Stone Design Forums

Hello folks,

So there was a piece of software released recently called LiveQuartz.

Seems to have the _exact_ functionality of Imaginator, except that it's Freeware.

Any comments on this?

I'm curious about this because I've been assigned to review Imaginator for a major magazine, and would like to know how the user base feels about a competitor that seems to offer all the functionality (as far as I can tell) for free.

Thoughts?

David Biedny

I, for one, was also intrigued by the similarity in the product descriptions and downloaded LiveQuartz. I spent about 10 minutes playing around with it, but could not produce any useful results. Most of the controls and menus did abolutely nothing, and the ones that worked were not very helpful.

This is in stark contrast to iMaginator. As soon as I openned the program and began to play with it, I was able to produce useful and helpful results.

As far as immediate functionality (OOBE) is concerned, I give iMaginator an 8 (out of 10), and I give LiveQuarts a 1.5.

I'll have to try it out later. Looking at it only from the info on the front page of the web site, the big advantages I see with iMaginator are the presets, AppleScript, batch tools, saved sets of effects, the ability to alter the defaults for effects, easy search/finding of effects, Stone's custom effects (which have been growing), LinkBack and franklky, the support you get with Stone. In particular, our feeling was that people tend to use the same effects over and over again and just tweak them when they edit their images. Not having the ability to catalog and reuse these effects in combination makes for a lot of legwork on the part of the user, and I think this is where iMaginator separates itself from the crowd that is developing. It pays for itself quickly when you realize how much time and effort you save when you gets the results you want and you can reproduce it with little effort subsequently.

There are some niceties with it too, of course. Does it allow the user to have several image layers and have effects work on one image layer at a time? I think this eventually will be important to figure out for iMaginator which currently allows for multiple image layers in one file but the effects treat them as a flat image.

To tell you the truth, I think a lot of us have been surprised at how few CoreImage editors, especially simple freebies, are available even now. There will probably be a period of confusion and a lot of give and take among the ones that are around, and some projects will either wither due to lack of interest and awareness and some will find particular tools and uses for the technology beyond the catch-all of an "image editor."

Thanks guys for chiming in. Besides what Joel mentions:

- Does LQ have a 200 page manual?
- can you paint in layers?
- can you add rich text in layers?
- can you save thumbnails?
- can you make quicktime movies?
- are the icons as cool as Joel's?

You haven't spent much time with either program if you think they do the exact things. So let us take the bait and do the work for you.

1_ Non - Destructive iMaginator-yes Live Quartz-no
If you Open XYZ.jpg in iMaginator, you're working on a new document. Live Quartz, when you hit Save you've changed your original

2_The Ability to save Effects Chains as iFilters iMaginator-yes Live Quartz-no
You can reuse them from within iMaginator, send them to other users, or use them in other applications like Comic Life.

3_The Ability to Save to Movie iMaginator-yes Live Quartz-no
Movie Example

4_AppleScriptable iMaginator-yes Live Quartz-no

5_The Ability to Batch Process iMaginator-yes Live Quartz-no

6_The Ability to search for Effects and Plugins in the interface iMaginator-yes Live Quartz-no

7_The Ability to drag off either a TIFF, JPG, PNG, Thumbnail or iFilter form the interface iMaginator-yes Live Quartz-no

8_Controls that are displayed but can't be adjusted iMaginator-NO Live Quartz-YES Bring up the Circular Screen Effect in Live Quartz. What's the non movable center slider for?

9_LinkBack Server and Client iMaginator-yes Live Quartz-no Works wonderfully with other apps.

10_More Effects and Additional Plugins iMaginator-yes Live Quartz-no Where are the Composite Operations in Live Quartz? Where are the Transitions in Live Quartz? Any Additional Plugins in Live Quartz - nope...

11_The Ability to build Libraries of Effect Chains and Images iMaginator-yes Live Quartz-no

12_The Ability to customize to toolbar iMaginator-yes Live Quartz-no

13_Rulers iMaginator-yes Live Quartz-no

14_Spotlight Enabled iMaginator-yes Live Quartz-no

15_The Ability to add/edit/delete document properties iMaginator-yes Live Quartz-no

16_A Searchable Help File (not a demo movie) iMaginator-yes Live Quartz-no

There are 16 off the top of my head. If I wasn't such a sucky typist there would be more. Suddenly $50 doesn't seem like much. You can also check the Live Quartz forum - oh yeah, you get what you pay for....there isn't a Live Quartz forum.

