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."

Comments

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

[Loibisch]

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:GPU? *cough*

[91degrees]

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.

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

[nine-times]

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.

Next step:

[F-3582]

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 BILLBOARDS

[Nom du Keyboard]

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

[billcopc]

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

[Hurricane78]

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

[afabbro]

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

[Bryansix]

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

[rgo]

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. :)