Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Software - Troubleshooting and Discussion > macOS > Core Image

Core Image (Page 2)
Thread Tools
macaddict0001
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Edmonton, AB
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2004, 11:01 PM
 
I think it will be cool but abandoned technology.

not to be pessimistic oor anything.
     
I'mDaMac
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Southern CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2004, 11:17 PM
 
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.
Who'sDaMac?
     
PuzzleOfLife
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Feb 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2004, 11:29 PM
 
Originally posted by macaddict0001:
I think it will be cool but abandoned technology.

not to be pessimistic oor anything.
I think the screen saver community is going to have a field day.

And think of these effects for use in Keynote 2.0! That's going to be some kick ass transitions! Droplet in effect!
Now with G5 Power...
     
Tyre MacAdmin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2004, 11:31 PM
 
Originally posted by kcmac:
I just watched the stream and Core Image/Video is unbelievable. Being able to use the filters/effects in the same way as bringing out a font table in a Cocoa app is very nice.

I don't know how but it would seem at first glance that Photoshop could take advantage of this whole thing as well putting them on a whole new level on the mac.
Do you have a url for that video you watched?
     
Synotic
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2004, 11:48 PM
 
Originally posted by macaddict0001:
I think it will be cool but abandoned technology.

not to be pessimistic oor anything.
Not to be optimistic or anything, but I think that's completely ridiculous Already we have people like OmniGroup examining the technology. I've already read that iPhoto is/has been worked on to utilize CoreImage. GraphicConverter will undoubtedly use it. Keynote will. Steve mentioned Motion uses Core Image/Video as its backbone. I can see Stone Design's apps benefitting quite a bit from these libraries. Not to mention the hundreds of smaller third party apps that will utilize it. Is there any reason you think it'll be "abandoned technology"?

Originally posted by Tyler McAdams:
Do you have a url for that video you watched?
http://stream.apple.akadns.net/
     
ginoledesma
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2004, 12:26 AM
 
If Adobe won't do it, many others will. I also believe that this will find its way into GraphicConverter, which as it is is already an excellent basic photo editing app. It doesn't have all the filters that Photoshop does, but maybe with the advent of CoreImage, that'll make it easier for developers to come up with one.

Another nice thing with CoreImage is that, since it's system-wide, it's uniform. Thinking about it really, this brings back memories of OpenDoc -- reusable components. You can have the same CI-"components" in KeyNote, iPhoto, GraphicConverter, and other apps. You don't have to go to a specific app to do basic effects anymore.

As Millenium said, it could be a double-edged sword for cross-platform apps, but that's what we'll have to deal with anyway with MS's next-generation windowing system.
     
smeger
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Tempe, AZ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2004, 03:33 AM
 
I'm really excited about CoreImage. I just spent about a month writing a low-level image compositing library which will basically be obsoleted by CoreImage, and I totally and completely don't mind because CoreImage rocks so hard over what I'd written.

I predict that uses for CI will be showing up all over the place once Tiger is released. From a developer standpoint, this is just huge.
Geekspiff - generating spiffdiddlee software since before you began paying attention.
     
Gee4orce
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Staffs, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2004, 03:35 AM
 
Originally posted by Horsepoo!!!:
But Adobe will never add this to Photoshop...just like MS never integrated Office with Address Book and OS X's built-in font management system.

From what I've seen in the WWDC stream, this filter plugin system is unbelievably powerful and fast. Adobe should be scared right now...really scared. If any developer can add this image filter capability to their apps, anyone with a few months of free time could potentially develop a Photoshop-killer.

But please, Adobe, prove me wrong.
I really think Apple will be working on it's own Photoshop killer. I mean, they did it with Final Cut Pro and Motion (and Garageband, kinda). Now, that's not to say that we'll ever see it - it could just be a contingency plan if Abode fail to get on board.

At the very least, I expect to see these technologies in iPhoto 5.

But check this - Tiger is ~12 months away. The demo app that phil used was written in 1 man week my Apple. It doesn't take a genius to work out what even a semi-competent coding shop, never mind the likes of OmniGroup, could produce with CoreImage by the time Tiger ships.

In 12 months time I think there is a very realistic possibility that Tiger could come to market with a serious Photoshop contender - from Apple or a 3rd party. It would be a hard market to crack, but not impossible - look at the reception that Final Cut has received.

Anyone see the demo of the satellite app that the guy wrote on his own in 3 months ? Impressive stuff.


How do I get a job as a Mac developer ?
     
