Adobe Adds GPU Acceleration To Creative Suite 4

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."

It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make use

It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac pro to make use of it as the mini has a very weak video card and the imac screens are not good for photo work.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make

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

True. But if you want to buy the full version of Creative Suite that includes Premier and everything, you're paying $2500. If you pay that much for software, you're probably not going to be running it on a $1100 PC, you're going to spend more (still could be a PC).

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make

But if you want to buy the full version of Creative Suite that includes Premier and everything, you're paying $2500.

Since when does anyone *buy* Adobe Creative Suite?

I'm joking, of course. Sort of.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make

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

And you got modded Insightful.

That's the funniest part.

Because it's so true.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make

Nobody pays retail! You go down to your local community college and register for a class which will cost you like $90 and then you save almost 50% off the retail price of Creative Suite.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make

It's only expensive if you buy it from Apple.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make

This is entirely the fault of Apple. Apple was touting Carbon as a viable solution until last year. Moving a huge app like PPro or Photoshop to Cocoa will take a lot of time. If Apple hadn't told everybody that Carbon was a viable platform for 64 bits Adobe would have started switching a long time ago.

Obviously Apple encouraged everybody to go Cocoa, but for Adobe and most other large apps that would have been an absurd choice. If Carbon was viable, why would they port to Cocoa at the expense of fixing application bugs and adding real features? Moving from Carbon to Cocoa would not give Adobe any new features but the cost would be significant. Staying with Carbon was the only sane solution no matter what the zealots claim.

Apple screwed everybody on that one. Not an unusual move for Apple really...

Now, many Apple fan-boys and dummies will state that Adobe should have moved a long time ago. It was the way of the future (despite Apple stating Carbon was too). Every sensible company should move to Cocoa according to these zealots. Problem is, not even Apple has done that. Final Cut Pro is a Carbon app and will need a significant re-write if it wants to go 64 bit. Perhaps the FCP team also believed Steve when he BS'ed about Carbon also being the future.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make

Apple never said Carbon was the future. Carbon was always a compatibility fudge so that it was easier for OS9 apps to run on OSX, and to make porting apps to the new OS easier. Cocoa was always the way forward, it's just that Adobe never bothered to switch.

I'm not a Mac fanboy, I just use one at work.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make

Maybe Apple will bring back the CUBE. Heck just take the mini and put an PCI-E slot on it so you can a better video card on it.
Would help gamers and other that don't want (to pay for) a Pro.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make

The higher end iMacs, the Mac Pros, and the MacBook Pros all have real graphic cards.

In fact, at this point, the low end iMacs may have real graphics cards (not those Intel chips).

That said, it's being used for things like zooming around the image smoothly and color correction. Even the little Intel chips should be able to handle that with pretty big images without problems. The higher end things the GPUs can be used for (I hear some of the new 3D features) would probably need a better GPU.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make

The higher end iMacs, the Mac Pros, and the MacBook Pros all have real graphic cards.

But do they have real SCREENS?

I mean a proper 8-bit color space, instead of 6-bit dithering? I mean the ability choose matt vs glossy.

Obviously the Mac Pro lets you attach whatever you want to it, but the imacs and macbook pros stick you with the choice of exactly the one LCD screen apple chooses. (although the mbp used to let you choose between matte and glossy; i don't know if it still does; but that's just the finish not the technology.)

As far as i know, all Apple laptops use 6-bit TN screens. And there is a fair bit of information out there that iMacs have switched to 6-bit TN screens too, at least for 20" models. The 24" model is apparently an 8-bit S-IPS... but its not like apple makes this info readily available and the specs are subject to change, so you've got to pay constant attention.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make

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

The sort of glossy high-saturation screens used for iMacs looks great to a lot of users, but isn't good for professional-level color matching. Some people refuse to use LCDs at all because the black point isn't true enough.

Basic idea here is that the sort of screen you want when choosing colors for print ads isn't the same as the screen you want for general consumer use. It's kind of like how the sort of speakers you want in a professional studio aren't the same as what you want for your home stereo. (whether that analogy makes things clearer or more obscure, I don't know)

Re:they use glossy screens and apple does not let

they use glossy screens and apple does not let you pick if you want one or not like they do with the mac pro.

Screen finish has nothing to do with the screen panel.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make

In fairness, the problem isn't really that the Mac Pros are overly-expensive for the hardware. I mean, we could quibble about whether they're well-priced for what you get, but at least they're in the right neighborhood.

The problem here is that Apple doesn't offer a normal mid-range machine. There's the Mac mini, which isn't very powerful and isn't expandable, and then you have the Mac Pro, which is a serious professional level workstation. The only thing in between is their all-in-one machine, which isn't suitable for everyone (including serious professional designers).

