They're working on something ...

[bananahead]

All of the decent apps are paid for.

I bet you are connecting through Chrome right now
You have crtainly used Adobe Acrobat reader
Your mobile phone runs Android
You downloaded movies through bittorrent
Your TV and your vacuum cleaner run Linux
If you ever did drawing you sure came accross Blender, Inkscape and many others
You have certainly used gimp


If you did none of those... well, you really did not have enough experience in life yet

Very good.

Google have a revenue stream.
Adobe have a revenue stream.

The others are just hobby software



All of the serious software that I use I have paid for.

( I don't steal music or films )

[txoni]

All of the decent apps are paid for.

I bet you are connecting through Chrome right now
You have crtainly used Adobe Acrobat reader
Your mobile phone runs Android
You downloaded movies through bittorrent
Your TV and your vacuum cleaner run Linux
If you ever did drawing you sure came accross Blender, Inkscape and many others
You have certainly used gimp


If you did none of those... well, you really did not have enough experience in life yet

Very good.

Google have a revenue stream.
Adobe have a revenue stream.

The others are just hobby software



All of the serious software that I use I have paid for.

( I don't steal music or films )

Good! It took you some time, but you finally undestood it! Opensource does NOT mean they do not have revenue. It wasn't that hard, right?

Now, it will take you a bit more thinking.... I know it's hard, but try: Blender DOES have a revenue stream too, Gimp developers DO have an income too, Inkscape people also have an income too. You just do not pay for using them, but they know how to live from it, just like Google does. And btw, your vacuum cleaner is paid for also, bittorrent is not only for piracy, and I do not believe you.

Anyway, I know you are stubborn. One of those "I just think I am right and the rest of the world is not" attitude people, so have fun ... if you can afford it!

[SteveCase]

Just wondering (past history thing)

Which came first. ACR, Lightroom, Rawshooter.

[df]

Good! It took you some time, but you finally undestood it! Opensource does NOT mean they do not have revenue. It wasn't that hard, right?

Now, it will take you a bit more thinking.... I know it's hard, but try: Blender DOES have a revenue stream too, Gimp developers DO have an income too, Inkscape people also have an income too. You just do not pay for using them, but they know how to live from it, just like Google does. And btw, your vacuum cleaner is paid for also, bittorrent is not only for piracy, and I do not believe you.

Anyway, I know you are stubborn. One of those "I just think I am right and the rest of the world is not" attitude people, so have fun ... if you can afford it!

Oh... the irony....

[afx]

Just wondering (past history thing)

Which came first. ACR, Lightroom, Rawshooter.

Bibble (2000)
Capture 1 (they are older than Bibble, but where initially Phase One backs only).
ACR (2002)
RawShooter (2005?)
Aperture (2005)
LightRoom (2007)
Bibble sold to Corel -> AfterShot (2011, first release 2012)

cheers
afx

[bananahead]

[Anyway, I know you are stubborn. One of those "I just think I am right and the rest of the world is not" attitude people, so have fun ... if you can afford it!

Oh please patronise me some more . I enjoy it so much.

And it makes you look so smart.

[txoni]

Bibble (2000)

Yikes! I met Bibble for the first time in 2006. Never thought that it was one of the first software out there for photography. One of the first affordable "low cost" cameras back then were the EOS 10D and 300D which were announced in 2003. I wonder how many people actually got that much experience with raw. I myself always shot jpg with my 300D until I met Bibble with its nice workflow.

[jknights]

So you expect a company that paid for the product to give it to you for free and you are then going to commercialise it yourself?

Who are you bananahead ?
Do you work for Corel?.
I am a long term (12 years) user of Bibble and ASP and as such have a better knowledge of the product and its history that I guess you have.
Please can you read the other posts on the forum that ask what is happening to the product?.

I have absolutely no interest in commercialising the product, merely allowing it to be improved and advanced by people who work in open source products.
You or I dont know how much Corel paid for the source code but like all of the Corel portfolio they are purchased at fairly reasonable prices and then exploited until they are worthless. This is the Corel business model and allows a 'small,' (relative term), company to operate with low costs. It is not a good model but it does work.

What I am saying is that by making it open source that Corel are not giving it away as it is dead anyway.
Do you really think that a software that is meant to provide RAW camera processing does not need to be updated to support the latest cameras ?

I await your usual one line response, which provides no rationale for any of your argument!

[jknights]

Very good.

Google have a revenue stream.
Adobe have a revenue stream.

The others are just hobby software



All of the serious software that I use I have paid for.

( I don't steal music or films )

What or who do you steal from to get your money?
If you live in Switzerland then you must have money from somewhere.

We think that you protest too strongly.

[df]

Very good.

Google have a revenue stream.
Adobe have a revenue stream.

The others are just hobby software



All of the serious software that I use I have paid for.

( I don't steal music or films )

What or who do you steal from to get your money?
If you live in Switzerland then you must have money from somewhere.

We think that you protest too strongly.

I believe he was responding to the allegation that he's downloaded movies via bittorrent, i.e. stealing content.

[bananahead]

Very good.

Google have a revenue stream.
Adobe have a revenue stream.

The others are just hobby software



All of the serious software that I use I have paid for.

( I don't steal music or films )

What or who do you steal from to get your money?
If you live in Switzerland then you must have money from somewhere.

We think that you protest too strongly.

I believe he was responding to the allegation that he's downloaded movies via bittorrent, i.e. stealing content.

Indeed he was.

[bananahead]

So you expect a company that paid for the product to give it to you for free and you are then going to commercialise it yourself?

