Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: close enough
|
Amazing, but....
let's hope devs won't go nuts and OS interface wont turn into a spinning circus. |
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
|
Quote:
|
|
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto
|
What I'd like to know is how hard it would be for a company to use Core Image to create a Photoshop class contender. (Note I didn't say Photoshop killer...)
How much of Photoshop's arsenal is in Core Image? 30%?, 50%?, 70%? Between Cocoa and Core Image, could a small developer really scare Adobe? (I'm not a coder, so I'm really asking!) |
quote |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: close enough
|
I think there's much more in Photosho than just filters
it would make it easier, but still. Did you guys watch the stream? Look how these widgets "pop up" on the screen, or how the clock widget spins, even though it's just to demonstrate the potential, looks really cool :-) And iChat video conference with 3 people looks like a killer. Stills can't convey it, it has to be seen. |
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
|
Quote:
Take over the PShop Express market pretty handily? Oh yeah. In a heartbeat. Photoshop is a weird beast - Adobe does their own memory management internally, bypassing the OS (good in OS9 days, silly in OS X days), they use all their own algorithms for various effects and plug-ins (when most of them have already been available under QuickTime for years), and they even wrote their own plug-in architecture (again, kinda needed under OS9, utterly not under OS X). PShop has many of the pieces of an OS inside it, for criminy's sake. An equivalent image editor written using OS X supplied tools and libraries would be... well... really really tiny in comparison. And undoubtedly less resource intensive. And probably faster. Not to mention snappier(tm). |
|
quote |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: close enough
|
But here's the thing...
Let's assume Adobe jumps right in, and next PS uses these effects, what happens when file (.psd) is opened on 10.3, or windows? Not gonna happen folks... Idea is great, and hopefully we'll see some nice, FAST apps utilizing it, but i don't think PS will use them any time soon... I guess first app making use of those would be iPhoto :-) |
quote |
25 chars of wasted space.
|
Quote:
If they didn't stop windows from double buffering when they are already double buffered, I don't think they will change how their effects are done. |
|
quote |
Yarp
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Road Warrior
|
But a .psd isn't exactly an image file, it's an image file that remembers effects.
|
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
|
Quote:
Or are you suggesting that a .psd file contains Mac effects and Windows effects? This makes zero difference on cross-platform capability, as long as the effects are available on each system *SOMEHOW*... and let's face it, if Photoshop... PHOTOSHOP... has to *ADD* effects to keep up with the basic functionality in Core Image... something's seriously wrong with the market. |
|
quote |
Student extraordinaire
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Canberra, Australia
|
Brad mentioned in another thread that when Mac OS X was first announced, people predicted Sketch.app and it's PDF functionality would kill Illustrator. Which of course didn't happen.
I agree that Core Image won't kill Photoshop BUT it will remove the need to use Photoshop all the time. It's the difference between "photochopping" an image and transforming the image as a whole. Most of the time I use Photoshop is simply saving in new formats, resizing, levels and so on. Core Image + Automator replaces that or at least provides an alternative to Photoshop. Speaking of Automator, I am stoked about it. It's like what Microsoft tried to do with task based computing, but it actually works! Awesome. Barto The sky was deep black; Jesus still loved me. I started down the alley, wailing in a ragged bass. |
quote |
Fro Productions(tm)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: London Town
|
Forgive my ignorance about what Core Video and Core Audio are, but what I want to know is this: Will Core Video mean that I can smoothly scroll through a web page/resize a window etc?
GODAMMIT these two things kill me! Will the fact that Core Video can use GPU cycles to process information for the OS mean that common-or-garden imaging effects (scrolling, resizing) will be Snappier(tm)? Thanks bouncy bouncy |
quote |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Nerv, Tokyo 3, Japan
|
I don't see Core replacing Photoshop's current filters anytime soon. The huge reason for this, is that it would kill the consistency between Photoshop on the Mac and the PC. While the filter sets between Core and Photoshop are similar, they aren't identical and could give completely different results.
However, that wouldn't necessarily prevent anyone from creating a Core filter set to run along-side the standard Photoshop filter set as a mac-only feature. It would just have to be acknowleged that the two systems are different from each other. 8==8 Bones 8==8 |
quote |
Hates the Infotainment
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
|
I could see them maybe adding some new, Mac-only filters or special effects via Core Image, but the more I read up on things the less likely it seems any major changes would occur. I would love to see them reduce the modality of and greatly speed up Liquify and also the Transform tools, but otherwise not sure it's going to happen.
