"Non-destructive Smart Filters"
"64MB video RAM"

Sounds like CS3 will indeed use Core Image (or some equivalent; obviously it can't use Core Image on Windows). That's good news, but it leaves me and my G4 Mini out in the cold. I'm disappointed that it requires a Core Image-capable graphics card. I'd hoped that it would run, but some of the features would just not be available without a good enough graphics card.

Oh well. It's not like CS2 doesn't get the job done. Heck, I'm still running Photoshop 7 (I think) on my OS 9 systems, so I can make do with CS2 on my weaker PPC Macs.

It requires a G4, G4, or Intel-based Mac, at least 320MB RAM

You mean G4, G5, or Intel-based Mac…

Quote

Mikuro wrote:
I'm disappointed that it requires a Core Image-capable graphics card. I'd hoped that it would run, but some of the features would just not be available without a good enough graphics card.

That's probably part of what they're fighting against. Some people want better features, others want the features backwards compatible, and everybody wants it now. Maybe it would not have been available so soon if they had to figure out how to make it work without the right hardware, and also add that to the test suite to verify that the workarounds are reliable.

Apple did the same thing. They had high requirements for the initial Aperture, and now that they have had more time, they could work on it some more and now it works on more Macs. They could have made Aperture work on more Macs from the beginning, but that could have delayed availability. Apple also cuts off old Macs for new features like CoreImage effects because you're basically wasting Apple's time if you ask them to write and test software workarounds that duplicate advanced graphics chipsets.

I've been an active participant in the Lightroom public beta since January. What a fantastic application, and the public beta program has been hugely successful. Obviously not everyone has enjoyed seeing features come and go and the interface change suddenly, but the ability to actually use a program and understand its power and limitations before the actual release has been overwhelmingly well received.

Despite the general rule to not use a beta for production use I switched my entire photography workflow to Lightroom in September. It has not yet been optimized for speed (that would be foolish when the feature set isn't nailed down yet), so it runs rather slowly, especially on my 12" PB, but the features are so much more powerful than the Bridge/ACR/PSCS2 combo that I can't stand to go back. I related to a friend that it's like being an experienced oil or watercolor painter and being commissioned to do a piece with a Crayola 8 piece. Sure, as an artist you could certainly accomplish something truly artistic, but you would likely be frustrated by the limited medium.

The point? According to an Adobe rep on the Adobe Labs forum, PSCS3 will have the same image adjustment controls as Lightroom. Many people who only edit a few photos at a time found Lightroom pointless. Those of us who edit hundreds or thousands of images at a time require a workflow utility like Lightroom. Now the same level of control is available to both groups.

Kudos to Adobe for continuing the success of the public beta. This round should be even more productive because only legitimately registered users of CS2 can use it, unlike Lightroom which was available to anyone with an internet connection. The feedback will therefore be limited to a more professional, experienced group.


- Jon

Quote

Guest wrote:
Apple also cuts off old Macs for new features like CoreImage effects because you're basically wasting Apple's time if you ask them to write and test software workarounds that duplicate advanced graphics chipsets.

Actually, Apple's done an amazing job there. ALL of Core Image's effects will work on ANY Mac, using whatever power is available. The difference is just performance — there's no way to get these effects to run in real time without the proper hardware, and that makes all the difference for things like Dashboard or the dynamic filters they describe in CS3. But if you don't need real-time performance, you can use all of Core Image's effects on even a G3.

That said, I agree with your post completely. It's a balancing act, and if I were Adobe, I wouldn't make weaker hardware a priority, either. We're not just talking about glitz, after all; this is real functionality that simply needs good hardware to be usable.

The good news is, all Intel Macs meet those system requirements, and it's Intel Macs that need the update most. Also, the system requirements could change before the final release, anyway.