Slashdot Mirror


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."

5 of 246 comments (clear)

  1. Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make by nine-times · · Score: 4, Informative

    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)

  2. Re:GPU? *cough* by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  3. Too Expensive - Especially 'abroad' by Animaether · · Score: 4, Informative

    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 - 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

  4. Re:It's too bad that you need a $2300 mac to make by Nimey · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
  5. Re:they use glossy screens and apple does not let by tyrione · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.