JKT
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2004, 07:41 AM
 
Originally posted by macaddict0001:
I think it will be cool but abandoned technology.

not to be pessimistic oor anything.
From the apps in my Dock, fifteen of them could immediately benefit from this tech:

1. Grab
2. Graphic Converter
3. iChat
4. iDVD
5. iMovie
6. iPhoto
7. Mail
8. NeoOffice/J (or any other office app, such as MS Office)
9. OmniOutliner
10. OmniGraffle
11. Preview
12. Quicktime
13. Stickies
14. TextEdit
15. ImageWell

It isn't just images that this could effect, it is text also.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2004, 08:11 AM
 
Originally posted by smeger:
I predict that uses for CI will be showing up all over the place once Tiger is released. From a developer standpoint, this is just huge.
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.

(Okay, yes, that's hyperbole. But it's still a good point -- developers who are concerned about compatibility may be reluctant to adopt these technologies.)
( Last edited by Chuckit; Jun 30, 2004 at 08:34 AM. )
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Synotic
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2004, 09:11 AM
 
Originally posted by Gee4orce:
I really think Apple will be working on it's own Photoshop killer. I mean, they did it with Final Cut Pro and Motion (and Garageband, kinda). Now, that's not to say that we'll ever see it - it could just be a contingency plan if Abode fail to get on board.

At the very least, I expect to see these technologies in iPhoto 5.

But check this - Tiger is ~12 months away. The demo app that phil used was written in 1 man week my Apple. It doesn't take a genius to work out what even a semi-competent coding shop, never mind the likes of OmniGroup, could produce with CoreImage by the time Tiger ships.

In 12 months time I think there is a very realistic possibility that Tiger could come to market with a serious Photoshop contender - from Apple or a 3rd party. It would be a hard market to crack, but not impossible - look at the reception that Final Cut has received.
I already mentioned this in another thread, but I completely disagree. The filters are a miniscule aspect of Photshop. With the exception of some of the blurs and sharpening effects, most of them could be gone and it wouldn't effect my workflow. I think it's the same for quite a lot of people too. To say that someone (even a large group) can just write Photoshop in just a year. I even think that 2 to 3 years is much too short for anyone to come up with anything comparable. If I'm not mistaken, we've already had most of these filters available, just not at this speed and as accessible. If it were this easy to create a layer system, channels, a pen tool, a brush library/system, compatibility with PSD (which would entail supporting any feature Photoshop has) then we would see a "Photoshop killer" right now. Filters like gaussian blur and a few others would already be there as this would be a rather amazing group to do what Adobe's done in what over 10 years in 1 year.

Apple on the other hand, I think does have the resources and capabilities to do it, but they still need at least 2 or 3 years to create something even comparable. And I'm sure they're working on something that we don't know about. Not that it will necessarily be released any time soon or at all.
     
Gee4orce
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Staffs, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2004, 10:31 AM
 
That's OK, but I disagree with your disagreement A lot of what you mention is available already in Quartz - layers and compositing, etc, etc. Actually, the big thing that I think photoshop has that would be hard to code is the selection and masking tools. Layers and layer affects are pretty much covered between Quartz and Core Image, from what I can tell.

I'm sure Photoshop obeys the 90/10 rule just like any other software - ie. 90% of the users only use 10% of the functionality.

Video is a much more complex media to work with than graphics, yet look what Apple produced with Final Cut. OF course, we don't know how long they were working on it, but I'd be surprised if it was longer than 2 years tops. I've had the feeling they've had a photoshop-alike in the works for at least the past year, and they've got another 12 months before tiger. I think Core Image is just Apple showing a few of their cards, muchlike they did with Core Audio before releasing Garageband.

Whatever happens, I think the winners in this situation are us Mac users. The worst possible outcome would be nothing - if Adobe did nothing and neither did Apple for fear of pissing off Adobe.

I'd love to see what Apple could do with an image editing program. People speak of Photoshop as if it's the holy shrine of graphics apps - it aint. I think Apple could do things that make P'shop look very ordinary.

I did read that the Tiger preview has a Core Image enabled version of iPhoto - I'd like to hear more...
     
tooki
Admin Emeritus
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2004, 02:06 PM
 
Well, I do hope it doesn't become another QuickDraw GX -- anyone remember that? QDGX offered a lot of the functionality provided by Quartz 2D, like wide typographical support, translucency, etc. But it didn't catch on, because nobody wanted to write an app that was so intimately tied to Apple-proprietary technology.

This is still visible today: how many cross-platform apps take advantage of Apple's advanced text and graphics services? I can tell you: none. They write their own routines that can be replicated on any platform.

