5 ms·
A really interesting thing is that unlike on other tasks (programming?) open source is not that visible in the graphics/animation space.
by bibyte 8y ago
A really interesting thing is that unlike on other tasks (programming?) open source is not that visible in the graphics/animation space.
- meruru 8y agoBlender is widely used for 3D I believe.
- bibyte 8y agoYou are right but Blender is the exception rather then the rule.
- creyes 8y agoGIMP is an open source graphics program and Blender is an open source 3D graphics program. Both incredibly high quality products that are open source
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y agoPixar would like a word.
- jcelerier 8y agoKrita ? OpenColor.io ? Blender ? MyPaint ?
- meruru 8y agoKrita is awesome and getting traction, but most people are still on Photoshop.
- canofbars 8y agoHow does that have anything to do with viability? If you are an artist and there is an amazing tool with a fairly big user base but not as big as photoshop how does that stop you using krita in any way? Its not viable if you ignore all the ways it is viable.
- meruru 8y agoThe discussion is about visibility, not viability. The opening post says: >open source is not that visible in the graphics/animation space
- berkut 8y agoIt's visible, but only really in terms of libraries and frameworks, not as user-facing tools. OpenEXR, Alembic, USD, OpenImageIO, OCIO, Open Shader Language, OpenSubDiv, etc, etc.