as far as i know there is a Procreate Clone on Android
called “HiPaint”
1 Like
From some rudimentary research, it seems like Infinite Painter is a more featured and versatile Procreate clone.
Has anyone used it? I’d love to hear a first hand opinion 
If I were to get a Magic Drawing Pad- which I’m definitely considering- I would put Infinite Painter, Krita, and NomadSculpt on there.
Wouldn’t call Infinite Painter a Procreate clone.
I heard HiPaint is more of a clone/imitation of Procreate.
Where Infinite Painter is another painting app, have a copy
on my iPad, with more features than Procreate.
I think Procreate isn’t necessarily valued for its features either.
To me, it just feels a somewhat smoother than other painting apps
I’ve tried on the iPad and thats why i am more attracted to that app.
1 Like
I’m not sure, I used it for the icons mostly. I do remember when they came out with the pro version, but we just used the free one.
I have some experience with Infinite Painter. It’s surprisingly capable and I highly recommend it. I’ve tried using HiPaint and ended up not liking it much. It was slower than Infinite Painter and felt cumbersome and buggy.
1 Like
While not really a “new technology”, this is definitely “computer graphics science news”, so I think it fits here:
I can’t say I’ve ever actually encountered the Lenna image in my CG research- it seems like most of the papers I’ve read use far drier subject matter (Cornell boxes feature heavily), but I suppose image processing is a subniche of CG I haven’t spent much time with
3 Likes
Possible path to the unification of the two branches of physics, the very large and the very small?
2 Likes
Her image featured a lot in early Amiga imagery with software like Deluxe Paint, etc.
3 Likes
The reasoning for the ban aside, I think many can agree that 1970’s photography in general is getting a bit outdated as a way to demonstrate most modern processing technology (which are optimal for newer formats such as OpenEXR at high resolutions).
2 Likes
I ever wondered why this (well known) image was used in the first place because it doesn’t show any photographic relevant “scenearios” where some problems may occur… some images of a field of flowers with some hut showing different extrem colors or color effect (maybe even butterfly) of the surfaces of the flowers and some very sunny and shadowy ( ← is this a word ?? ) areas would show some more interesting result…
And even using a human face to show the problematics with skintone… the i would thing there are some different skin tones to compare and maybe a better contrasting background…
But to be honest i didn’t know the original source… 
2 Likes
1 Like
2 Likes
I’ve definitely come across it before, e.g. in papers about dithering algorithms.
Btw. the complete utter absence of cancel-culture-bs talk throughout at least the first page of comments (on that article) almost gives me my faith in humanity back. (I didn’t look through the other three pages.)
greetings, Kologe
5 Likes
I’m no expert, but a top comment says this:
It was not bad as a test image for image compression. There are both hard and soft edges. Soft gradients. Skin tone. Film grain. Complex texture.
Ars Technica has a remarkably reasonable batch of regular commenters, in my experience.
1 Like
That is primarily because they have a reputation of banning everyone who have shown they do not conform to the personal views of the staff. Any dissent meanwhile from anyone is quickly buried and/or deleted. Essentially, they enforce groupthink and anything short of an echo-chamber will not be tolerated (which you will be able to notice for yourself with the abundance of quotes from non-existent comments). It is not all bad though since many of their articles on science and technology are at least well-written and detailed.
Since the image itself is actually copyrighted and the aforementioned women does not want it circulated anymore, then what will be the fate of the threads here that are full of repeat postings of the image (which I know exist and are generally related to color-grading and compositing)?
If the thread creators wish to be respectful of Lenna’s wishes, which they should, they should remove those images from their thread, obviously. Not terribly complicated
If there was an image of your face being freely circulated, and you requested that people stop using it, I think you’d prefer it if they did, no?
1 Like
At that time, no one had a digital camera in their pockets; scanners were very expensive, most were just prototypes; and one would use whatever could be found in the newsgroups and bbs (long before the www). It wasn’t only the ‘Lenna’ image, but plenty of others were very present in multiple CG papers.
I actually remeber having used it myself in the 90s, as a painting on a wall, for a small architecture project… 
3 Likes
Nice find! I don’t know how I missed that
1 Like
“ . . . most historical facts are unpleasant”, there has to be a balance between maintaining / depicting historical info (a lot of past media practices are problematic or worse, not just the Lenna standard test image, see China Girl for one example) and respecting peoples’ rights (including right of publicity).
Nobody (I don’t think) is demanding that we delete every Lenna image from every storage media and burn all the physical copies. We shouldn’t erase or silence knowledge of misogynistically hostile spaces by refusing to allow depiction of them. But current practices don’t need to be using such as part of production processes, there are plenty of others available.