Although evidently it would be pretty easy for Adobe to implement. So looks more like a business decision than a programmatic one. ...into the light of a dark black night. |
quote |
The Elder™
Join Date: May 2004
Location: The Rostra
|
I think this gives Apple an opportunity to do something I've wanted them to do for a while. Apple should use Core Image to create a killer PS plugin so if a real pixel pusher really wants the best PS experience there is no option besides the Mac. Hell give it away for free as another incentive.
|
quote |
Veteran Member
|
I contend that Omnigroup should consider a Photoshop Elements competitor. The reason why is because ,although browsers are different, you still have to know about graphics rendering. Plus Omni has no desire that I know of in going cross platform so they can use all the Apple APIs that they want without fear for what they'll do to the codebase portability. In fact I think I'll send them an email to let them know that i'd love an OmniEditor app to go along with the shiny Omni Web, Omni outliner and Omni Graffle I'll have.
I'm thinking about supporting as many Mac only houses like Omni, Stone and others before I go with some bloated gargabe from the "majors" |
quote |
Hates the Infotainment
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
|
Quote:
That's a really interesting idea HOM. This way it doesn't cut into Adobe's marketshare the way a stand-alone app would, but definitely differentiates our Photoshop from theirs. Question IS, what would that plug-in do to make it a must? ...into the light of a dark black night. |
|
quote |
Veteran Member
|
The problem with using Core Image to create a PS plugin is that you are constrained by the technical limitation of the PS plugin format.
Core Image and Image and Video Units must be utilized together. Photoshop would have to support CI and the Units for us to see any advantage. Core Image is far more than just a plugin creator. It should give developers lower level access to the "guts" of OSX and these guts lead right deep into the heart of your GPU for speedy processing. A PS plugin, no matter how good, is going to be bound to the CPU. Sadly It's altogether likely that you will see a reluctance from cross platform developers to embrace CI/CV. Today's reality is that if you need the $$$$ you have to be cross platform thus I believe the best chance for seeing some cool stuff would be from developers who for the foreseeable future plan on staying Mac only. What better platform to start a revolution. Mac users are creative and open to new stuff. We love software and that's why we choose this platform that gives us shareware that's better than commerical wintel apps. |
quote |
Hates the Infotainment
Join Date: May 2004
Location: NSA Archives
|
Truthfully, I am not opposed - in principle anyway - to Apple releasing a professional image editor to complete their suite of pro media apps. The quality of FCP and Motion and DVDSP are just top notch... to be able to have a comparable quality image editor would (in a perfect world) only spur Adobe on to bigger and better things.
Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world and something like that would do irreparable damage to the relationship Adobe and Apple have IMO. Premiere was a relatively minor blow compared to what would happen if Apple undercut Photoshop..... ...into the light of a dark black night. |
quote |
Veteran Member
|
Moogs I only hope Apple agrees with you and I on this.
Apple doesn't need to offer every feature in the book. In fact I would recommend that Apple create a small app based on Core Image and Video. This app would come bundled with Final Cut Pro 5. It would be tailored for editing video frames but would work well on standard images. It would not touch things like CMYK seperations and other Print Pub functions. It would stand as a capable editor for graphics for Apple's pro apps as you say. Adobe would surely raise an eyebrow but Apple shouldn't have to beg Adobe to utilize Mac technology. We need a capable "Proof of Concept" host app for Video and Image units. Since it's bundled with FCP that severely limits it's impact to 3rd parties. Just like Motion doesn't replace After Effects but rather augments it well. Come'on Apple. Show us what this nifty stuff you created can do. |
quote |
New Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
|
Well.. guess what. I started a project of that kind. I haven't released it since I want it to be perfectly stable andd there is still (quite) some work to do. But one thing I can tell you CoreImage is just amazing from a developer point of view.
I had never done any objective-c, had no knowledge of cocoa and only own a mac since december 2004. And within say.. (a month?) I'll come up with a program that will be able to replace photoshop in many of the task it is used for. Of course PhotoShop is a monster, so don't expect all functionnality to be there. But quite a lot will be (see the features pages). Any comments are welcome. http://www.chocoflop.com/ |
quote |
Posting Rules | Navigation |
|
Thread Tools | |