I don't know about all of that, and I don't recall Jobs saying he wanted Adobe to use Core Image.
I recall him saying that he wanted the Mac version of Photoshop to be better then the windows version after a demonstration of Core Image - I remember that for sure, because I said to myself, no way that will ever happen.
I recall him saying that he wanted the Mac version of Photoshop to be better then the windows version after a demonstration of Core Image - I remember that for sure, because I said to myself, no way that will ever happen.
Well, he was just expressing his wish - may it be a warning to Adobe - possibly? Although MS is worse and that's been left alone.
It occured to me to mention to everyone that says that the CoreImage version of PS would be different then the Windows version. Adobe could write their own filters that would act exactly like the Windows code. Adobe does not have to use Apple's filters.
It occured to me to mention to everyone that says that the CoreImage version of PS would be different then the Windows version. Adobe could write their own filters that would act exactly like the Windows code. Adobe does not have to use Apple's filters.
Although I'm sure that it's true you can customize filters and make new ones altogether, the whole point of CoreImage filters is that they are not permanently applied to the image being filtered. Rather, a simple flag is attached to the original image that says: hey filter so and so has been applied. Henceforth, every time you ever view the image, CoreImage will re-render the filter onto the image.
A system like CoreImage really needs to be implemented into the whole operating system like it is on Mac OS, and not individual software. Windows does not have any such a system, and it would be very disadvantageous for Adobe if the implemented a feature locking out Windows users from viewing images edited on a Mac version of PS.
How do you know that? The naming scheme kinda implies a yearly upgrade.
Office is older, but you aren't saying that MS hasn't shown any interest in doing anything with it.
BUT!! iWork is not supposed to compete with Office - MS Works perhaps, but not Office.
Not in this part of the world.
It's not supposed to compete with Photoshop FCOL!!!
To you maybe.
MS talks about what it intends to do with its software all of the time. They talk about the features, about the file standards, etc. Apple talks about nothing.
I wasn't the one that made iWork out as a possible Office replacement. Find the post of whomever did and speak to him.
In just about every place in the west.
I've been the one who has been arguing that is isn't supposed to be competing with PS. Again bother to read the posts and get things right.
It occured to me to mention to everyone that says that the CoreImage version of PS would be different then the Windows version. Adobe could write their own filters that would act exactly like the Windows code. Adobe does not have to use Apple's filters.
That's why I earlier said that if that could be done it would solve problems.
Although I'm sure that it's true you can customize filters and make new ones altogether, the whole point of CoreImage filters is that they are not permanently applied to the image being filtered. Rather, a simple flag is attached to the original image that says: hey filter so and so has been applied. Henceforth, every time you ever view the image, CoreImage will re-render the filter onto the image.
A system like CoreImage really needs to be implemented into the whole operating system like it is on Mac OS, and not individual software. Windows does not have any such a system, and it would be very disadvantageous for Adobe if the implemented a feature locking out Windows users from viewing images edited on a Mac version of PS.
While it isn't as fast, layers in PS does the same thing. They apply filters or even pixel level edits in a non destructive way. Click off the layer and those edits are gone, click it back and they return.
The image doesn't have to be re rendered each time. Only the first time they are applied.
Interesting interview. Finally, some substantive information is released.
This is a very interesting article. Looks like Aperture is a bigger shot at Photoshop than most of us want to believe. A few points paraphrased.
Apple watched what features of Photoshop the photographers that they were working with to develop Aperture and have put 90% of them in Aperture.
Aperture not only works with RAW but any file that QT can read. Apple says you can use Aperture to organize your pdfs if you want to.
They have a 90 minute video included in the software box that teaches you another way of thinking that is different than the Adobe way. Instead of starting with "Save As" you just start working with metadata.
This is a very interesting article. Looks like Aperture is a bigger shot at Photoshop than most of us want to believe. A few points paraphrased.
Apple watched what features of Photoshop the photographers that they were working with to develop Aperture and have put 90% of them in Aperture.
Aperture not only works with RAW but any file that QT can read. Apple says you can use Aperture to organize your pdfs if you want to.
They have a 90 minute video included in the software box that teaches you another way of thinking that is different than the Adobe way. Instead of starting with "Save As" you just start working with metadata.
