I've certainly been known to complain from time to time about Photoshop; but there's a huge amount of market momentum in high inertia places for Photoshop; this is a market Apple needs to ease into.
Some quarry, you pounce. Some, you hunt for days to wear them down."
I've certainly been known to complain from time to time about Photoshop; but there's a huge amount of market momentum in high inertia places for Photoshop; this is a market Apple needs to ease into.
Some quarry, you pounce. Some, you hunt for days to wear them down."
I'm guessing that if the new app does use Core Image it will function in tandem with Photoshop. The results on the layer are returned as a Smart Object and the app saves the original + Core Image info for further editing. Add in plenty of workflow and storage features also aimed at improving PS on the Mac.
I suspect that may not be fast by any stretch if it is done that way (I can't argue with the advantages). Consider a D2x image at 16 bits/pixel, with 4 adjustment layers. You are talking about 250MB of data for just the one file; which I think would have to be layers not smart objects (since Adobe doesn't utilize CI calls) which is just as well because smart objects are fairly slow compared to layers.
Also, does anyone know the precision of CI piped through a GPU? My understanding of the math done by GPUs is that they favor speed over precision. If that is the case I wouldn't be all that excited by CI speedup.
I could see these things being useful under the following conditions: The application does not actually write the effects to the original file (be it RAW or JPEG), the filters and their settings are saved within file metadata (DNG? hopefully), all effects are calculated in 16 bit per channel precision and in user specified order, ditch gamma in favor of curves. precision live histogram for image.
If Core Image can provide these features, in realtime, and with production quality output, then I think it would indeed be a viable addition to Apple's Asset Management software.
I suspect Automator will play a role in this release as well.
i am going slightly off topic but.... am i way behind the curve or in photoshop CS2 can you do all effects and processing (not just certain ones) in 16bit? CS1 AFAIK still only certain things can be done in 16bit.
yes, yes and yes chevy my main man.
1. non destructive. this is a potentially huge feature for any multimedia manipulation device. for example, effects and filters and routing in the reason/protools/ableton live sound and music software scene. realtime non-destructive processing opens up the creative process like you wouldn't believe.
2. metadata. certainly colorspace information is one important component, other areas would be OMFG! SPOTLIGHT! DIGITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT! *DING* light bulb just lit up....! YEAHHHHH...
3. 16bit per channel precision accelerated via GPU hardware so that CPU is offloaded and better calculations can be done. now, this is a pure guess by myself but i would imagine core image could even handle 32bits per channel in theory... but i could be talking out of my ass. but certainly 16bit per any channel (R,G,B, multiple masks, etc) is certainly possible now or in the near future. there is a lot of complex masking, texture processing, antialiasing etc done in the latest 3D games so at this stage it is probably a matter of figuring out, okay, how do we make photoshop really kick ass with this 3d game technology but as applied to photoshop 2(.5?)D workflow... anyway again with the music example if you get a breakout box that does full 24bit 96khz or better processing your music productions start to sound a whole lot better compared to 44khz 16bit.
5 hours to go. in 2 hours time matrix reloaded is on HBO (www.astro.com.my satellite tv) so that will kill a few hours while i wait.
my prediction, powerbook and powermac updates of course, and software is some sort of digital asset management thingy i agree, that leverages spotlight. it may use core image to do simple quick tweaks at a pro level that somehow simplifies the workflow without working against, but instead working with, photoshop and the like. hmmm
i'm cutting myself of from the forums soon, i'm starting to get delirious and its 1 or 2 hours before its time for my evening medication
Most things in PS can now be done in 16 bit. A number of things can also be done in 32 bit. Working in 16 bit is simple from the view of the user, but implementing it from a programming standpoint is not. I don't mean the the programming itself is more difficult, though it might be, but the complexity of of the functions is more difficult to carry off. That's why it has taken Adobe years to do it.
Most everything done in PS can be done non-destructively. It depends on what you need to do.
Adobe has very good asset management. In fact the better asset management of the Mac platform is one of the reasons why pro's prefer the Mac. But starting with CS1, Adobe had started to duplicate those capabilities. CS2 has greatly improved upon them.
