|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Windows VISTA
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 04-03-2007 03:46 PM
I agree, the hazard of buying a computer with hardware too weak to run Vista is definitely a very real threat. In fact, the condition has been very common with regard to Windows-based PCs for years.
Consider WinXP for example. Many computer systems have been sold pre-loaded with XP for years featuring puny amounts of RAM. 512MB might be just enough to run the operating system. Casual users typically need 1GB or more to get any decent speed out of it. Gamers, creative workers and others who demand high performance need 2GB or more of RAM.
With Windows Vista, I would strongly caution any user to have anything less than a very good dual core CPU, at least 2GB of RAM and a real dedicated graphics card (not motherboard integrated filth) with at least 256MB of on board GDDR3 RAM. That's not really a high end configuration anymore, but lots of Vista-loaded machines are being sold with far less powerful configurations.
A lot of this won't be as bad an issue by year's end when Quad Core CPUs are more common and more advances happen for RAM, graphics cards, hard discs, etc. A year or two from now just about any desktop or notebook computer you find on a store shelf should be able to run Vista without any sluggishness. We'll be seeing 8-core CPUs at the high end by then.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 04-03-2007 06:44 PM
I'm writing this from my 2004-vintage laptop (Acer Aspire 3020), the only upgrade being that it that I upgraded the memory to 1gb. Because we can get Vista very cheaply through the university where I work, I stuck it on the laptop on the basis that I wanted to get my head round Vista before it hits me for real in a work situation, but that I didn't want to put it on my main home PC (which I use for intensive applications like video editing) without knowing what the glitches, software incompatibilities etc. are first.
The upgrade advisor said that Vista should work on the laptop without any problems - and so it does, Aero shite and all. In fact, running under Vista it'll output full screen video both to the flat panel and an external projector through VGA at the same time, which it wouldn't with XP. Despite Bobby's caution about trying to use Vista on a machine whose hardware spec isn't really up to the job, it runs on my nearly three year-old laptop just fine - if anything, slightly quicker and smoother than XP.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 04-04-2007 10:26 AM
Out of the Adobe CS3 stuff, I'm a lot more excited about the changes happening to Adobe Illustrator than I am about Photoshop -although PhotoshopCS3 is still a pretty significant upgrade.
quote: Joe Redifer
What is the difference with CS3? I have an incredibly difficult time telling the difference between Photoshop™ 7 and Photoshop™ 10 which comes with CS2.
I've lost track of the new features put into Photoshop between version 7 and CS2, which is actually version 9. CS3 is Photoshop 10. Version CS2 added a lot of video-centric features (support for non-square pixels, video preview via Firewire, lots of video frame preset templates). New perspective tools were added to help correct camera barrel distortion. Smart object support was added so placed images from applications like Illustrator would automatically update when changed. The vector toolset within Photoshop was improved. Various interface changes were made. Anyway, it's been 2 years since that has happened. Now Photoshop CS3 is on the way.
Two different versions of Photoshop CS3 will be shipping to stores, "standard" and "extended." It's kind of like what Adobe has done with the "standard" and "pro" versions of After Effects.
Some of the items Photoshop CS3 adds over CS2
* Non-destructive "Smart Filter" effects
* Quick Selection and Refine Edge tools
* Advanced compositing (useful for motion graphics & Flash)
* A more streamlined interface
* Better RAW image processing
* New auto-stitching filters for combining multiple images
* Improved Adobe Bridge (faster, more useful)
* Enhanced Vanishing Point (clone, retouch & build objects in perspective)
* Enhanced 32-bit High Dynamic Range image support
* Faster overall performance
* Better black-and-white conversion tools
Photoshop CS3 Extended adds these features:
* 3D compositing and texture editing
* Movie Paint
* 2D and 3D measurement tools
* Enhanced Vanishing Point with 3D support
In short, PhotoshopCS3 Extended is really the Photoshop to get, especially if you do any 3D, video or motion graphics work. PhotoshopCS3 will allow you to paint directly onto 3D models and lots of other stuff.
Those who need a robust set of tools to handle many different types of Camera RAW will benefit from Adobe Photoshop Lightroom, a separate application currently priced at $200.
quote: Jon Miller
Photoshop CS3's icon will be a "Ps" in a blue square.
