Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Photoshop CS5's Showpiece — Content-Aware Fill

Posted by timothy on from the it's-like-stalin-was-never-there dept.

Barence writes "If you're looking for reasons to upgrade to Photoshop CS5 when it arrives, a new demo video might just persuade you. Narrated by Bryan O'Neil-Hughes, a product manager on the Photoshop team, the video shows the new content-aware fill tool, which has the potential to revolutionise the way you clean up photos. If you're not happy with an item in your picture, select it, delete it, and Photoshop will analyse the surrounding area and plug the gap as if it never existed."

14 of 378 comments (clear)

  1. Re:STOP! by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wouldn't call this an ad. This is legitimately really fucking cool.

    --
    "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
  2. Early preorders are already in from by sir_eccles · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Fox News and the Texas board of Education.

    1. Re:Early preorders are already in from by gknoy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Video is just a series of still pictures, that need to be interrelated. I'm certain that this could be applied to video, with enough processing power. If they can look at pixels that are neighboring in one frame, they can do it for pixels that are neighboring in time, too.

  3. Re:I'm convinced! by thewils · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It entered the land of exclusive pro tool years ago.

    It entered the land of bittorrent download and piracy years ago.

    There, fixed it for you.

    --
    Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
  4. For the doubters... by Op911 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wasn't this core technology discussed on Slashdot a number of years back? If you google "Seam Carving" you'll find some nice wikipedia articles that discuss content-aware image resizing. This may be a variant on the same technology, and i actually doubt that this is an early release of an April Fool's Day joke (no matter how Star Trek this technology seems).

  5. I'll believe it when by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I see a 12 megapixel image in hand of a before and after and not a tiny less than 400 pixel overcompressed youtube video.

    I have seen this automatic stuff before and when you look carefully at it it's not very clean unless you re-sample down to 1/4 the resolution or go small for web use.. it's never clean enough to print out at 11X17 or larger.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:I'll believe it when by l0xin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sure it might not turn out to be *perfect* on closer inspection, but given that it looks so convincing at a preview size still means orders of magnitude less effort required to get it to that stage.

    2. Re:I'll believe it when by Gaerek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you've ever used photoshop, you would understand what it takes just to get to that part. Ever try removing a tree from an image in PS? Then have the sky look natural? That's almost impossible for the average user, and probably at least an hour (or more) of work from someone who knows what they are doing. Fixing the mistakes at that point is easy. This is could possibly be one of the most revolutionary tools in photoshop since the clone stamp.

  6. Re:I'm convinced! by couchslug · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "It entered the land of bittorrent download and piracy years ago."

    Terrific viral marketing. No one who downloads it would have bought it with own funds, but many will do so with company money. Adobe allowing "controlled leakage" is the best free marketing campaign since Office 97 went from workplace "to the house" and back again.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  7. Re:One damn tool - pay for 200 unnecessary ones by ExileOnHoth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    noone wants to shell out $60 for 200 functions 20 of which they will use from time to time.

    Personally, I'll shell out. I make a living using photoshop and I support the idea that a bunch of extremely talented software engineers ought to be able to make a living developing it.

  8. Re:I for one by JobyOne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, and cars have already had the native ability to drive, turn and stop for a century. The DARPA Grand Challenge isn't really adding anything new.

    Those robotic cars are basically just intelligent automated versions of cars, on steroids.

    Just because it happens in software does not make it trivial.

    --
    Porquoi?
  9. One word: wow! by bradley13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just "wow". Everyone who has spent tedious hours "fixing" some piece of "almost" perfect photography just fell off of their chairs.

    I haven't bothered upgrading anything but InDesign in recent years - the old Photoshop (or even GIMP) was good enough. This is a reason to upgrade!

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
  10. Re:I'm convinced! by lwsimon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Indeed. Adobe doesn't make their money on hobbyists. They don't even really make their money on small shops. They make their money on mega corporations who buy a dozen licenses because they need to crop photos, and their employees all know how to do that in Photoshop, because they've pirated every version since 5.5.

    --
    Learn about Photography Basics.
  11. Re:The Difference Between an Ad and "Holy Crap!!" by gnud · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Implication: To get a job as a graphic designer you'll have to be a designer, not just have a photoshop tutorial under your belt.