Except for the differences, iMaginator and Live Quartz are_exactly_the same. I'm not bad mouthing Live Quartz. It does have some nice features (the Zoom slider - but still no quick keys like iMaginator..), but it's not iMaginator.

If you get paid for your review be sure to purchase some Stone software as payment for our help.

daddydoodaa

Joel,

Fom what I see, LiveQuartz does indeed let you change the default settings for effects. While there does not seem to be an ability to save sets of effects as presets, the lack of AppleScript is not a killer (as an example, most Photoshop users make little use of the scripting abilities of that program, or even Actions for that matter).

The layer stack in LiveQuartz is adjustable - images can be dragged on top of/behind each other at any time, while in Imaginator, the image stack does not appear to offer this capability. Also, in LiveQuartz there is an alpha slider for a layer controlling overall layer transparency. There seems to be no comparable opacity slider in Imaginator (again, if I'm wrong, please tell me).

Now correct me if I'm wrong in this statement: if Photoshop Elements made use of Core Image effects, Imaginator would be a lot less unique or compelling. Given the $25 price difference, it seems to me that Elements offers many more capabilities than either Imaginator (or LiveQuartz).

dB

Andrew,

So here are the answers as far as I can tell:

- 200 page manual - while I adore the printed word, NONE of these level of applications should require any significant documentation. Core Image filters are fairly self-explanatory.

- You can indeed paint on layers in LQ. As far as painting goes, let's all get real here, MacPaint style paintbrushes don't cut it in this day and age.

- The LQ text handling is basic, but again, contextually, I don't expect heavy type handling in basic graphics software. Access to fonts, styles, sizes, and colors is present in both apps.

- Thumbnails are cool, I don't think LQ offers this feature.

- Quicktime movies: again, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Quicktime feature in Imaginator does not really offer any significant control over keyframing, making it a toy and nothing more.

- Icons are meaningless. Sorry.

I'm not looking for defensiveness, just some good info and understanding.

dB

As far as AppleScriptabilty and Batch Processing - time is money. And if you want Automator Actions, you have to have those hooks already in there. But if those aren't important to you, I guess they're not - but you can't even find out in Live Quartz...

If Photoshop Elements did everything iMaginator did and then some, I guess it would be better. Does Adobe give you free upgrade for life? HA!

Why not do it the American way? Why buy one when you can have two for twice the price?

All these programs have features that are beneficial and unique. Would you trust a plumber that only showed up with only one tool? I like using several programs to design. If you bought all three of these programs, we're still only talking $130.

PS - Where can I download a Photoshop Elements demo to see if I want to buy it?

Indeed, time is money.

I do all my own professional work in Photoshop, which has been my main imaging tool for the last 15 years. Automation, something I'm very familiar with (having pioneered some of the earliest uses of automating Photoshop during a stint many moons ago at ILM) is indeed critical, and Photoshop is about as sophisticated as it gets at that task. No reason to use anything else. Yes, it's a significant investment, but it's worth every penny. A lot of folks don't feel the need to upgrade at every step, and in response, Adobe charges the same upgrade fee regardless of what version of Photoshop you've bought. Some people feel this is a rip to those who indeed maintain current versions for years, shelling out the $150 or so for each rev. You can't make everyone happy. Free upgrades for life is cute, but nothing in life is free. Well, actually, the absolute best stuff in life which is free is far, far removed from the realm of technology, or software, or hardware.

I agree that having a range of tools is critical for making the most of one's creative efforts. I use a wide range of stuff in my work. In the realm of imaging, check out Studio Artist (www.synthetik.com). And if you really want to get scared, look at www.artmatic.com - my absolute favorite software for making the coolest animation you've ever seen come out of a Mac.

