I think the more important question is WHAT CAMERA TAKES 442MP IMAGES??
christ, imagine holiday pics at that resolution!!! <cringes>
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Next Version of Photoshop to be GPU-Accelerated
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think the more important question is WHAT CAMERA TAKES 442MP IMAGES??
christ, imagine holiday pics at that resolution!!! <cringes>
Integrated graphics are chips soldered to the motherboard - not cards. They get their power by sharing other system resources (like RAM) with the computer. In that sense they have no GPU so maybe they will be unsupported by this feature.....
Hopefully that'll mean that Photoshop winds up almost as fast as TIFFany (sadly no longer in development since the devs went to work for Apple) was on OPENSTEP 10 years ago..... 
Don't get me wrong - I'm a heavy user of Photoshop and appreciate how powerful it is, it just bugs me that the OS X version of TIFFany3 (even running under Rosetta on my MBP) still leaves PS for dead when manipulating enormous images....
Don't get me wrong - I'm a heavy user of Photoshop and appreciate how powerful it is, it just bugs me that the OS X version of TIFFany3 (even running under Rosetta on my MBP) still leaves PS for dead when manipulating enormous images....
Thank you for proving that my post is clear enough to be understood by anyone taking the time to read it. That is exactly what I'm getting at, and have been since my first post.
I was actually going back and re-reading my posts to make sure I hadn't left something out or had misworded something. It seemed strange that someone would keep misinterpreting what I was saying like that.
I assume you're running Leopard? If you head over to Adobe's support forums you'll find plenty of threads on this subject (Indesign mainly). There's a huge blame game going on between Apple and Adobe and apparently no fix in sight.Hey Adobe, how about first fixing my CS3 on my PowerPC Mac. I'm crashing everyday and I'm still waiting for an update.
Most stupid comment of the year?
I'm a freelancer using CS3 on a G5. Many of my clients (agencies) are running CS3 on old iMacs etc. The OP's problems are software related.The true power of the 'net. It's what lets anyone with a Web site set themselves up as the expert on anything, be it the cure for cancer or the latest movies at the cineplex.
In this case I'd expect a correction to the original post on macrumors. However, I admit that the back-and-forth about Pixelmator is at least as interesting to me as the rest of the discussion and has led me to take a look at this app. So even bogus stories have their way of being useful sometimes.
cattyThere are two types of graphic designers:
1. Trial and Error; or
2. Visionary and the minimal steps to obtain it.
Which one are you?
Faster is better, so this will be a welcome change.
Whether it comes in October or not...who knows. Did Adobe say this, or is it speculation/rumor/leak?
Man, I don't know how in the world no one mentioned a big problem with Leopard and Ps CS3... using SPACES.
If you switch from another space to the space that contains Ps, you will have your toolbars dissapear, and sometimes the cursor won't work until after you restart photoshop. This is a big pain as I work with 3 or more spaces and almost everytime I switch to the space that contains Ps I have to switch back and forth again until my toolbars reappear.
I HOPE this will be fixed in Ps CS4... Anyone else run into this problem ?
If you switch from another space to the space that contains Ps, you will have your toolbars dissapear, and sometimes the cursor won't work until after you restart photoshop. This is a big pain as I work with 3 or more spaces and almost everytime I switch to the space that contains Ps I have to switch back and forth again until my toolbars reappear.
I HOPE this will be fixed in Ps CS4... Anyone else run into this problem ?
ok Pixelmator is not up to photoshop standards yet, however this is a 1.x release, photoshop wasn't that handy on version one.
I think that pixelmator has a lot of potential, the developers are fixing and adding features incredibly quick.
Adobe through no compeition throws out any old crap now, for me photoshop and most of the suite has been going down hill with each release. New features have been added but it seems at a big cost of bloat in the software.
As for the whole 64bit on the mac front, Adobe have been pushing their luck on the mac plattform for years, for a long time a lot of their filters on the mac were still in 6800 code. Apple did say they would be releasing a 64bit carbon as a patch but Adobe still should have been putting all their effort into cocoa anyway. Im not putting this forward lightly as i know software development is a lengthly process, but adobes the sort of company that if they can get away with patches without doing the actual ground work they will.
I think that pixelmator has a lot of potential, the developers are fixing and adding features incredibly quick.
Adobe through no compeition throws out any old crap now, for me photoshop and most of the suite has been going down hill with each release. New features have been added but it seems at a big cost of bloat in the software.