Yeah, that's one of the first things I noticed when trying out the Beta of Photoshop CS3. I'm not really a big fan of it at all because the icons just look so plain. But I can understand the motives behind it. The Adobe CS2 applications had their own interface and icon setup, which was very different from Macromedia Studio 8. It's easier to arrive at a happy medium by doing something visually conservative. On top of that, the Adobe Production Studio applications (After Effects, Premiere Pro, etc.) had their own icon and interface design.
It's going to take a while for me to get used to the very different way Photoshop's new interface is arranged. It's supposed to conserve screen real estate better. I'm just thankful that the final shipping version will allow me to tear off parts of the interface and put them on other monitors (the beta wouldn't let you drag anything outside of the program window).
[ 04-04-2007, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: Bobby Henderson ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 04-04-2007 01:19 PM
quote: Joe Redifer
Ooooo!!! I love it when "smart" features are included. It's just so... smart! Of course, nothing is destructive when there is an undo command.
The problem with "undo" and Photoshop's "History" palette is it works primarily in linear form. Undo back to a certain state to change something and you'll have to re-create all those other steps again (unless you were able to record them as a set of actions).
"Live" smart filter layers (along with adjustment layers, live layer effects, etc.) provides more flexibility. You can change a lot of basic things about a Photoshop layout without having to redo all the enhancements applied to them.
quote: Joe Redifer
I don't understand why this is so difficult. Every camera manufacturer seems to use their own version of RAW that if opened with another manufacturer's software, looks like dogshit with approximately 32 flies on board.
The situation is more the fault of camera manufacturers than that of Adobe. Every camera company wants to make different imaging sensors, which also equals a different flavor of RAW coming from each of them. The only area where any standardization of image sensor is happening is at the very high end. But that's only because most makers of large format camera digital backs don't have the resources to develop their own imaging sensors. They have to buy them from companies like Kodak instead.
The Canon EOS utilities for my D-SLR can, at times, do a better job of converting RAW images than what Adobe's own Camera RAW in Bridge does. But then Canon isn't doing anything to accommodate all the other imaging sensors made by other companies either. And their software doesn't give you much at all in the way of creative options. Applications like Lightroom are far more capable in that regard.
quote:
For what? Otherwise it sounds damn exciting!
Sorry about the typo. Vanishing point will allow the user to paint into or clone objects along a defined plane of perspective. If you want a brick wall to extend farther away into the background, this tool will help you do it pretty easy. You can make tall buildings a lot taller by cloning more floors. The only bad thing about the Vanishing Point tool is that it is best used only on photos with sharp focus throughout the image.
quote: Joe Redifer
Does this mean I can import a movie file and draw on it frame by frame in kind of like a flipbook mode?
I believe so. It might come in handy for Flash users. The feature is meant more to help out users of After Effects who want quite a bit more control over things like rotoscoping work. After Effects Pro has good tweening & following operations with its rotoscoping, but it doesn't have Photoshop's image editing tool set.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 04-04-2007 08:20 PM
quote: Joe Redifer
I still don't understand about RAW. To me, RAW is a compression format.
RAW is very far from being anything like a standardized file format such as TIFF, JPEG, GIF, BMP, etc. The "flavor" of RAW is tied to the specific camera image sensor that created the photo. The only way that Camera RAW could be standardized at all is if all the D-SLR camera manufacturers used the same kind of image sensor in all their cameras. There's no way they're going to do anything like that.
quote: Joe Redifer
The camera should just start out with a huge fucking TIF (yes, fucking) straight from the image sensor and then compress it into a ZIP file or some dumbass shit like that.
That's essentially what RAW is, but actually better. It is raw data from the image sensor in either uncompressed or lossless compressed form.
quote: Joe Redifer
There is no way that a real TIF could be worse than the raw image data from the CCD.
It is worse because it doesn't have as much color bit depth and other proprietary image data that is resident in the camera sensor. With a RAW file, you have more to work with in terms of subtle highlights, shadow detail, etc. A picture with image problems (like blown highlights, crushed shadows, screwed up color balance) has better chances of being fixed if it was captured in RAW rather than originated in 24-bit TIFF or JPEG.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic