. i often never even submit the exploratory type. i use them locally to find interesting effects and then isolate that one effect and make a more focused one from that with many fewer controls. when i'm working with filters and plugins in paint shop pro (psp), i use both. i have a large number of specific types and another group of broader based.

the broad, exploratory type i use when i dont really have anything specific in mind. i just want to see what i can come up with, but just as often, i know what i want and go to a much simpler, dedicated effect. so, there's room for both.

but, i've noticed that FF is being used by a lot of professionals, many of which are in the computer game industry. they want specifics. they want textures they can use in their environments. and i think vlad has somewhat catered to this from the very conception of FF, and that's fine; i'm not trying to rebuke him for having done so (i'll probably find out i'm wrong on this from vlad, but it is a trend i've noticed). so, crapadilla is right in that regard; textures tend to be king in FF (i'm probably going to find i'm wrong on that too ).

but for me, the draw wasnt textures. i wanted filters, photo filters. i wanted the exploratory, especially at the beginning. i do photo art and photo retouching and photo restoration. and FF offered something that i could not only use for this, but i could create my own filters! and, i didnt have to know how to code!! i've used things like filtermeister, but i'm not a very good coder. FF offered this marvelous plug 'n play style of filter creation and i've been hooked ever since.


there is also another trend that works against the filter maker... apathy and indifference. i've seen this on many, many forums and with many, many pieces of software. you create something you consider cool and nobody says a word. you begin to think 'nobody cares' or 'i'm no good at this'. and that's just not true usually. i'll get a response to something i create in about one in forty to 100 views of whatever it is. so, i quit counting the responses and only counted the 'views' the number of downloads of your filter probably shldnt count either. i download ALL the filters, always. but i've probably only looked closely at a very small percentage of the filters in the library.

one thing i've started doing is, when i find a filter in the library i like, i take it into the editor and re-save it. this puts a copy in 'my filters' and it's then easier for me to find the ones i like. but i'm pretty horrible on starting a response in the forum to any given filter even though i know there are some that are quite deserving that havent been commented on yet. i'd rather make filters

and even though this hasnt been mentioned here yet, i think some will find that once they make the having won a free copy of FF, this whole issue wont be as much of an issue. hopefully, that list will come out pretty soon and some folks can relax i figure i've won one. i've submitted any number of bug reports, ideas, arguements and contributions (and useless noise) and been a pretty dedicated fan of FF right from the start. i'm still amazed almost every day with this program. so, i dont feel like i must-contribute-to-earn-the-reward; i do so because i enjoy the program, the people and just seeing my stuff used once in a while. and i'll continue to do so as long as my license key is valid and vlad doesnt throw me out for being an obnoxious puss.

but, we all like creating an effect. it's great when someone makes a complimentary remark on something you've done. it's a validation that you've done something that enhanced someone else's life in some way and that's always desirable and we all tend to enjoy those remarks (some of us even live for it ).

and one last thing, NEVER be afraid of patting your own back! sometimes, you're the only one that is going to do it, even though you deserve it from others. so, post your own filters in the response area if you like and comment on them. a little self-advertising is sometimes the kick-start a filter needs to be recognized. it's also not a bad idea to simply poll to find out what's needed and wanted and then go create it. i've volunteered a number of ideas for filters that i know are 'over my head' or that i'll never get around to doing myself.

Quote
voldemort wrote: I was just hopeing that with some of my maddness it was usefull to other folks since at least then my fun and exploration did more then just entertained me --it did some good then

----I think it will be, and even some of your more crazy filters.
----To add to what Kraellin said (in addition to agreeing it 90% of it) I think we (those of us making filters at all) are much more interested in our "own thing", whatever that may be. If anything, I'm almost surprised to see so much back patting really, considering the players involved so far ya know.
----I have no doubt that 1/2 the filters currently posted will see heavy use one way or another, and in some cases, torn apart and made better or different. If anything volde, you are planting seeds for the next generation of filter makers, like we all are kind of trying to do (or just in fact doing without trying) really. I've made 50 or so filters and gotten comments on maybe 3 or 4 of them, no big deal, if anything, that's more than I expected until this app gets released. And then, people probably won't post so much about old filters, as they will just use them to make new ones etc. That said, I look forward to semi-retirement, (of filtermaking), so I can get more into exploring the vast library and actually using the filters more.

jffe

Quote

Kraellin wrote: i've noticed that FF is being used by a lot of professionals, many of which are in the computer game industry. they want specifics. they want textures they can use in their environments. and i think vlad has somewhat catered to this from the very conception of FF, and that's fine; i'm not trying to rebuke him for having done so (i'll probably find out i'm wrong on this from vlad, but it is a trend i've noticed)

You're absolutly right. With a procedural node-based architecture, generating textures is the first thing that comes to mind. BTW, the original internal name of the project was simply Texturizer. The feature set of FF also supports this -- seamless tiling, normal/bump maps, high quality antialiasing. Also, texture generation is an underserved niche on the Photoshop plugin market, and Photoshop itself isn't very good at this -- so I thought why not?

volde,

no belly-aching perceived

and, here's one where i borrowed a snippet from your 'soupbowl' filter and modified. it's still something i'm working on, but i think you'll recognize the original component structure

and vlad, thank you.

Shapes 1a.ffxml

by the time this thing is released, the number of filters in the library will exceed the number of registered users

Welcome to the fun, Torley!

May the nodes be with you...