Beta
×

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!

Photoshop 1.0 Recreated On iPhone

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the when-time-loops-collide dept.

Graphics 103

Dotnaught writes "Photoshop co-creator Russell Brown asked Ansca Mobile to re-create Photoshop 1.0, originally introduced in 1990, for the iPhone. The resulting app, created in three days using the Corona SDK, was distributed to 50 attendees of an event celebrating Photoshop's 20th anniversary. Programmer Evan Kirchhoff in a blog post explains that Ansca took the project on to prove its claims about how Corona makes iPhone development faster."

cancel ×

103 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Oh no, this means in two years... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31215882)

Windows 3.1 will be released for the iPhone. Hrm, that is 2012.

Re:Oh no, this means in two years... (4, Funny)

JorDan Clock (664877) | more than 4 years ago | (#31215940)

Well, since the Photoshop took about 2 years to reach version 1.0, we can expect Windows 3.1 for the iPhone in another 3 days. In a month we'll have Windows 7 and CS4! Why hasn't anyone thought of this amazing SDK before?!

Photoshop without patent problems! (5, Insightful)

H4x0r Jim Duggan (757476) | more than 4 years ago | (#31215890)

Photoshop from exactly 20 years ago - the only way to reliably avoid software patent problems [swpat.org] !

Re:Photoshop without patent problems! (1)

blai (1380673) | more than 4 years ago | (#31215980)

how do patents work in america?

Re:Photoshop without patent problems! (3, Informative)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 4 years ago | (#31216076)

Expiration is 20 years after patent application or 17 years after patent acceptance, whichever comes last. (That is, you're guaranteed 20 years after filing for the patent, if it's accepted. If it takes more than 3 years to work through the patent office, you're guaranteed 17 years after it's accepted.)

Re:Photoshop without patent problems! (1)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | more than 4 years ago | (#31216990)

I believe that is incorrect. Filers were rigging the system, delaying their patent being approved because they knew they'd be covered during approval and for 17 years after. These were called submarine patents. So they changed the figures to be just 20 years from filing. If it takes 5 years to go through, you get 15 after.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]

Re:Photoshop without patent problems! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31219056)

You're both right, kinda. 20 years from filing is the base term. But if an application was unreasonably delayed at the PTO, the term can be "adjusted" to compensate the applicant for the delay. Adjustment rules are complicated, but in practice it comes out to the old 17-year term.

Re:Photoshop without patent problems! (5, Insightful)

SCPRedMage (838040) | more than 4 years ago | (#31216112)

Poorly.

Re:Photoshop without patent problems! (5, Informative)

H4x0r Jim Duggan (757476) | more than 4 years ago | (#31216116)

how do patents work in america?

Easy. You write something that you think it too long and complicated for a patent examiner to fully undertand in the 17 hours he/she will be allocated. Then it gets granted and for twenty years you can threaten anyone that developers or distributes software that does anything resembling your patent. (You, the writer of a patent, are a protected innovator. Those guys writing software are nasty pirates - watch out!)

When someone receives your threat letter, they become formally aware of your patent and they now risk triple damages plus paying your lawyers' fees! Win! To avoid this, they could ask their own lawyer for a certificate of non-violation, which costs $40,000. So, if the original letter (which cost 39c to send) asks for $35,000, there's a good chance you'll simply get your money. (As explained by patent attorney Dan Ravicher [swpat.org] in this presentation [pubpat.org] )

Or, you could contest the patent and kill your company by spending 5 years paying legal fees and having a cloud of uncertainty around your business making you untouchable for investors. (As is the case with the 1-click patent [swpat.org] )

But, don't worry, patent law does contain a consideration for the public: the nightmare ends after 20 years, so that's why we're all really excited now about Photoshop 1.0 finally becoming patent-free. I hear there's a great operating system that will be patent-free in 2015!

Re:Photoshop without patent problems! (1)

dangitman (862676) | more than 4 years ago | (#31216476)

I hear there's a great operating system that will be patent-free in 2015!