It is an interesting article. But what they consider 90% of what photographers use is dependent on which photographers they worked with.
They do admit in the article that it's much slower on a PB. 3 to 4 times as slow in opening a file, and you don't get to see the whole file. He is suggesting that it be used only for filling and browsing.
You see the advantages while I also see the disadvantages.
I can see both. I just posted these particular points because:
There is never any mention of any other formats than RAW in these threads.
Apple is competing with Photoshop more than just indirectly.
The fact that more than just RAW can be used seems to open this app up to a few more people interested in an Apple solution that is more advanced than iPhoto.
The guy is using Aperture on his 15 inch PB. His quote:
"This is where our scheme of loading a proxy image comes in -- the 1024 proxy is often all I need to see at this stage. Depending on how many megabytes each image is, Aperture on a G5 can load the full Raw image in less than a second. On my PowerBook, that same image may take three to four seconds to load fully."
Does that really mean that he is only seeing part of the file on his PB? Just a question. I'm trying to learn here.
I can see both. I just posted these particular points because:
There is never any mention of any other formats than RAW in these threads.
Apple is competing with Photoshop more than just indirectly.
The fact that more than just RAW can be used seems to open this app up to a few more people interested in an Apple solution that is more advanced than iPhoto.
The guy is using Aperture on his 15 inch PB. His quote:
"This is where our scheme of loading a proxy image comes in -- the 1024 proxy is often all I need to see at this stage. Depending on how many megabytes each image is, Aperture on a G5 can load the full Raw image in less than a second. On my PowerBook, that same image may take three to four seconds to load fully."
Does that really mean that he is only seeing part of the file on his PB? Just a question. I'm trying to learn here.
There was once another program that came out with intentions of competing with PS. That was in the days of *slow* computers. when a Gaussian blur on a 10MB file could take 10 MINUTES. It worked with proxies. Proxies speed things up, but they are not the pixel by pixel file. A proxy file is the file that PS opens up. It can be a 15% mag image.
He isn't expecting someone using a PB to be doing real work on a file. Just very basic actions other than moving and filing. He reluctently admits that the work can be done
" But a PowerBook is fine for what a lot of photographers do in the field with their laptops: browse images quickly and step through the thumbnails. Maybe tag the images they like, maybe zoom in closely on one. The photo edit stage. For that, a PowerBook does take a speed hit, but it's totally usable."
"totaly usable". That means that it's pretty slow but can be used if you really have to.
But Apple isn't expecting people to do much with it on a PB. That's what I've been saying.
Interesting interview. Finally, some substantive information is released.
The Apple product manager claims that the price of Aperture is primarily so that people will notice it and think of it as a serious application.
That's a very interesting notion. I would think that if the price was lower more people would use it and after a little while so many would use it and like it, that it would be very well known.
Although I'm sure that it's true you can customize filters and make new ones altogether, the whole point of CoreImage filters is that they are not permanently applied to the image being filtered. Rather, a simple flag is attached to the original image that says: hey filter so and so has been applied. Henceforth, every time you ever view the image, CoreImage will re-render the filter onto the image.
This type of operation is what Core Data is used for. Core Data will store all the effects and manipulation that is performed on an image to change the image so that it looks like what you have on-screen last time you saved it. The next time the image is opened, the original will be loaded before Core Data is used to retreive the sequence of effects and manipuations used from Core Image to re-render the manipulated photo.
While it isn't as fast, layers in PS does the same thing. They apply filters or even pixel level edits in a non destructive way. Click off the layer and those edits are gone, click it back and they return.
The image doesn't have to be re rendered each time. Only the first time they are applied.
The Apple product manager claims that the price of Aperture is primarily so that people will notice it and think of it as a serious application.
That's a very interesting notion. I would think that if the price was lower more people would use it and after a little while so many would use it and like it, that it would be very well known.
Aperture will never be a high volume product. The majority of cameras being sold do not take raw photos nor do most camera purchasers need to shuttle through thousands of photos after a shoot.
It's always inevitable. Apple announces a Pro app and there's a chorus of "consumers" that want an "express" version. $500 is nothing to a photographer if you can't meet that bar of entry then iPhoto, iviewmedia Pro or Lightzone are going to be your options.
I agree with Apple's choice here. Let the discussion of Aperture come from Pro's and not Joe6 pack who's bought an application beyond his needs.
