Photoshop Lightroom 2 released as Adobe's first 64-bit Mac app

[AppleInsider]

Following an earlier open beta, Adobe on Tuesday released version 2.0 of its Photoshop Lightroom post production photography software, which stands as the company's first application to run 64-bit-native on Apple's Mac OS X Leopard operating system.

The San Jose-based software developer is particularly proud of the accomplishment given that Lightroom's main competitor, Apple's Aperture, has yet to see native 64-bit support.

Adobe has committed to delivering 64-bit versions of Photoshop and its other Creative Suite applications, but said earlier this year that those updates will take considerably longer due to Apple's decision to scrap plans for a 64-bit version of its Carbon developer tool set.

For Lightroom 2.0, 64-bit support will allow the application to address large amounts of memory in excess of 4 gigabytes, which will speed up overall performance for photographers dealing with large scale images that must be swapped into and out of memory during processing-intensive operations.

The software also aims to streamline and accelerate photographers’ workflows through an enhanced Library module featuring the ability to visually organize images across multiple hard drives. A Library Filter Bar and Suggested Keywords feature work towards simplifying the search and retrieval process.

Two other highly touted features of Lightroom 2.0 are dual-monitor support for maximizing workspace and more efficient printing tools. For instance, the software now arranges photos of multiple sizes on one or many pages with customizable templates to maximize paper and ink. Intelligent algorithms then automatically determine optimal sharpening for screen or print, producing crisper images faster.

Adobe is also rolling out new RAW technology that gives photographers access to flexible camera profiles that will help reduce unexpected changes in the quality of their photographs.

"Camera profiles are the visual starting point for the raw processing workflow, but image preferences vary for every photographer," the company siad. "To minimize surprises, Adobe is supplying default camera profiles that closely emulate the visual looks that photographers are used to seeing from their favorite camera, while also providing the ability to create highly customized profiles to suit different tastes."

Camera profiles are available for immediate download on Adobe Labs for use with Lightroom 2 and Camera RAW 4.5, along with a DNG Profile Editor for the community to test and create their own profiles. The tools currently support over 190 camera models including the Olympus E 420 and E 520 models.

Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 2 is available for immediate download (or shipping) through the Adobe Store in English, French and German with the Japanese language version planned to be released at a future date. New licenses cost $299 and upgrades fetch $99.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[godrifle]

Cool. I can't wait to gauge the performance impact of 64-bit. Problem is that current 32-bit apps from Adobe are pretty slow to begin with. I *really* look forward to the next iteration of Creative Suite, not from a feature standpoint, but from a performance standpoint. Adobe can (should) do better.

[noirdesir]

Originally Posted by godrifle

I *really* look forward to the next iteration of Creative Suite, not from a feature standpoint, but from a performance standpoint.

You are aware that the next iteration of the Creative Suite, CS4, will still be 32 bit on the Mac? Only the version after that, CS5, will be 64 bit. CS4 will be available as a 64 bit version for Windows (XP and Vista, I guess), but it requires the installation of the 64 bit version of Windows. Few people currently run the 64 bit version of Windows (XP or Vista) as by far not all software (all vendors combined) runs on it smoothly.
Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) can run 32 and 64 bit applications side-by-side without any problems whatsoever.

[digitalclips]

Originally Posted by noirdesir

You are aware that the next iteration of the Creative Suite, CS4, will still be 32 bit on the Mac? Only the version after that, CS5, will be 64 bit. CS4 will be available as a 64 bit version for Windows (XP and Vista, I guess), but it requires the installation of the 64 bit version of Windows. Few people currently run the 64 bit version of Windows (XP or Vista) as by far not all software (all vendors combined) runs on it smoothly.
Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard) can run 32 and 64 bit applications side-by-side without any problems whatsoever.

Yep one wonders what Adobe have against Apple lol, one would have thought 64 bit development would have made more sense on Mac first. Personally I'm more excited about utilizing all 8 cores on my Mac Pro hopefully coming in some part with Snow Leopard and thereafter from developers of pro apps. A friend of mine owns a color scanning software company and they are already hiring experts in multi core development as they see that as crucial for near future.

