[:haripu:]

@superchicken

Of course a program like photoshop could be coded by Apple. But what would be the point? Photoshop is an *excellent* application and with each realease I get more the feeling that even Adobe doesn't have a clue how to make it much better anymore. It is just that good already. Unless Apple had some really great things to contribute there wouldn't be much sense in such a move. (Filters are there already, after all).

InDesign did work, because Quark wasn't innovating anymore.
FCP did work, because Premiere just wasn't very good.
Keynote is great, but transition effects alone don't kill off PowerPoint.
and so on and so on.

But I understand your enthousiasm. Core Image/Video is an amazing achievement.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by :haripu::
(Filters are there already, after all).

Yeah, but they can often be slow. Sure a filter might be used infrequently, but if it goes from a 5 second render to real-time, that's still damn impressive.

After Effects is still more robust than Motion, but it's no surprise that people are gushing over how well Motion works.

[tooki]

Originally posted by Catfish_Man:
I forget if this has been posted here, but there's a preview of a resolution independent display in QuartzDebug. Still rather buggy, but very cool.

In Tiger DP only, I assume?

Originally posted by macaddict0001:
on panther you can use universal access to zoom with command option plus and minus. pretty close.

It's in Jaguar, too. And it works without Quartz Extreme, too, curiously enough!

tooki

[hmurchison2001]

Originally posted by :haripu::
@superchicken

Of course a program like photoshop could be coded by Apple. But what would be the point? Photoshop is an *excellent* application and with each realease I get more the feeling that even Adobe doesn't have a clue how to make it much better anymore. It is just that good already. Unless Apple had some really great things to contribute there wouldn't be much sense in such a move. (Filters are there already, after all).

InDesign did work, because Quark wasn't innovating anymore.
FCP did work, because Premiere just wasn't very good.
Keynote is great, but transition effects alone don't kill off PowerPoint.
and so on and so on.

But I understand your enthousiasm. Core Image/Video is an amazing achievement.

:haripu: What other image editing apps have you used?

This is not directed at you but what I tend to see is users who have grown up with Photoshop as the main image editing app. They learn the UI, get comfortable and then their minds tend to lock. What I mean by "lock" is when you get so comfortable with a methodology that you simply cannot imagine doing things any other way you have locked in and that's the worst thing that can happen. I've never been a big Photoshop user. I can tweak photos and get my way around but personally I don't view Photoshop as the Goliath that it is. Back in the day I dabbled in Macromedia's Xres(a PS clone down to the UI) and Live Picture (which ROCKED damn Sculley for messing it up). Live Pictures UI was horrible but man oh man was it cool. Using Fits and editing as screen resolution was fast even on a slow Mac. Since you weren't destructively editing there were no pixel errors like in PS after too many edits. Live Picture supported 48 bit color, resolution independant gradients and brushes. The bugaboo was the UI which took time to wrap your head around the two modes. Plus it's toolset just couldn't match PS. John Sculley left Apple after doing his damage and proceeded to try to turn Live Picture inc into a web graphics company and promptly ran them into the ground. Had Apple utilized the internal tech of Live Picture and fixed it's UI it could have been a monster. I believe Roxio now owns the code and it'll never see the light of day.

TIFFany 3 is another application that I've never used but still can be purchased at www.stone.com. It's an amazing app from what I hear being that it was programmed by 2 developers part time who now work for a very popular fruit company I'm going to see how TIFFany 3 works in Tiger and I might take the plunge. I hear it can do some things very easily that PS chokes on.

I think Graphics needs to move on to a new paragigm. I think they will as well. Personally I'd like to see

1. Resolution independence. There's just nothing like it when applying brushes and paint and gradients. Everything looks great all the time.

2. Realtime Effects- here is where Core Image needs to payoff big. I should never need a small preview window. I should be able to apply an effect and view it on the whole picture.

3 Less palletes- Pallete overload yeech. I'd like to see contextual floating transclucent panels that are extensible. The UI should look spartan but have an amazing amount of flexibility once you grok the UI.

4. Color Color Color- 48bit or better. Think of this like audio recording. Tracks are mastered at 24bit /96khz and then dithered down to a CD 16bit/44.1khz rate. This yields a better sounding file than staying at 16bit throughout the whole process. Color in 48bit allows for more fidelity when editing and the quality should remain high when you dither down to 24bit. Same principal.

