×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Adobe Adds GPU Acceleration To Creative Suite 4

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the let's-see-this-in-more-software dept.

Graphics 246

arcticstoat writes "GPU computing has just taken a major step into the world of mainstream software development, as Adobe has now released a GPU-accelerated version of its Creative Suite, comprising Photoshop, After Effects and Premiere Pro. Both Premiere Pro and After Effects only support GPU features on Nvidia's professional range of Quadro GPUs, but Photoshop CS4 allows GPU acceleration on any mainstream GPU that supports Shader Model 3.0 (such as Nvidia's GeForce 6200 series of GPUs). Built on OpenGL, Photoshop CS4's GPU features allow real-time rotation of images and accelerated zooming and panning. As well as this, Photoshop CS4 also uses the GPU for anti-aliasing on text and objects, and it can tap the GPU for brushstroke previews, HDR tone mapping and colour conversion."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

246 comments

It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make use (4, Interesting)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 5 years ago | (#25143429)

It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac pro to make use of it as the mini has a very weak video card and the imac screens are not good for photo work.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (1)

cyfer2000 (548592) | more than 5 years ago | (#25143441)

I though the high end iMacs used better screens.

they use glossy screens and apple does not let you (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 5 years ago | (#25143483)

they use glossy screens and apple does not let you pick if you want one or not like they do with the mac pro.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (3, Informative)

MBCook (132727) | more than 5 years ago | (#25143507)

The higher end iMacs, the Mac Pros, and the MacBook Pros all have real graphic cards.

In fact, at this point, the low end iMacs may have real graphics cards (not those Intel chips).

That said, it's being used for things like zooming around the image smoothly and color correction. Even the little Intel chips should be able to handle that with pretty big images without problems. The higher end things the GPUs can be used for (I hear some of the new 3D features) would probably need a better GPU.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (4, Interesting)

vux984 (928602) | more than 5 years ago | (#25143737)

The higher end iMacs, the Mac Pros, and the MacBook Pros all have real graphic cards.

But do they have real SCREENS?

I mean a proper 8-bit color space, instead of 6-bit dithering? I mean the ability choose matt vs glossy.

Obviously the Mac Pro lets you attach whatever you want to it, but the imacs and macbook pros stick you with the choice of exactly the one LCD screen apple chooses. (although the mbp used to let you choose between matte and glossy; i don't know if it still does; but that's just the finish not the technology.)

As far as i know, all Apple laptops use 6-bit TN screens. And there is a fair bit of information out there that iMacs have switched to 6-bit TN screens too, at least for 20" models. The 24" model is apparently an 8-bit S-IPS... but its not like apple makes this info readily available and the specs are subject to change, so you've got to pay constant attention.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (1)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 5 years ago | (#25143945)

although the mbp used to let you choose between matte and glossy; i don't know if it still does; but that's just the finish not the technology.)

You still get the choice.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (5, Insightful)

billcopc (196330) | more than 5 years ago | (#25144371)

As far as i know, all Apple laptops use 6-bit TN screens.

The fun thing is Apple fanboys, when challenge, ignore/contest the quality reduction of using a 6-bit panel.

I'm not a Mac fan, and yet I'm kind of irritated by the cheap LCDs. The whole thing with Apple is they market their computers as high-end pretty multimedia workstations, to justify the high prices. If they're going to throw cheap-ass 6-bit panels in there, how can anyone take them seriously ?

There's not much in the way of "perceived value" when dealing with computers. You either have good hardware, or you don't. In an age where the difference between a cheap LCD and a very good one means a 20-25% premium, Apple's being absolutely moronic to go with the cheap stuff. At the OEM level it's maybe $50 more per unit, which is NEGLIGIBLE considering Apple's reputation is built on graphics.

Idiots, amazingly smug idiots.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (3, Insightful)

myz24 (256948) | more than 5 years ago | (#25144835)

The 20" iMac has the cheaper LCD, the 24" is a higher quality panel. You still can't choose a matte screen though.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (0, Flamebait)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 5 years ago | (#25145441)

Something tells me you don't do anything involving graphics and these details don't concern you, as you can't spell matte correctly.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (4, Informative)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#25143603)

The sort of glossy high-saturation screens used for iMacs looks great to a lot of users, but isn't good for professional-level color matching. Some people refuse to use LCDs at all because the black point isn't true enough.