[jdmlight]

Originally Posted by digitalclips

Yep one wonders what Adobe have against Apple lol, one would have thought 64 bit development would have made more sense on Mac first.

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Adobe has committed to delivering 64-bit versions of Photoshop and its other Creative Suite applications, but said earlier this year that those updates will take considerably longer due to Apple's decision to scrap plans for a 64-bit version of its Carbon developer tool set.

Adobe doesn't have anything against Apple as far as developing 64-bit applications. It's just that Apple threw Adobe a curveball by beginning the process of eliminating Carbon-developed applications (such as the entire Creative Suite).

[digitalclips]

Originally Posted by jdmlight

Adobe doesn't have anything against Apple as far as developing 64-bit applications. It's just that Apple threw Adobe a curveball by beginning the process of eliminating Carbon-developed applications (such as the entire Creative Suite).

Is there a reason (I have no clue, not my area of knowledge) why Adobe are not developing using Cocoa?

[ltcommander.data]

Just curious to see if anyone knows if Lightroom's 64-bit support is just x64 or also 64-bit PPC for the G5?

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by digitalclips

Is there a reason (I have no clue, not my area of knowledge) why Adobe are not developing using Cocoa?

"It is important to note that in Tiger, the support for 64-bit programming does not extend throughout the entire set of APIs available on Mac OS X. Most notably, the Cocoa and Carbon GUI application frameworks are not ready for 64-bit programming. In practical terms, this means that the "heavy lifting" of an application that needs 64-bit support can be done by a background process which communicates with a front-end 32-bit GUI process via a variety of mechanisms including IPC and shared memory.

On another note, if anybody can single out any major 64-bit native applications, I would love to hear about it.

[heffeque]

Originally Posted by ltcommander.data

Just curious to see if anyone knows if Lightroom's 64-bit support is just x64 or also 64-bit PPC for the G5?

Interesting question, yes. Also a comparison between speeds would be nice.

[heffeque]

Originally Posted by Abster2core

"It is important to note that in Tiger, the support for 64-bit programming does not extend throughout the entire set of APIs available on Mac OS X. Most notably, the Cocoa and Carbon GUI application frameworks are not ready for 64-bit programming. In practical terms, this means that the "heavy lifting" of an application that needs 64-bit support can be done by a background process which communicates with a front-end 32-bit GUI process via a variety of mechanisms including IPC and shared memory.

On another note, if anybody can single out any major 64-bit native applications, I would love to hear about it.

QuickTime X will be 64bit = less CPU use on HD content.

With a little luck coding videos will start taking advantage of 64bit processing. I saw a benchmark of a lame mp3 encoding in linux almost twice as fast with 64bit code, but as everyone can imagine, not all apps can take this performance upgrade just by going 64bit.

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by ltcommander.data

Just curious to see if anyone knows if Lightroom's 64-bit support is just x64 or also 64-bit PPC for the G5?

Perhaps the answer is found here: http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2008/04...hop_lr_64.html

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by heffeque

QuickTime X will be 64bit = less CPU use on HD content.

With a little luck coding videos will start taking advantage of 64bit processing. I saw a benchmark of a lame mp3 encoding in linux almost twice as fast with 64bit code, but as everyone can imagine, not all apps can take this performance upgrade just by going 64bit.

It's not the 64 bit-ness itself, what sped up the encoding was that the CPU is less register starved than IA32. I don't think encoding benefits from longer data word lengths or access to more memory.

[minderbinder]

Originally Posted by digitalclips

Yep one wonders what Adobe have against Apple lol, one would have thought 64 bit development would have made more sense on Mac first.

I really wonder what APPLE has against Apple. It's funny to see people complaining about third parties not having 64 bit support when Apple hasn't released a single app yet. Pretty pathetic.

Where are 64 bit versions of Logic and Final Cut?

In general, most developers are further along with 64 bit development on the PC side. XP64 was ready much earlier than 64 bit OSX, and it looks like it's a much easier transition.

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by heffeque

QuickTime X will be 64bit = less CPU use on HD content.

