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.
A tool using Flash is exactly an example of code running locally in a virtualized environment, the opposite of what kff was proposing and which would be called cloud gaming with file streaming. NOT what I was talking about when answering to him.
Anyway, Flash is no option as the PS code cannot run inside the Flash environment.
@kff, not in the case of cloud gaming with video streaming. While acceptable for many online games, the experience is nowhere near a local game. Latencies typically are 100ms or higher. You wouldn't want to use PS brushes this way. Not for serious work.
everybody please scroll down to johnduncan post and reply there. He lifted the curtain early.
johnduncan: It appears to be an ad campaign for an ad campaign...
Thanks for the find so we don't have to waste our time any longer.
It will hit Canon's reputation quite badly, I guess.
Moreover, it may serve as a good example that US ad campaigns sometimes drive it over the top. When all you do is to try to manipulate people's mindset then they better don't take offense...
worth a look, contains the NYT double page ad
By worth a look I meant the NYT double page ad grabbed as photo.
This cube on the right hand page is HUGE.
falconeyes: With this comes a new "Canon See Impossible" box logo not seen before. That's not about a camera. Rather a new line of business products. IMHO.
If it is about a camera, then not a single specific new model. But rather a new technology incorporated in cameras. Or just a new logo art ...
@T3, thinking your idea to end, and because it refers to "see" in the logo (imaging) and because it has a decisive 3D look toit, it must be ...
... a 3D copier !!
(technically feasible but few would say still impossible today)
With this comes a new "Canon See Impossible" box logo not seen before. That's not about a camera. Rather a new line of business products. IMHO.
@kff:what you are referring to is a lasting trend in computional science and supercomputing, to use GPU power as part of computing centers. It just has nothing to do with Adobe's PS streaming project.
Maybe, it helps you to understand the implications of a software done the way you are imagining: every mouse move event (maybe hundred within a single second) would have to be transmitted and every redraw event would have to be sent across the net. Where already some wireless mice are less responsive when brushing in PS.
You actually already have this scenario in virtualized windowing environments which do already exist. They are all painfully slow to use across the internet with PS. You should maybe try them out.
So, assuming Adobe and Google know what they are doing, I concluded the virtual environment must be local.
You make too many assumptions about VM technologies. The Java VM, e.g., runs on almost any host and needs a few MB only. I really stop responding here though.
You are already referring to Adobe FAQ I linked to and DPR did not. You better believe what I said or at least, keep an open mind towards the topic. If you reread what you cited, the info is there but is obscured by Adobe. The three key details are (emphasis by me):1. "does not require a FULL download"2. "this is the same BUILD of Photoshop you’d typically download"3. "GPU dependent features are not YET available "From that, a programmer can deduce that PS runs in a sandbox on your local machine. I think this isn't a Java VM but Java is the first common example where code from the web could be streamed and executed in a local sandbox. Active X was similiar except it was no sandbox.
The other poll is equally badly specified. It would depend on the lens, wouldn't it? I am sure an equivalent 24-200/2.8 macro lens would suit most.
I voted 1"But the poll is misleading, as "appropriate" is pretty much undefined.E.g., I use 1" alongside FF and 1" as ONLY format would NOT be appropriate, IMHO.
I.e., the poll fails to clarify if it is for secondary or primary cameras. Most enthusiasts have multiple cameras now!!
@JPWhiteAtHome: that's an important part from the article indeed. But it is false information. It must be true because DPR said so? Rather not. btw, it isn't true for some other Chrome apps too.
Jones R: The government really ought to take this beyond national parks. Look at Hungary and their recent photography law. Making images (static photographs and video) of people without their knowledge or consent should be a federal offense. Right now one could mostly take pictures or video images of pedestrians without their knowledge or consent - and in my opinion, this is not only wrong, but should be made illegal.
Looking at pedestrians without their knowledge or consent should be a federal offense.
Of course, while at the same time, federal agencies are free to videotape whoever they want. Brave new World.
falconeyes: IMHO, there is something wrong with the US national park concept.
Compared to, e,g., Europe, the Alps in particular,, only a fraction of the US is preserved for giving priority to nature. No signs to restrict building activities outside national parks. So it seems to Europeans. Where are all the opportunities to hike and spend time in nature, outside nat. parks? And why is access to nat. parks restricted and costing money. It shouldn't. It is just nature. The US is so sparsely populated compared to Europe that it seems almost absurd. And to restrict photography of US nature certainly IS absurd.
Urban sprawl is to be avoided to keep a desirable landscape, a quality of life. This principle exists in Europe since Middle Age, maybe the Romans even. It has nothing to do with Socialism, it is just common sense which seems to have been lost in some parts of the world.
And to ask a fee to access an area where urban sprawl is prohibited is, ..., well absurd indeed. If you asked a fee to hike a mountain trail in the Alps, people would go wild. And the mountain trails are excellent.
The first time I visited a US nat. park, I was extremely confused to be asked to pay a fee, to say the least ... It felt like entering a gov.-controlled military area while nature should be free to all Americans. This felt so anti-free and anti-American that I was, well confused.
IMHO, there is something wrong with the US national park concept.
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.