What this means is that for CS2, at least, PC users will get asset management at least as good at what is available on the Mac from Adobe's suite itself.
What Apple has to do is to improve the OS's capabilities in this area rather than competing with a new program.
The same argument could have been said about Video. And the conumser apps. Yet we have them. The same about a low-cost Mac...or X-Serves. Or a Unix OS Mac...an iPod...OS on Intel.
Yet all these things have come to pass.
Pages is ahead of Word in everything apart from bloatware and it's only a matter of time before Apple cuts its dependence on M$ bloatware.
Same with Adobe. They're hardly rocking the boat with Photoshop releases. The program seems to get slower. And where's the Core Image support?
If Apple releases an indirect competitor to Photoshop, I will be pleased. Asset management and some real time filters...will establisha 'pull your finger out' foot hold. Apple are not to under-estimated. When they decide to go into a market they usually saw the legs off the opposition.
I see no reason why they can't compete if they see the need. Nobody says that M$ shouldn't compete?
If Apple didn't 'try' they'd have been on the ropes to dead by now.
There's plenty of places Photoshop could be improved. I wouldn't mind Apple 'trying' at all.
Lemon Bon Bon
I don't know if you have done pro work in the photo/graphics/ publishing field, or how much if you have, but I was a partner in a commercial photo lab here in NYC for 27 years. We did all of that for magazines, ad agencies, Tv, motion picture studios, etc.
Let me tell you that when I say that PS is entrenched, it is entrenched.
And it is for a very good reason. It has had many competing programs over the years, and has benched every single one of them. Several were very innovative. but in the end none could compete with the sheer feature set and logical functionality of PS.
Every time we would ask if there was anything else left that Adobe could add to the program, they would add features that quickly became necessary. Adobe has kept PS ahead of the pack by listening to its customers almost fanaticaly. As a long time beta tester, I can say that Adobe welcomes our suggestions, and naturally while not everything suggested arrives, much of it does, often improved over what was suggested.
Adobe has intergated its suite in gradual but logical progression.
For Apple to compete with that would take years of work. All of it would have to be right from the very beginning or it would be a non starter.
If you think that Adobe would lose in the long run from slowly failing to enhance their apps for the Mac, I would have to say that the PC is not really behind anymore. People would get a PC to continue working with CS2 or 3 or4. Apple would lose share in that area of their business.
The term, I might remind you, is to "Photoshop" it, not to "Mac" it.
RAW workflow for people shooting digital is where workflow/asset management is hurting the worst. (and yeah it's there but I wouldn't begin to call it good) As it stands currently the break line between RAW and CS functionality is a dealbreaker as far as actual flow goes. While Apple may be able to help, I'm not sure I see how.
I suspect that may not be fast by any stretch if it is done that way (I can't argue with the advantages). Consider a D2x image at 16 bits/pixel, with 4 adjustment layers. You are talking about 250MB of data for just the one file; which I think would have to be layers not smart objects (since Adobe doesn't utilize CI calls) which is just as well because smart objects are fairly slow compared to layers.
Also, does anyone know the precision of CI piped through a GPU? My understanding of the math done by GPUs is that they favor speed over precision. If that is the case I wouldn't be all that excited by CI speedup.
I haven't really bothered to learn much about the way CI works on that level yet because it isn't interesting to me at this time, though it may become so in the future. I can say that I downloaded two free programs that use it and haven't been impressed with the way it works, or its speed with my 9800 card. But they are new, so might improve.
Adobe uses smart layers so the file size wouldn't have to be that large unless you are cloning layers.
MacBidouille is also providing coverage apparently...I don't know how those Frenchies can cover a New York event but they are, apparently.
remember just 9 months ago they were the first to break the "life is random" tagline and news of an iPod with no screen... hardmac/macbidouille is cool...
Comments
Originally posted by - J B 7 2 -
I hope it's big. But if it's too big, what we they have left for MWSF?
An iBook and a Mac Mini with Intel processors.
I've certainly been known to complain from time to time about Photoshop; but there's a huge amount of market momentum in high inertia places for Photoshop; this is a market Apple needs to ease into.
Some quarry, you pounce. Some, you hunt for days to wear them down."