Basic idea here is that the sort of screen you want when choosing colors for print ads isn't the same as the screen you want for general consumer use. It's kind of like how the sort of speakers you want in a professional studio aren't the same as what you want for your home stereo. (whether that analogy makes things clearer or more obscure, I don't know)

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (1)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 5 years ago | (#25144265)

hrmm... i've never heard of this. aside from contrast ratio and luminance what other monitor specs would have an impact on professional design work? shouldn't saturation be adjustable via software? a high-saturation monitor can always be set to display with a lower saturation level, but a lower saturation monitor can't be set to display higher saturation than it's capable of producing.

it seems to me that for color-matching the only thing you should be concerned about is choosing the right color profile in your graphics application. for print ads you'd obviously want to use a CMYK profile, but regardless of the profiles or monitor you use you won't be able to reproduce the CMYK colorspace on a computer screen because of the disparate gamuts of each system.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (1)

_merlin (160982) | more than 5 years ago | (#25144529)

Hey! I have a pair of 4408A studio monitor speakers attached to my living room stereo, you insensitive clod! ;)

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (5, Insightful)

Loibisch (964797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25143455)

You do realize that for less than half that sum you can get a PC with an up-to-date graphics card that will also easily run the Adobe Suite?

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25143481)

Yeah but then we can't be apple fanbois.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25143771)

They're called "trendy city faggots". Get it right, loser.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (4, Insightful)

MBCook (132727) | more than 5 years ago | (#25143539)

True. But if you want to buy the full version of Creative Suite that includes Premier and everything, you're paying $2500. If you pay that much for software, you're probably not going to be running it on a $1100 PC, you're going to spend more (still could be a PC).

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (3, Informative)

InsaneProcessor (869563) | more than 5 years ago | (#25143625)

Funny, I run this stuff on a $999 PC and it runs great. As a matter of fact, the video editing runs faster than my neighbor's $2500 mac. The rendering engines are faster, the video is faster, and Photoshop is faster too. In fact, with 4g of memory (on my $999 PC) it is a lot faster!

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (1, Insightful)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 5 years ago | (#25143869)

Sadly enough, 4gb of RAM probably costs $999 for a Mac Pro.
(Yes, I know I'm exaggerating, but seriously, it's expensive)

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (4, Insightful)

mollymoo (202721) | more than 5 years ago | (#25144119)

It's only expensive if you buy it from Apple.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (1, Insightful)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 5 years ago | (#25143643)

1100 US buys a hell of a PC these days.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (1)

postmortem (906676) | more than 5 years ago | (#25144643)

not really, if you have to buy a monitor. I bought entry level PC for my friends with decent 22" LCD (that is no way good for photo editing) at it costed them $880 after taxes.

A decent, non-TN LCD of decent size is easily $600 dollars.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (5, Funny)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#25143823)

But if you want to buy the full version of Creative Suite that includes Premier and everything, you're paying $2500.

Since when does anyone *buy* Adobe Creative Suite?

I'm joking, of course. Sort of.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (2, Insightful)

Telvin_3d (855514) | more than 5 years ago | (#25144283)

Just about everyone who uses it professionally. In the great scheme of things, $2500 is not a large business expense. If you can't afford that, software costs are hardly your biggest business worry.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (1)

ednopantz (467288) | more than 5 years ago | (#25145023)

Everybody bitches and moans about the fact that Office costs $400 but somehow nobody minds getting completely raped by the Adobe monopoly.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (5, Insightful)

afabbro (33948) | more than 5 years ago | (#25145415)

That's because Adobe's software works really well. Seriously. Yes, it's being raped, but it's the difference between raped by a professional dominatrix (Adobe) and a prison-yard gangbanger (Microsoft).

Well, there you have it. I've reduced the professional software market to a comparison between bondage and prison rape.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 5 years ago | (#25145463)

Since when does anyone *buy* Adobe Creative Suite?

I'm joking, of course. Sort of.

No, no, NO! You must say "According to a friend of a friend". Legally that will get you out of any legal trouble... well, according to a friend of a friend.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25143591)

You do realize that for less than half that sum you can get a PC with an up-to-date graphics card that will also easily run the Adobe Suite?