"…will be…? Looking for native available now.

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by minderbinder

I really wonder what APPLE has against Apple. It's funny to see people complaining about third parties not having 64 bit support when Apple hasn't released a single app yet. Pretty pathetic.

Where are 64 bit versions of Logic and Final Cut?

In general, most developers are further along with 64 bit development on the PC side. XP64 was ready much earlier than 64 bit OSX, and it looks like it's a much easier transition.

Microsoft Windows XP Professional x64 Edition is not 64-bit native! Neither is Microsoft Windows Vista x64.

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by minderbinder

I really wonder what APPLE has against Apple. It's funny to see people complaining about third parties not having 64 bit support when Apple hasn't released a single app yet. Pretty pathetic.

Where are 64 bit versions of Logic and Final Cut?

In general, most developers are further along with 64 bit development on the PC side. XP64 was ready much earlier than 64 bit OSX, and it looks like it's a much easier transition.

Just a perception, not a reality.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by minderbinder

I really wonder what APPLE has against Apple. It's funny to see people complaining about third parties not having 64 bit support when Apple hasn't released a single app yet. Pretty pathetic.

Where are 64 bit versions of Logic and Final Cut?

Nowhere yet, because Apple is just as laggard as Adobe in porting their pro apps to Cocoa, all the released versions of Pro Apps (except maybe Aperture) are Carbon. Apple had the same ten year head start that Adobe had, but they didn't seem I think it's reasonably likely that they will be starting next year in replacing them, I think Logic's dev cycle is up for an update at NAMM, and FCS's typical dev cycle puts a major update in April 2009. If they miss those, then it's another two years.

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by digitalclips

Yep one wonders what Adobe have against Apple lol, one would have thought 64 bit development would have made more sense on Mac first.

And what wrong with Adobe introducing Lightroom 64-bit for the Mac and PC at the same time?

[minderbinder]

Originally Posted by digitalclips

Is there a reason (I have no clue, not my area of knowledge) why Adobe are not developing using Cocoa?

Yes, because using Cocoa makes cross platform coding more difficult. Under Carbon, programmers can use C++ code and keep much of it the same over both platforms. With Cocoa, they have to use objective C (yeah, I know, they can still do some things in C++) which means the mac version necessarily is more different than the windows version.

Beyond that, they use carbon because the program is years old and that's the way it was originally written. Changing a program that is years old and millions of lines of code is a huge job.

For these reasons, hardly any devs are ready for 64 bit code on OSX (even companies that are already 64 bit on windows), and hardly any are on Cocoa.

And that includes apple, I doubt there are more than one or two pro apps (if that) on cocoa.

Originally Posted by ltcommander.data

Just curious to see if anyone knows if Lightroom's 64-bit support is just x64 or also 64-bit PPC for the G5?

Intel only.

[minderbinder]

Originally Posted by Abster2core

Microsoft Windows XP Professional x64 Edition is not 64-bit native! Neither is Microsoft Windows Vista x64.

Are you sure about that? There are 64 bit versions of both XP and vista.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows...al_x64_Edition

Originally Posted by Abster2core

Just a perception, not a reality.

OK, let me rephrase to be perfectly clear.

A number of companies have released 64 bit windows versions of their software while the mac version remains 32 bit (I'd still say that's the same as being further along with 64 bit on the windows side, but whatever).

That is reality, not perception. If you disagree, feel free to post all the cross platform apps that are 64 bit on both. I guarantee there are many more that are 64 bit on the windows side only.

[ajbgmex]

I downloaded the trial version of Lightroom 2 and Activity Monitor, doesn't show it as Intel (64-bit), only as Intel.
This is a Core2Duo iMac.

AJ

[ltcommander.data]

Originally Posted by Abster2core

On another note, if anybody can single out any major 64-bit native applications, I would love to hear about it.

Mathematica 5.2 released in 2005 supported 64-bit PPC under Tiger. Mathematica 6 dropped 64-bit PPC but added 64-bit Intel mode for both Tiger and Leopard. I wouldn't be surprised if Mathematica was the first major 64-bit app, since the lack of 64-bit GUI in Tiger isn't an issue for this type of program since it spins of number crunching threads anyways that can be made 64-bit.

