Upload & Sell: On
| p.3 #2 · Performance Testing - How does LR4 utilise multiple cores |
Frist of all, Adobe also says that Photoshop is multi-core optimized, but that's not true. Only part of the code is. If you check the updates in CS6 you'll find that now more filters are, in fact, using multi-core, but still not all of them.
The same is for Lightroom, not the entire code is multi-core.
Where do I take my info? Well 13 years in the movies VFX post-production and 10 years in the photography business should be enough, some of the guy that write photoshop, in fact, worked with us to optimize our internal custom versions of Photoshop, and we kindly usually suggest Adobe what to put next, in our beta-testing program.
Nuke is NOT a video editor. It is a compositing package, which is just the same as photoshop, but done to be able to work on sequences of frames, much more powerful and truly multi-core and multi-threaded. Photoshop is a toy compared to Nuke.
It doesn't have all the painting tools that Phothsop has, but is not supposed to, and anyway it was an example of a much better software architecture, not saying you have to use it for photo editing, even if it wouldn't be such a bad idea since the software has a completely linear workflow.
OpenGL and now also OpenCL are just platforms to use the GPU and make it work with the CPU. they both can be used for 2D AND 3D applications.
Photoshop uses OpenGL for the crappy 3d integration but also for some of the viewport operations and pixel transformations. There are many more things that can be done to speed up the calculation of an image through OpenGL and OpenCL, pixel filtering, sampling, mip mapping and a lot more.
OpenGL is not suitable for 2D application at all? Really?
Maybe you should give a read to OpenGLSL, and check out how many things you can actually optimize through the GPU and openGL.
You can accelerate most of the common 2D operations with OpenGL, with the right libraries.
Even iOS or Android run with a binding on the OpenGL libraries to speed up the GUI tranformations.
Neat Image in its last version uses GPU acceleration through custom openGL libraries and multi-core and you can see how faster it is, a perfect example of optimized architecture.
Compare it's noise reduction speed with photoshop or lightroom and have a laugh.
Can't see anything more 2D than resolving noise and nothing faster than OpenGL to resolve it.
CUDA doesn't have anything to do with the actual computation functions. It is a parallel computing sharing base, something even different and its purpose is to basically access GPUs as if they were CPUs and make them work in parallel. Threating multi-GPU as multi-Processor.
In which computing world older is better? For sure not the current one where the amount of data exchanged in the pipes changes so quickly in amount and streams complexity.
The architectures change fast and if they are not scalable enough you can't do much more to extend an application, hence you need a complete rewrite.
Photoshop is super old and it was born in the VFX industry when tools like Shake and Nuke were not available and you had to work on a single frame a time.
I love to work with Photoshop and Lightroom, I also teach them, but that doesn't mean they are good software architecture example.
Obviously if one has never used anything more advanced than them like a nodal base compositing software or a 3D package they seem just fine.
Too bad they had to introduce Smart crappy objects because they can't implement a nodal structure due to the old architecture.
The interface of both Lightroom and Photoshop is crap. Is basically what they design and there is no way of customize it the way one wants. But for what they are intended that's not a very big deal, unless you discover pyQT design.
Lightroom is slow, but it does the job. At least for me it can handle huge amount of data and I can develop quickly and have a fast workflow. Photoshop does the rest well enough not to bother for a rewrite for now, but a nodal Photoshop would kick ass.
Your point in using Photoshop, ACR and Bridge is valid. They are really faster.
But the whole thing fails because you have to save a PSD file, and have a destructive workflow in Photoshop, whereas with Lightroom you can potentially always go back and edit files without losing a bit. That's something you can't really do with Photoshop, especially if you consider switching color spaces. Also working on a RAW files right away is cheaper in terms of space than saving a TIFF or a PSD file.
Furthermore, Lightroom interface is, imho, better to handle photography stuff, everything is in a single application and seamless and these days you can do most of the work in Lightroom without even going to Photoshop for editing.
Do you work at Newtek? I used to demo Lightwave 3D when I was 17, about 13 years ago! So much time passed!