Maybe Apple will do like they're doing with Rendezvous and release Core Image technology for Windows. I doubt it, but you never know.

tooki
     
RooneyX
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2004, 02:39 PM
 
Originally posted by Gee4orce:

Video is a much more complex media to work with than graphics, yet look what Apple produced with Final Cut. OF course, we don't know how long they were working on it, but I'd be surprised if it was longer than 2 years tops.
It was purchased from Macromedia. Final Cut 1.0 was a Windows only product that was bought by Apple prior to release. We know the rest. They changed the interface, then added color correction, then added G4 support, then real time, then HD and G5 support.
     
hmurchison2001
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Seattle
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2004, 02:55 PM
 
Originally posted by tooki:
Well, I do hope it doesn't become another QuickDraw GX -- anyone remember that? QDGX offered a lot of the functionality provided by Quartz 2D, like wide typographical support, translucency, etc. But it didn't catch on, because nobody wanted to write an app that was so intimately tied to Apple-proprietary technology.

This is still visible today: how many cross-platform apps take advantage of Apple's advanced text and graphics services? I can tell you: none. They write their own routines that can be replicated on any platform.

Maybe Apple will do like they're doing with Rendezvous and release Core Image technology for Windows. I doubt it, but you never know.

tooki
Tooki that's just it. Apple has a "Cold War" going on right now against cross platform apps. They know the developers want to deploy on windows. Cross plafrom apps are the bane of Apple's growth. They need Mac only apps that draw consumers. This is why you won't see any Apple Pro apps go to Windows. So, what Apple does is takes functionality that apps need and buries it deep into the core of OSX enticing developers to eschew keeping a cross platform codebase in lieu of moving to easier but Apple centric APIs.

What we are likely to see is larger companies supporting Core Image reluctantly and probably not as well as we'd like. Smaller companies will wow us with their excellent implementations. The question is..will that be enough for these small companies to grab marketshare? Time will tell.

Core Image won't be possible on Windows until Longhorn ships.
     
itai195
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Cupertino, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2004, 02:58 PM
 
Originally posted by lookmark:
It's probably not enough notice for Adobe to integrate CoreImage features, or plug-ins, into the next version of the CS suite (say mid 2005), whose development is already well under way.
I don't think that's really an excuse. I'm 99% certain that Adobe is privy to Apple's OS roadmap, at least something as monumental as CI/CV.
     
barbarian
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2004, 03:12 PM
 
re adobe my guess is that if the core image functions are noticeably faster they will either use them or get faster themselves. Either way, we win.
     
macaddict0001
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Edmonton, AB
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2004, 03:28 PM
 
Originally posted by Gee4orce:
I really think Apple will be working on it's own Photoshop killer. I mean, they did it with Final Cut Pro and Motion (and Garageband, kinda). Now, that's not to say that we'll ever see it - it could just be a contingency plan if Abode fail to get on board.

At the very least, I expect to see these technologies in iPhoto 5.

But check this - Tiger is ~12 months away. The demo app that phil used was written in 1 man week my Apple. It doesn't take a genius to work out what even a semi-competent coding shop, never mind the likes of OmniGroup, could produce with CoreImage by the time Tiger ships.

In 12 months time I think there is a very realistic possibility that Tiger could come to market with a serious Photoshop contender - from Apple or a 3rd party. It would be a hard market to crack, but not impossible - look at the reception that Final Cut has received.

Anyone see the demo of the satellite app that the guy wrote on his own in 3 months ? Impressive stuff.


How do I get a job as a Mac developer ?
to get a job as a mac developer you just write mac software.
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2004, 03:40 PM
 
Originally posted by tooki:
Well, I do hope it doesn't become another QuickDraw GX -- anyone remember that? QDGX offered a lot of the functionality provided by Quartz 2D, like wide typographical support, translucency, etc. But it didn't catch on, because nobody wanted to write an app that was so intimately tied to Apple-proprietary technology.
Yep. QDGX was one of the best technologies Apple ever brought forward, and it sank like a stone.

If CoreImage is easier to program for (and well-documented, a problem which plagued QDGX and OpenDoc both), then I doubt it will completely die out; too many non-commercial developers will adopt it. But CoreImage won't win any Switchers, because no cross-platform app will ever adopt it.
Maybe Apple will do like they're doing with Rendezvous and release Core Image technology for Windows. I doubt it, but you never know.
Apple didn't release Rendezvous for Windows, though. They released a source package, but this has not been picked up by other OS vendors. There is a Zeroconf package for Windows, but Apple did not develop it.