So it runs on linux? You do realize that Microsoft would have to pay me more than the price of a Mac if it wanted me to run the shit it peddles as an excuse for an operating system.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (2, Informative)

blcarmadillo (929312) | more than 5 years ago | (#25144697)

Not to mention that CS4 is only supporting 64bit instructions on Windows. There have been reports that there won't be a 64bit version of the Creative Suite for the Mac line till CS5.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (4, Interesting)

terjeber (856226) | more than 5 years ago | (#25144857)

This is entirely the fault of Apple. Apple was touting Carbon as a viable solution until last year. Moving a huge app like PPro or Photoshop to Cocoa will take a lot of time. If Apple hadn't told everybody that Carbon was a viable platform for 64 bits Adobe would have started switching a long time ago.

Obviously Apple encouraged everybody to go Cocoa, but for Adobe and most other large apps that would have been an absurd choice. If Carbon was viable, why would they port to Cocoa at the expense of fixing application bugs and adding real features? Moving from Carbon to Cocoa would not give Adobe any new features but the cost would be significant. Staying with Carbon was the only sane solution no matter what the zealots claim.

Apple screwed everybody on that one. Not an unusual move for Apple really...

Now, many Apple fan-boys and dummies will state that Adobe should have moved a long time ago. It was the way of the future (despite Apple stating Carbon was too). Every sensible company should move to Cocoa according to these zealots. Problem is, not even Apple has done that. Final Cut Pro is a Carbon app and will need a significant re-write if it wants to go 64 bit. Perhaps the FCP team also believed Steve when he BS'ed about Carbon also being the future.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (1)

nawcom (941663) | more than 5 years ago | (#25144941)

Yep, thats why people like me install OS X on the PCs and laptops instead of the elite labeled shit Apple sells.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (2, Informative)

not already in use (972294) | more than 5 years ago | (#25143467)

Amazing how much more you pay for an Apple logo and one less mouse button.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25143679)

One less mouse button?

Macs have shipped with the Mighty Mouse, a four-button mouse, for three years now.

That's one more than my current Microsoft mouse has.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (5, Insightful)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#25144705)

And yet, my e-penis is much larger than yours. ;)

I have 7 buttons, a scroll ball and 2000 DPI at 1000 Hz on my mouse.
And I actually know how to put it to use.

The Mighty Mouse might look good... like 80s white-plastic-sci-fi.
But in every other aspect it is as bad of a joke as 6-bit-LCDs.
Ergonomics, precision, functionality... you name it...

Apple is not selling a product. It's selling a dream.
I'm sorry, but my fantasy exceeds that dream by far, and I'm not susceptible to professional lying like in religion, hypnosis, politics, marketing, etc.
Luckily for Apple, I'm a rather rare kind of person on this planet.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (1)

myz24 (256948) | more than 5 years ago | (#25144901)

I drive a BMW and maybe you're happy with a Yugo, to each their own. I like Apple's products but I do agree there are better products. Then again, non of the mice or keyboards included with PCs I've bought from Dell or seen from HP in the past 6 months have been nearly as good as what Apple provides.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (4, Interesting)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#25143719)

In fairness, the problem isn't really that the Mac Pros are overly-expensive for the hardware. I mean, we could quibble about whether they're well-priced for what you get, but at least they're in the right neighborhood.

The problem here is that Apple doesn't offer a normal mid-range machine. There's the Mac mini, which isn't very powerful and isn't expandable, and then you have the Mac Pro, which is a serious professional level workstation. The only thing in between is their all-in-one machine, which isn't suitable for everyone (including serious professional designers).

I'm not sure why Apple has gone so long without selling a middle-of-the-road headless tower in the $1k-$2k range. I think it would help them get more enterprise penetration.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (2, Insightful)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 5 years ago | (#25143935)

We had some Apple reps at our company last month, pitching their security stuff (File Vault). When they asked for questions, just about everyone said they wanted a mini-tower in the $1200-$1800 range with minimum 3 pci-e slots and graphic card options. We have a lot of engineers who don't need an 8 core machine with 16GB RAM (and a $3000+ price tag). If they do come out with such a beast, we'll be picking up a metric butt load of 'em.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (1)

Free the Cowards (1280296) | more than 5 years ago | (#25144479)

How little do you pay your engineers that the price difference between a $3000 machine and an $1800 machine is even noticeable compared to their salaries and benefits? How little do you pay them that the difference between a $2300 4-core Mac Pro and a $1800 mini-tower is noticeable?

