Adobe Photoshop CS3 beta now available for download

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 36
    well that is my mistake. i had no idea adobe was limited to the ram before cs3. and if they are using core image that is fantastic. in that case i would say cs3 is a great update.
  • Reply 22 of 36
    I forgot to add the 'photo merge' tool is friggin cool, after watching the demo video of it, that is amazing.
  • Reply 23 of 36
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by the Beatles


    well that is my mistake. i had no idea adobe was limited to the ram before cs3. and if they are using core image that is fantastic. in that case i would say cs3 is a great update.



    Yea the last few versions of PS were only able to use approx 2 gb of ram, thats it, but now since 64bit computing has come into play and the amount of available ram that is put into PC's these days, PS CS3 can now utilize it. Hence faster processing of image data. Also the amount of cores/ cpu's will help too, hopefully the final release (if the beta doesnt do so already) of CS3 will untilize more than 2 cores/ cpu's, that should bode really well with the mac pro users...
  • Reply 24 of 36
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hypoluxa


    Honestly.. I think the major feature in this release besides it being universal is the fact that it taps into the grafx card power to help process images (along with expanding the ram usage), which makes sense these days given the cards that are being developed. This feature should have been developed a few yrs ago by Adobe of all people, leave it to Apple to take the first step. The non destructive filters are nice as well. My 2 cents.



    Just for the record, Photoshop CS3 doesn't actually use the graphics card. They wanted to put the feature in, but it never panned out, and they forgot to remove it from the preferences.
  • Reply 25 of 36
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gregmightdothat


    Just for the record, Photoshop CS3 doesn't actually use the graphics card. They wanted to put the feature in, but it never panned out, and they forgot to remove it from the preferences.



    that may not be entirely true. Lynda's Deke said number of time that this is PS CS3 STANDARD edition and if we're to believe AI info there should also be PRO version that WILL have GFX acceleration.



    As for Apple having it first , i'm not so sure. Surely Motion is great, but Aperature doesnt use GFX at all. I upgraded my G5's GFX from 9650 to 6800 Ultra and there isnt any speed improvment at all. You can double check these finding at barefeats , they also didnt see any difference in speed while having faster GFX. Apple sure hyped the app as such but i'd say it's all a lie.
  • Reply 26 of 36
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wally007


    that may not be entirely true. Lynda's Deke said number of time that this is PS CS3 STANDARD edition and if we're to believe AI info there should also be PRO version that WILL have GFX acceleration.



    As for Apple having it first , i'm not so sure. Surely Motion is great, but Aperature doesnt use GFX at all. I upgraded my G5's GFX from 9650 to 6800 Ultra and there isnt any speed improvment at all. You can double check these finding at barefeats , they also didnt see any difference in speed while having faster GFX. Apple sure hyped the app as such but i'd say it's all a lie.



    Aperture does use the graphics card: up until 1.5, you could find all of the Core Image kernels in the app's resources folder.



    Also, the reason why Adobe isn't using the graphics card is because it has to pull the rendered image back through PCI-Express to the CPU. On larger images, this turns out to be slower than just processing everything on the CPU.
  • Reply 27 of 36
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wally007


    You can double check these finding at barefeats , they also didnt see any difference in speed while having faster GFX. Apple sure hyped the app as such but i'd say it's all a lie.





    apple hyped up what app? photoshop? did you mean that its a lie that photoshop can take advantage of the GFX for increased performance? thats not a lie. adobe has been given the tools to take advantage of a state of the art OS that will allow them to take advantage of core image and off loading some of the CPU tasks to the GPU as well. if adobe didnt do that it has nothing to do with apple.



    i thought adobe tapped into core image with this one?
  • Reply 28 of 36
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gregmightdothat


    Just for the record, Photoshop CS3 doesn't actually use the graphics card. They wanted to put the feature in, but it never panned out, and they forgot to remove it from the preferences.