I'm not sure why Apple has gone so long without selling a middle-of-the-road headless tower in the $1k-$2k range. I think it would help them get more enterprise penetration.

Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make

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

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.

Yeah but...

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.

Too Expensive - Especially 'abroad'

Of course it's too expensive - it's what people will pay for it, and it's what people will pay for it because it's the defacto standard and they have no proper choice.

Yes, yes, I know.. you can use The Gimp! Or Paint Shop Pro! And while many home users most certainly could - no, they do not give a rats' ass about CMYK separation - they also hear that it is -the- choice among professionals.. and will thus go for it anyway. And professionals don't really need Photoshop most of the time either. What CG shop uses CMYK? What web developer uses the Panorama stitching function? Come on, give me a few anecdotal cases, and I'll show you thousands that make drop-shadows for buttons.
Until something or somebody can break through that defacto standard stuff, Photoshop (as buggy, archaic, and overpriced as it is) will remain the #1 choice... and will remain as expensive as it is.

In fact, things got more expensive... Compared to April 2008 for the same CS3 products ('same' in name, not in featureset, I suppose).
CS4 Design Standard: $1399 vs $1199
CS4 Web Premium: $1699 vs $1599
Contribute CS4: $199 vs $169
Photoshop CS4: $699 vs $649

But if you think that's bad, be glad you - at least, if you're in North America/United States - don't have to pay the "You love us so much, we'll let you to pay extra!"-charge. This is for the NL store as of September 22, exchange rate USD / EUR: 0.677620 (xe.net, indicative only), all prices excluding VAT (BTW) sourced from Adobe online store, all prices calculated back to dollars.
PRODUCT / USD US / USD NL
CS4 Design Standard / $1399 / $1873
CS4 Design Premium / $1799 / $2950
CS4 Web Standard / $999 / $1474
CS4 Web Premium / $1699 / $2507
CS4 Production Premium / $1699 / $2802
CS4 Master Collection / $2499 / $4131
After Effects CS4 / $999 / $1622
Contribute CS4 / $199 / $294
DreamWeaver CS4 / $399 / $663
Fireworks CS4 / $299 / $441
Flash CS4 / $699 / $1032
Illustrator CS4 / $599 / $958
InCopy CS4 / $249 / $367
InDesign CS4 / $699 / $1105
Photoshop CS4 / $699 / $1017
Photoshop CS4 Extended / $999 / $1578
Premiere Pro CS4 / $799 / $1253
Soundbooth CS4 / $199 / $294

On average, that's a price increase that seems to have no good reason* of 53.76% on average, with DreamWeaver CS4 taking the crown at 66% and CS4 Design Standard as the least increase at 34%.

* I should qualify the 'no good reason' bit, as otherwise there will be a slew of responses on why there's a price increase.. localization, local support, bla-dee-bla. Thankfully, I don't have to qualify it myself - another person made an excellent set of pages on this matter, and I suggest those who feel like posting such reasons first read them:
http://www.amanwithapencil.com/adobe.html [amanwithapencil.com] - Adobe is ripping off European (and other non-US) customers
It deals with the most common 'reasons' and debunks them. I'll add one - most of the products do not have native Dutch versions and those that do are hardly sold. It's slightly dated (being for the CS3 launch), but the same things still apply. It also gives one very true answer that the author dug up from an interview, and serves as the basis for my earlier "You love us so much" statement:

Burkett said that the second criterion Adobe uses to establish pricing is "market research that establishes the value customers place on the products"; in other words, what the market will bear.

"We do testing in each region and get feedback from customers," Burkett explained. "We have not found that the value fluctuates much over the years. The value associated with CS3 is incredible, and customers react to that. What I've been hearing from customers is that they see the value and appreciate it."

I don't have anything against Adobe, or their products**, but I most certainly do take issue with their pricing in the various markets. Oh, and I also take

Next step:

Adding proper hardware acceleration to Flash. Seriously, performance of Flash apps is horrible, especially video applications. Try playing a H.264 video in full screen on anything less than a Core 2 Duo... And then play the same video in VLC.

Re:One major speedup's done, how about the other?

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:One major speedup's done, how about BILLBOARDS

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.

Actually this is a common misconception that large display sizes require large images. Get up close to a billboard (which is designed to be viewed from a minimum of 30 to 50 feet away, and usually much further) and you'll find that instead of pixels per inch, that it is measured in inches per pixel, and some pixels are the size of your fist. You don't need 64-bit addressing to make very attractive billboards, or may other large outdoor signs.

Re:GPU? *cough*

Programmable fragment shaders are a little different from blitters.

Windows 3.1 could use hardware acceleration to move a rectangular section of video memory to another part of video memory.

A modern 3D card can apply a program in parallel to every pixel on screen, resize, rotate, and apply arbitrary filters with minimal CPU load.