BeOS?

Re:Photoshop without patent problems! (2, Funny)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 4 years ago | (#31216502)

Clearly he's talking about Apple's PinkOS.

Re:Photoshop without patent problems! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31216724)

So, if the original letter (which cost 39c to send)

44 cents, thank you very much!

Re:Photoshop without patent problems! (1)

idontusenumbers (1367883) | more than 4 years ago | (#31217118)

Not if they send a postcard.

Re:Photoshop without patent problems! (1)

feepness (543479) | more than 4 years ago | (#31216964)

I'm sorry, but I have a patent on this patent process.

Re:Photoshop without patent problems! (5, Insightful)

toriver (11308) | more than 3 years ago | (#31217382)

You forgot the other way:

1. You write a confusing patent application that will take two years to process. You submit it in year X.
2. You keep amending and altering that application every year so the process starts anew. It still shows the X year of filing.
3. Someone who is actually innovative invents something. You rapidly amend your patent so that it describes that invention.
4. The patent is eventually awarded, and you sue the actual inventor for infringement because as everyone can see, you held a patent since year X on that particular idea.

Re:Photoshop without patent problems! (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#31217624)

I think you forgot:
5. ...
6. Profit!

Re:Photoshop without patent problems! (2, Funny)

FartKnockerz (1750222) | more than 3 years ago | (#31219156)

how do patents work in america?

Not very well.

Re:Photoshop without patent problems! (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 4 years ago | (#31216110)

But hello copyright violation...and trademark violation...

Re:Photoshop without patent problems! (5, Interesting)

Evan Kirchhoff (1750362) | more than 4 years ago | (#31216456)

To be clear, this was done for the official Photoshop anniversary event, and demoed by Russell Brown at that show. The number of copies we gave out afterwards was limited by Apple's ad-hoc install process for iPhone dev accounts. A wider release would obviously involve some lawyers signing off on things, not to mention all the interface style guide violations in putting 1990 Mac UI on iPhone (I have no idea how App Store reviewers would react to that!)

Re:Photoshop without patent problems! (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 4 years ago | (#31216494)

I'm sure if you spoke to an Adobe lawyer, they would promptly have a conniption fit, at least to get an agreement signed to cover the Photoshop trademark, as any public unlicensed usage that they ignore hurts their ability to pursue other's for improper usage of that trademark...

Re:Photoshop without patent problems! (5, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#31218232)

Knowing Adobe they'd rebrand it as iPhone CS 1 and want to charge $379.99 for it.

I suppose Adobe Download Manager would soon follow ... oy carumba!

Re:Photoshop without patent problems! (2, Informative)

Annymouse Cowherd (1037080) | more than 4 years ago | (#31216448)

If you RTFA, it says that the app was commissioned by Adobe.

Re:Photoshop without patent problems! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31216518)

If you R your F comment, you'd see there's no relation to what you're replying to.

go fuck yourself adobe (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31215898)

I do not care
Apple product are for gays and 30yrs olds wannabe cool corporate hipster

Re:go fuck yourself adobe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31218248)

... and now there's an app for that!

oblig "gimp vs photoshop"/"iphone vs n900" (4, Informative)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#31215904)

And my N900 can run the latest and greatest version of the Gimp. Big whoop.

Re:oblig "gimp vs photoshop"/"iphone vs n900" (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31216250)

This was created as a "nostalgia app" - it's not meant to actually compete with real mobile image-editing apps. Adobe itself makes a free "Photoshop Mobile" app for iPhone & other smartphones that is quite popular.

Re:oblig "gimp vs photoshop"/"iphone vs n900" (1, Funny)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#31216304)

I'm aware, I just saw this as a rare opportunity to bring up two old tired slashdot arguments at once ;)

Re:oblig "gimp vs photoshop"/"iphone vs n900" (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31217294)

... yes, as a troll. Next time, try contributing something interesting instead of throwing out the am-i-serious? cyber-diarrhoea of an ironic 12-year-old hipster.

