Has anyone paid attention to this?

cbrooks3

cbrooks3

Mac Nerd
I was reading the preview page for Tiger tonight and noticed something on the "Core Image" page. At the bottom, Apple publishes a list of graphic/ photo effects that will be included with Tiger. The way I look at it, could this be the consumers answer to Photoshop like results withough the price or knowledge!!

Also, has anyone heard a release date on Tiger yet? I thought it was suppose to be this fall, but I heard somewhere they decided to put a couple more features in before shipping. I'll be inline to get it, already got money aside for it.
 
Apple said that it would be ready in the 1st quarter of 2005 when they announced it at the last Expo. I haven't heard anything about them delaying the release because of new features... got a link?

CoreImage won't compete with PhotoShop, simply because the two things are completely different. CoreImage is an "interface" to the graphics capabilities of the OS... it's not an actual program. PhotoShop could implement aspects of CoreGraphics to make certain parts run faster -- like live previews and whatnot.

While I do agree that this new technology could help amateur or intermediate programmers do complex graphics manipulation without the years of experience and learning that professionals have, I don't think it'll be directly used by Apple to deliver a piece of software similar to PhotoShop.
 
Well it depends if Adobe continues to support the macintosh, if not then it may have to
 
DJ Rep said:
that doesn't mean I don't think that adobe will continue to support it!
Click to expand...

well if u dont believe it u dont even have to mention it because there is no such case..

with the sales of photoshop for mac at these leves its impossible for them to drop the mac support...
its lots of money for them.... so even mentionin this is rather silly....


as fore CoreImage and Video... these technologies are amazingly advanced.... with lots of capabilities.
unfortunately the limited knowledge of most ppl on this board does not allow them to understand the true power of these technologies.. and further on the importance of Tiger !
 
Oh, please soulseek. Would you come down of your pretentiousness horse now? Btw. your lack of punctuation skills make your post look even uglier in my eyes. It's almost an offense per se.
 
I agree! soulseek if you are going to post don't be an ass about it. You post diminishing comments to other members who have been around a hell of a lot longer than you have. I think you just need to stick to the subject and not attack other members.
 
I think DJ Rep's still missing the point -- CoreImage is something that must be implemented into an application... it can't compete with an application.

CoreImage just opens the doors for bigger and better stuff to be done with images, so PhotoShop would have to have some parts of it re-written to take advantage of CoreImage. If Appel wanted to compete with PhotoShop, sure, they could use CoreImage in some application, but they'd still have to write the entire application to compete with PhotoShop. CoreImage has nothing to do wit competing with PhotoShop, since it would be just as easy/difficult to write a program to compete with PhotoShop without CoreImage.
 
I don't think that is the case. In the demo Phil Schiller was using some hacked together proto-app tha tcould access all the core image features but didn't have all this great interface. I suppose that it would not be difficult to hack together an app in AppleScript Studio that does nothing besides giving you a minimal interface (pull-down menu and pointers) to CoreImage/CoreVideo. I think they are just as easy to use as the FolderActions that enable you to manipulate images.

Of course they are not a direct threat to Adobe, but it should be very easy for developers to include very powerful features in their applications that can rival one for one certain advanced features that hitherto were only available in pro-apps like Photoshop.
 
Cat said:
In the demo Phil Schiller was using some hacked together proto-app tha tcould access all the core image features but didn't have all this great interface. I suppose that it would not be difficult to hack together an app in AppleScript Studio that does nothing besides giving you a minimal interface (pull-down menu and pointers) to CoreImage/CoreVideo.
Click to expand...

Right -- but you'd first need an image to be "CoreImaged," and next, as you said, you'd need an application that had references to CoreImage prototypes to manipulate that image. Still, to do anything with those "CoreImaged" images, you'd need to write file I/O and all the other methods needed for an application -- which is my point. Plus, CoreImage doesn't have anything to do with image files -- it's only good for what you see on the screen. It'll make things like live previews and previews of video effects (such as in Motion and Final Cut Pro/Express) better and more efficient.

Adobe could integrate CoreImage into their software, but CoreImage alone does not make it any easier to write an application -- it'll just make it easier to manipulate images within that application. It'll make it easier to write methods that manipulate images. Instead of having to hand-code the method to add transparency to an image, you could just write a method that accesses CoreImage's "image transparency" algorithm and use that.

CoreImage is kind of like video codecs -- they aren't gonna do you much good without something like QuickTime: an application written to take advantage of the technology. I'm just saying that CoreImage isn't going to compete with PhotoShop, nor is it something that'll "kill" PhotoShop, since one of the places more suited for CoreImage use is PhotoShop, nor will it make the next "PhotoShop-killer" application any easier to write. Whomever does that will have to start from the ground-up, while Adobe can just go back into their already existing code and change a few things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top