5. Scripting- I don't have much complain here but scripting should be integral to any editing app.

6. Extended support- An image editor is not a jack of all trades. I would like to see native support for video files for painting on frames, color correcting etc. Plus I'd love to see direct support for the popular 3D files as well. This would make for a kickass workflow.

7. Plugin support- Plugins should tap right into the core and function in realtime just like the main app.

8. 64bit- It need to be able to use as much memory as you want to throw at it. However it's unlikely that the app would require as much as PS if your working at screen resolution and rendering final output out later.

Photoshop is great. But man do I salivate thinking about the next big thing. Productivity is about keeping the brain engaged and moving forward. Unless you have 2GB of RAM PS isn't that fast. We've all grown accustomed to waiting for things but the question we should be asking is "why?".

I'm hoping a developer out there frustrated with the stagnation in image editing decides to do something about this. Adobe was David to Letrasets Goliath back in the day and it is now the Goliath Adobe that must watch out for the next David.

[barbarian]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
The thing to keep in mind, though, is that this will decimate your pool of potential buyers. Even at this point, writing for only 10.3 still limits your market share by a lot. When Tiger is released, any developer writing for 10.4-only technology will probably find about five buyers for his product.

I think your logic is flawed. If I am doing a cross platform image editor, all this means is that I can write the mac version much easier and faster...

[Zarafa]

Originally posted by hmurchison2001:

TIFFany 3 is another application that I've never used but still can be purchased at www.stone.com. It's an amazing app from what I hear being that it was programmed by 2 developers part time who now work for a very popular fruit company I'm going to see how TIFFany 3 works in Tiger and I might take the plunge. I hear it can do some things very easily that PS chokes on.

I didn't realize that Stan Jirman and [I forget the other developer's name offhand] were now at Apple, but a quick online search confirms that for Stan at least.

That being the case, I have no doubt whatsoever that Apple could create a Photoshop replacement/"killer"/competitor, if they so choose.

TIFFany was and is an amazing application. It's very different from Photoshop, and the UI always needed a little work (it didn't make the OpenStep to OS X transition very well in that way, in my opinion) but the raw capabilities were excellent.

The biggest issue to competing with Photoshop is the risk of entirely alienating Adobe, which is just not a good idea at this point in time.

[thunderous_funker]

Well, if Adobe decides to pass on taking full advantage of CoreImage I'm sure the big brains behind The Gimp will take up the gauntlet and run with it.

The whole time I was watching that demo all I could think of is "Wow, the next version of The Gimp is going to ROCK!"

More and more I think Apple is recognizing the awesome power of hackers and is adopting technologies that will lure them into the world of Apple.

Its not Apple vs MS any more. Its MS vs the combined power of an inter-operable, highly flexible and totally open Unix-verse.

[hmurchison2001]

Originally posted by Zarafa:
I didn't realize that Stan Jirman and [I forget the other developer's name offhand] were now at Apple, but a quick online search confirms that for Stan at least.

That being the case, I have no doubt whatsoever that Apple could create a Photoshop replacement/"killer"/competitor, if they so choose.

TIFFany was and is an amazing application. It's very different from Photoshop, and the UI always needed a little work (it didn't make the OpenStep to OS X transition very well in that way, in my opinion) but the raw capabilities were excellent.

The biggest issue to competing with Photoshop is the risk of entirely alienating Adobe, which is just not a good idea at this point in time.

Yes indeed. I've heard that Stan has worked a bit on the EOF and probably has had a hand in Core Image. Man if Core Image had just come 2 yrs sooner TIFFany may still have been alive.

I agree that jeopardizing Photoshop is not a wise venture. I do believe Apple could come up with a capable application but that's considerable effort that would take programmers from other areas. Apple looks to be content to provide the tools that may create that next killer editing app. Worse case scenario...sales of Photoshop dwindle and Adobe cancels it Apple has the tools to keep some users from defecting.

I sincerely hope that some developer is out there wanting to make a decent app but on the fence has seen Core Image and said "I can do this". I'm willing to support a non Adobe app that is fast, stable extensible enough with a decent UI. Core Image should bring us one step closer.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Well, if Adobe decides to pass on taking full advantage of CoreImage I'm sure the big brains behind The Gimp will take up the gauntlet and run with it.