If people need to feel guilty for taking you seriously, you're doing something wrong.

In the end, your post is the perfect example of a troll.

Re:oblig "gimp vs photoshop"/"iphone vs n900" (4, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#31218260)

In the end, your post is the perfect example of a troll.

Hello, Pot. I see you've met Kettle ...

Re:oblig "gimp vs photoshop"/"iphone vs n900" (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 3 years ago | (#31219290)

The subject line of my post was "oblig "gimp vs photoshop"/"iphone vs n900"", I feel that should have made it obvious I was only poking fun. My appologies for not being blunt enough for you.

Re:oblig "gimp vs photoshop"/"iphone vs n900" (3, Insightful)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 3 years ago | (#31218386)

But where was the front page news about GIMP for the N900?

Oh sorry, I forgot, this is Slashdot. Nostalgia for Apple fans, and stuff that hasn't been released yet.

Re:oblig "gimp vs photoshop"/"iphone vs n900" (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 3 years ago | (#31219266)

To be fair, the N900 runs a straight up linux distro with X and everything. Having an article about the N900 running the gimp would be like having an article about opensuse or ubuntu running gimp. No fancy porting or whatnot is involved.

Re:oblig "gimp vs photoshop"/"iphone vs n900" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31216374)

And my N900 can run the latest and greatest version of the Gimp. Big whoop.

You still can't say The Gimp can have into a human usable UI within 3 days, though. PS1 > GIMP

Oh really? PS1 "Real pros never need undo" (3, Insightful)

dbIII (701233) | more than 4 years ago | (#31216806)

Photoshop doesn't have a simple GUI either, nor does AutoCAD and a pile of other things that give you more options than can be easily thought of all at the same time.
Sometimes people just have to stop whining and read the manual. Gimp gets a rough deal because all those people that spent ages learning photoshop look at gimp and get angry about learning where each option is all over again.
I must be getting close to twenty years since I as a complete photoshop newbie asked on a newsgroup where "undo" was and was mercilessly flamed by about a dozen that said things like "real professionals will never need undo". Photoshop 1 was obviously crap compared to both the current photoshop and the current gimp. Later it was fairly dismal compared to the gimp of the time with no undo and very limited support for different image formats - even though gimp was aimed at simpler stuff than photoshop. I never intended to be a "pro" and the gimp did the job I wanted so I've never been able to justify the expense since.
In this case "Colors" is probably the better app to compare it with on an iPhone or NDS anyway.

So now (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31215922)

you can edit your photos while driving

Re:So now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31216134)

you can edit your photos while driving

I already do with my Macbook Pro. A little double stick tape on the windshield and you're ready to go.

Re:So now (1)

sdpuppy (898535) | more than 3 years ago | (#31218954)

Double stick tape?

Bah.

This is way more reliable:

http://www.amazon.com/Mobile-Office-WM-01-Laptop-Steering/dp/B000IZGIA8/ [amazon.com]

Laptop Steering Wheel Desk

To fully appreciate the utility of this marvelous device, click on "customer images"
I especially like this one:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-media/product-gallery/B000IZGIA8/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_1?ie=UTF8&index=1 [amazon.com]

Re:So now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31216678)

Cause my fish face pose has to be perfect for my facebook.

Re:So now (1)

mgblst (80109) | more than 4 years ago | (#31217120)

and talking as well, the iPhone can multitask talking and photoshop.

this kind of thing is important (0)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 4 years ago | (#31215964)

as it will make the iPad a real platform.

Once they give it multitasking.

And support for an open variety of file formats.

And stuf like that.

Like, a LOT of stuff like that.

The platform will need killer apps...

Re:this kind of thing is important (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 3 years ago | (#31218412)

So in other words, once a platform has all the things that currently stop making it being a real platform, it'll be a real platform. That's different from any other platform how, exactly?

Oh you missed one: it needs to actually be released. Duke Nukem Forever will be a real game, once it's released too (I hear the department of redundancy department are working on it).

