<strong>and end up with a mac os x only solution. (no windows) which would be fine with me but their shareholders might have a cow.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They maintained two codebases for a long time. Moving to Objective-C++ would simply make the Mac branch smaller and easier to update and maintain.
Can't you just use two 32-bit words?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yupp.. It might faster than using scalar 64 bit integers, because you need to separate the color channels for many standard algorithms.
A linear convolution ( mexican hat smoothing, gaussian blure, edge-filters etc etc), would be faster by just use one register for each color ( 16 bit).
BTW, Altivec would probably still be usefull, since it supports 16 bit integers. But,AFAIK, it lacks some of the channel-operations supported in "8-bit mode".
I'm missing something here. Can somebody explain why you need a 64-bit processor/OS to work with 64-bit color? Can't you just use two 32-bit words?</strong><hr></blockquote>
A 64-bit processor can process those 64-bit colors in one go, while the 32-bit processor needs two seperate cycles. Of course, that would only be noticeable for long-running operations (i.e. plug-ins), where one might very well be using the 128-bit Altivec extensions. Methinks that it's more the x86 CPU's that need 64-bitness before Photoshop can use 64-bit color. Of course, Adobe won't start using it before both platforms will support 64-bit color in earnest, which shall be quite a while after x86-64 has hit the streets. So I wouldn't be too bullish on Apple to release the GPUL if all you crave is 64-bit color.
On a related note (maybe this question is just an offspring of my ignorance, if so forgive me): all this talk about 64bit color space made me wonder--does the video card have any role in this? I mean, isn't a video card that supports 64bit color space required for this kind of work? I remember reading some time ago in John Carmack's .plan file that a 64bit-color graphics card would change things quite a bit (but maybe he was referring to games only, dunno).
Im on thin ice here, so please correct me if im wrong:
you could use a 64 bit "internal" color map, but the graphics gard does not need to support it. You could run filters and stuff on a 64 bit image ( for higher precision), but the end result could be displayed in 32 bit. The only thing needed would be a really simpletransformation from 64 bit to 32 bit before sending the end result to the graphics card.
After all, you could do 64bit colorspace image processing on a G4 embedded card, without any graphics card or display attached.
64 bit colorspace is not that different from 32 bit,- just that (AFAIK) altivec doesnt support 16 bit color channels that well. Some of Altivec instructions are specially designed for color channels.
If you really want to, you could spend a few days/nights programming a simple image processing app with 64 bit support, running on current G4 hardware.
Being able to display 64 bit color would be next to useless because of limitations in the human visual system. Im not sure about the details here, but ~80 different shades of black/white is enough to make it impossible for a human to notice the difference between two neighbouring shades. And about a comparable number of colors would be needed (~80 for each color channel).
64 bit color space would mostly be a buzz-word and nothing else (at least when it comes to displaying 64 bit colors), except when running a string of filters and operations on an image.
[jobs]and now with OS 10.3 Ocelot, we have introduced support for 64-bit applications which let's use do some really amazing stuff. Photoshop...now supports full 64-bit color spaces in its images...so many colors you can't even distinguish between them. See how beautiful they are on this new 24" ACD??[/jobs]
<strong>[jobs]and now with OS 10.3 Ocelot, we have introduced support for 64-bit applications which let's use do some really amazing stuff. Photoshop...now supports full 64-bit color spaces in its images...so many colors you can't even distinguish between them. See how beautiful they are on this new 24" ACD??[/jobs]
Whaddya mean Ocelots aren't fast?! Ever try to catch one on foot...well have ya? Just as fast if not faster than any household kitty, I'd bet.
Besides, my "prediction" of Steve's next big Macworld speech had mostly to do with the amazing colors no other machine can match - and that no human can see. Behold: the power of RDF - stronger than Ti, or cheese for that matter!
Comments
and end up with a mac os x only solution. (no windows) which would be fine with me but their shareholders might have a cow.
then of course there's marklar.
<strong>and end up with a mac os x only solution. (no windows) which would be fine with me but their shareholders might have a cow.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They maintained two codebases for a long time. Moving to Objective-C++ would simply make the Mac branch smaller and easier to update and maintain.
Which it should be.
<strong>Adobe is interested by a 64 bit version of Photoshop (64 bit color)</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm missing something here. Can somebody explain why you need a 64-bit processor/OS to work with 64-bit color? Can't you just use two 32-bit words?