Originally Posted by Abster2core

Microsoft Windows XP Professional x64 Edition is not 64-bit native! Neither is Microsoft Windows Vista x64.

What makes you say that? Windows XP x64 and Vista x64 are actually more 64-bit than OS X since it runs in 64-bit mode for both the kernel space and the user space while Leopard only allows 64-bit mode in the user space since the kernel is still 32-bit. Snow Leopard is supposed to bring a 64-bit kernel at which point OS X will become "fully" 64-bit.

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

Nowhere yet, because Apple is just as laggard as Adobe in porting their pro apps to Cocoa, all the released versions of Pro Apps (except maybe Aperture) are Carbon.

"If you plan to modify your application to use 64-bit addressing, you may need to adopt standard data types that can be used identically in both 32-bit and 64-bit applications. You also need to be aware that the APIs used to implement a Carbon user interface—menus, windows, views, toolbars, navigation dialogs, and so on—are generally not available. If you want to create a 64-bit application, you need to use Cocoa to implement its user interface.

Re "…because Apple is just as laggard as Adobe… You make it as if developing software is a no-brainer. Since nobody has done much that we can actually use, it is quite possible that it is difficult, expensive, and/or not ready for marketing.

Interesting that not many could come up with native 64-bit applications and only a couple challenged my statement that Vista, for example did not fill the bill. To those that did, i.e., Minderbender and Itcommander.data, you were absolutely right. My Point? Not many really know what they are talking about, and by the activity on this blog, not many really care.

Incidentally, we have been following this site http://www.64xsoft.com/ for some time. Anybody that has a better source reference, it would be appreciative.

An earlier point was whether anybody was aware of any major 64-bit applications. Certainly from 64Xsoft, there are very few what we would call "major".

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by Abster2core

Re "…because Apple is just as laggard as Adobe… You make it as if developing software is a no-brainer. Since nobody has done much that we can actually use, it is quite possible that it is difficult, expensive, and/or not ready for marketing.

The problem that I was trying to address is that there are plenty of Apple fans that ragged on Adobe for not going to Cocoa as if Adobe is trying to hold back the Mac platform, but conveniently ignore that several of Apple's own apps of similar caliber and complexity doesn't stand up to the same standard.

I'm not saying it's easy, but both companies did have about ten years to make such a transition re: Carbon -> Cocoa

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

The problem that I was trying to address is that there are plenty of Apple fans that ragged on Adobe for not going to Cocoa as if Adobe is trying to hold back the Mac platform, but conveniently ignore that several of Apple's own apps of similar caliber and complexity doesn't stand up to the same standard.

I'm not saying it's easy, but both companies did have about ten years to make such a transition re: Carbon -> Cocoa

JeffDM, I am not sure if I would call anybody an Apple fan for accusing any company, particularly with Adobe's history with Apple of holding back the Mac platform.

I would say that it is the combination of being difficult, expensive and limited marketability that is seemingly causing the delay. Equally important, is the fact that there are so other variables that drive or sway the opportunity. One being that virtually every major player in this industry could be categorized as the chicken, egg or both. Which comes, or needs to come first, only She knows, and He is not telling.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by Abster2core

JeffDM, I am not sure if I would call anybody an Apple fan for accusing any company, particularly with Adobe's history with Apple of holding back the Mac platform.

I am pretty sure you have mistaken what I said, you're making associations that I don't think I made. That's not why I'm calling them Apple fans. And I don't consider the (IMO) very distant past here. Anyone that's holding gripes about something that Adobe did a decade or more ago just needs to let go.

That misses my point, but the part of your post that I snipped out is kind of a long form of my original point, before getting sidetracked.

[minderbinder]

Originally Posted by Abster2core

Re "…because Apple is just as laggard as Adobe… You make it as if developing software is a no-brainer. Since nobody has done much that we can actually use, it is quite possible that it is difficult, expensive, and/or not ready for marketing.