The whole time I was watching that demo all I could think of is "Wow, the next version of The Gimp is going to ROCK!"

Why? The GIMP is a *nix app first and a Mac *nix app second.

It would not be surprising if some other person elsewhere might just come up with a CoreImage-based app faster than the GIMP people.

[hmurchison2001]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Why? The GIMP is a *nix app first and a Mac *nix app second.

It would not be surprising if some other person elsewhere might just come up with a CoreImage-based app faster than the GIMP people.

**Cough Cough** Omnigroup. Seems like they would be a natural. Developing a web browser has to give you some good experience on dealing with the rendering of graphics. Plus a nice small app would be nice especially if it linked to Omniweb and allowd you to click a image and open it up in the editing app.

The computer industry is stagnant when we resign ourselves to buying our productivity apps from Microsoft and our graphics apps from Adobe. I long for the "good ole days" when it was more of a free for all.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by barbarian:
I think your logic is flawed. If I am doing a cross platform image editor, all this means is that I can write the mac version much easier and faster...

But what will you do for image filters on other platforms? Come up with a plugin format that won't work on OSX?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Millennium:
But what will you do for image filters on other platforms? Come up with a plugin format that won't work on OSX?

I think the augurment is that the Apple-only bits will be so easy to develop that Developers won't have to really weigh the cost/benefit of doing it. It won't take the kind of resources to develop OS-dependent bits so Developers won't have to choose only one or continue with the one-code-for-windows-half-assed-port-for-Mac model.

[JLL]

Originally posted by Millennium:
But what will you do for image filters on other platforms? Come up with a plugin format that won't work on OSX?

Photoshop plug-ins aren't croos platform either. Image Unit is a plug-in format, and just as Audio Unit seems to gain ground on the Mac, they still have the same plug-ins on Windows - just as VST plug-ins instead.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by JLL:
Photoshop plug-ins aren't croos platform either.

The SDK is, last I checked, so although you can't run the same binary, porting plugin source code is pretty easy.

If the API is completely different -and in this case it probably will be- then porting plug-ins becomes a major hassle.

Image Unit is a plug-in format, and just as Audio Unit seems to gain ground on the Mac, they still have the same plug-ins on Windows - just as VST plug-ins instead.

Actually, VST plug-ins can be used as Audio Units; most likely what we're seeing on the Mac is just a rebranded version of the same plug-in. I doubt the same will be true for Photoshop plug-ins, though.

[Graymalkin]

Photoshops has a few core engines that are tied together with its UI. It's got the non-destructive adjustment layers and layer styles, the destructive filter engine, a non-destructive text engine, and a non-destructive compositing engine. In between these engines is the code for presenting the engine functionality to users and handling of the files. These tasks could all be done using Quartz frameworks in Tiger. The filters, adjustment layers, and color adjustments could be done as Image Units in the CoreImage framework. Typography can be handled by ATSUI. CoreGraphics can do the layer styles, vector drawing, and masking.

There's a lot more to Photoshop than just filters as there is a lot more to CoreImage than just filters. Phil Schiller demoed primarily filters because they get the biggest wow out of the audience just like novice Photoshop users focus primarily on filters until they know better. Quartz has a ton of power that has gone completely unused for the most part because larger developers are worried about cross-platform support for their apps. Few developers want to tie their big products to a single platform.

Tying a product to a platform however can have some serious benefits. Take Final Cut pro for instance. It is mated deeply with Quicktime but whatever enhancements Quicktime receives FCP gains as well automatically. Apps using CoreAudio have a similar benefit. An Audio Unit from JustAboutAnybody is compatible with software from JustAboutAnybodyElse with no hassles of problems. GarageBand has a 32 channel EQ because of an Audio Unit. Using good system level technologies doesn't necessarily mean your product will end up a failure.

A large portion of Adobe's customers are running Macs. If a competitor rolls out a Photoshop killer using Quartz components and supports hardware accelerated functions Adobe stands to lose that customer base. With no competing technologies on Windows coming out for several more years they could lose a chunk of their Windows customers as they switch to Macs with their hardware accelerated 2D graphics capabilities. FCP's success caused Avid to make some good Mac software to keep from losing their customers to Apple. A still image app like FCP made by Apple or not would force Adobe to really support their Mac customers or lose a quarter of their business of more to the competition.