Re:this kind of thing is important (1)

macs4all (973270) | more than 3 years ago | (#31218690)

...or the Lost Electrical Reclamation League.

well (4, Funny)

drDugan (219551) | more than 4 years ago | (#31215978)

I'm surprised it was approved by Apple.

Re:well (1)

toriver (11308) | more than 3 years ago | (#31217390)

Apparently it wasn't submitted; the app was probably just distributed using ad-hoc distribution, so it will only work for three months.

Re:well (2, Funny)

mr_lizard13 (882373) | more than 3 years ago | (#31217592)

This is great news!

A sure sign that Apple will approve the other pending Adobe apps.

Unimpressed (0)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 4 years ago | (#31215982)

I've got Doom running on my MP3 player (using the RockBox firmware). The iPhone should be able to do way better than that. That fact it was created in 3 days is very cool though, and shows how far we've advanced in tools and libraries.

Re:Unimpressed (2, Informative)

Urza9814 (883915) | more than 4 years ago | (#31216054)

The iPhone can do doom, quite easily. And Wolfenstein. And Quake. Hell, my third generation iPod can run Doom - yes, the one with 4 color (white, black, and two grays) screen.

Re:Unimpressed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31216258)

Hell, my n900 can play Quake 3 [ioquake3.org] .

Re:Unimpressed (1, Interesting)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 4 years ago | (#31216260)

The iPhone can do doom, quite easily. And Wolfenstein. And Quake. Hell, my third generation iPod can run Doom

We need an iCar app, or we're Doomed.

Re:Unimpressed (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31216158)

Way to *completely* miss the point.

It's not that a re-creation of Photoshop 1.0 can run on the iPhone. It's that it look three days to write from scratch. It's a demo of the SDK capabilities, not the iPhone's capabilities.

Re:Unimpressed (2, Informative)

grumbel (592662) | more than 4 years ago | (#31216686)

This doesn't look as impressive as it sounds. It seems all the app can do is display a histogram and adjust the levels and then save the result. So its more like a little toy then a full application.

Re:Unimpressed (1)

tehniobium (1042240) | more than 4 years ago | (#31217246)

Yep, this shouldn't really be called "Photoshop 1.0 Recreated On iPhone".

I mean, why not just call it "Photoshop CS4 Recreated On iPhone", afterall, CS4 also has the histogram dialogue...

Link to videodemo:
http://av.adobe.com/russellbrown/AnniversaryiPhone_SM1.mov

Re:Unimpressed (1)

ytpete (837953) | more than 4 years ago | (#31216310)

The iPhone (and many other smartphones) can do "way better than that" – take a look: http://mobile.photoshop.com/ [photoshop.com]

The "Photoshop 1.0" app was not intended to be serious... it was just created for fun to mark Photoshop's 20th anniversary.

Well... (2, Interesting)

Mike Hicks (244) | more than 4 years ago | (#31216016)

...I suppose I'm the only person who wants someone to recreate Claris CAD.

Re:Well... (3, Insightful)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#31216344)

...I suppose I'm the only person who wants someone to recreate Claris CAD.

Speaking as someone who was once forced to use Claris CAD daily in his job as a technical illustrator, I'd say "yes."

Control area (1, Informative)

Dan East (318230) | more than 4 years ago | (#31216048)

"How big should touchable areas be? I recall Verizon's mobile style guide recommending nothing smaller than 44 by 44 pixels;"

I lost a little respect for the developer when I read that. Pixels are meaningless as they are affected by the display's DPI. Considering Verizon doesn't even sell the iPhone, obviously their style guidelines are specific to some other hardware. My HTC has a DPI of 259 versus the iPhone's 163, so a 44x44 pixel area is rendered with vastly different scale from device to device.

Re:Control area (5, Informative)

Evan Kirchhoff (1750362) | more than 4 years ago | (#31216346)

I lost a little respect for the developer when I read that. Pixels are meaningless as they are affected by the display's DPI. Considering Verizon doesn't even sell the iPhone, obviously their style guidelines are specific to some other hardware.

