TUAW Exclusive: Pixelmator in-depth screencast
Unfortunately, Pixelmator got delayed a bit (hey, it's software, it happens), and according to the development blog, a private beta is scheduled to begin August 16th. Since we all have to wait a bit longer to see more of Pixelmator, we figured it was about time to score another exclusive video of Pixelmator in action - and score we have! Embedded in this post is a three minute Pixelmator demo screencast that covers a lot more features in action than we've ever seen before. Selection tools, a unique gradient tool, text, transformation, adding layers and moving images from one document to another, the photo browser that allows access to your iPhoto library, snapping a pic from iSight, color correction and some wild, wild filters and effects - all in this video that even WWDC attendees didn't see! If you've been waiting to see some more meat of what Pixelmator will be capable of, you owe it to yourself to press play above.
Needless to say, I'm pretty darn excited for Pixelmator, especially since it'll only cost $59 once released, and I can't wait to get my hands on a copy for review as soon as the team is ready.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
CarbonFree said 5:41PM on 8-09-2007
Is it just me, or does Pixelmator look like nothing more than a shiny Gimp? (I'm being serious. I can't tell any other difference than looks.)
Reply
Bill said 5:43PM on 8-09-2007
Aside from that guys irritating voice, that demonstration was impressive. If word gets out, Adobe could be hurt by this program.
Reply
Bruno said 5:54PM on 8-09-2007
Looks like a great start to a program that will undoubtedly do very well if it delivers on what the web site has promised.
However, I think there's tremendous room for growth and improvement here. And not by copying Photoshop feature for feature.
Photoshop has some huge negatives against it. The biggest is that its core technology and UI are almost 20 years old. It has received incremental changes but many of them stick out like a sore thumb in integration or lack there-of. I consider myself a fairly advanced Photoshop user and at the same time I can't stand its antiquated and out-dated interface. The entire Filter menu and its contents are a total mess and modal like they belong in 1988.
Much of what I see in this program seems to be following too closely behind Photoshop's bad examples. I hope the developers look at other programs for inspiration, even all the way back to the grand-daddy digital paint program Deluxe Paint (from the Amiga). And of course to some new creative tools such as those found in Light Craft's Lightzone ( http://www.lightcrafts.com/products/index.html ) - check out their videos for an amazing workflow at touching up real-world photos.
I'm also certain that by using core Mac OS they're off to a great start and should provide a much more real-time experience than Photoshop. Finally image editing that's graphics accelerated instead of only CPU-driven.
Hopefully can do some of the basic things Photoshop falls completely flat on its face attempting: Font rendering, making circles that are truly round, gradients that are even and smooth, etc.
Reply
Cameron said 6:13PM on 8-09-2007
This is exciting to me - a product that isn't so lightweight as to be a toy while remaining actually affordable. I can completely see this in my web production workflow. Here's hoping that it won't be too resource intensive.
Reply
Joshua Ochs said 6:26PM on 8-09-2007
For all of the talking of "masking tools", the image used already had its transparency set, and the shadow erasure was just a plain eraser - nothing was actually masked specially. If he'd had a less steady hand, the edge of the apple would be gone as well. In short, nothing very impressive here.
I'm not so sure about this - its main competition is Photoshop Elements, which has far more features, an interface that isn't that different from this, and costs only a very little more. Once it's made universal, I don't see a call for this at all.
Reply
joe said 6:30PM on 8-09-2007
I am curious about RAW support out of the box for photographers...
Guess I'll check out their website and see what it says. Looks like it has potential, especially for the price,
Reply
Jonathan Miller said 6:55PM on 8-09-2007
argh... that mans accent was very irritating...
Reply
Edwin said 7:12PM on 8-09-2007
This news has been much more exciting to me than all this stupid .Mac stuff. I can't wait for this program to come out.
Reply
erikcantu said 7:13PM on 8-09-2007
the VO was so bad, it wasn't till 3 minutes it that I figured out this wasn't all just a big joke. I though it was some spoof from "flight of the conchords."
Reply
jason mark said 7:39PM on 8-09-2007
Can we wait until it's at least in Beta to get excited. Once it comes out, it's certainly possibly a competitor to GIMP or Photoshop Elements.
Saying it's a competitor to Photoshop is a bit much, but I imagine you mean Photoshop Elements. ;)
- Jason
http://www.gravityswitch.com
Reply
Joey said 8:16PM on 8-09-2007
Argh. I hate it when non-English speakers can't decide whether to stick to their native, an English, or an American accent when speaking the English language. Choose one and stick to it! The bloke started off alright, but got progressively indiscernible towards the end. Through the entire video, I had a feeling that I've heard that voice somewhere, and then it struck me when he said the word "nice".
Borat.
Niceeee. I likee. How much? Jagshemash!
Back on topic: yes it looks like Gimp-on-wheels, and I'll definitely stick to Photoshop. Though saying that, I reckon $59 might be cheap enough to persuade people who aren't using Photoshop to give this a go. Niceee!
Reply
Johnny Dangerously said 8:31PM on 8-09-2007
Sheesh. I must be the only on here that's genuinely excited about this, and I *use* Photoshop Elements. I will gladly fork over the $59 when this is released, based mainly on its interface and the use of Mac OS X core technologies. Also see post #3 above.
Reply
Galley said 8:35PM on 8-09-2007
The last time I checked, GIMP was butt-ugly; Pixelmator is gorgeous!
Reply
Will Design for Food said 8:53PM on 8-09-2007
Honestly, this program is in no way a threat to Photoshop. I'm an art director and I spend the majority of my day in Photoshop. For the casual user, yes, this program is perfect, and fills a niche that is missing. But for a hardcore user, you really can't beat Photoshop.
@Bruno
The circle problem isn't actually Photoshop, it stems from the fact that you're using bitmap data to draw the circle. Make a circle in Illustrator and then bring it into Photoshop as a smart object, and that will fix your circle problem. Although, if it can handle smart objects, then by default I guess your right they should just give you that option right off the bat.
Reply
pipe912 said 8:56PM on 8-09-2007
with that voiceover its more like "masturbator", please let them know that people with british accent sound like bad sex operators
Reply
Joey said 3:09AM on 8-10-2007
#16: He does NOT have a British accent! It's vaguely Eastern European.
Reply
Marco F. said 3:26AM on 8-10-2007
"Pixelmateueur"
well, it lacks raw support and even 16 bit support, unfortunately. But it certainly looks sleek.
Reply
Michel said 6:04AM on 8-10-2007
I don't care xenophobic US citizens and whatever professional-loving photoshop.
I don't like photoshop ugly interface and price to do simple web stuff.
Reply
Barry said 6:29AM on 8-10-2007
So, a non-native English speaker speaks English to accommodate the English-speaking market to the best of his ability, and you guys rip his accent apart? Why not just be glad that the voiceover was in English and you could understand it?
@Will Design For Food - This isn't a challenge to Photoshop in the same way that Keynote wasn't a challenge to PowerPoint at version 1. Give it a year, or until the next version before making your final decision. Or maybe once you've actually used it?
Reply
Pete said 6:48AM on 8-10-2007
I don't know if anyone's spotted this, but at youtube there's another video without annoying voiceovers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TT9-ltoHxo8
Reply