Who are you bananahead ?
Do you work for Corel?.
I am a long term (12 years) user of Bibble and ASP and as such have a better knowledge of the product and its history that I guess you have.
Please can you read the other posts on the forum that ask what is happening to the product?.

I have absolutely no interest in commercialising the product, merely allowing it to be improved and advanced by people who work in open source products.
You or I dont know how much Corel paid for the source code but like all of the Corel portfolio they are purchased at fairly reasonable prices and then exploited until they are worthless. This is the Corel business model and allows a 'small,' (relative term), company to operate with low costs. It is not a good model but it does work.

What I am saying is that by making it open source that Corel are not giving it away as it is dead anyway.
Do you really think that a software that is meant to provide RAW camera processing does not need to be updated to support the latest cameras ?

I await your usual one line response, which provides no rationale for any of your argument!

Oh dear.

No I don't work for Corel.

I became interested in Bibble with Bibble 5 so I don't have as long a history as you. This means that I believed the promises of where Bibble were going but soon realised that they not only didn't have the resources but were actually shedding staff. Looking back, it now seems obvious that the deal with Corel was even being discussed shortly after 5 was released. There was a link to "advanced RAW lab" in whatever release of PSP was around six months later. I do not have any sentimentality about the original development team. I suspect that it was Bibble that approached Corel and not the other way round.

And, as a long time PSP user I have found the release schedule since Corel bought it to be reasonable. I would be more than happy for ASP to get to the same level but I do recognise that Corel are having a few challenges getting there. Some of their creation and some not.

Talking about camera support, I think that there is something fundamentally wrong with any product that needs to have a point release to support new models.

[afx]

Talking about camera support, I think that there is something fundamentally wrong with any product that needs to have a point release to support new models.

That was never a problem for the Bibble team. New cameras where always supported rather quickly.
It is Corels totally messed up development that is the key issue here.
They fired the original team before training the new guys and on top of that they have allocated way too little resources for AS. Then add the mess with NoiseNinja where they started way too late to look for a replacement and you end up with a defunct product.
They needed help from Jeff just to get a few trivial cameras in for the 1.2.0.7 update and borrow Michael from AMD, I think that is telling enough.

cheers
afx

[jknights]

So you expect a company that paid for the product to give it to you for free and you are then going to commercialise it yourself?

Who are you bananahead ?
Do you work for Corel?.
I am a long term (12 years) user of Bibble and ASP and as such have a better knowledge of the product and its history that I guess you have.
Please can you read the other posts on the forum that ask what is happening to the product?.

I have absolutely no interest in commercialising the product, merely allowing it to be improved and advanced by people who work in open source products.
You or I dont know how much Corel paid for the source code but like all of the Corel portfolio they are purchased at fairly reasonable prices and then exploited until they are worthless. This is the Corel business model and allows a 'small,' (relative term), company to operate with low costs. It is not a good model but it does work.

What I am saying is that by making it open source that Corel are not giving it away as it is dead anyway.
Do you really think that a software that is meant to provide RAW camera processing does not need to be updated to support the latest cameras ?

I await your usual one line response, which provides no rationale for any of your argument!

Oh dear.

No I don't work for Corel.

I became interested in Bibble with Bibble 5 so I don't have as long a history as you. This means that I believed the promises of where Bibble were going but soon realised that they not only didn't have the resources but were actually shedding staff. Looking back, it now seems obvious that the deal with Corel was even being discussed shortly after 5 was released. There was a link to "advanced RAW lab" in whatever release of PSP was around six months later. I do not have any sentimentality about the original development team. I suspect that it was Bibble that approached Corel and not the other way round.

And, as a long time PSP user I have found the release schedule since Corel bought it to be reasonable. I would be more than happy for ASP to get to the same level but I do recognise that Corel are having a few challenges getting there. Some of their creation and some not.

Talking about camera support, I think that there is something fundamentally wrong with any product that needs to have a point release to support new models.

Thank you for your more reasoned response. I know that all my friends in Switzerland are very reasonable and I used to work in Basel so I could not understand your one liner replies!


Yes the situation with Corel has been a great frustration for may of us long time users as Corel seem to lack a desire to communicate with customers.

I do agree with you about the update process for RAW support that this is poor design. This was done at the changeover from Bibble4 to Bibble5. I did complain about this when I saw this in the first beta releases but I had no control over the design. We have discussed this many times subsequently but there was no change.
In one of my posts here I did actually post to the 'Wish List of Enhancements to V2' that we have an alternative or parallel RAW engine process so we could say insert the latest version of DCRAW to provide updates for the latest cameras. there is a downside to this that the DCRAW is very slow compared to the Bibble engine which is the fastest RAW engine (still).
Unfortunately this is extra complexity and more engineering and is one of the reasons that I believe that Corel should open source the source code as this would allow them to benefit form changes to the code base and have little or no cost except to manage the support of product copies they sold. Open source 'free copies' would be unsupported. However I understand that they may feel challenged by this as it means that they notionally lose an asset but in fact they would gain more (I believe).

[lathspell]

Not sure if this was mentioned before. It starts with some marketing phrases but ends with a little information about what they (AMD + Corel) are working on: http://web.amd.com/assets/CustomerRefer ... 202014.pdf

Now I'm confused whether I have to buy an AMD based computer/GPU/whatever thingy just to get i.e. the new Local Contrast feature in ASP2 (if it ever makes it into the real world) ...

ETA: Ok, that paper is saying quite the same (and a little bit more) like the January video featuring Rick Champagne shown on facebook ...