[Zarafa]

Originally posted by Graymalkin:
Photoshops has a few core engines that are tied together with its UI. It's got the non-destructive adjustment layers and layer styles, the destructive filter engine, a non-destructive text engine, and a non-destructive compositing engine. In between these engines is the code for presenting the engine functionality to users and handling of the files. These tasks could all be done using Quartz frameworks in Tiger. The filters, adjustment layers, and color adjustments could be done as Image Units in the CoreImage framework. Typography can be handled by ATSUI. CoreGraphics can do the layer styles, vector drawing, and masking.

Hmmm, think Create + CoreImage.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Actually, VST plug-ins can be used as Audio Units; most likely what we're seeing on the Mac is just a rebranded version of the same plug-in. I doubt the same will be true for Photoshop plug-ins, though.

AFAIK, VST is a subset of Audio Unit, with some other differences. There is a commercial VST --> AudioUnit wrapper, but that costs both money and CPU (the latter is quite relevant for audio concerns).

-s*

[hmurchison2001]

RE Audio Units.

You know Apple probably wouldn't have created AU but they seem to have gotten fed up with Steinberg's documentation on VST. Plus programming VST has a strange limitation. VSTs don't have very flexible I/O options. What I've had explained is that some times to create a stereo vst you literally have to program to and them bind them together under one UI. AU has more flexible routing but developers were initially miffed at the lack of GUI controls for creating widgets.

Things have really settled down and guys like Marc P from DestroyFX and Urs Heckmann have created very good AUs that work like they should.

I understand the politics of the industry. Large companies move at a slower pace but man the excitement really is with the smaller companies and how quickly they create products.

Core Image should be really infuse these little guys with life.

[Toyin]

I think Adobe has to look at this technology to stay ahead of the game. I consider myself a pro-sumer. I use photoshop quite a bit but use only a fraction of it's potential. I'd gladly buy an imaging solution that does half of what Photoshop does for $50.

The real question here is...how hot is my Powerbook going to get with CI??? That graphics CPU can get smoking while playing games. I can't imagine what a few hours using CI enhanced apps is going to be like.

[Eug Wanker]

Quartz Composer = PixelShox

VERY cool.

[Eug Wanker]

Just click on an effect and watch the continuously changing effect get removed or added, in real-time, on top of all the other effects. It worked just fine on my Mobility Radeon 9000 (TiBook 1 GHz).

That pic has 14 effects running simultaneously (with "108 plug-in instances").

FPS: 60
Processor Load: ~ 40-50%

[hmurchison2001]

Good find Eug. Either this guy is working on Motion or Apple plans to incorporate Pixelshox in a new and unique way.

Apple is definitely putting in the effort to stay at the forefront of graphics.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by hmurchison2001:
Good find Eug. Either this guy is working on Motion or Apple plans to incorporate Pixelshox in a new and unique way.

Apple is definitely putting in the effort to stay at the forefront of graphics.

I wasn't the one who found it. It was in the other thread in which you posted. And supposedly Tiger's Quartz Composer is a souped up version of PixelShox.

[:haripu:]

Originally posted by hmurchison2001:
:What other image editing apps have you used?

Let's see: back in the days before PS became native to OSX I tried a few. The one that comes with the Corel Suite (don't know the name, but it was essentially like a simplified version of PS). The Gimp, of course. Interface takes some time getting used to it and doesn't support CMYK (which is a must for me). Good app. Never tried TIFFany. Ah yes, and some years ago, when PS wasn't that great already, I gave the alphas of Quark XPosure a try. They looked promising, but development was stopped.
So I have tried a few.

But that all is beside the point. The point I was trying to make (in far too many words) was just that it takes a lot more to code a "PS-Killer" than a quicker filter-technology. Years and years of know-how have gone into PS and it shows in every detail. I am all for competition but to take on PS would mean you have to offer something really ground-breaking and take image-processing to a whole new level. While Core Image is technically impressing, all it does for now is speed up things that already can be done. The real innovation won't come from this technological direction but has to come from somewhere else.

[direktor]

Working in video, I've noticed that Apple has had the beginnings of CoreVideo in the works for quite a while now.

Starting in DVDSP, they had objects you could drop into a DVD menu that you could then drop video onto, which would then apply an effect to the video. They're called patches, and you can see them if you open the DVDSP package.

Also in there is a framework called Oxygene, which is what the patches operate in from what I could tell (among other functions, I'm sure).

