falconeyes: This is an illborn and stupid project.
cf. http://edex.adobe.com/projectphotoshopstreaming/faq for details.
PS will still run locally. Except it now needs many trips to the web to install properly, can't print and benefit from fast local storage, and suffers from performance hits due to the virtual environment it is boxed into.
Now, dear CC subscribers, you get a glimpse of how your monthly Adotax payment is spent for something else.
KEG, Photoshop started on MacOS and the port to Win32 APIs was justified by the huge Windows market. I don't see Adobe port PS to a third API with marginal market. No way. Something was virtualized and we'll find out what. At this point, I'll stop speculating. Although it was fun to have this conversation with you.
@KEG, I am fully aware of everything you wrote. I used "Windows VM" in the most possible sloppy way, making use of the only hint we have, i.e., that Streaming Photoshop only runs in the Windows version of the Chrome Browser, and ChromeOS.
Of course, the VM won't be a full VM like VMWare running licensed Windows, that's obvious. But what's obvious too is that Adobe didn't port Photoshop to another UI framework. While it can be done, of course, the effort is significant and the market too small to justify. We don't know what this Windows-alike virtual envorinment actually is. We'll find out soon enough.
AFAIK, Photoshop runs the original CC code inside a ChromeOS virtual environment. More than that, nothing is known. True, ChromeOS supports Java and its VM concept. OTOH, Photoshop is written in C++ rather than Java and Adobe will NOT rewrite it.
So, I can only assume that this is a Windows VM Google choose to support to work around the limitations of ChromeOS. Which I consider bad news rather than good news for Chrome. And has nothing to do with Linux.
Adobe insists that "Project Photoshop Streaming is identical to the Photoshop you’d install locally with a few notable exceptions." and that it runs in a Chrome browser, Windows only.
@KEG: you didn't read my reply. PS on ChromeOS runs in a virtual environment. Just like PS would on Linux (VWWare). Except that the virtual environment is created on the fly.
It is the same stock PS code as CS6 (or now CC). It is another cloud bubble making fun of many people's inability to understand software technology.
tkbslc: The vast majority of chromebooks are way underpowered for photoshop as well as having small and low resolution screens. So I'm not sure the user experience will be great.
However, if more high end apps come to chrome, I suspect more high end hardware will, too.
You are not listening. "Photoshop Streaming" runs on the local CPU *only*.
Is this for me? The above sentence does not contradict what I said. It is clever marketing wording for incremental install from the web into a virtual machine.
This is an illborn and stupid project.
> It's not really running on the Chromebook.
That's false information. It IS running on the Chromebook, and more specifically, it is running in a virtualized environment which currently does not have support for GPU.
Adobe would never have the resources or incentive to do a real cloud version of PS. It would be rather unusable from a performance point of view too. It must run locally and so it does, even under ChromeOS.
Note: this of course is a sure sign that the concept behind ChromeOS has already hit its limits, now tricking around them. A true virtual environment for the web was available with Java and even that has been dismissed pretty much since.
> sixty years since the first DSLR
Welcome to 2055, my dear time traveller :)
Spectro: The mass consumer has no need for 4k. Dpreview spec photographers are just yapping. There are a lot fewer videophotographers then photographers. That is why gh4 and sony a7s aren't flying off the shelves. Mass consumer dont have 4k tv nor internet speed to watch 4k youtube. But since the competion has it, it is time to offer it in 2015. I do expect movies studio and live sport to have the best video quality 4k or better, not the local commerical video. Those are genertic and 4k wont help it.
I expect a mirrorless dx and d3xx next year. Use the f mount for mirrorless so most nikon users can use their lenses already. Or f mount adapter, that is fine too if it af fast. I dont shot spray and pray photography nor professional sport, so i could care less about the d3xx. But nikon created a camera for them and shouldnt abandoned the user base. I would guess that is the first camera released next year for nikon. Dx is 2015 where fx were mostly udpated in 2014.
