Live data from Hacker News

Live Picture: Software that was way ahead of its time

pixiq.com

41–50 of 60 posts

Re: Live Picture: Software that was way ahead of its time

#41
The photoshop competition was all on IRIX, and was a LOT better. Matador and Amazon were great applications, and better performers on 64bit MIPS hardware. Some got ported to Linux, but were then not maintained, or integrated into other codebases.

Old / dead image editors (with deep colour) better than Photoshop at the time:

* IFX Amazon

* Alias Eclipse

* Da Vinci or something? Not the Colour/DI suite.

* Deep Paint

* Avid Matador

* I actually used Combustion for years. You can keep your photo-pap!

Alive alternatives:

* Cinepaint (Yes it works fine)

* GIMP 2.9 or GIMP 2.10 when it is released

* Node based compositing apps i.e. Nuke.

Re: Live Picture: Software that was way ahead of its time

#42
post #18

Why does Photoshop need to be killed? Seems like a good, powerful piece of software loved by many.

Adobe must die. I set up a workflow for InDesign CS5.0 and everything worked. InDesign CS5.5 came out and they refused to sell me CS5.0. They introduced no new features, but the export as HTML option started producing random crashes. I spoke with their engineers and they said they would fix it in the next version. We still experience a random crash in 1/30 automated jobs - which requires us to redo a large portion by…

Still you're using it, because there is no alternative.

Since it's the best software for what it does, your idea that "Adobe must die" is based solely on a fantasy notion that whatever replaces it wont have bugs, and will be all unicorns and love.

Not to mention that the bugs you mention are mostly specific to your workflow (specific automated jobs et al), and don't mean that the most used software in the industry is problematic in general. I've never been biten by any bugs in other parts of 5.5 I use, like PS and Premiere, for example.

I also don't see why you were quick to jump to 5.5 since you "set up a workflow for InDesign CS5.0 and everything worked.".

Re: Live Picture: Software that was way ahead of its time

#43

The history of desktop applications is full of examples of clever or unique applications that never took off or failed to gain widespread adoption. Sometimes these applications had a superior interface to the dominant app (and sometimes not). It would be really useful to see a few side-by-side comparisons of how a task is accomplished in LivePicture compared with Photoshop. Although Photoshop is powerful and feature…

> The history of desktop applications is full of examples of clever or unique applications that never took off or failed to gain widespread adoption. Sometimes these applications had a superior interface to the dominant app (and sometimes not).

The scary thing is that some of these great features can never be used without fear of a huge legal attack over patents.

EDIT:

>Does the lack of serious competition against Photoshop keep Adobe from re-thinking the interface?

I don't think so. I think the enormous user base prevents them from changing the interface. That's probably a good thing, even if the interface is sub-optimal.

AutoCAD has a very powerful interface, with a mix of WIMP and typed commands, with some scripting.

In theory GIMP being open source means anyone can give it a new interface, but even though the interface is one of the biggest reasons many people give for not liking the GIMP there are few projects that have given it a saner interface.

Re: Live Picture: Software that was way ahead of its time

#44
post #40
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, unlimited everything, got it. /me wonders why he even tries to point out the folly to people with no clue about how computers work...

You are amazingly pedantic!

I write image processing software, I'm precise, there's a difference.

Re: Live Picture: Software that was way ahead of its time

#45
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you actually use the software in the article?

OK, it's getting silly. It's like asking "have you used the perpetual machine before knocking it?" or 'have you used the miracle cure?". You don't have to use anything. You just have to know how computers work. "Unlimited" in software can only mean: limited only by the computer's memory. Which is still a limit. And "instantaneous response" with large images? I beg to differ. Maybe for the kind of image sizes used at…

There are other limits you'll hit long before you'll hit the computers raw storage capabilities. CPU RAM access takes time, CPU Disk access takes ages compared. As your dataset grows you'll exhaust page caches, cpu caches, etc. and things start to slow down disproportional to access (twice more data is more than twice as slow). All modern computers have more RAM and Disk space than you can use simultaneously in a usable (human term) time frame.

Re: Live Picture: Software that was way ahead of its time

#46
post #8

1) Your site's burning, pitty most people won't see your article/images. 2) The claim to "unlimited everything" repeated numerously in the article as well as "instant" anything is just hyperbole. There's no such thing in software. It might've been cleverer than photoshop about things, but unlimited and instant? No. 3) The claim to complete resolution independence is false. You might store editing operations/layers as…

I dunno how this particular app worked but there is this thing called "deferred processing".