Yeah, I knew I wrote that part a little too quickly! More specifically, Verizon was recommending that figure on circa-2008 guidelines aimed at their earliest iPhone-style touchscreen phone, which had a DPI that was more or less the same as iPhone, so it's a reasonable rough-and-ready number to cite. (I was at Adobe working on FlashCast, aka "Verizon Dashboard", at the time, so I randomly happen to remember that guideline.) The iPhone HIG is obviously a better reference, but in this app it's sort of moot anyway because the real limit was "as much touch area as we can squeeze out of 20-year-old WIMP GUI". If I can figure out how to boil all this into a few words, I'll clarify the article.

Re:Control area (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31217614)

Be more ashamed about the fact that you're misleading people with the claim of a re-created Photoshop in 3 days, rather than the emulation of a single function of Photoshop within 3 days, to sell your shitty scripting environment.

And I'm not sure we can assume even that's true - once you're identified as a liar, we must assume everything you say is a lie until it can be independently proven.

Re:Control area (1)

pcolaman (1208838) | more than 4 years ago | (#31216818)

"How big should touchable areas be?

That's what she said

Re:Control area (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 3 years ago | (#31219440)

Pixels are meaningless as they are affected by the display's DPI.

Ah, no. Pixels are meaningless because of the screen resolution, which is itself restricted by the DPI. Hence the term "Native Resolution" which is where the DPI matches the number of pixels in the screen resolution. However, the resolution can be set lower, making it so that each pixel is one or more dots.

Girl on the beach pic? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31216086)

That's John Knoll's wife [webdesignerdepot.com] in the beach sample photo? Holy crap! Lucky guy.

Re:Girl on the beach pic? (-1, Troll)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#31216144)

It's a photoshopped close-up of an eye that will tell you nothing of the rolls on her belly or the stankiness of her pussy.

Driving Into You (1)

SumterLiving (994634) | more than 4 years ago | (#31216362)

All Right...I got sick of watching movies while driving to work. So I switched to surfing the net but that's getting rather old too. Just think, now I can edit all the great pictures I take on my iPhone...WHILE driving to work. Life just keeps getting better. Thanks Apple!

What Ever (-1, Flamebait)

Khyber (864651) | more than 4 years ago | (#31216388)

"Programmer Evan Kirchhoff in a blog post explains that Ansca took the project on to prove its claims about how Corona makes iPhone development faster."

If you wanted to prove that it helped make development faster, re-writing a nearly two-decade old version of a program is not the way to go.

Any total fool could've done the same thing in assembler.

Photoshop of a Monochrome Mac? (2, Interesting)

marciot (598356) | more than 4 years ago | (#31216474)

Photoshop 1.0 actually ran on a B&W Mac? Seriously? What's the point in that?

Although, if anyone know where I can find a copy of this for my Mac Plus, let me know...

Re:Photoshop of a Monochrome Mac? (2, Funny)

FranTaylor (164577) | more than 4 years ago | (#31216592)

I should introduce you to my friends Floyd and Steinberg.

Re:Photoshop of a Monochrome Mac? (1)

Evan Kirchhoff (1750362) | more than 4 years ago | (#31216616)

Yeah, I was surprised by that too, but if you run the Mini vMac emulator on OSX, Photoshop runs in B&W using halftone patterns to represent colors. Maybe it made sense if the output was destined for the low-DPI monochrome printers in those old Macintosh brochures.

Also, there were some color Macs in 1990, but System 6 still had the B&W UI (screenshot [wikipedia.org] ).

Re:Photoshop of a Monochrome Mac? (1)

onefriedrice (1171917) | more than 4 years ago | (#31216980)

Also, there were some color Macs in 1990, but System 6 still had the B&W UI (screenshot [wikipedia.org] ).