I think the point is that Apple has hyped the heck out of 64 bit, and given customers the impression that developers should all be jumping on the bandwagon...but they have yet to do it themselves. Their failure to do it with their own apps sure makes it look like the 64/Cocoa transition is way harder than they have made it out to be (and it sure looks like it's harder to do on OSX than on windows). How can Apple expect third parties to do it if they can't do it themselves, with all their in-house knowledge and proprietary info?

Originally Posted by Abster2core

An earlier point was whether anybody was aware of any major 64-bit applications. Certainly from 64Xsoft, there are very few what we would call "major".

I can only think of two I'd call major on OSX - Lightroom and Mathematica.

On the windows side there are considerably more - Nuendo, Cubase, Sonar, and Gigastudio 4 (recently discontinued) just on the audio side. There are also a number of 64 bit native plugins, such as from Vienna and East West.

CS4 will be 64 bit on windows, further expanding the list of apps that are 64 bit on windows and 32 on mac.

To give you an idea of the vast difference in the 64 bit timeline between windows and mac, the initial Sonar 64 beta was released to the public in January 2005. Windows guys have been using 64 bit apps for years, and there are still barely any on mac.

[Abster2core]

Originally Posted by minderbinder

I think the point is that Apple has hyped the heck out of 64 bit, and given customers the impression that developers should all be jumping on the bandwagon...but they have yet to do it themselves. Their failure to do it with their own apps sure makes it look like the 64/Cocoa transition is way harder than they have made it out to be (and it sure looks like it's harder to do on OSX than on windows). How can Apple expect third parties to do it if they can't do it themselves, with all their in-house knowledge and proprietary info?

Here is a good article by Jeff Schewe at Adobe PhotoShop News: http://photoshopnews.com/2008/04/08/...p-cs4-for-mac/

Originally Posted by minderbinder

I can only think of two I'd call major on OSX - Lightroom and Mathematica.

On the windows side there are considerably more - Nuendo, Cubase, Sonar, and Gigastudio 4 (recently discontinued) just on the audio side. There are also a number of 64 bit native plugins, such as from Vienna and East West.

CS4 will be 64 bit on windows, further expanding the list of apps that are 64 bit on windows and 32 on mac.

To give you an idea of the vast difference in the 64 bit timeline between windows and mac, the initial Sonar 64 beta was released to the public in January 2005. Windows guys have been using 64 bit apps for years, and there are still barely any on mac.

Looking for major 64-bit apps

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by Abster2core

Looking for major 64-bit apps

I thought Cubase was a major app, at least in pro audio.

[minderbinder]

Originally Posted by Abster2core

Here is a good article by Jeff Schewe at Adobe PhotoShop News: http://photoshopnews.com/2008/04/08/...p-cs4-for-mac/

Yep, that's exactly what I was talking about. There are a number of bumps in the road on the OSX side that don't exist on the windows side.

Originally Posted by Abster2core

Looking for major 64-bit apps

That's exactly what I listed. Those are most of the biggest audio apps available, on a par with Logic Studio (if not bigger - the only audio app that may be bigger than these is probably Pro Tools). Despite what some may think, the world doesn't revolve around graphic design.

[mdriftmeyer]

Originally Posted by minderbinder

I really wonder what APPLE has against Apple. It's funny to see people complaining about third parties not having 64 bit support when Apple hasn't released a single app yet. Pretty pathetic.

Where are 64 bit versions of Logic and Final Cut?

In general, most developers are further along with 64 bit development on the PC side. XP64 was ready much earlier than 64 bit OSX, and it looks like it's a much easier transition.

Expect these to be Cocoa 64 bit when 10.6 is released.

[minderbinder]

Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer

Expect these to be Cocoa 64 bit when 10.6 is released.

I'd love to see that but I'm not holding my breath. Word has it that the head Logic developer has been telling users at tradeshows that updating Logic to 64 bit would cut performance in half, so they have no plans to do it. I'm hoping that's wrong, but based on Apple's development habits in the past, it wouldn't surprise me.