    I have to disagree, as the sys req's to run the app taken from the Adobe Labs site



    The minimum system requirements for the Photoshop CS3 beta are



    Macintosh

    PowerPC G4 or G5 or Intel based Macintosh processor

    Mac OS X v.10.4.8

    320MB of RAM (512MB recommended)

    64MB of video RAM

    1.5GB of available hard-disk space

    1,024x768 monitor resolution with 16-bit video card

    DVD-ROM drive

    Internet or phone connection required for product activation

    QuickTime 7 software required for multimedia features



    why would they mention needing a 64 mb grafx card if the app doesnt use it in some way? previous versions never mention needing a particular card, they just mention screen resolution and color array (ie: capable of 16 bit color).
  • Reply 29 of 36
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hypoluxa


    I have to disagree, as the sys req's to run the app taken from the Adobe Labs site



    The minimum system requirements for the Photoshop CS3 beta are



    Macintosh

    PowerPC G4 or G5 or Intel based Macintosh processor

    Mac OS X v.10.4.8

    320MB of RAM (512MB recommended)

    64MB of video RAM

    1.5GB of available hard-disk space

    1,024x768 monitor resolution with 16-bit video card

    DVD-ROM drive

    Internet or phone connection required for product activation

    QuickTime 7 software required for multimedia features



    why would they mention needing a 64 mb grafx card if the app doesnt use it in some way? previous versions never mention needing a particular card, they just mention screen resolution and color array (ie: capable of 16 bit color).



    Because a 32 MB graphics card hasn't been made in 5 or 10 years, and would literally fall apart on any heavy image editing?



    Anyway, http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/webforu...y&keyword1=gpu



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Chris Cox


    GPUs aren't being used in CS3.



    We are continually working with the GPU makers to improve their cards and drivers to address the needs of applications like Photoshop.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Scott Byer


    ...the back channel from the display card isn't big

    enough yet in shipping systems to allow for the use of the GPU as a

    compute resource. The preference just didn't get removed in time for

    the beta.



  • Reply 30 of 36
    nerudaneruda Posts: 427member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hypoluxa


    Its pretty nice, the palettes are a little funky, .



    I thought the same thing. Notice that the close/minimize buttons are very windowsesque (_x) on the layers pallete. Hope this changes.
  • Reply 31 of 36
    that really really sux. PS should use the grfx card in some fashion...it would help I would think.
  • Reply 32 of 36
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gregmightdothat


    Because a 32 MB graphics card hasn't been made in 5 or 10 years, and would literally fall apart on any heavy image editing?



    Maybe in the P.C. market - but not for the Mac. I had a Powerbook in 2002 with a 16mb card - never had trouble with large files.
  • Reply 33 of 36
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by the Beatles


    apple hyped up what app? photoshop? did you mean that its a lie that photoshop can take advantage of the GFX for increased performance? thats not a lie. adobe has been given the tools to take advantage of a state of the art OS that will allow them to take advantage of core image and off loading some of the CPU tasks to the GPU as well. if adobe didnt do that it has nothing to do with apple.



    i thought adobe tapped into core image with this one?



    I think it usually takes a while for companies to take advantage of new OS technologies. Especially an app like Photoshop that is full of legacy shit, and needs feature parity on the Windows side.
  • Reply 34 of 36
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,229moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by the Beatles


    apple hyped up what app? photoshop? did you mean that its a lie that photoshop can take advantage of the GFX for increased performance?



    No, he meant Aperture. I don't think Aperture uses all that much GPU either except maybe the daft menus that do that genie effect. I hate that.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gregmightdothat


    Because a 32 MB graphics card hasn't been made in 5 or 10 years, and would literally fall apart on any heavy image editing?



    They are minimum requirements though and I would hope CS3 could still be usable on an older 32MB G4 Mini. 64MB seems a bit high considering that is often the minimum for a lot of games that are doing heavy 3D graphics constantly.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hypolua


    that really really sux. PS should use the grfx card in some fashion...it would help I would think.



    I don't know about that. It accelerates image processing sure but often at the expense of accuracy. Plus, once you start dealing with huge resolution images, you run out of texture memory so the GPU won't help much. I think it also limits the color accuracy too doesn't it? Images rendered by OpenGL sometimes look different from CPU rendered ones.
  • Reply 35 of 36
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Neruda


    I thought the same thing. Notice that the close/minimize buttons are very windowsesque (_x) on the layers pallete. Hope this changes.



    the more Ive played around with it the more I like the minimized palettes feature.
  • Reply 36 of 36
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Marvin


    No, he meant Aperture. I don't think Aperture uses all that much GPU either except maybe the daft menus that do that genie effect. I hate that.



    Ironically, the genie effect's the only thing that doesn't happen on the graphics card, Everything else if fully accelerated (which is a big part of the reason why Red Eye and Spot Removal suck).
Sign In or Register to comment.