Cool. Even though that is a screenshot of a relatively primitive system without much color and at a low resolution, I find it remarkable how little change/progress has occurred in the area of user interface design and the whole "desktop" paradigm. I guess don't fix it if it ain't broke, but it seems odd that we've been using this paradigm for 25+ years now and haven't really seen any competitive alternate interfaces. I can see how the command-line interface endured and will endure for the foreseeable future, but it seems like we should have moved away from the concept of a virtual desktop long ago to something more usable. Here it is 2010, and it is still the case that the only ones who can use a general purpose computer are those of us who have grown up with them, plus some others who have had occasion to be trained. I guess we won't have that problem once the new generation grows up...

Re:Photoshop of a Monochrome Mac? (1)

am 2k (217885) | more than 3 years ago | (#31217714)

Uh, I guess you forgot about the iPhone/iPad UI? That's a new virtual desktop-less user interface paradigm right there. I guess you could call it "morphable single-purpose-device metaphor".

Re:Photoshop of a Monochrome Mac? (1)

onefriedrice (1171917) | more than 3 years ago | (#31221646)

Uh, I guess you forgot about the iPhone/iPad UI?

I guess you missed the fact that I'm only talking about general-purpose computers. It's relatively easy designing interfaces for specific applications (ATMs, voting machines, even phones), but we really haven't seen anything remarkable in the usability of personal computers in a long time. Sure, we've seen new input development (mainly touch), but they still stick with the aging desktop paradigm.

Re:Photoshop of a Monochrome Mac? (3, Informative)

ultramk (470198) | more than 4 years ago | (#31216782)

Well, yes, it ran ok on an SE/30 if memory serves... however it was mostly only useful on that platform to people doing 2-bit graphics or for someone who was just doing file format conversions... Mind you at the time 2-bit graphics were no laughing matter considering the lack of color output options or existing standards for same. A lot of DTP was output in 2-bit, until people started outputting gray-scale photos etc on laser printers, and there was nearly no electronic publishing method like the www. People forget that it was only well after the IIx came out that 24(and then 32)-bit color was even supported at the system level. It was all 8-bit before that.

BTW: here are the original sys reqs for PS 1.0.7:
  Macintosh SE, SE/30, II, IIx, IIci, IIcx with a minimum of 2 megabytes of RAM
  System software 6.0.3

Oddly, the SE had the same 8mhz 68k processor as the Plus, and both were upgradable over the 2MB minimum, so I'm not sure why the Plus was excluded. Might be worth a try.

Re:Photoshop of a Monochrome Mac? (1)

Inda (580031) | more than 4 years ago | (#31217056)

People don't forget. Some wish they could but early digital images still haunt them.

It all started 20 years ago at the local secondary school. In the corner of a classroom stood a tripod; a camcorder firmly fixed to the top. The sign merely said "DO NOT TOUCH". Snaking its way across the floor was a wire; a wire whose only job was to carry the sinister image to the machine people called BBC Micro. The monitor showed something familiar, an image of a young girl. A young girl who took everyone's fancy until that very day.

Her face was magenta. Maaaaaa-gen-ta!

Re:Photoshop of a Monochrome Mac? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31217934)

Sounds like it would have been just the moment to make that move on MagentaGirl that you'd never had the nerve to.

Re:Photoshop of a Monochrome Mac? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31218134)

The BBC micro was a fantastic machine for its time (and so it damn well ought to have been at the price), and its high resolution graphics were pretty nice in some respects. However, its limited choice of eight colours (three primaries, three secondaries, black and white) meant it probably wasn't the best of its era for photorealistic display.

(Though at least, unlike the Spectrum with its attribute clash problems, dithering with various colours could have got round this).

At any rate, they'd have been better using the 640x240(?) hi-res display and dithering.

(If you literally meant "twenty years ago" rather than 20-30 years ago, then the BBC Micro had already been succeeded by the likes of the more graphically advanced Amiga- with its semi-photo-realistic HAM mode- by that time).

Re:Photoshop of a Monochrome Mac? (1)

ZosX (517789) | more than 3 years ago | (#31218456)

Did you know that magenta has no visible spectrum? Look it up. I was amazed to find out that magenta isn't even a real color!