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (3, Informative)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 5 years ago | (#25144567)

It's not the engineer's pay but their project funding. A lot of them would rather save $10k or $20k on new Macs for their department and spend it on other equipment or for time on some of our super computers. Part of their funding comes from gov't programs and customers and other part comes from selling their work to businesses, state gov'ts and NGO's. Sure, some orgs are flush and buy top line gear. Others are told they have a $2K cap on personal computing gear.

As for me paying them, heh, I'm just a contract tech monkey who gets to unpack and set up kit.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (1)

Free the Cowards (1280296) | more than 5 years ago | (#25145235)

That "you" was the plural you, meaning your organization. I didn't mean to imply that you paid them personally.

A friend tells a classic story of consulting. He shows up for a job, getting paid $BIGNUM/hour writing software. They sit him down in front of the crappiest computer you could imagine and tell him to go to work.

The thing takes so long to build the project that he finds himself spending more time by the coffee machine than in front of the computer. Meanwhile the manager has a shiny new multi-kilobuck machine collecting dust as his personal computer.

At the end of day 1 he points out that he's wasting a ton of time because his computer is so slow, and that the cost of a shiny new machine like the manager's would, at his hourly rate, pay for itself in something like two business days out of his multi-week contract.

The request is of course denied.

So yeah, there are dysfunctional organizations out there that are penny wise and pound foolish, paying top-notch people a lot of money and then not paying relatively trivial amounts for the equipment they need to be most productive. But I think we need to realize that the major fault there lies with the organizations, not in equipment suppliers who don't offer a slightly cut-rate version of their stuff.

And I don't think it has anything to do with being "flush". At the rate a decent engineer makes, counting benefits and other overhead, buying him a shiny new Mac Pro every two years would come out to be something like one half of one percent of the total cost of that engineer. It's also likely to make him more than one half of one percent more productive compared to some cut-rate machine, so the cost pays for itself. This is true no matter how much money the organization has.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (1)

mollymoo (202721) | more than 5 years ago | (#25144459)

I'm not sure why Apple has gone so long without selling a middle-of-the-road headless tower in the $1k-$2k range. I think it would help them get more enterprise penetration.

It's not coincidence that Apple don't sell a machine which is directly comparable to mainstream Windows PCs. Every one of their desktop machines is "different" to the mainstream. The extremely-high-end Pro; the tiny Mini; the sleek, integrated iMac. Not being directly comparable makes it easier to sell at a higher price than machines with similar headline specs. If you're trying to sell a premium product in a commodity market you have stand out.

I don't think we'll see a standard mid-range tower, they just can't make that obviously different enough to justify a premium price. I'm hoping for something just a bit bigger than a Mini. Still small and quiet and pretty enough to be different, but at least with a couple of 3.5" drive bays and expansion slots.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (3, Informative)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25144803)

The extremely-high-end Pro

Dell XPS [dell.com]

the tiny Mini

Dell Studio Hybrid [dell.com]
Asus EeeBox [asus.com]

the sleek, integrated iMac.

Dell XPS One [dell.com]
HP Touchsmart [hp.com]

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (1)

myz24 (256948) | more than 5 years ago | (#25144973)

Personally I find the XPS one to be ugly. That's a personal preference though.

I think the Studio Hybrid is probably one of the first little computers to really compete with the mini in size and looks. It looks ok, has better specs than the now ancient mac mini. A year ago it wasn't a terrible deal, today it is.

I also think you should compare the Mac Pro to the Precision line, but you're point still stands.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25144471)

Definition: "enterprise penetration" - having sexual relations with a co-worker on top of your desk.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25144773)

And that's basically what's wrong with Apple!

I've wanted a Mac for a long time. However, my needs aren't met by the mini, and the mac pro is serious overkill. The only option left, is that all-in-one :(

A "normal" core 2 duo mid-tower (like a E8400, with 4GB or RAM, a decent radeon card, and a 750GB HD) would sell like crazy. My theory is, Apple doesn't want our money.