They are mathematical equivalents of the change, as is Core Image. Where do you think Apple got the idea from?
You can go to one of the layers and change it as many times as you want until you're happy with the result. It doesn't render any of the layers unless you tell it to. You can render any layer you want independently of all the others. you can also reorder the layers which will give different priorities to the effects.
In fact, you can do anything you want with layers. You can even have one layer only affect certain other layers if you like.
Unless a layer is a duplicate of the original file, which is done for certain purposes, layers take little memory.
Aperture will never be a high volume product. The majority of cameras being sold do not take raw photos nor do most camera purchasers need to shuttle through thousands of photos after a shoot.
It's always inevitable. Apple announces a Pro app and there's a chorus of "consumers" that want an "express" version. $500 is nothing to a photographer if you can't meet that bar of entry then iPhoto, iviewmedia Pro or Lightzone are going to be your options.
I agree with Apple's choice here. Let the discussion of Aperture come from Pro's and not Joe6 pack who's bought an application beyond his needs.
Absolutely correct!
Too many people here are belittling PS, for example, who have never even used it, or if they have, never have done more than scratched the surface.
They are mathematical equivalents of the change, as is Core Image. Where do you think Apple got the idea from?
You can go to one of the layers and change it as many times as you want until you're happy with the result. It doesn't render any of the layers unless you tell it to. You can render any layer you want independently of all the others. you can also reorder the layers which will give different priorities to the effects.
In fact, you can do anything you want with layers. You can even have one layer only affect certain other layers if you like.
Unless a layer is a duplicate of the original file, which is done for certain purposes, layers take little memory.
No what I mean is that if you apply a series of effects to the same layer you cannot re-order them or reverse them if you applied another one afterward which you want to keep.
Comments
Originally posted by melgross
I don't know about all of that, and I don't recall Jobs saying he wanted Adobe to use Core Image.
I recall him saying that he wanted the Mac version of Photoshop to be better then the windows version after a demonstration of Core Image - I remember that for sure, because I said to myself, no way that will ever happen.
Originally posted by the cool gut
I recall him saying that he wanted the Mac version of Photoshop to be better then the windows version after a demonstration of Core Image - I remember that for sure, because I said to myself, no way that will ever happen.
Well, he was just expressing his wish - may it be a warning to Adobe - possibly? Although MS is worse and that's been left alone.
Originally posted by macserverX
It occured to me to mention to everyone that says that the CoreImage version of PS would be different then the Windows version. Adobe could write their own filters that would act exactly like the Windows code. Adobe does not have to use Apple's filters.
Although I'm sure that it's true you can customize filters and make new ones altogether, the whole point of CoreImage filters is that they are not permanently applied to the image being filtered. Rather, a simple flag is attached to the original image that says: hey filter so and so has been applied. Henceforth, every time you ever view the image, CoreImage will re-render the filter onto the image.
A system like CoreImage really needs to be implemented into the whole operating system like it is on Mac OS, and not individual software. Windows does not have any such a system, and it would be very disadvantageous for Adobe if the implemented a feature locking out Windows users from viewing images edited on a Mac version of PS.
Originally posted by JLL
How do you know that? The naming scheme kinda implies a yearly upgrade.
Office is older, but you aren't saying that MS hasn't shown any interest in doing anything with it.
BUT!! iWork is not supposed to compete with Office - MS Works perhaps, but not Office.
Not in this part of the world.
It's not supposed to compete with Photoshop FCOL!!!
To you maybe.
MS talks about what it intends to do with its software all of the time. They talk about the features, about the file standards, etc. Apple talks about nothing.
I wasn't the one that made iWork out as a possible Office replacement. Find the post of whomever did and speak to him.
In just about every place in the west.
I've been the one who has been arguing that is isn't supposed to be competing with PS. Again bother to read the posts and get things right.
Whatever you mean by FCOL?
Originally posted by macserverX
It occured to me to mention to everyone that says that the CoreImage version of PS would be different then the Windows version. Adobe could write their own filters that would act exactly like the Windows code. Adobe does not have to use Apple's filters.
That's why I earlier said that if that could be done it would solve problems.
But it's a big if at this time.