The thing to realize is that the max resolution I can ever see on screen is the resolution of that screen I am working on.

Even a retina MacBookPro has only 4 Mpixels on screen, at any time. Now lets say I am painting a mask on a 30 Mpixel medium format image with a brush of 500 pixel diameter. Lets say I am zoomed out, so the image is displayed filling the entire screen. This requires a zoom level of 13% for the retina example. That means I only have to paint with a brush of 67 pixels diameter on a 4 Mpixel image in realtime and record the stroke! Because the brush path is recorded, the brush is resolution independent. That is what the claim refers to, no to the source material.

When I zoom into such a 30 Mpixel image, to better see what I am doing, the area visible on screen remains 4 Mpixel. Many image editing apps (or most) completely ignore this.

What's more, while I am working, I do not have to use sub-pixel precision when blitting brushes onto the image )or doing whatever else) because this level of precision, in general, but specificially when editing, is almost always irrelevant at that high resolution.

Memory wise, too, I don't ever have to hold (many layers) of 30 Mpixel res in ram. When a user loads an image, I build a pyramid (a mip map) dump that to disk and load tiles into a cache, as I go.

This never changes. When I have finished my 6 hour editing session, I press 'render' and everything is carried out, at 30 MPixel res. and subpixel precision. This render may then take an hour, but I don't care, I can go to bed and deliver the result to the client the next day.

When I do this in Photoshop, everything is always done at full res, with full subpixel precision. Ok, since a few years PS, too, uses a pyramid (mip mapping) in RAM, but it is far from optimal.

That is the reason why Photoshop's speed always sucks (because as hardware specs increase, so does the res. and number of layer people use when editing images).

It always uses too much RAM and too much CPU because it carries out a shitload of stuff you can't ever see until the final image is used in print or you zoom in at 1:1 and pan the entire image. Two things that, together, almost never happen in image editing.

P.S.: the only acceptable minimal bitdepth for image editing is 16bits/component float (linear space). Anything else will compromise quality, one way or the other.

P.P.S.: I was the product manager for Eclipse after Alias/XYVision sold it to Form & Vision in 1998. AMA. :)

Re: Live Picture: Software that was way ahead of its time

#49
The probable reasons this app failed, and any app that competes with PS will (regardless of how well it tackles the resolution independence/feedback speed issue): are two things:

1. Workflow must match PS 1:1 for the majority of everyday image editing operations. People that use PS are mostly creative folks who do no understand image editing from a technical perspective. Solving a problem (a use case) to them means to internalize a workflow. Mastering a 'deep' app like PS this way takes years. If you write a competitor to PS and dont honor this experience that took your target users years, often over a decade to aquire, you're shooting yourself in the foot too hard to ever gain enough momentum on a market that is dominated by PS (resp. its users).

This is imho also the reason why Adobe hasn't touched basic workflow in PS, ever. Because if they did this, they risked alienating users and driving them to test a competitor's product. Recall when Apple 'improved' the UI/workflow of FinalCut Pro? The screams of outrage echoing through the web? :)

2. Feature set must be more or less identical to PS. You can 'plus' in some areas but you can't 'minus'. If you have a use case that is not covered by your app but by PS and it is even used by the average target user only once a week in PS, this will be enough reason for them to not consider your app a worthwhile alternative, even if you do get 1. right.

1. is not too hard to do, engineering wise. But 2. is a huge task. PS simply has a lot of features.

Re: Live Picture: Software that was way ahead of its time

#50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adobe must die. I set up a workflow for InDesign CS5.0 and everything worked. InDesign CS5.5 came out and they refused to sell me CS5.0. They introduced no new features, but the export as HTML option started producing random crashes. I spoke with their engineers and they said they would fix it in the next version. We still experience a random crash in 1/30 automated jobs - which requires us to redo a large portion by…

Still you're using it, because there is no alternative. Since it's the best software for what it does, your idea that "Adobe must die" is based solely on a fantasy notion that whatever replaces it wont have bugs, and will be all unicorns and love. Not to mention that the bugs you mention are mostly specific to your workflow (specific automated jobs et al), and don't mean that the most used software in the industry is…

I didn't want to use 5.5

I setup the work-flow and was ready to deploy. When I went to purchase the licenses, the adobe sales rep said it was their policy to only sell the CS5.5 version.

I feel betrayed because each new version of Adobe's product brings more bugs and no useful features. This is is a direct consequence of adobe's monopoly, which disregards the needs of its users in favor of push new versions down our throats. Reminds of Windows ME.

Post reply on HN