Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Live Picture: Software that was way ahead of its time

pixiq.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 60 posts

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

#51

Post by powertower »

pyalot2 wrote: post #26
jawngee wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop bending semantics to fit your binary view point. Instant in this case means you move the brush and it distorts as you move the brush. No parallax, no beach ball waiting for it to do the computation. It happened as you moved it. It was instant. Even with brush sizes the size of the image you were using. It had unlimited undo. It had unlimited layers. That's not an arguable point.

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...

Unlimited to the capacity of the resources of the system.

Meaning they did not hardcode limits, and I assume had a O(1) or O(n) type scaling.

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

#52

Post by pretoriusB »

frozenport wrote: post #50
pretoriusB wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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.

That's bad. Adobe does tend to screw their customers in similar business ways.

>I feel betrayed because each new version of Adobe's product brings more bugs and no useful features.

Well, I don't know about InDesign much, but this is not true for: Photoshop, Lightroom and Premiere.

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

#53

Post by pretoriusB »

planckscnst wrote: post #32
pyalot2 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In and Out of context, there's no such thing as instant and unlimited. There might be fast, and there might be a lot, and there might be faster and more than you usually need. But I repeat, stop claiming utter nonesense.

If you ran into a limit, submitted a bug, and they moved the limitation out further, and they continued to do this every time you submit a bug, is it unlimited? I'm not suggesting this is what they did, but if it was, would you consider that unlimited?

1) It's a very silly hypothetical question.

2) Obvious the answer is no, seeing that every time you DO ran into limits.

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

#54

Post by pyalot2 »

virtualritz wrote: post #46
pyalot2 wrote: 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 th…

Deferred processing is fine, until it isn't. For instance it's fine for things that don't have a lot of non-local changes, such as addition, subtration, multiplication, etc. as in brightness, contrast, compositing and so on.

It breaks down however when you do have processing that produces nonlocal changes, such as convolution, blurring, sharpening, distortion, etc. as in soft filter, gaussian blur filter, distort filter and so on.

You can run these at screen resolution only, but the result you will get can vary wildly from what the ultimate render will be.

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

#55

Post by jawngee »

pretoriusB wrote: post #34
gokhan wrote: 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…

They're the same image sizes we use today. And it was instantaneous, or relatively so in comparison to Photoshop 3 - which couldn't edit the images at all due to size. We would have to use a plugin to work on parts of an image most times.

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

#56

Post by chii »

krapp wrote: post #7
yeap wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is no open source (or even closed) come even close to the Photoshop workflow, and also integration with other monopolized software like Illustrator and Fireworks. It's also one of the reasons why a lot of people can't switch to Linux, winin' it is just not good enough

I've worked professionally with Photoshop and After Effects and access to Adobe software is the only reason I still have a Windows computer. I don't even want to try getting it to work in Wine, and dual-booting just to be able to use them seems like a waste of time. And until professionals use it in large numbers and are comfortable around it and potential employers want to see it on a resume, other solutions aren't…

> potential employers want to see it on a resume

this is a problem imho - why should a vendor specific product be a defacto qualification for a job? I know it is, and plenty of office clerk jobs "require proficiency" in office/word/excel. I say, instead of requiring a product name on your resume, you instead have to show you can achieve a particular effect (say, describe a procedure to achieve a rock texture in the abstract).

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

#57

Post by krapp »

chii wrote: post #56
krapp wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've worked professionally with Photoshop and After Effects and access to Adobe software is the only reason I still have a Windows computer. I don't even want to try getting it to work in Wine, and dual-booting just to be able to use them seems like a waste of time. And until professionals use it in large numbers and are comfortable around it and potential employers want to see it on a resume, other solutions aren't…

> potential employers want to see it on a resume this is a problem imho - why should a vendor specific product be a defacto qualification for a job? I know it is, and plenty of office clerk jobs "require proficiency" in office/word/excel. I say, instead of requiring a product name on your resume, you instead have to show you can achieve a particular effect (say, describe a procedure to achieve a rock texture in the a…

I suppose it can matter if that vendor's product is what they use in house and if whatever the other thing is that you know, isn't. They may be worried about the amount of effort they'd need to put into training you to do things their way.

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

#58

Post by virtualritz »

pyalot2 wrote: post #54
virtualritz wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Deferred processing is fine, until it isn't. For instance it's fine for things that don't have a lot of non-local changes, such as addition, subtration, multiplication, etc. as in brightness, contrast, compositing and so on. It breaks down however when you do have processing that produces nonlocal changes, such as convolution, blurring, sharpening, distortion, etc. as in soft filter, gaussian blur filter, distort fil…

I disagree. Yes, there are operations that whose results will vary.

But many non local changes will work fine and deliver very close previews when ran on properly filtered mip versions of an image. Particularly the ones you listed work well, non of them is a good example of something that will give you trouble with the approach I described (convolution, blurring, sharpening, distortion). Try Darktable to see how well these work.

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

#59

Post by ibisum »

pyalot2 wrote: post #29
muyuu wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These terms are understood in their context, or otherwise completely useless in real life.

In and Out of context, there's no such thing as instant and unlimited. There might be fast, and there might be a lot, and there might be faster and more than you usually need. But I repeat, stop claiming utter nonesense.

I think you don't know what unlimited means. It doesn't mean "infinite" - it means - there was no limit placed on it. Sorry, but you didn't understand that word, plain and simple, and now you really have created an ass-thread for yourself.

Second: "instant". It means, quite literally, "an infinitesimal or very short space of time; a moment". So, calling software "instant" - this is perfectly valid.

I think you should go back and re-read your thread with those two definitions in mind, and figure out who you need to apologize to for being ignorant ..

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

#60

Post by primitur »

pyalot2 wrote: post #29
muyuu wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These terms are understood in their context, or otherwise completely useless in real life.

In and Out of context, there's no such thing as instant and unlimited. There might be fast, and there might be a lot, and there might be faster and more than you usually need. But I repeat, stop claiming utter nonesense.

I think you don't know what unlimited means. It doesn't mean "infinite" - it means - there was no limit placed on it. Sorry, but you didn't understand that word, plain and simple, and now you really have created an ass-thread for yourself. Second: "instant". It means, quite literally, "an infinitesimal or very short space of time; a moment". So, calling software "instant" - this is perfectly valid. I think you should go back and re-read your thread with those two definitions in mind, and figure out who you need to apologize to for being ignorant ..
Post reply on HN