Right now, the Warp tool has the issues of non-smooth transition, and this can cause a rendered texture to looks like as if it came from a very low polygon 3d model with texture applied to it or it looks as if the flow are rather not smooth at all. If one is able to adjust the tangency direction of the warp tool, then maybe this would resolve the issue, but I think the only way to resolve this issue is to have a new version of it where tangency nodes can be adjusted just like in Photoshop Warp or in Inkscape Gradient Mesh, but maybe not. If there's anything I missed, let me know as I think I have looked at all options with the warp tool. As of now, it does take a while modifying with the warp tool to get anywhere near acceptable results.

Also, the idea of transformation mask is a pretty genius idea. Who is the guy who came up with that idea?

Bumping this thread instead of creating a new one.

I'd like to provide some images to better illustrate the issue at hand. These are as close to direct comparisons between Krita and PhotoShop as I could produce relatively quickly. I'm aware that Krita isn't PS or trying to be PS, but I will try and explain why I think this functionality worth adopting. Up and front I'm going to admit that I don't have that much experience working with transformations like Warp or Cage in Krita, and that I might have overlooked some crucial features to improve the final product. But from what I can tell, there are inherent problems with how Krita does warping that PS has been able to solve.

In the pictures, Krita is on the left and PS is on the right.

So, if I'm trying to apply a texture for a reflective sphere, I might start with something like this:

Both software has the image texture as a Multiply layer on top of the grey circle, but Krita "normalizes" the image while transforming it (not a critique, just being clear here!).

Then I would start by extending the corners of the image out to the edge of the circle (don't know why I wouldn't just scale the texture up, but anyway).

So far so good, things seem to work fairly similarly between the two programs.

But then, when I try to fit the sides of the texture to the circle...

Krita end up having a hard time here. It does not like the stretching I'm trying to achieve. PS, meanwhile, is warping the texture more or less exactly the way I expected it to based on the way I was pulling the handles.

Refining the shape by adjusting the inner handles.

In PS, the process is complete and the texture has been applied with a good looking result. Krita on the other hand... is gonna need a bit more work.

Finally, the end result:

Continuing working in Krita and fidgeting with the settings in the Tool Options panel for another minute or two, this is the end result I get. I'm afraid to say that what I got with Krita doesn't compare to what I got with PS, despite the additional time spent working on it in Krita. Maybe if I spent even more time in Krita I could get comparable results, but at that point it'd just be quicker to just move all the work over to PS and then back once I'm done.


So what is Krita's warp transform doing wrong, and how does PS do it right?
It's somewhat difficult to put the different feels into words, so I hope the images are of good help. If I was to summarize the differences as short as possible, I'd say "Krita uses polygons, PS uses vectors".

From an outside view it looks like Krita subdivides the texture into polygons, and then assigns a weight to each vertex based on how close they are to a handle. The properties of the weights and how they're assigned can then be adjusted to some extent with the settings in the Tool Options panel. Going back and forth between the handles and the Tool Options to trial and error your way through the transform ens up being a bit tedious and feels less intuitive.

In PS, on the other hand, the texture seems to be applied to a vector shape, and then manages to precisely follow the transformations you make to that shape. You have full control right in the handles of the transform, and so it's easier and quicker to get the desired result. The fact that PS also shows a bit of a grid over the texture is wonderful, because it helps to see how it's being warped.

Why should Krita's warp transform be more like PS's?
Because PS's way of doing warping produces better results in a shorter amount of time, while being easier to use and without sacrificing a lot of control. This is a really useful tool for applying a texture to more organically shaped objects in an image you're working on. Things like adding a pattern to a football, a tattoo design to a body part, gritty texture to a beach rock, reflections on spherical objects, or maybe a logo to a soda can. It's also incredibly useful if you're working with photo bashing, for similar reasons.