Apple can whine about hackintosh'es, but they're the very ones creating the need for them.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (1)

ednopantz (467288) | more than 5 years ago | (#25145053)

I'm not sure why Apple has gone so long without selling a middle-of-the-road headless tower in the $1k-$2k range.

Because people keep giving them $3000 for $800 worth of parts.

If you could use commodity hardware, you could buy that midrange machine for $700.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (3, Interesting)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 5 years ago | (#25143505)

Maybe Apple will bring back the CUBE. Heck just take the mini and put an PCI-E slot on it so you can a better video card on it.
Would help gamers and other that don't want (to pay for) a Pro.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (1)

Jorophose (1062218) | more than 5 years ago | (#25145391)

Wait for a dual-core VIA Nano? The single-core version is likely similar to an Athlon 64 just at lower speeds...

Already the CN896 has PCIEx16 support. nVidia wants to get PCIEx16 as a popular option for VIA boards, hoping to have at least one last niche in case it needs money. (right now nvidia is getting abused by everyone, it's very likely they'd launch extremely-low-power cards and market them with miniITX to dig into a different market)

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (1)

Psx29 (538840) | more than 5 years ago | (#25144007)

Well it is possible to plug in a 2nd display to an imac (or a macbook pro for that matter) if you really want to.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25144045)

If you can afford to buy CS4, you should be able to justify upgrading/replacing your computer.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 macPC'S ONLY (3, Informative)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 5 years ago | (#25144303)

It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac pro to make use of it as the mini has a very weak video card and the imac screens are not good for photo work.

Actually the 64-bit Photoshop CS4 currently only runs on PC's. The Mac version remains at 32-bit for now.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 macPC'S ONLY (0, Offtopic)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 5 years ago | (#25145487)

Zomg apostrophe only on contractions and possessives. Never, ever plurals.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (1)

MidnightBrewer (97195) | more than 5 years ago | (#25145401)

I wouldn't gripe about the mini (you get what you pay for), but I agree that the glossy-screen-or-else option is really annoying. It seems like everybody has forgotten the original reason why glossy screens were bad for computer work (eye strain, and useless when you're trying to judge an image and confusing details with glare). :P

GPU? *cough* (1)

turgid (580780) | more than 5 years ago | (#25143549)

PeeCees (and workstations before them) have been using graphics accelerators since the days of Windows 3.1 (and before).

So someone put some hooks in their code to use some maths functions on a new graphics card? Big deal.

Re:GPU? *cough* (5, Informative)

91degrees (207121) | more than 5 years ago | (#25143765)

Programmable fragment shaders are a little different from blitters.

Windows 3.1 could use hardware acceleration to move a rectangular section of video memory to another part of video memory.

A modern 3D card can apply a program in parallel to every pixel on screen, resize, rotate, and apply arbitrary filters with minimal CPU load.

Re:GPU? *cough* (2, Insightful)

martinw89 (1229324) | more than 5 years ago | (#25143767)

Well, consumers didn't have 2D/3D cards until the mid 90s. And even today, a lot of computers come with crappy integrated graphics that probably wouldn't help much. I think if it was as easy as putting "some hooks in their code to use some maths[sic] functions" then there would have been Photoshop competitors who used this advantage for market share. But that seems to not have been the case, at least not successfully.

Re:GPU? *cough* (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25144893)

I think if it was as easy as putting "some hooks in their code to use some maths[sic][sic] functions"...

In most of the world, the correct abbreviation for mathematics is maths.

Re:GPU? *cough* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25145449)

I agree. However, in his quoted section, it would be more natural to use the adjective mathematic or mathematical, for which the common abbreviation is math, rather than the noun mathematics. Cheers!

Re:GPU? *cough* (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 5 years ago | (#25144015)

I have an old NuBus card in my Quadra 650 that has special AT&T DSP chips on it, made just for Photoshop acceleration (mostly Blur, I think). I think it was SuperMac or RAdius. Been a long time since I cracked case on that machine.

Yeah but... (4, Insightful)

dedazo (737510) | more than 5 years ago | (#25143565)

I think this is a cool innovation (and quite frankly overdue for graphics manipulation packages) but people don't seem to be too happy with the way Adobe has been handling bug fixes to CS3, which was already expensive enough. Now comes another $$$ upgrade.