Originally posted by WhiteRabbit
Although I'm sure that it's true you can customize filters and make new ones altogether, the whole point of CoreImage filters is that they are not permanently applied to the image being filtered. Rather, a simple flag is attached to the original image that says: hey filter so and so has been applied. Henceforth, every time you ever view the image, CoreImage will re-render the filter onto the image.
A system like CoreImage really needs to be implemented into the whole operating system like it is on Mac OS, and not individual software. Windows does not have any such a system, and it would be very disadvantageous for Adobe if the implemented a feature locking out Windows users from viewing images edited on a Mac version of PS.
While it isn't as fast, layers in PS does the same thing. They apply filters or even pixel level edits in a non destructive way. Click off the layer and those edits are gone, click it back and they return.
The image doesn't have to be re rendered each time. Only the first time they are applied.
Originally posted by Simple Ranger
CreativePro interviews Aperture's Product Manager
Interesting interview. Finally, some substantive information is released.
This is a very interesting article. Looks like Aperture is a bigger shot at Photoshop than most of us want to believe. A few points paraphrased.
Apple watched what features of Photoshop the photographers that they were working with to develop Aperture and have put 90% of them in Aperture.
Aperture not only works with RAW but any file that QT can read. Apple says you can use Aperture to organize your pdfs if you want to.
They have a 90 minute video included in the software box that teaches you another way of thinking that is different than the Adobe way. Instead of starting with "Save As" you just start working with metadata.
Originally posted by kcmac
This is a very interesting article. Looks like Aperture is a bigger shot at Photoshop than most of us want to believe. A few points paraphrased.
Apple watched what features of Photoshop the photographers that they were working with to develop Aperture and have put 90% of them in Aperture.
Aperture not only works with RAW but any file that QT can read. Apple says you can use Aperture to organize your pdfs if you want to.
They have a 90 minute video included in the software box that teaches you another way of thinking that is different than the Adobe way. Instead of starting with "Save As" you just start working with metadata.
It is an interesting article. But what they consider 90% of what photographers use is dependent on which photographers they worked with.
They do admit in the article that it's much slower on a PB. 3 to 4 times as slow in opening a file, and you don't get to see the whole file. He is suggesting that it be used only for filling and browsing.
You see the advantages while I also see the disadvantages.
There is never any mention of any other formats than RAW in these threads.
Apple is competing with Photoshop more than just indirectly.
The fact that more than just RAW can be used seems to open this app up to a few more people interested in an Apple solution that is more advanced than iPhoto.
The guy is using Aperture on his 15 inch PB. His quote:
"This is where our scheme of loading a proxy image comes in -- the 1024 proxy is often all I need to see at this stage. Depending on how many megabytes each image is, Aperture on a G5 can load the full Raw image in less than a second. On my PowerBook, that same image may take three to four seconds to load fully."
Does that really mean that he is only seeing part of the file on his PB? Just a question. I'm trying to learn here.
Originally posted by kcmac
I can see both. I just posted these particular points because:
There is never any mention of any other formats than RAW in these threads.
Apple is competing with Photoshop more than just indirectly.
The fact that more than just RAW can be used seems to open this app up to a few more people interested in an Apple solution that is more advanced than iPhoto.
The guy is using Aperture on his 15 inch PB. His quote:
"This is where our scheme of loading a proxy image comes in -- the 1024 proxy is often all I need to see at this stage. Depending on how many megabytes each image is, Aperture on a G5 can load the full Raw image in less than a second. On my PowerBook, that same image may take three to four seconds to load fully."
Does that really mean that he is only seeing part of the file on his PB? Just a question. I'm trying to learn here.
There was once another program that came out with intentions of competing with PS. That was in the days of *slow* computers. when a Gaussian blur on a 10MB file could take 10 MINUTES. It worked with proxies. Proxies speed things up, but they are not the pixel by pixel file. A proxy file is the file that PS opens up. It can be a 15% mag image.
He isn't expecting someone using a PB to be doing real work on a file. Just very basic actions other than moving and filing. He reluctently admits that the work can be done
" But a PowerBook is fine for what a lot of photographers do in the field with their laptops: browse images quickly and step through the thumbnails. Maybe tag the images they like, maybe zoom in closely on one. The photo edit stage. For that, a PowerBook does take a speed hit, but it's totally usable."