The stuff that both LQ and Imaginator do, support for Core Image engine, is something that I imagine we'll see in the next rev of Photoshop. Yes, it's cool that $49 gets you some Core Image access, but absolutely everything doable in Imaginator is achieved better and faster in After Effects, along with the utterly awesome animation and compositing abilties that program offers. Realtime manipulation is achievable in AE, you just have to be smart, and the filters are far, far beyind anything in Core Image. I mean, where do you think Apple came up with the Core Image routines, in a vacuum?

As far as a demo version of Elements, I would think that Adobe.com would be a great place to look.

dB

Unless it's overkill for your task..


Never said it wasn't. I make my living scripting it.



iMaginator and LQ are out now. I know the next version of iMaginator will be free. How much for the Photoshop?


$699 vs. $50 - I hope it is better...


All I can find is a movie..

But you win, Topper Everything we've mentioned is either not important or can be done by more expensive applications...

I'm not a graphics pro, though I'm fairly comfortable with many of the main graphics apps, including Photoshop. I didn't even know this question was on the boards. Here's my story in brief, I'll post more in a day or so (need to get to work in a few). This happened about a month or so ago: I bought a license for iMaginator, then saw LQ. Got quite curious, so I downloaded LQ. Tried it out, and realized that from the perspective of an above average (but by no means professional) user, iMaginator was much easier for me to use, so I got rid of LQ.

Here's one example (of many). iMagniator can make QuickTime movies, something the reviewer does not value. I do, because I can use these movies as transitions in something like iMovie, and save a ton of money over other software. That, alone, makes iMaginator a cool tool. The ability to save effects chains was great. The list of differences goes on and on.

I could only find one area in which LQ was better than iMaginator. LQ is free. However, I'd rather have the power that iMaginator gives me. Even at free, LQ is not worth it to me.

I found the rulers in iMaginator very useful. The LinkBack feature was very cool, allowing me to do some real work, and not waste time going back and forth needlessly. The responsiveness of the Stone design team is first rate. There were quite a few other things about iMaginator (that I'll write about in a day or so, need to get to work) that sold me on it. I do not, for one second, believe that cheaper is necessarily better. Nor is more expensive better. LQ and iMaginator share some features, no doubt about that. But from my user experience as a regular guy, iMaginator was better for me than LQ.

So let's play fair here. Did you post the same question (LQ vs. iMaginator) on a LQ board, and what response did you get from users and/or the developer? Can you post a link for us to see? I'm keeping an open mind and always willing to look at things from a new angle, so let's see how the debate went on the other side.

Thanks,

Russ Conte

I for one doubt we'll ever see Elements or full PS using CoreImage, and it's strictly hypothetical at this point. Yes, *if* Elements had CoreImage *and* used the effects non-destructively *with* their layering tools, then it *might* be a better value at $85 than iMaginator at $50. I say "might" because when I think about it, Elements' current strengths over iMaginator are 1. layering, albeit crippled compared to PS but more sophisticated than iM, and 2. their proprietary effects and filters, which I think from Adobe's perspective are mature enough to make rolling CoreImage into the app more trouble than it's worth. I mean, you buy real-time effects and the possibility of non-destrctive editing but how do you make that work with your current destructive file format and your current non-real-time effects? I just think it complicates Adobe's offering more than it helps. Think about it -- I just used the Catmull-Rom splines (curves) to adjust the color, then applied the CoreImage color adjustment effect. I save the file, and the curves aren't undoable but the color adjustments are. Will I have to choose between the CoreImage perspective correction tool and the Adobe one? Will Adobe drop some of their stuff and include only some of the CoreImage effects? Will they rewrite or create their own CoreImage tools and abandon what they've worked for a couple of decades refining and optimizing?

There is a holy grail out there taking the best ideas from Photoshop, Painter, Fireworks, TIFFany and so forth, but who will it come from? With any luck, it will be the free LiveQuartz app, but frankly I think that's tilting at windmills.

This discussion is making an assumption that iMaginator is trying to fill a certain role it was not intended to fill. iMaginator is part of the Stone Works suite, and is meant to be far *less* complex than even Elements, and not meant to be nearly as encompassing as that.