ALSO, in the newest versions of FCP and Livetype, Quicktime has the ability to display a Livetype project file on the fly (i.e. in a Finder preview window). All these features require some sort of framework and libraries running in the background...complex ones doing rendering, blurs, etc...many of the sorts of things seen in the demo video.

[hmurchison2001]

:haripu:

I agree. PS is more than just filters. It's a workflow. I'm not sure I know of anyone who could match PS right now other than Apple. And I think Apple's so called "PS Killer" would take 3 revisions before it was as feature complete as PS.

This pixelshox is quite interesting. I've only recently been exposed to this "VJ" phenomenon. Looks like more exciting products are on the way.

[moki]

Originally posted by Millennium:
It doesn't look like this is just a set of filters, though; this looks like a new drawing API. That means that theoretically, this could also be used to re-implement Quartz in a fully-hardware-accelerated manner, rather than the limited form currently used in Quartz Extreme.

Well, there are a few different things at work here. First, Apple did indeed announce Quartz 2D Extreme, which is the hardware acceleration you mention (text, lines, image copies, etc. all hardware accelerated). The way it works is quite impressive actually.

CoreImage is really quite a piece of work. Probably the most impressive thing I've seen out of Apple (on a technical basis) in years. There are a number of facets to it, it isn't *just* about filters. It provides a nice hardware accelerated image API. This in itself would be a good thing.

However they way they chose to implement it allows for incredible flexibility.

Your average application will benefit from hardware accelerated UI drawing (assuming they don't use QuickDraw) without doing anything at all.

More savvy applications that manipulate images in various ways can benefit by having available to them a nice set of useful image manipulation tools: common things like rotation, scaling, blurring, sharpening... all hardware accelerated.

Even more specialized applications can have their own image manipulation kernels that do specific things to images. You write them in a C-like language, and CoreImage compiles them for your video card (or uses its native runtime if your video card doesn't support these things).

But it gets better: string a few filters together, and a code-path optimized filter is created for them, dynamically and automatically.

The geek factor is high, as is the usefulness in the real world. It offers performance and convenience of such magnitude that I'd be surprised if developers don't pick up on it quickly. The downside is that cross platform products like Photoshop, Premier, etc. probably won't use the capabilities offered, because they are platform specific.

[Chuckit]

Wow, that is really exciting. GPU-enhanced everything, plus a powerful new API. Thanks for clearing that up, Andrew.

Incidentally, I can't wait to see a CoreImage-enhanced Snapz Pro. That program is bound to be almighty.

[murk]

Originally posted by moki:
Even more specialized applications can have their own image manipulation kernels that do specific things to images. You write them in a C-like language, and CoreImage compiles them for your video card (or uses its native runtime if your video card doesn't support these things).

So, does this mean that even if Adobe will not support it, it is very likely that Photoshop plug-ins for the Mac will? Although I am in the screw Adobe and make a PS Killer camp, if they don�t have the cojones for that, maybe Apple should make a plug-in that supports the built-in filters and give it away.

[chabig]

I don't see why a Mac developer couldn't just write a Photoshop plugin that brings all of core image's abilities to Photoshop. Sort of a glue plugin...

Chris

[Millennium]

Originally posted by chabig:
I don't see why a Mac developer couldn't just write a Photoshop plugin that brings all of core image's abilities to Photoshop. Sort of a glue plugin...

Entirely possible, even likely. I'm guessing that it's probably the only way we'll see CoreImage in Photoshop, though.

The big news here is still for the small-time guys. GraphicConverter with CoreImage would be no Photoshop by any stretch of the imagination (no layers, for example) but could still become quite a force to be reckoned with. Imagine using GC as a frontend to batch-process CoreImage filters onto a bunch of images. Now that would be cool.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
I wasn't the one who found it. It was in the other thread in which you posted. And supposedly Tiger's Quartz Composer is a souped up version of PixelShox.

There's one major strike against the idea that our friend here went to work for Apple, though: the fact that he released the last beta of PixelShox for free. I doubt Apple would have allowed him to do that if he took a job with them.

[hmurchison2001]

James McCartney left his Supercollider project to work for Apple and offered the same feature frozen "final" version.

It seems Apple is content to let a developer at least give their users the respect to keep a final version. I've heard Pixelshox developer "POL" is indeed working for the Big Apple.