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
"
I've certainly been known to complain from time to time about Photoshop; but there's a huge amount of market momentum in high inertia places for Photoshop; this is a market Apple needs to ease into.
Some quarry, you pounce. Some, you hunt for days to wear them down."
I'm guessing that if the new app does use Core Image it will function in tandem with Photoshop. The results on the layer are returned as a Smart Object and the app saves the original + Core Image info for further editing. Add in plenty of workflow and storage features also aimed at improving PS on the Mac.
Also, does anyone know the precision of CI piped through a GPU? My understanding of the math done by GPUs is that they favor speed over precision. If that is the case I wouldn't be all that excited by CI speedup.
Originally posted by sunilraman
Originally posted by ChevalierMalFet
I could see these things being useful under the following conditions: The application does not actually write the effects to the original file (be it RAW or JPEG), the filters and their settings are saved within file metadata (DNG? hopefully), all effects are calculated in 16 bit per channel precision and in user specified order, ditch gamma in favor of curves. precision live histogram for image.
If Core Image can provide these features, in realtime, and with production quality output, then I think it would indeed be a viable addition to Apple's Asset Management software.
I suspect Automator will play a role in this release as well.
i am going slightly off topic but.... am i way behind the curve or in photoshop CS2 can you do all effects and processing (not just certain ones) in 16bit? CS1 AFAIK still only certain things can be done in 16bit.
yes, yes and yes chevy my main man.
1. non destructive. this is a potentially huge feature for any multimedia manipulation device. for example, effects and filters and routing in the reason/protools/ableton live sound and music software scene. realtime non-destructive processing opens up the creative process like you wouldn't believe.
2. metadata. certainly colorspace information is one important component, other areas would be OMFG! SPOTLIGHT! DIGITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT!
3. 16bit per channel precision accelerated via GPU hardware so that CPU is offloaded and better calculations can be done. now, this is a pure guess by myself but i would imagine core image could even handle 32bits per channel in theory... but i could be talking out of my ass. but certainly 16bit per any channel (R,G,B, multiple masks, etc) is certainly possible now or in the near future. there is a lot of complex masking, texture processing, antialiasing etc done in the latest 3D games so at this stage it is probably a matter of figuring out, okay, how do we make photoshop really kick ass with this 3d game technology but as applied to photoshop 2(.5?)D workflow... anyway again with the music example if you get a breakout box that does full 24bit 96khz or better processing your music productions start to sound a whole lot better compared to 44khz 16bit.
5 hours to go. in 2 hours time matrix reloaded is on HBO (www.astro.com.my satellite tv) so that will kill a few hours while i wait.
my prediction, powerbook and powermac updates of course, and software is some sort of digital asset management thingy i agree, that leverages spotlight. it may use core image to do simple quick tweaks at a pro level that somehow simplifies the workflow without working against, but instead working with, photoshop and the like. hmmm
i'm cutting myself of from the forums soon, i'm starting to get delirious and its 1 or 2 hours before its time for my evening medication
Most things in PS can now be done in 16 bit. A number of things can also be done in 32 bit. Working in 16 bit is simple from the view of the user, but implementing it from a programming standpoint is not. I don't mean the the programming itself is more difficult, though it might be, but the complexity of of the functions is more difficult to carry off. That's why it has taken Adobe years to do it.
Most everything done in PS can be done non-destructively. It depends on what you need to do.
Adobe has very good asset management. In fact the better asset management of the Mac platform is one of the reasons why pro's prefer the Mac. But starting with CS1, Adobe had started to duplicate those capabilities. CS2 has greatly improved upon them.
What this means is that for CS2, at least, PC users will get asset management at least as good at what is available on the Mac from Adobe's suite itself.
What Apple has to do is to improve the OS's capabilities in this area rather than competing with a new program.
Originally posted by Lemon Bon Bon
"It's better that they don't try."
Ridiculous. Nonsense.
The same argument could have been said about Video. And the conumser apps. Yet we have them. The same about a low-cost Mac...or X-Serves. Or a Unix OS Mac...an iPod...OS on Intel.
Yet all these things have come to pass.
Pages is ahead of Word in everything apart from bloatware and it's only a matter of time before Apple cuts its dependence on M$ bloatware.