There's an interesting list of popular gripes here [dearadobe.com], which mostly seem to center around "you didn't fix CS3 to begin with" and "it's too expensive".

I don't mind companies charge for software at all, and if you need Photoshop or any of the other apps then there's really no question about paying for them (need here == paying the bills). But CS4 seems to be just a bit too expensive for most people. I don't use Adobe apps, but I know many people in the publishing industry who do and tend to have a weird love-hate relationship with them.

Indesign ignored? (4, Interesting)

Jabbrwokk (1015725) | more than 5 years ago | (#25144341)

I agree with you that this is overdue for Photoshop. Pushing some of the workload over to the GPU is a great idea.

I also agree that the upgrades are too expensive and that irritating bugs have not been fixed.

But I also wonder where Indesign fits into this. I can imagine several ways Indesign would function better using the GPU -- no more grainy photo previews, smooth zooming in and out (a la Google Earth?) but I don't want eye candy at the expense of functionality. And I want them to fix things that are mind-blowingly irritating, like importing text files. It chokes on UTF-8 files and anything with even a hint of Unicode punctuation. It's incredibly frustrating and there's no way to add filters for importing that I can find.

I think Indesign's text importing is actually worse now (CS3) than it was when it first came out. Don't neglect stuff like this in favour of the "shiny" factor, Adobe.

Re:Yeah but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25145479)

This is why I always pirate Creative Suite. That way I never have any concerns about whether I'm getting my money's worth when I upgrade.

Hacked Drivers (1)

lantastik (877247) | more than 5 years ago | (#25143683)

How long before someone releases hacked drivers to use the accelerations on desktop-class cards? A simple BIOS flash ought to do the trick as well.

Re:Hacked Drivers (1)

MoFoQ (584566) | more than 5 years ago | (#25143949)

or a hard-mod.

but the best bet is to use RivaTuner as described here [sidefx.com].

But how CS4 does its detection is another thing.
Normally, (at least for games) D3D caps detection is used instead of using device ID's and such.
But if they are only supporting nvidia pro stuff, it might be device id based.

Why is a shader model required? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25143723)

Why is shader model 3.0 required? You can do 2d image maps (zoom, pan) with openGL 2.0.

Re:Why is a shader model required? (3, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | more than 5 years ago | (#25143915)

You can do that with 1.0.

I think that's just an extra feature they added because they were already using OpenGL though. The graphical effects are more important. Adding zooming and panning for older cards would require writing a completely new renderer to deal with it. And since you can get a shader model 3.0 compatible card for a fraction of the cost of Photoshop, it's safe to assume that anyone who feels they need this functionality will buy a new graphics card as well.

Re:Why is a shader model required? (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 5 years ago | (#25144251)

Probably the GPGPU library they used requires the flexibility of SM 3.0.

One major speedup's done, how about the other? (3, Interesting)

Phat_Tony (661117) | more than 5 years ago | (#25143725)

I'm glad to see they did this for Mac as well as PC. Now if they could just support 64-bit processing on OSX [arstechnica.com], it would once again be fully up to par with Photoshop for Windows. Yes, I read the article I linked to, I know it's not all Adobe's fault. But it's going to be bad for Adobe, because they'll sell less CS4 upgrades for Mac because of this, and it'll be bad for Apple, because some platform-fence-sitting Photoshop pros who are considering a new computer to run CS4 are going to go PC over Mac.

Re:One major speedup's done, how about the other? (4, Insightful)

rogerbo (74443) | more than 5 years ago | (#25143763)

The Quadro graphics board will give you a much faster speedup for most people than the 64 bit native photoshop would.

There's only a few fringe cases (people that do outdoor advertising images maybe that need to edit images larger than 4GB in uncompressed size) where the 64 bit processing is really needed.

Re:One major speedup's done, how about BILLBOARDS (5, Interesting)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 5 years ago | (#25144267)

There's only a few fringe cases (people that do outdoor advertising images maybe that need to edit images larger than 4GB in uncompressed size) where the 64 bit processing is really needed.