Actually, 4k requires full sensor readout in movie mode. This is the great thing about it: better 1080p too, And the D4/D6xx/D8xx sensors all do lineskipping in video. They lack the required readout speed.
GH4, A7s, RX100m3, NX1 all are full sensor readout cameras.
Mass consumers don't need 4k, right. But higher end DSLRs do. Actually, they better offer 6k even and 120p.Reason?Because it allows to capture still frames in movie mode good enough (8MP or 18MP) for all but the most demanding jobs. At fps the mirror cannot support; but the mirrorless competition offers. Just look at the inexpensive NX1 and what it can do, vs. D4s.
falconeyes: When I saw the LX100 with its A setting on both speed and aperture rings, I immediately thought "sweet" and "Leica S". The best way to do that IMHO.
Now with Leica branding the LX100, it is clear that Leica-Panasonic cooperation went beyond lenses. It includes the UI too. This Panasonic has Leica ergonomics inherited and I guess, it started before the LX100.
Btw, I know, it all is repeated history from 10 years ago, Pana LC1 or Leica Digilux 2, but the argument still holds true.
When I saw the LX100 with its A setting on both speed and aperture rings, I immediately thought "sweet" and "Leica S". The best way to do that IMHO.
The above links to Zeiss Flickr Album for this lens too
incl. this 24MP one:
falconeyes: @DPReview team:
I believe it is a bit unfair to post every news for ZEISS high end DSLR lenses (like Otus 85/1.4) and skip the Photokina news about similiarly priced and performing lenses from another German optics specialist:
- Schneider Makro-Symmar 85/2.4 for Canon and Nikon- Schneider Xenon 35/1.6 for Canon and Nikon- Schneider Xenon 50/1.4 for Canon and Nikon
Never mind, I just found that Schneider-Kreuznach already announced the same 3 lenses at Photokina 2012. Now again. Strange.
You are right. I just picked the closest Photokina report to make my comment. Which happened to be Zeiss and M mount. It is hard to post in the comment section of an article which doesn't exist ;)
Panasonic must have missed the PureView idea: the option for a digital 3x zoom w/o loosing too much of image quality. This requires a sharp lens in the center, a bright aperture, and diffraction-limited performance in the center (e.g., enough pixels like 5x3x3 or 45MP). And a decent sensor size, correct. But that alone isn't enough.
rwbaron: Looks like a great camera in so many ways but it's a shame though about the sensor. I'll wait for the reviews and tests but this will probably not replace my 7D.
Canon is the only company now with off-chip ADC but maybe they pulled a rabbit out of their hat but I doubt it.
@Karl Gnter Wnsch:
Correct, smaller structures do not automatically mean better image quality. And as shown by their 40 mega sensel APSC sensor, doesn't limit pixel count too much. After all, sensels are still 2000 x 4000 nm wide.
But with a limit at a 500 nm process, unlike Sony's 180 nm used in the D800 2 years ago, Canon is unable to embedd complex circuitry like 3700 ADCs onto the die. (Note: Sony uses 90 nm (pixels) and 65 nm (logic) in their newest processes.)
And this does mean no access to better image quality: the result is extra read noise at low iso. This has nothing to do with approach or tonality. It is just a limit of the fab Canon owns.
Sooner or later, Canon will be able to use a more recent process and this limitation will be a thing of the past for Canon too.
The 7DmkII certainly is a nice camera.
But it also shows how slow the progress in the photographic industry has become. Most advance is in the camera control logic (AF, metering).
Actually, we're now back in the days of analog film, with a nice pace of evolution and cameras not deprecating too fast. Not a bad thing in my book where photography matters more than gear.
Canon would have to renew their cmos fab infrastructure, going to a smaller structure process than their current fab can handle.
A new fab is a very expensive thing. Sony and Samsung have the required size. But Nikon, e.g., has the same problem with their own fab and buys Sony etc. for many cameras.
It won't change until Canon builds a new fab or outsources sensor production.