"El Presidente" your words are like song to me. I hope Ambrosia SW can find some use for Apples new technologies. I'm buying a bunch of stuff from you all when I get my next Mac(God I'm hoping the iMac kicks butt).

[Millennium]

Originally posted by hmurchison2001:
James McCartney left his Supercollider project to work for Apple and offered the same feature frozen "final" version.

Yes, but Supercollider itself doesn't seem to have been incorporated into OSX.

This is different. Although I'm not sure if the PixelShox engine is actually being incorporated into OSX wholesale, there are too many similarities between it and CoreImage/CoreVideo to ignore... plus the PixelShox engine was designed to be cross-platform. Even though I don't think it was ever actually reported, there's no way Apple would want that floating around, waiting to be reverse-engineered.

At the absolute least, continuing to distribute this thing -even as an unsupported free program- would violate his noncompete agreement. He appears to have made one last version after he was hired (just to remove the time limit, but it's still a new version).

[macaddict0001]

Originally posted by :haripu::

But that all is beside the point. The point I was trying to make (in far too many words) was just that it takes a lot more to code a "PS-Killer" than a quicker filter-technology. Years and years of know-how have gone into PS and it shows in every detail. I am all for competition but to take on PS would mean you have to offer something really ground-breaking and take image-processing to a whole new level. While Core Image is technically impressing, all it does for now is speed up things that already can be done. The real innovation won't come from this technological direction but has to come from somewhere else.

you mean ground brreaking as in applying filters to moving video in real time.

[osxisfun]

Originally posted by macaddict0001:
you mean ground brreaking as in applying filters to moving video in real time.

that was pretty damn cool. i think apple should invest in Pampers because once video design guys start to use this they will need plenty of them...

this was REAL TIME folks. layers upon layers of real time stuff applied to video. neat stuff.

[moki]

Originally posted by murk:
So, does this mean that even if Adobe will not support it, it is very likely that Photoshop plug-ins for the Mac will? Although I am in the screw Adobe and make a PS Killer camp, if they don�t have the cojones for that, maybe Apple should make a plug-in that supports the built-in filters and give it away.

Well, yes, but you'd lose the benefit of the lossless effects, because the plugin would at some point have to render it to a layer of Photoshop pixels.

[rezonate]

Originally posted by I'mDaMac:
CoreImage is an awesome technology. If Adobe integrates this technology I envision a real-time PhotoShop. No more waiting to preview and apply filters. CoreImage is non-destructive so you won't have to worry about saving multiple instances of the same file on your hard drive.

Sadly I doubt Adobe would use this technology since it would give the Mac version an unfair advantage over the Windows version. The only way we'll see it is if Microsoft has something similar in the works for Longhorn. Even then we'll have to wait 'til Longhorn "catches up" to OS X.

One thing positive though is I'm now less worried if Adobe ever decides to drop Mac support for PhotoShop. With coreImage I have no doubt that Apple could develop a PhotoShop killer if it had to.

This is the issue though. Does the Adobe of today really give much thought to the Mac platform as we would like, especially when it comes to new OS specific technology like CoreImage? Not sure to be honest. It seems they'd keep the codebase as close to Windows as possible, their bigger seller. It is a pity that they wouldn't take advantage of this, but it's all about marketshare, their sales. Photoshop on Mac being the dominant version has been eroding for years now, and I guess it wouldn't make busniess sense to specifically target OS X features to a large degree that wouldn't be mirrored by the amount of sales.

As to Longhorn, it pretty much has a lot of what Tiger has shown so far, and more. The adaptive OS graphical interface dependant on your GFX card is something that Longhorn has had for a while. People really bitched about this, that certain interface features wouldn't be there unless one has a feature capable graphics card. Now Apple are doing it, but that is cool though, means we no longer have to completely cater to the lowest common denominator.

[a holck]

Don't know if you read this on the homepage of the PixelShox programmer:

I'm a French currently living in the Silicon Valley area and working for a well-known company (for some reasons, the company name must remain undisclosed until the project I'm working on is officially announced).

I that the fruit company?

[moki]

Originally posted by hmurchison2001:
Good find Eug. Either this guy is working on Motion or Apple plans to incorporate Pixelshox in a new and unique way.

It's just become Quartz Composer -- frontend to CoreImage and such.