Actually this is a common misconception that large display sizes require large images. Get up close to a billboard (which is designed to be viewed from a minimum of 30 to 50 feet away, and usually much further) and you'll find that instead of pixels per inch, that it is measured in inches per pixel, and some pixels are the size of your fist. You don't need 64-bit addressing to make very attractive billboards, or may other large outdoor signs.

Re:One major speedup's done, how about BILLBOARDS (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25144419)

  Thats why I measure my images in pixels per fist, or fists per pixel when i'm feeling distant.

Re:One major speedup's done, how about the other? (3, Informative)

Trogre (513942) | more than 5 years ago | (#25145477)

Access to memory >4GB isn't the only benefit of going 64-bit on Intel/AMD architecture: Compiling for 'amd64' rather than 'i386' gives your code access to a lot more CPU registers among other things. That alone makes most operations significantly faster. So far the only application I've seen that doesn't significantly benefit from a 64-bit compilation is POV-Ray, and I've tried a lot.

Re:One major speedup's done, how about the other? (3, Insightful)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 5 years ago | (#25144277)

I think it's going to depend whether or not the user needs 64 bit for their work. The lack of 64 bit isn't going to be a hold-up for me if I decide to get it. It seems like the people that would benefit are those doing the gigapixel project.

I've heard that companies often buy every other release anyway, so missing CS4 isn't going to be a big deal, unless the CS4 version offers enough productivity enhancements to pay for the upgrade. That too depends on how the person uses the program.

Re:One major speedup's done, how about the other? (1)

ChrisA90278 (905188) | more than 5 years ago | (#25145323)

"I think it's going to depend whether or not the user needs 64 bit for their work."

Right. And as of today every single last graphic profesional was able to get their work done on a 32 bit Photoshop. Are there many jobs that you had to refuse in the past?

Next step: (5, Insightful)

F-3582 (996772) | more than 5 years ago | (#25143853)

Adding proper hardware acceleration to Flash. Seriously, performance of Flash apps is horrible, especially video applications. Try playing a H.264 video in full screen on anything less than a Core 2 Duo... And then play the same video in VLC.

Re:Next step: (1)

NouberNou (1105915) | more than 5 years ago | (#25144153)

Agreed. I am forced to develope flash applications at my job and its a pain. There are memory leaks all over the place in the flash vm that you CAN NOT get to and fix with your own code.

Just today I got an AIR app up over 1.5 gigs, yes, GIGS of ram! And that was from opening and closing the same file 3 times.

Re:Next step: (1)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 5 years ago | (#25144395)

Flash has been bad that way ever since it was originally created. I remember having to scale back Flash applications many times because too much stuff moving on the screen meant horrible performance. Smooth animation on your dev PC looked awful on something just a year older. The prevalence of games, animation and movies has only made it more obvious. Hardware acceleration for Flash is long overdue.

Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25144073)

Can I run it on my Ubuntu Dell yet?
No?

Thank you for giving good ideas to the GIMP developers. I look forward very much to 2.6

Isn't Quadro Just Another Name (2, Informative)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 5 years ago | (#25144189)

Both Premiere Pro and After Effects only support GPU features on Nvidia's professional range of Quadro GPUs

Isn't Quadro just a different identifier in the GPU bios and people have been turning their consumer level cards into Quadros with a bios update? The only "magic" about Quadro cards (aside from their insanely high prices) is that the Quadro driver won't run when it detects a consumer card id. To limit this to "Quadro" cards is Adobe, and most especially Nvidia, ripping off the average consumer.

How come it took this long? (2, Interesting)

projector (676992) | more than 5 years ago | (#25144233)

Could someone explain to me, and everyone else who doesn't know much about graphics acceleration, why it's taken Adobe so long to make use of GPUs in their flagship products when games have been using these features for over ten years?

Re:How come it took this long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25144875)

Its completely adobe's fault for how long this took. Adobe's user base consists mostly of professionals who are will to shell out $$$ for CS and even more for a top of the line system. The rest of us "consumers" are simply left in the dust with our inferior (>1 year old) systems.

Note to the article this is not GPGPU processing, this is simply GPU processing. They use the GPU stuff to do Graphics. Its not like they are using the GPUs fast vector processor to compute anything else (like image compressions!!!).