<strong>
Can't you just use two 32-bit words?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yupp.. It might faster than using scalar 64 bit integers, because you need to separate the color channels for many standard algorithms.
A linear convolution ( mexican hat smoothing, gaussian blure, edge-filters etc etc), would be faster by just use one register for each color ( 16 bit).
BTW, Altivec would probably still be usefull, since it supports 16 bit integers. But,AFAIK, it lacks some of the channel-operations supported in "8-bit mode".
<strong>
I'm missing something here. Can somebody explain why you need a 64-bit processor/OS to work with 64-bit color? Can't you just use two 32-bit words?</strong><hr></blockquote>
A 64-bit processor can process those 64-bit colors in one go, while the 32-bit processor needs two seperate cycles. Of course, that would only be noticeable for long-running operations (i.e. plug-ins), where one might very well be using the 128-bit Altivec extensions. Methinks that it's more the x86 CPU's that need 64-bitness before Photoshop can use 64-bit color. Of course, Adobe won't start using it before both platforms will support 64-bit color in earnest, which shall be quite a while after x86-64 has hit the streets. So I wouldn't be too bullish on Apple to release the GPUL if all you crave is 64-bit color.
<strong>
A 64-bit processor can process those 64-bit colors in one go, while the 32-bit processor needs two seperate cycles. .</strong><hr></blockquote>
uhm but remember: Altivec is fast running Gaussian Blur because it can do channel-operations.
With scalar integer you would still need to seperate the different color-channels (16 bit) into different registers.
You end up with the same (or about the same) number of scalar instructions in both cases.
A 64 bit CPU would not be much faster than a comparable 32 bit cpu running Photoshop w. 64 bit color-space.
64 bit mode is NOT magic. Its (mostly) just a buzz-word.
What do you guys and gals think?
ZoSo
you could use a 64 bit "internal" color map, but the graphics gard does not need to support it. You could run filters and stuff on a 64 bit image ( for higher precision), but the end result could be displayed in 32 bit. The only thing needed would be a really simpletransformation from 64 bit to 32 bit before sending the end result to the graphics card.
After all, you could do 64bit colorspace image processing on a G4 embedded card, without any graphics card or display attached.
64 bit colorspace is not that different from 32 bit,- just that (AFAIK) altivec doesnt support 16 bit color channels that well. Some of Altivec instructions are specially designed for color channels.
If you really want to, you could spend a few days/nights programming a simple image processing app with 64 bit support, running on current G4 hardware.
Being able to display 64 bit color would be next to useless because of limitations in the human visual system. Im not sure about the details here, but ~80 different shades of black/white is enough to make it impossible for a human to notice the difference between two neighbouring shades. And about a comparable number of colors would be needed (~80 for each color channel).
64 bit color space would mostly be a buzz-word and nothing else (at least when it comes to displaying 64 bit colors), except when running a string of filters and operations on an image.
Just my humble opinion.
But 3D, Video will hugely be benefitted by the widen bandwidth..........of course if the apps are written for it
<strong>[jobs]and now with OS 10.3 Ocelot, we have introduced support for 64-bit applications which let's use do some really amazing stuff. Photoshop...now supports full 64-bit color spaces in its images...so many colors you can't even distinguish between them. See how beautiful they are on this new 24" ACD??[/jobs]
FYI, it's OS 10.3 Panther - pronounced pan-th-are
<strong>Moogs just forgot his <sarcasm> tags again. You know Ocelots aren't exactly known for blazing speed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The next major revision of Mac OS X will be called Cheetah : an amazing 1 % speed improve.
Besides, my "prediction" of Steve's next big Macworld speech had mostly to do with the amazing colors no other machine can match - and that no human can see. Behold: the power of RDF - stronger than Ti, or cheese for that matter!
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>
The next major revision of Mac OS X will be called Cheetah : an amazing 1 % speed improve.
You forget Cheetah was the code name for OS 10.0 :eek:
What process is the current Power4 produced on?
SOI?
What size -.25, .18?
<strong>Question for ya'll.
What process is the current Power4 produced on?
SOI?
What size -.25, .18?</strong><hr></blockquote>
SOI 0,18 1,3 ghz max speeed.