[EDIT: Well I'll be damned; looks like Apple released a Rendezvous SDK for Windows yesterday.]

What Apple should do is exactly what they're doing for older machines: release a Windows version, but use an emulator for the hardware stuff (i.e. no true hardware acceleration). To get the hardware acceleration you have to Switch, but you can get the benefits of the technology regardless; they'll just be somewhat slower.
( Last edited by Millennium; Jun 30, 2004 at 04:00 PM. )
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
macaddict0001
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Edmonton, AB
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2004, 03:55 PM
 
I agree with millenium as I posted earlier. only about half of apples graphics stuff catches on quicktime was the best.
     
scottiB
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Near Antietam Creek
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2004, 07:51 PM
 
Originally posted by pcd2k:
One feature that SGI had which has as yet not shown up in our contemporary systems is the magnifier slider for windows. This made it possible to automatically with the assistance of the mouse slide a slider on the edge of the window frame to either magnify or reduce the visual field of the window, thus making an open window as small as a file icon or as large as the entire screen...
Agreed. I've been hoping for the magnifier wheel since the advent of QE. Just a simple and handy feature. (Think of the magnification of a library or album in iPhoto, but with the ability to do that in a finder window)
     
Catfish_Man
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2004, 08:29 PM
 
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.
     
Horsepoo!!!
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2004, 09:01 PM
 
CI and CV will catch on. Back in the OS 9 days, developers were really reserved...and the OS was just becoming kludgy and the APIs were a mess.

OS X changed all that and you notice a whole bunch of people integrating what Apple is offering at the core of the OS now. People are using the Address Book database, people are using Rendezvous, people are using iChat, people are using CoreAudio...people are using all of this stuff because they're easier than ever to code.

As far as games using this technology, I can't wait to see what Pangea's Brian Greenstone will come up with this. I think it's safe to say PC games won't make use of this so we won't be seeing ports using this spectacular tech but Pangea might come up with something...and Ambrosia might come up with something.

While these effects can be combined with OpenGL, I think this could spark a new interest in 2D gaming. When Voodoo cards started showing up, people started going nuts of creating 3D games and remaking old 2D games in 3D. But I think it's possible now to get high def 2D games with really cool graphics effects.

I'm trying to convince Richard Bannister into eventually adding CI/CV into his emulator shell so that we get all these filters to apply onto video games. I also wonder if it's possible to rewrite the Super2XSaI and HQ filters as ImageUnits so that the blitter calculations are passed to the GPU, allowing the CPU to focus entirely on emulating a system.
     
Superchicken
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Winnipeg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2004, 10:12 PM
 
I don't think Jobs would have said "I'd really like to see Adobe put this in Photoshop" if he wasn't pretty sure (IE more sure than 3Ghz) that Adobe would do it... otherwise it makes them look like twits... then again perhaps Apple wants to embarrass Adobe into doing it... not a good move for a company that is trying to gain market share. I don't think Adobe is a company I would like to piss off.

Of course it COULD be that this is kinda a wake up call to Adobe to say, hey either start doing great things on our platform or we'll make it so you can be replaced.

That said, I DOUBT Apple would do this. This is Adobe we're talking about, even if they could make a Photoshop killer, can they make a Ilustrator killer? How bout an InDesign or Quark Killer? If Adobe decides to drop their support of the Mac over a few years, Apple is far more screwed than Adobe is. I think both companies realize they need to get along and play like big boys and girls in the sand box. I imagine CI will be in the next version of Photoshop, if not in a point update of CS. After all they did add G5 support via a plug in right away.

That said, I think it would be super smart of Adobe to make a good chunk of the Mac version of Photoshop into image units. Think about it, you can buy Photoshop, and then use Photoshop specific functions in Ilustrator, and InDesign and Adobe barely has to code new things! Or even you buy Photoshop and you have the ability to use it's filters in Fireworks, and vice versa. You're still buying the product so it can't be bad for Adobe. Well unless you bought it but instead just upgraded your other tittles... but I doubt that'd happen... often

I for one think that despite all the crap with FCP Adobe is not gona ditch the Mac any time soon. But if they did... I imagine Apple has just shown it's cards and made it clear they could just as easily do the same thing as they did with Final Cut Pro.
     
osxisfun
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Internets
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 30, 2004, 10:17 PM
 
didn't he say in the keynote that it would take minimal effort into add coreImage calls?

Yes. I know probably marketing bull puckey but if its somewhere in between i could see adobe using it.
     