Now, the layering and the ability to have effects apply only to certain layers in LiveQuartz sounds like a *distinct* advantage for it to me. Some of the other listed advantages are probably more arguable, such as why AppleScript can be dismissed but having a layer transparency slider is more valuable. (There's an iMaginator effect for this, following a consistent approach. However, we could have one effect with a single, simple transparency slider instead of the current multi-slider setup per color. The "make transparent" effect that is from Apple isn't too useful IMO.) And this is from a guy who uses Photoshop's layer transparency sliders all the time. Does Livequartz have masking? iMaginator can do this, but it is a more time consuming task than Photoshop. (Of course, PS is 10x the price, but if LiveQaurtz has this, is's a bigger advantage than even the layering. )

Value is more subjective and I don't think it's fair to say that any of these apps should be better for everyone. The upfront costs alone don't tell the story, as others have been arguing whether one app is more efficient than another, plus you have upgrades and support to argue about.

Finally, I have to say that the line about us being defensive tweaked my nose a bit. I think I've gone out of my way to be fair and open-minded. If I seem to be a bit suspect of LiveQuartz, others seem to be suspect of iMaginator equally. It just leads us down a path where we get into camps and fire rimshots from across the lines, and it's worthless keeping up any pretense of discussion in that atmosphere.

PS: Icons aren't meaningless, they just play a small supporting role in the UI. Try deciphering AutoCAD's gazillion icons, or find an X11 app that slaps generic icons into its UI. Discover that "cut" and "paste" in Windows Explorer is different than the cut and paste behavior in Word which is different than the cut and paste tools in Outlook, but the icons and nomenclature look the same. You'll discover that what we Macs users take for granted has a lot of impact on the software's worth and ease of learning. Still I haven't seen anything against LiveQuartz or Elements in that respect versus iMaginator.

Listen, Joel, I don't have any hidden agenda, I just wanted some feedback.

If you look at the responses to my original post - they ALL show an attititude of "gee, our software is the best, blows everything else away". I mean, this daddydooda guy is already trying to suggest that I'm a Dilbert character, because I'm opinionated and have some knowledge of this topic (but I'll put his statements in context: he's not able to find the Elements Tryout on the Adobe site, and his online graphics work made me laugh pretty darned hard. A graphics pro indeed.... LOL!) .

Also, in your comments about icons, you make a "we Mac users" statement. Let me let you in on something: at the risk of sounding like a Dilbert character, I've been a Mac user since the very beginning. In fact, since _before_ the beginning, as I cut my teeth on an Apple II back in the 70's. Type my name into a search engine, and you'll understand something about my interest in the topic of computer graphics and the Mac. When I suggest that we'll see Core Image support in Adobe products in the future, it's not just an empty guess - I earn a living knowing where the market is moving. It'll have it. The challenge of integrating Core Image with what Photoshop is doing now is just short of trivial. Once it's added, any reason for Imaginator beyond being a module in the Stone suite is simply gone. Poof.

And as far Elements - it has a LOT more than Imaginator, including REAL painting and retouching tools, USEFUL color correction tools, a highly level of integration with digital cameras (including RAW image support), image management tools, and truly useful output options. For $25 more than Imaginator, it's a no brainer.

You mention doing color correction in Imaginator. Without a Curves control a la Photoshop, or an Info palette (onscreen color densitometer), it's really impossible to do professional color correction work (read any part of Dan Margulis' "Professional Photoshop" book,. and you'll understand what I mean). Throw in Adjustment Layers, and anything else is a joke.

Masking is something that is done in Photoshop in the pro world, and using anything else - Imaginator, LiveQuartz, or even Elements - is silly. Case closed. ANYONE who earns a living doing pro imaging work has Photoshop. When a product name becomes a verb, it's game over. Photoshop support? There are over 500 books on the program, endless online user forums, so getting an answer to a Photoshop question is pretty easy.

I put my original message here in order to get some background on Imaginator. My original mission accomplished, there's no more reason to post here. Take care, y'all.