Re:Photoshop of a Monochrome Mac? (1)

edw (10555) | more than 3 years ago | (#31217846)

Two-bit would mean four levels; I think you mean one-bit ie. black and white. Regarding the SE vs. Plus, the SE had a newer/bigger ROM in it than the SE; perhaps this was the factor. I don't think the SE had Color QuickDraw in ROM as the SE/30 did, so that probably wasn't the issue.

Re:Photoshop of a Monochrome Mac? (1)

ultramk (470198) | more than 3 years ago | (#31220478)

Of course you're right. I must be getting old.

Re:Photoshop of a Monochrome Mac? (1)

ockegheim (808089) | more than 3 years ago | (#31217896)

I remember wondering what you could ever do with a colour display. If I recall, the Mac B&W UI looked better than the colour Windows UI...

Re:Photoshop of a Monochrome Mac? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31226132)

No SCSI on the MacPlus. All she had for hard drive was a unit that connected to the external floppy port.

Re:Photoshop of a Monochrome Mac? (1)

jonadab (583620) | more than 3 years ago | (#31217534)

> Photoshop 1.0 actually ran on a B&W Mac? Seriously?
> What's the point in that?

Yeah. They should have made it for the PC, and had it require CGA. Then people could have edited four-color pictures in any of three available palettes, with one of the four colors being freely selectable from the full range of sixteen! That would have been so much better.

Okay, so CGA was pretty well dead by 1990. (Is Photoshop really that young?) Nonetheless, people *did* use image editing software back when CGA was the current state of the art. It didn't seem so ridiculous at the time, because, you know, people hadn't been looking at 32-bit displays for as long as they could remember.

Re:Photoshop of a Monochrome Mac? (3, Informative)

WWWWolf (2428) | more than 3 years ago | (#31218112)

Photoshop 1.0 actually ran on a B&W Mac? Seriously? What's the point in that?

Photoshop was made for the needs of the publishing industry, not specifically photographers. Photographers would want precision and fidelity at every turn, which would definitely limit the program's usefulness, but printers just care that photographs get printed to the paper in a way that it still looks good. In 1990, most of newspapers were black and white. Heck, in 2010, a lot of newspapers are still black and white - printing in one ink is cheaper than printing in four.

If you want to process photographs for black and white newspaper, all you need is the ability to touch up greyscale images - or, you can scan in colour photographs, and process individual components, as long as the end result is represented in greyscale. Going from greyscale to B/W, you get dithering on screen, and you want halftones on final printed page.

Obviously there's much use for graphics editing on B/W, even when the application is obviously not as capable as the current programs.

That's not Photoshop (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31216534)

It's a neat tribute, but that's not Photoshop.

It's just a Photoshop startup screen and a fudged reproduction of the "Levels" tool.

I don't see that taking 3 days on the project was a great achievement. He could have probably done it using Apple's developer tools in the same time period.

Again, I'm not poo pooing the idea or execution. It's sweet and I'd enjoy messing with it on my own iPhone. But it's not Photoshop and I don't think that it effectively demonstrates that their product speeds up iPhone development.

The description implies some advantage in memory-management with that image-swapping and masking going on in the demo, but I'd have to reproduce the demo in Xcode and run the two apps side by side to figure out if that's so and I suspect that for an app of that modest complexity any difference that would make would be imperceptible on all but the earliest iPhones.

Re:That's not Photoshop (4, Funny)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 4 years ago | (#31216848)

You're right; that's not real Photoshop at all. It's clearly photoshopped.

Re:That's not Photoshop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31217104)

How can you tell?

Re:That's not Photoshop (1)

mobby_6kl (668092) | more than 3 years ago | (#31217526)

Yeah, that's not very impressive at all. Especially since I've used Pocket Artist [conduits.com] on my WM PDA years ago, which is probably on the level of Photoshop 4 in terms of features, and actually supports PSD files. Here's video demo [youtube.com] . The 3-day thing doesn't help either, the same could be certainly done in Visual Studio in the same time frame, if not faster.