Same with Adobe. They're hardly rocking the boat with Photoshop releases. The program seems to get slower. And where's the Core Image support?
If Apple releases an indirect competitor to Photoshop, I will be pleased. Asset management and some real time filters...will establisha 'pull your finger out' foot hold. Apple are not to under-estimated. When they decide to go into a market they usually saw the legs off the opposition.
I see no reason why they can't compete if they see the need. Nobody says that M$ shouldn't compete?
If Apple didn't 'try' they'd have been on the ropes to dead by now.
There's plenty of places Photoshop could be improved. I wouldn't mind Apple 'trying' at all.
Lemon Bon Bon
I don't know if you have done pro work in the photo/graphics/ publishing field, or how much if you have, but I was a partner in a commercial photo lab here in NYC for 27 years. We did all of that for magazines, ad agencies, Tv, motion picture studios, etc.
Let me tell you that when I say that PS is entrenched, it is entrenched.
And it is for a very good reason. It has had many competing programs over the years, and has benched every single one of them. Several were very innovative. but in the end none could compete with the sheer feature set and logical functionality of PS.
Every time we would ask if there was anything else left that Adobe could add to the program, they would add features that quickly became necessary. Adobe has kept PS ahead of the pack by listening to its customers almost fanaticaly. As a long time beta tester, I can say that Adobe welcomes our suggestions, and naturally while not everything suggested arrives, much of it does, often improved over what was suggested.
Adobe has intergated its suite in gradual but logical progression.
For Apple to compete with that would take years of work. All of it would have to be right from the very beginning or it would be a non starter.
If you think that Adobe would lose in the long run from slowly failing to enhance their apps for the Mac, I would have to say that the PC is not really behind anymore. People would get a PC to continue working with CS2 or 3 or4. Apple would lose share in that area of their business.
The term, I might remind you, is to "Photoshop" it, not to "Mac" it.
The idea of a Pro-Photo app sounds really cool and what better way to show it off than with a New Power Mac with latest OS Release.
As a thought maybe photo booth was a spin off from a secret Pro-Photo app.8)
Originally posted by ChevalierMalFet
I suspect that may not be fast by any stretch if it is done that way (I can't argue with the advantages). Consider a D2x image at 16 bits/pixel, with 4 adjustment layers. You are talking about 250MB of data for just the one file; which I think would have to be layers not smart objects (since Adobe doesn't utilize CI calls) which is just as well because smart objects are fairly slow compared to layers.
Also, does anyone know the precision of CI piped through a GPU? My understanding of the math done by GPUs is that they favor speed over precision. If that is the case I wouldn't be all that excited by CI speedup.
I haven't really bothered to learn much about the way CI works on that level yet because it isn't interesting to me at this time, though it may become so in the future. I can say that I downloaded two free programs that use it and haven't been impressed with the way it works, or its speed with my 9800 card. But they are new, so might improve.
Adobe uses smart layers so the file size wouldn't have to be that large unless you are cloning layers.
Originally posted by cyberprince
Anybody know if any site is providing LIVE coverage of the event. Minute per minute updates...
You got me checking - macrumors.com is the only one I found.
Originally posted by murk
Maybe they will try to sell the idea of using Cinema Displays as flash units ala PhotoBooth.
Yeah, the 30" would make a good broad (no, not a woman).
Originally posted by kenaustus
You got me checking - macrumors.com is the only one I found.
MacBidouille is also providing coverage apparently...I don't know how those Frenchies can cover a New York event but they are, apparently.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
MacBidouille is also providing coverage apparently...I don't know how those Frenchies can cover a New York event but they are, apparently.
remember just 9 months ago they were the first to break the "life is random" tagline and news of an iPod with no screen... hardmac/macbidouille is cool...
Originally posted by kim kap sol
MacBidouille is also providing coverage apparently...I don't know how those Frenchies can cover a New York event but they are, apparently.
applexnet.com will also provide live coverage.
fire up ichat, click on File > Gotochat and type in
appleinsider
Originally posted by sunilraman
appleinsider ichat peoples!! let's go
fire up ichat, click on File > Gotochat and type in
appleinsider
And where are you?