I think you've gotten your nose bent out of shape a LOT more than me or anyone else, and your posts have been much more defensive and increasingly personal. I'm not sure what you expected coming into what is the Stone fanclub for all intents and purposes, but I really didn't see anyone getting defensive as I define it as much as rationalizing their affection for iMaginator. Being defensive to me means taking things too personally. The only thing I took a little personally was being branded as defensive.

Certainly I don't think anyone has taken issue with you bringing up the topic or having your point of view, but criticism is the basis for improvement whether for Imaginator, LiveQuartz or Photoshop. Simply golf clapping for these guys doesn't do anyone any good after the initial ego boost.

However, my impression from your postings, especially after that last one, is that you came in here with your mind set on this issue, asked a question you really had an answer to already, and as we've moved through the postings, you've let our comments on these other apps reflect on you personally instead of taking at face value. You've started to condescend me in your previous post, which makes me think it's a bit fargone at this point. more importantly, you've been dismissive of valid points about Imaginator and these other apps for several posts now. That's simply unproductive. Please consider others' opinions and arguments on the matter you brought up, otherwise it makes your inquiry appear insincere at best. There is no point to a discussion board if people aren't going to discuss, and that means being open-minded and considering other points of view even if that means finding less value in some points than others. The dismissive tone suggests to me that there is this sort of all-or-nothing mindset to the arguments being made, and that's like throwing the baby out with the bath water, to use a cliche.

Finally, I was thinking of you specifically as part of the "we" in that statement about the icons. I surmised that you *haven't* worked in Linux or Windows much and thus you have the luxury of taking communicative icons for granted. That's not a bad thing, mind you, it's a great luxury from a wise decision you made long ago. Anyway, minor point, I just wanted to say that it wasn't meant to exclude you, rather include you as part of our (Mac, Stone) community. It's tough love, but aside from being a little put off by the defensive comment, friends can disagree, even strongly.

Hi everyone,

I'd like to post a bit more about my experience with iMaginator, as I trust it will be a good look at one user's experience. As I wrote this morning, I'm fairly comfortable with graphics apps, and have many of the main ones, as well as several of the lesser known graphics apps. However, I'm not a graphics professional, I've never earned a penny for any graphics work I've done. It's an avocation, not my profession. With that said...

To compare iMaginator to Photoshop is, I feel, to greatly miss the point about iMaginator. For me it allows me a new, fresh and interesting way to use a graphics app. Sure LQ also uses CoreImage and PS is the 800 pound gorilla. But for me iMaginator allows me to create effects chains, connect up seamlessly with Create, create cool transitions for video, and do many other things that I can't do in any other app. Period.

iMaginator is faster than PS on both of my Macs. iMaginator is ready for Automator. (I'm not but it is!) It's pure coca. So to be fair, it has advantages over PS, just as PS has advantages over iMaginator. IMHO, it all depends on what I'm creating.

When iMaginator is combined with Create, I can do all the cropping, masking, layering, (including Master Layers) and color adjustment that I could ever want. It's not PS, but it meets my needs. In addition, I can combine vector and raster art in one image, and have it ready for print or the web. Since Create and iMaginator are linked, going between them is a cinch.

The sense that iMaginator is not PS is true, and quite obvious. It's not intended to be PS. I see it as a new, fresh, and wholly fun way to do graphics. For $49 and free upgrades for life, this beats LQ any day, even with LQ's more attractive price. However, PS does things iMaginator does not do and vice versa. That's fine with me.

I'm a musician much more than a graphics artist. I own quite a number of different instruments. Each serves its own purpose. I evaluate instruments on their own merit, and how well they meet my needs, and how much I like the music I can make with them. My experience with apps on my Mac is very similar. Each serves its own purpose.

If I was writing a review of iMaginator, (or any other app), I would want to focus on those things in the app that people get excited about, maybe do a display in the article of art made using the app, see if I could get feedback from novices as well as professionals, and let the reader decide if this is really for her or him. For some people it's not, and that's just how business is. But for others, it is a gift waiting to be found, and it will open ideas to new ways of using a graphics app and a Mac. If readers learned that from a review, then I'd have a sense that the review would accurately conveyed the sense of iMaginator, and that's the best service any reviewer can do for their readers.

Russ Conte