Gee4orce
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Staffs, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2004, 03:43 AM
 
Superchicken - that's pretty much exaclty my point of view too.

As for cross platform apps, name 1 that isn't a total load of sh*t. Yeah, even Photoshop has got creeping Windows-itis. If there is a Mac only application for a particular task 99% of the time you can bet that it works better, integrates better into your workflow and is more Mac-like than the cross-platform (read 'windows ports') offerings.

Gah ! I understand the reasons, but I wish that we (the world in general) could get rid of this ball and chain that is Windows that's holding us back from what is truly possible with todays tech.
     
:haripu:
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jun 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2004, 01:35 PM
 
Originally posted by Synotic:
I already mentioned this in another thread, but I completely disagree. The filters are a miniscule aspect of Photshop. With the exception of some of the blurs and sharpening effects, most of them could be gone and it wouldn't effect my workflow.
Glad to hear some reasonable arguments in this discussion. As a graphic professional myself I have to tell everyone: Photoshop filters may look like the big thing when you first learn the program, but for a designer the big part of them are useless as the provided effects can be done better by a capable graphic artist.

It is the range of tools and the enormous possibilities of combination that matters.
     
Superchicken
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Winnipeg
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2004, 01:50 PM
 
Do you not think core image could be used with tools? I imagine Apple could even make the pencil tool be a non destructive element (although I question how worth while it would be) a lot of the features in Photoshop that are awesome I don't think would be that hard to copy, more than likely they simply only took time to come up with because nobody thought about them.

That said, I am curious to see how sued Apple could get by Adobe if they jumped into making a Photoshop killer, I imagine Adobe has pattents up the ying yang.
But like I said, Keynote is not a PP killer it's a Power Point substitute, FCP was I doubt supposed to be a premier killer, it just ended up doing so in the course of it's growth.
Apple has little desire to run developers off the platform.

That said, I think it might be smart for Adobe, and Macromedia to both start developing windows and Mac versions of their apps apart from one another but keep the same features. Make the interfaces work with each platform correctly.

Or better yet, Adobe and Apple jointly releases, PHOTOSHOP PRO, Mac only
     
macaddict0001
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Edmonton, AB
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2004, 02:15 PM
 
Originally posted by scottiB:
Agreed. I've been hoping for the magnifier wheel since the advent of QE. Just a simple and handy feature. (Think of the magnification of a library or album in iPhoto, but with the ability to do that in a finder window)
on panther you can use universal access to zoom with command option plus and minus. pretty close.
     
macaddict0001
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Edmonton, AB
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2004, 02:21 PM
 
Originally posted by Gee4orce:
Superchicken - that's pretty much exaclty my point of view too.

As for cross platform apps, name 1 that isn't a total load of sh*t. Yeah, even Photoshop has got creeping Windows-itis. If there is a Mac only application for a particular task 99% of the time you can bet that it works better, integrates better into your workflow and is more Mac-like than the cross-platform (read 'windows ports') offerings.

Gah ! I understand the reasons, but I wish that we (the world in general) could get rid of this ball and chain that is Windows that's holding us back from what is truly possible with todays tech.
actually i hope apple doesn't gain market share.

think of it all the viruses for windows on the mac.
     
:haripu:
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jun 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2004, 02:21 PM
 
@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
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2004, 02:40 PM
 
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
Admin Emeritus
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2004, 02:54 PM
 
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
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Seattle
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2004, 03:07 PM
 
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
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2004, 03:49 PM
 
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
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2004, 03:55 PM
 
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
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2004, 04:05 PM
 
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.
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die." -- Hunter S. Thompson
     
hmurchison2001
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Seattle
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2004, 04:15 PM
 
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
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2004, 04:37 PM
 
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
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Seattle
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2004, 04:51 PM
 
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
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2004, 05:10 PM
 
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?
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
thunderous_funker
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Beautiful Downtown Portland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2004, 05:33 PM
 
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.
"There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare to die." -- Hunter S. Thompson
     
JLL
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2004, 05:33 PM
 
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.
JLL

- My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2004, 06:16 PM
 
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.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Graymalkin
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: ~/
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2004, 07:14 PM
 
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
Forum Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2004, 08:15 PM
 
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
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2004, 09:15 PM
 
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
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Seattle
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2004, 09:29 PM
 
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
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2004, 10:02 PM
 
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.
-Toyin
13" MBA 1.8ghz i7
"It's all about the rims that ya got, and the rims that ya coulda had"
S.T. 1995
     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2004, 10:39 PM
 
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:53 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,