Fake Photoshop (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 3 years ago | (#31218430)

I'm reminded of that recent story of people selling faked "Iphones". Those people were mocked, yet it seems people are happy to have a fake photoshop to run on their Iphones...

Re:That's not Photoshop (1)

GlenRaphael (8539) | more than 3 years ago | (#31218940)

Have you looked at their sample code? The apps people have put in the App store so far using this stuff aren't very good yet but the general approach looks promising.

As a former Newton developer, I found developing for iPhone so tedious and needlessly complex that it just wasn't fun. It's great that the iPhone SDK is free, but I'd rather pay hundreds of dollars for it in exchange for a decent development experience. The Newton Toolkit was something like $700 but worth every penny in terms of the amount of effort it saved developers; it Just Worked. It made the simple things easy and the hard things possible. Whereas the iPhone SDK environment is powerful almost entirely at the expense of ease-of-use; simple apps are far more complex than they need to be. In particular, both the Interface Builder and the DRM stuff seem very poorly integrated with XCode, providing many opportunities for things to break in confusing ways.

If paying these guys $99 means I can make a usable iPhone app without spending much time in XCode, Objective C or Interface Builder, that seems like a huge win to me.

but why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31216584)

Other than doing it just for the sake of...well...doing it, what benefit does this offer on a capacitive screen? I can't imagine this is useful in any way except for blurring out faces....or anything else the size of your finger.

Steve says... (2, Funny)

Nyder (754090) | more than 4 years ago | (#31216974)

Steve Jobs must be hating Adobe now.

Them with their old tech, trying to bring it to new tech.

Writing it for the second time (1)

zedman (98578) | more than 4 years ago | (#31217032)

..is always much faster than for the first.

Gn44 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31217202)

of program8i8g

There seems to be a problem with my Adblock-Plugin (1)

affenhund (1371117) | more than 3 years ago | (#31217354)

I have updated all my filter-lists several times, but this article still shows up.

Re:There seems to be a problem with my Adblock-Plu (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 3 years ago | (#31217820)

You can block stories by slashdot editor name, you know. The only drawback to blocking ads that way is that CowboyNeal doesn't post articles to the front page all that often.

i'm amazed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31217952)

I'm amazed that after all this time there are 75 comments on Slashdot, yet only TWO of them so far point out that all this app does is bring up a levels adjustment dialog box. Sure, it's a nice little throwback, but it's nowhere near 'recreating' Photoshop on the iPhone. I guess this just further proves how little any of you actually know about what Photoshop really is or what it can do.

Stop Playing Around Adobe! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31218558)

How about fixing CS4 to work with OS X on a case-sensitive file-system instead of creating toys?

Pocket Artist on Windows Mobile (1)

meehawl (73285) | more than 3 years ago | (#31219578)

Ironically, Windows Mobile has had a pretty good Photoshop workalike for most of the past decade as Pocket Artist [conduits.com] . On-device editing of PSDs included, along with layers, IPTC/EXIF, brushes, and so on. It's a pretty good demonstration for why there are in fact some compelling use cases for resistive screens with pinpoint accuracy stylii, despite what the capacitive screen absolutists believe.

For the record, years ago Aldus Superpaint was superior to Photoshop for several years on the Mac. It was more responsive, and supported both vector- and bitmap-based rendering.

laughable really... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31220408)

there are implementations of image editing apps online that are done in flash/flex - and they're equivalent or close to photoshop 5. e.g. http://www.pixlr.com

you can see why jobs wouldn't want to put the contents of the appstore (pricey garbage) up against the flash platform as it moves rapidly into the mobile space.

its all part of a bigger plan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31220550)

the iphone is such a great opportunity for happening people to stay in touch and express themselves, when out and about- its bound to succeed.

hopefully the success of both the iphone and the ipad will encourage apple to bring the same appstore-only model of software to osx! its a great opportunity to get millions of people into computing who otherwise would be baffled by the options and the problems that plague users now.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?