If CS3 ran flawlessly under wine.... (2, Interesting)

zig007 (1097227) | more than 5 years ago | (#25144243)

...installation and all...then the year of the Linux desktop would be here, for sure.

I can't believe why that isn't the almost singular purpose of that project. It would make a huge difference since PS has no real alternative on Linux. At least one almost similar the to what users are used to. All other business applications, like word and others, has corresponding.
Yeah, sure, maybe there aren't many CAD applications either, but engineers aren't the ones that need the super-easy transitions. And CAD-users are somewhat fever, at least afaik...

I know I am not first one to say this, I just feel that it needs to be said again.

I'd settle for it not behaving like a virus... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 5 years ago | (#25144327)

...and getting rid of the DRM that thinks it has the right to mess with my boot sector. That alone has made buying CS3 a show-stopper for me, even though I run on Windows and I would very much like to have several of the applications. For anyone who dual-boots Windows and Linux, it's pretty much fatal to even installing CS3 on the Windows persona even if you don't have moral objections to supporting DRM-laden software. Does anyone know whether Adobe have seen the light and removed this for CS4?

Re:If CS3 ran flawlessly under wine.... (1)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 5 years ago | (#25144469)

ZOMG PONIES! If (insert random technological feat) happened then Linux would rule the desktop for sure! Yeah!

Sorry... I couldn't resist. That post made almost no sense and there's always one post like that in every thread.

Re:If CS3 ran flawlessly under wine.... (1)

salmonmoose (1147735) | more than 5 years ago | (#25144781)

AFAIK there is no alternative to Photoshop at all no matter what platform you're on; which is why it gets away with being such a sloppy product.

no point using a mac (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25144345)

CS4 is 64-bit for WINDOWS VISTA ONLY

http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2008/04/photoshop_lr_64.html

Slashvertisement... (2, Interesting)

GarfBond (565331) | more than 5 years ago | (#25144441)

Thing reads like an ad for nvidia GPUs, which doesn't come across as a huge surprise when all the quotes are from an nvidia PR rep.

FWIW, as far as I can tell there's no reason why the Photoshop enhancements won't work on an SM3-capable AMD GPU like the X1000-series and up. Might even work on SM3 capable intel graphics, if such a beast exists.

Nice to see them using OpenGL (2, Informative)

Trogre (513942) | more than 5 years ago | (#25144465)

From the article:

"even though it's standard OpenGL, we didn't care - we still wanted to do it because we felt like it would bring a better experience to the end user... we believe that you should get a better experience and we're going to devote engineering resources to make that happen, even if it helps the competition."

If this isn't just BS, then kudos to nVidia. Not that I actually use PS. I use the GIMP, and am eagerly awaiting 2.6 with GEGL. I'm told 2.5 builds now have multithreaded support which will be great for those heavy filters. I'd like to see an OpenGL frontend like this one for the GIMP some day.

Adobe's ramping up the 3D (2, Informative)

Almahtar (991773) | more than 5 years ago | (#25144631)

The next version of Flash (10) is supposed to have hardware accelerated 3D as well.

At this rate I wouldn't be surprised if the Adobe Reader was leveraging the GPU in its next release.

Re:Adobe's ramping up the 3D (3, Informative)

slew (2918) | more than 5 years ago | (#25144949)

At this rate I wouldn't be surprised if the Adobe Reader was leveraging the GPU in its next release.

Surprise! GPU acceleration is already in version 8.x [adobe.com]

What about filters and things? (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 5 years ago | (#25145385)

I just watched the videos showing panning with and without the GPU, and the difference is irrelevant. Who cares if Photoshop can only pan and zoom at a few FPS? That's not important.

They make no mention of GPU accelerated filters, which seems to me like where the real benefit would be. Why would I need GPU accelerated zooming in Photoshop? I'd much rather have a GPU-accelerated Gaussian blur, since that can often take minutes to hours.

When you see performance comparisons between machines, like when Jobs was showing-off the power of the PowerPC, they didn't measure how good a pan and zoom looked. They did a filter, and watched one system take 5 minutes and another take 15 minutes. It looks to me like Adobe is just trying to get "GPU accelerated" onto their box, even if it is some minute and irrelevant detail.

(Vista now supports GPU-accelerated BSOD!)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...