[Akac]

Originally Posted by minderbinder

I really wonder what APPLE has against Apple. It's funny to see people complaining about third parties not having 64 bit support when Apple hasn't released a single app yet. Pretty pathetic.

Where are 64 bit versions of Logic and Final Cut?

In general, most developers are further along with 64 bit development on the PC side. XP64 was ready much earlier than 64 bit OSX, and it looks like it's a much easier transition.

Agreed - where are the 64-bit versions of Apple Apps? They are in the same boat as Adobe. Cocoa vs Carbon.

But the last part - no, its far easier to move to 64-bit Cocoa from 32-bit Cocoa than it is from 32-bit Win32 to 64-bit Win32. Win32 64-bit is a lot more work. The issue with Carbon 64-bit is simply that it doesn't exist.

Its as if Microsoft said - there is no Win64 - just .NET 64. So any Win32 apps you write have to be converted to .NET first before you can go 64-bit.

[Akac]

Originally Posted by minderbinder

Yes, because using Cocoa makes cross platform coding more difficult. Under Carbon, programmers can use C++ code and keep much of it the same over both platforms. With Cocoa, they have to use objective C (yeah, I know, they can still do some things in C++) which means the mac version necessarily is more different than the windows version.

Not really. Yes, a few years ago that was more the case but the truth is that for any app that is written for both Windows and Mac OS - Carbon or Cocoa - the UI layer is going to be written native for that platform.

So both Cocoa and Carbon are in the same boat there. If I have a Windows app I can move all the underlying code to either Carbon or Cocoa and then write the UI layer in Carbon or Cocoa. The thing is Carbon was easier to do only because Carbon is a procedural API like Win32 is and as such you're just learning a new API, not new concepts. Cocoa requires learning a more elegant OO design and using different design patterns. And as such it has a higher learning curve - but not too bad if you go about it the right way - i.e. not learning Cocoa as your major first app.

But the fact is that if you are porting from Windows or working with a cross-platform app from scratch, if you already know Cocoa then its actually going to be easier to write that cross platform code in Cocoa than it would be in Carbon.


And yes, I know what I'm talking about - I work in both systems.

[minderbinder]

Originally Posted by Akac

But the last part - no, its far easier to move to 64-bit Cocoa from 32-bit Cocoa than it is from 32-bit Win32 to 64-bit Win32. Win32 64-bit is a lot more work. The issue with Carbon 64-bit is simply that it doesn't exist.

And that's exactly why it's a pain on the OSX side. The vast majority of developers, particularly those with big apps that have been around for years, have their code in carbon, not cocoa.

It doesn't matter how easy the transition from cocoa 32 is if you're on carbon.

And the word directly from many developers is that the 64 bit transition is easier on windows. The number of 64 bit apps on each platform would seem to back that up.

Originally Posted by Akac

Not really. Yes, a few years ago that was more the case but the truth is that for any app that is written for both Windows and Mac OS - Carbon or Cocoa - the UI layer is going to be written native for that platform.

So both Cocoa and Carbon are in the same boat there. If I have a Windows app I can move all the underlying code to either Carbon or Cocoa and then write the UI layer in Carbon or Cocoa. The thing is Carbon was easier to do only because Carbon is a procedural API like Win32 is and as such you're just learning a new API, not new concepts. Cocoa requires learning a more elegant OO design and using different design patterns. And as such it has a higher learning curve - but not too bad if you go about it the right way - i.e. not learning Cocoa as your major first app.

But the fact is that if you are porting from Windows or working with a cross-platform app from scratch, if you already know Cocoa then its actually going to be easier to write that cross platform code in Cocoa than it would be in Carbon.

As you say, Cocoa requires new concepts and design patterns, and it's a higher learning curve. That's more work for devs. Maybe if you're starting from scratch, it's easier to create code that will be fine in Cocoa and on the windows side. But any app with lots of existing code requires lots of rewriting and either changing things on the windows side as well (which devs generally don't want to do), or ending up with code that is more different on the two platforms than it used to be.

Most devs don't write their code keeping in mind what will end up on OSX (at least not yet), they write the windows code the way they want to, then port it. For them, cocoa is an obstacle more than a help.