As for the whole 64bit on the mac front, Adobe have been pushing their luck on the mac plattform for years, for a long time a lot of their filters on the mac were still in 6800 code. Apple did say they would be releasing a 64bit carbon as a patch but Adobe still should have been putting all their effort into cocoa anyway. Im not putting this forward lightly as i know software development is a lengthly process, but adobes the sort of company that if they can get away with patches without doing the actual ground work they will.
Thanks for posting this, I say MR should pull the story due to the majority of it being a load of rubbish.
According to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_GMA
It was added in x3100 - however, from what I have heard through Arstechnica in reference to Intel's next integrated GPU; there is a major step forward in regards to its performance. IIRC, it was powerful enough at a demo given by Intel to run some pretty high end games without too many problems.
Here is some information about leaked benchmarks:
http://vr-zone.com/articles/Intel_GM47_Mobile_Chipset_Delivers_2X_Graphics_Performance/5592.html
We do not need to always have the latest version.
Skip a version or two. Had Apple not drop support, you may have been stuck in carbon for another 12 years.
I think it is a shame that these guys waited until now to start thinking about Cocoa. It has been several years since the intel switch and now they tell us that it will be here in 2 more versions (CS5). Somehow I just do not feel the love.
This change will occur late on 2009 or some time in 2010. For a company that started in the Mac world, they seem to prefer doing windows development more.
As to graphic cards .... There is nothing in the wind that says that MacBooks and Minis will ever have a dedicated graphic card. That is the main differentiation between a PRO and the consumer version. Could happen but I would not hold my breath.
Aperture and new Apperture plug-ins are a combination that may help in the mean time.
Ive done something close a few times in my lifetime. However, I also need to do almost close for textures maps in 3D software such as Maya. I welcome any speed to Photoshop. Hopefully it spans across After Effects. Major openGL probs with that one on my MacIntels
No, Here's what I think will Happen the New Adobe suite will work with the GMA X3100 but that's it and then apple will release the new MacBook in Aluminum with a Dedicated Graphics chip. All in time for all this new GPU Software.
I think the Reason they didn't do it before was not price it was heat the Small MacBook Fan and Plastic case kept heat inside the computer. Now the Aluminum will dissipate the heat making it more bearable for the components
ahem.....
That was I who brought up a live Lens Flare feature. How does that not make me a professional?
I never made any kind of statements that I "LOVE Lens Flares" or use them in every project I do. I admit that amateurs over use Lens Flare, but they also over use Plastic Wrap and Chrome. Does that make Bert Monroy a novice because he uses those every time he makes water in a composition???
I was completely behind what you were saying about weekend users and professionals. I've been in the professional field for 10 years, using Photoshop for 13.
I think in the last year I've used Lens Flare twice. My only qualm is that when I do need to use it I would like a little more control over it. What's wrong with that?
Yes, I am running Leopard on a PowerPc processor with all the latest updates. I did go to the support forums on the Adobe website and I've done everything they have mentioned on there but that doesn't work. So my solution was just to go back to Tiger and reinstall CS3. Hopefully, Apple and Adobe can get there act together on this one.
Pixelmator runs just fine on my G4 (Dual 1 Ghz PPC). Adobe is already too big and lumbering to keep up. I'll bet Pixelmator has even more features by October. .... Adobe may lose out all together by CS5. Think how much ground Pixelmator will have covered by then. It already has GPU acceleration. It could have 64-bit support long before CS5. I'd really like to see these guys unseat Adobe. I wish them good luck!
... Pixelmator runs fine on a G4? not if you're trying to *draw* in it. Which millions of people use Photoshop for. Pixelmator is horrendously slow for that. It might be ok for adjustments, but..
Ok, this is ridiculous. Huge kudos to the people arguing for Photoshop features.. But PM people.. Do you even realise all of the useful stuff Photoshop can do? I suggest you read up on it and think about it's implications for artists, designers, print labs etc - Before you start touting PM as some sort of PS alternative. It hardly does *any* of the things most CS customers need.
Adobe have nothing to fear from pixelmator, multiple industries would laugh pixelmator out of the building as a serious PS alternative.. It does have its uses sometimes, but it's slower than CS3 at many tasks already. The only comparatively good thing about PM is the price.
