If you register for free, you will be able to post threads, vote on polls and lots more. If you have problems with the registration or logging in, please contact the administrator.
I think pretty much the entirety of the universe agrees with that, I know I do. The whole "we wanna be like Macromedia only with a stupider name and a super lame logo" thing has got to go. Otherwise, sounds like they've finally put some features into PS that were sorely needed. Can anyone say "text on path"? I knew you could
Yep those feathers are lame,they should have gone with the cool looking dark "dark matter" splash screen I saw,or was that IR could have been,I think PS was taconnite or something.
Painting in 64 bit? What about vidcard drivers? What about browsers working in 8 bit? etc etc..
I suppose that for a long time to come it'll be something like LAB mode: internally the colours are calculated, but the monitor cannot display more than the monitor's rgb.
Video cards are moving towards higher precision color.
Monitors RGB signals are analog so in theory can be as precise as you need, but are in practice are limited to accuracy of the DAC on the graphics card and the component quality of the monitor, and the transfer characteristics of the monitor phosphors.
Long ago, a test was published on this site. A series of images was shown, and people had to discern between 256 colour gif and jpg. If I remember well, a score of one out of four was about the best we got...
And indeed: "moving towards". 64 bit will come. But for most things it'll be in the first place a new injection of money in a saturated market, and not really be necessary. Of course, there will be high-end applications that will benefit from it, but these are mostly done on render farms.
Right now, the quality of drivers etc is getting better and better, but when we go from 16 million to thousands of millions of colours, believe me: 512MB of videoddram won't be sufficient.
Besides: a monitor can display only 50% of what a human eye can see, and we won't ever see what monitor rgb can't show us. (Print shows only 25%...)
Now that they made it a suite (like, indeed, MX...) why didn't they make Imageready a separate application?
rant, rant...I find that I have to be as critical about PS as I am about plugins for it. Plugins also can make life easier, but the question is always: will *I* do, do *I* need what *one* can do with it?
No, I haven't seen anything that knocks me off my feet in PSCS.
The main reason for the increasing accuracy in graphics cards is to maintain accuracy when performing blending operations commonly used in 3d rendering.
The other place that it is expanding is in the gamma correction pipeline, with normal 8 bit per channel if you perform gamma correction then you will quantization where some output values are mapped to multiple input values, expanding the bitdepth reduces this.
Right now, the quality of drivers etc is getting better and better, but when we go from 16 million to thousands of millions of colours, believe me: 512MB of videoddram won't be sufficient.
Besides: a monitor can display only 50% of what a human eye can see, and we won't ever see what monitor rgb can't show us. (Print shows only 25%...)
Well, we made the jump from thousands to millions of colors when we went from 2mb to 4mb cards... I doubth we'll needs to jump to over 512mb for just doing billions of colors. Not that it matters, seems like video cards have more ram than our computers half the time these days.
Print in process color shows only 25-35% of what we can perceive. But print has the cabability to show us a much greater range than that if used with specialty processes. So it's hard to say. We already have the capability to designate spot colors from different manufacturers that we have NO way of representing accurately on screen, so who's to say what methodology will be employed. There are some different display technologies coming out in teh next few years also, which may expedite matters.
You do have a good point though... is it something we NEED right now? Only time will tell, it's certainly not something the average ps user needs.
Just while we're on the subject of what PS can and can't do (and this may be a very dumb question - i haven't actually had a look to see if it can be answered, but i haven't stumbled across it yet), but I remember when I was using Corel years (and years) ago, that you could transition blend between two objects, eg, a square and a circle, and you could dictate the amount of transition steps in the blend etc...
So basically, can you transition blend between two objects whilst maintaining that noticable from square to circle (or whatever object) look? Like i said, probably a dumb question, but I did wonder the other day why i hadn't come across it and whether PS had it (or should as the case may be).
Welcome CS to PSG 
Linear Mode