"totaly usable". That means that it's pretty slow but can be used if you really have to.
But Apple isn't expecting people to do much with it on a PB. That's what I've been saying.
From what I saw at the show, it does need power.
Originally posted by Simple Ranger
CreativePro interviews Aperture's Product Manager
Interesting interview. Finally, some substantive information is released.
The Apple product manager claims that the price of Aperture is primarily so that people will notice it and think of it as a serious application.
That's a very interesting notion. I would think that if the price was lower more people would use it and after a little while so many would use it and like it, that it would be very well known.
Originally posted by melgross
In just about every place in the west.
West what? Western part of the world? I think you're looking at the wrong places my friend.
InDesign has grapped a large part of the market from ad agencies and makers of yellow pages to news papers and so on.
Originally posted by WhiteRabbit
Although I'm sure that it's true you can customize filters and make new ones altogether, the whole point of CoreImage filters is that they are not permanently applied to the image being filtered. Rather, a simple flag is attached to the original image that says: hey filter so and so has been applied. Henceforth, every time you ever view the image, CoreImage will re-render the filter onto the image.
This type of operation is what Core Data is used for. Core Data will store all the effects and manipulation that is performed on an image to change the image so that it looks like what you have on-screen last time you saved it. The next time the image is opened, the original will be loaded before Core Data is used to retreive the sequence of effects and manipuations used from Core Image to re-render the manipulated photo.
Originally posted by melgross
While it isn't as fast, layers in PS does the same thing. They apply filters or even pixel level edits in a non destructive way. Click off the layer and those edits are gone, click it back and they return.
The image doesn't have to be re rendered each time. Only the first time they are applied.
But you cannot reverse them.
Originally posted by WhiteRabbit
The Apple product manager claims that the price of Aperture is primarily so that people will notice it and think of it as a serious application.
That's a very interesting notion. I would think that if the price was lower more people would use it and after a little while so many would use it and like it, that it would be very well known.
Aperture will never be a high volume product. The majority of cameras being sold do not take raw photos nor do most camera purchasers need to shuttle through thousands of photos after a shoot.
It's always inevitable. Apple announces a Pro app and there's a chorus of "consumers" that want an "express" version. $500 is nothing to a photographer if you can't meet that bar of entry then iPhoto, iviewmedia Pro or Lightzone are going to be your options.
I agree with Apple's choice here. Let the discussion of Aperture come from Pro's and not Joe6 pack who's bought an application beyond his needs.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
But you cannot reverse them.
Of course you can. That's the whole point.
They are mathematical equivalents of the change, as is Core Image. Where do you think Apple got the idea from?
You can go to one of the layers and change it as many times as you want until you're happy with the result. It doesn't render any of the layers unless you tell it to. You can render any layer you want independently of all the others. you can also reorder the layers which will give different priorities to the effects.
In fact, you can do anything you want with layers. You can even have one layer only affect certain other layers if you like.
Unless a layer is a duplicate of the original file, which is done for certain purposes, layers take little memory.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Aperture will never be a high volume product. The majority of cameras being sold do not take raw photos nor do most camera purchasers need to shuttle through thousands of photos after a shoot.
It's always inevitable. Apple announces a Pro app and there's a chorus of "consumers" that want an "express" version. $500 is nothing to a photographer if you can't meet that bar of entry then iPhoto, iviewmedia Pro or Lightzone are going to be your options.
I agree with Apple's choice here. Let the discussion of Aperture come from Pro's and not Joe6 pack who's bought an application beyond his needs.
Absolutely correct!
Too many people here are belittling PS, for example, who have never even used it, or if they have, never have done more than scratched the surface.
Originally posted by melgross
Of course you can. That's the whole point.
They are mathematical equivalents of the change, as is Core Image. Where do you think Apple got the idea from?
You can go to one of the layers and change it as many times as you want until you're happy with the result. It doesn't render any of the layers unless you tell it to. You can render any layer you want independently of all the others. you can also reorder the layers which will give different priorities to the effects.
In fact, you can do anything you want with layers. You can even have one layer only affect certain other layers if you like.
Unless a layer is a duplicate of the original file, which is done for certain purposes, layers take little memory.
No what I mean is that if you apply a series of effects to the same layer you cannot re-order them or reverse them if you applied another one afterward which you want to keep.