Painter, Paint Shop Pro and Gimp ARE competing with Photoshop in some industries, not too seriously, but certainly more than Pixelmator is ever likely to be. I hate how everyone gos on about PS like Adobe have some sort of monopoly over graphics apps. They do have competition - they always *have* had competition. PS is the only app that's branched out to be useful to so many work-flows though. (Painter does well in its target industries too)
Good luck to Pixelmator; I'd love to see it develop down it's own path, currently it's just slowly accumulating old PS features. It'll need more than that. It needs to set itself up as a real alternative rather than "poor mans (admittedly pretty) Photoshop".. Artists will happily use lots of tools.. I use Artrage, sketchbook pro, PS, Pixen, PM - I only pull out PM for the crazy explosion/speed line filters (lol, I do comic art commissions sometimes) but everything else, PS does it all. There is no reason to get it other than price. I want a reason! I don't know if there's anything left which PS doesn't already do though, which is testiment to how good its feature set is - not how /bloated/ it is.
True, but I don't think they would have a dedicated video card; it would cannibalise their MacBook Pro line, and worse, the battery life would die in the ass.
As you can see from my signature, I don't own an Apple product (I hang around for the discussion and atmosphere) - but I do think they need to make their MacBook more robust. I don't expect it to be like their Pro line, but a roll cage like the Lenovo Thinkpad laptop I'm using would be a good start.
Adobe CS4
I wish Adobe would make Captivate for a mac. I could care less about improvements with Photoshop. It works great for me as it is. I'm getting sick of how Adobe makes things for PC only, and not for mac. What gives? I have to use a PC to work with Captivate, and it is so slow! It also "freaks" out when ever I begin to add images. Grrr, so glad I went to Mac. I hope Adobe will cater more to mac users!
btw, the PC I'm using for Captivate is a Lenovo Think Pad... it is terrible! I have to restart the PC every few hours or Captivate freezes! Grrr... My Macbook on the other hand, handles every program l like a dream, and I only restart it once a week!
I wish Adobe would make Captivate for a mac. I could care less about improvements with Photoshop. It works great for me as it is. I'm getting sick of how Adobe makes things for PC only, and not for mac. What gives? I have to use a PC to work with Captivate, and it is so slow! It also "freaks" out when ever I begin to add images. Grrr, so glad I went to Mac. I hope Adobe will cater more to mac users!
btw, the PC I'm using for Captivate is a Lenovo Think Pad... it is terrible! I have to restart the PC every few hours or Captivate freezes! Grrr... My Macbook on the other hand, handles every program l like a dream, and I only restart it once a week!
I do
at my job(digital imagery) we scan lo res at 460 megapixels and HQ at 0.923 Gigapixel, and it's a real pain to open those scans in photoshop, 422 would be a minimum to handle...
To clarify -- did not mean to suggest a diminishment of Painter via Apple acquisition. Painter is likely the greatest creativity app for artists ever. Suggest re: making integrating with Aperture was to take the brilliance of LivePicture's IVUE concept and extend it artistic creation using either LivePicture for Photoshop-like photo effects, and Painter for work that goes beyond Photoshop. Wont go into why LivePicture was (and still is) such a brilliant product. If Apple bought it and Painter, extended the concept of IVUE files to Painter -- it would just be so awesome when sourcing with images out of Aperture at the start of the creative process. For artists using Painter without starting with an image, the benefit of an IVUE-based approach would be an incredible speed boost. Not well stated. Sorry for that. I'm sure Apple's engineers understand (John Scully once had a hand in LivePicture after his stint at Apple -- did about as well with LP as he did with Apple.)
It wouldn't canabilize it at all, They just put the ATI HD2400xt in it they are completely different. Making the MacBook Pro look better especially because the cheapest iMac has this card.
Graphics cards don't use that much power and the MacBook will also get an LED screen to help.
Like a lot of what is being said in this discussion - utter rubbish. Using the tool best suited to the job is why. What benefit does a Macbook Pro offer over a Macbook with Photoshop? - a bigger screen and slightly more speed. As this thread proves, current versions of Photoshop don't use the graphics card to render anything in either of the laptops so that feature of the Pro line offers no benefit to users.
I got my Macbook as it was the lightest machine available at the time - I carry it around a lot in a camera backpack. I still wouldn't get the Air as the hdd is way too small.
I agree with other people who state wishes on Adobe fixing the various bugs in CS3 first. I suffer various errors in PS and frequent crashes with Bridge on my iMac (then again the iMac is intended for consumers so I guess I shouldn't be using that either
No probs on my Macbook with either app, though!
Its not how powerful the graphic system is - it's how much the os drives it. For example, the x3100 can so open gl 2.0, but apple only supports 1.2. Until apple gets with the program, its pointless to say how powerful/good the graphics system is.