Adobe Adds GPU Acceleration To Creative Suite 4 246
arcticstoat writes "GPU computing has just taken a major step into the world of mainstream software development, as Adobe has now released a GPU-accelerated version of its Creative Suite, comprising Photoshop, After Effects and Premiere Pro. Both Premiere Pro and After Effects only support GPU features on Nvidia's professional range of Quadro GPUs, but Photoshop CS4 allows GPU acceleration on any mainstream GPU that supports Shader Model 3.0 (such as Nvidia's GeForce 6200 series of GPUs). Built on OpenGL, Photoshop CS4's GPU features allow real-time rotation of images and accelerated zooming and panning. As well as this, Photoshop CS4 also uses the GPU for anti-aliasing on text and objects, and it can tap the GPU for brushstroke previews, HDR tone mapping and colour conversion."
Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize that for less than half that sum you can get a PC with an up-to-date graphics card that will also easily run the Adobe Suite?
Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah but... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think this is a cool innovation (and quite frankly overdue for graphics manipulation packages) but people don't seem to be too happy with the way Adobe has been handling bug fixes to CS3, which was already expensive enough. Now comes another $$$ upgrade.
There's an interesting list of popular gripes here [dearadobe.com], which mostly seem to center around "you didn't fix CS3 to begin with" and "it's too expensive".
I don't mind companies charge for software at all, and if you need Photoshop or any of the other apps then there's really no question about paying for them (need here == paying the bills). But CS4 seems to be just a bit too expensive for most people. I don't use Adobe apps, but I know many people in the publishing industry who do and tend to have a weird love-hate relationship with them.
Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:One major speedup's done, how about the other? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Quadro graphics board will give you a much faster speedup for most people than the 64 bit native photoshop would.
There's only a few fringe cases (people that do outdoor advertising images maybe that need to edit images larger than 4GB in uncompressed size) where the 64 bit processing is really needed.
Re:GPU? *cough* (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, consumers didn't have 2D/3D cards until the mid 90s. And even today, a lot of computers come with crappy integrated graphics that probably wouldn't help much. I think if it was as easy as putting "some hooks in their code to use some maths[sic] functions" then there would have been Photoshop competitors who used this advantage for market share. But that seems to not have been the case, at least not successfully.
Next step: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (Score:1, Insightful)
(Yes, I know I'm exaggerating, but seriously, it's expensive)
Re:Why is a shader model required? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that's just an extra feature they added because they were already using OpenGL though. The graphical effects are more important. Adding zooming and panning for older cards would require writing a completely new renderer to deal with it. And since you can get a shader model 3.0 compatible card for a fraction of the cost of Photoshop, it's safe to assume that anyone who feels they need this functionality will buy a new graphics card as well.
Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (Score:3, Insightful)
We had some Apple reps at our company last month, pitching their security stuff (File Vault). When they asked for questions, just about everyone said they wanted a mini-tower in the $1200-$1800 range with minimum 3 pci-e slots and graphic card options. We have a lot of engineers who don't need an 8 core machine with 16GB RAM (and a $3000+ price tag). If they do come out with such a beast, we'll be picking up a metric butt load of 'em.
Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:One major speedup's done, how about the other? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it's going to depend whether or not the user needs 64 bit for their work. The lack of 64 bit isn't going to be a hold-up for me if I decide to get it. It seems like the people that would benefit are those doing the gigapixel project.
I've heard that companies often buy every other release anyway, so missing CS4 isn't going to be a big deal, unless the CS4 version offers enough productivity enhancements to pay for the upgrade. That too depends on how the person uses the program.
Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (Score:3, Insightful)
Just about everyone who uses it professionally. In the great scheme of things, $2500 is not a large business expense. If you can't afford that, software costs are hardly your biggest business worry.
Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as i know, all Apple laptops use 6-bit TN screens.
The fun thing is Apple fanboys, when challenge, ignore/contest the quality reduction of using a 6-bit panel.
I'm not a Mac fan, and yet I'm kind of irritated by the cheap LCDs. The whole thing with Apple is they market their computers as high-end pretty multimedia workstations, to justify the high prices. If they're going to throw cheap-ass 6-bit panels in there, how can anyone take them seriously ?
There's not much in the way of "perceived value" when dealing with computers. You either have good hardware, or you don't. In an age where the difference between a cheap LCD and a very good one means a 20-25% premium, Apple's being absolutely moronic to go with the cheap stuff. At the OEM level it's maybe $50 more per unit, which is NEGLIGIBLE considering Apple's reputation is built on graphics.
Idiots, amazingly smug idiots.
Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet, my e-penis is much larger than yours. ;)
I have 7 buttons, a scroll ball and 2000 DPI at 1000 Hz on my mouse.
And I actually know how to put it to use.
The Mighty Mouse might look good... like 80s white-plastic-sci-fi.
But in every other aspect it is as bad of a joke as 6-bit-LCDs.
Ergonomics, precision, functionality... you name it...
Apple is not selling a product. It's selling a dream.
I'm sorry, but my fantasy exceeds that dream by far, and I'm not susceptible to professional lying like in religion, hypnosis, politics, marketing, etc.
Luckily for Apple, I'm a rather rare kind of person on this planet.
Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe some people just have a problem wasting money?
Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (Score:3, Insightful)
The 20" iMac has the cheaper LCD, the 24" is a higher quality panel. You still can't choose a matte screen though.
Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (Score:5, Insightful)
That's because Adobe's software works really well. Seriously. Yes, it's being raped, but it's the difference between raped by a professional dominatrix (Adobe) and a prison-yard gangbanger (Microsoft).
Well, there you have it. I've reduced the professional software market to a comparison between bondage and prison rape.
Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally I find the XPS one to be ugly
Hey! You're on Slashdot, not Engadget! We don't care if a computer is fugly or not if it can perform well. :)
Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (Score:3, Insightful)
You can get a better screen and a better graphics card. It's called MacBook Pro. You get what you pay for.
Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (Score:3, Insightful)
Damn and I just blew through 15 mod points the other day.
Though they haven't really improved Photoshop in like a decade. OK maybe slight exaggeration. And let me make no bones about it, I'm still really pissed Macromedia sold out to them. Life was much better with both Adobe & Macromedia in it.
Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make (Score:3, Insightful)