I see them as teasers for an upcoming movie. They might not show the big stunts (that would be in a trailer), but give you a taste of what it's going to be like.
Fair enough, but to paraphrase pf22's statement: The lack of awesome is disturbing - and in that I include all the other vids from the leaked prerelease builds. Don't get me wrong, as I wrote on my blog, all those tiny things will make everyday work easier and people will not want to miss them once they get used to them, it's just that they don't make good marketing material and Adobe aren't doing themselves a favor by putting up those half-baked videos.
What I would like to get with CS6 is a new backwards compatibly ACR which will not happen and the bugs introduced into old working features by CS4 and CS5 fixed and No new bugs introduced into old features by CS6. I can somewhat understand Adobe's ACR plug-in not being compatible with old versions of Photoshop for ACR is evolving and its interface changes with each release. I think Adobe policy of making user pay for bug fixes by deferring reported bug to future releases of Photoshop does not reflects well on Adobe. I also view these so called previews more as market research being done by Adobe more then a tease or preview.
Or maybe an update to all the 8 bit only filters to make them work with modern document formats.
With a modern computer who would ever want to WORK in 8 bit mode?
You wouldn't be able to show it off in a video, because it's just the way it's supposed to work. Aw darn!
There's a saying in Sales, "Sell the sizzle, not the sausage!" As Mylenium says, this is all work-a-day stuff, literally nothing to get excited about, you appreciate that it's there if you need it, otherwise it's just, "meh."
You'd think with all the abuse they've been getting over the new upgrade rules they'd want to blow us away with the new features in CS6, show us how we're gonna be happy to hand over our hard earned cash, but this... it's almost as if they're taunting us... "Yeah, CS6, dots 'n' dashes... yay!"
Meanwhile, back in that galaxy far, far away...
Emperor Palpatine: "Report Lord Vader, tell us of your progress..."
Lord Vader: "Our plans are almost complete my Master. Once the new CS6 Death Star is fully operational, we shall be the ultimate power in the universe. The rebel scum will be crushed... they will have no choice but to upgrade, wherever they may hide!"
Emperor Palpatine: "Very good Lord Vader. Very. Good."
"I got a bad feeling about this..."
Hey. Don't let's turn our noses up at the 'Just do it' features. I love being to save as a JPG without flattening a document and reducing its bit depth, and I love that Straighten button that appears on the Options bar after dragging the Ruler along the horizon line. We are still a way off from a probable May/June release date, and you can't blame Adobe for wanting to build the excitement one small step at a time. It's irrelevant from our point of view anyway, because I bet most of the people using this forum will download CS6 on the day it is released. That's what I did with CS5, and I know for sure it will be the same with CS6.
Yes, we're all fanatics and will upgrade dutifully. Many of us even care whether Adobe is successful (and hope that they are - wildly so), and I think this is where being underwhelmed stings a bit...
Don't get me wrong - it's GREAT that the UI isn't completely rewritten in every release just to make things seem New and Improved. But there are "to work" things that have been neglected for far too long as well. HOW MANY releases has Adobe ignored the cries for having the UI follow Windows settings for accessibility? I have good vision, but not everyone does. And those 8 bit filters? People DO paint with this sucker, you know. And the 20th century file saving mechanics - seriously?
But there's hope - the last sneak peek, showing how more stuff is being offloaded to the GPU... Imagine a new level of interactivity in painting on big images. Imagine quick Camera Raw preview updates and conversions. Imagine whatever it is you wait on today being instantaneous. There's definitely promise, and regardless of the various tongue-in-cheek noises I made above, I am excited to see what they bring out.
A big 'Me too' for making more use of the GPU. If you check out Bill and Harm's PPBM5 results page the MPE (Mercury Playback Engine) gain is anything from 10 to 17 times faster! For non Premiere Pro folk, MPE is where PP uses the GPU as opposed to the CPU for a partular function. (Least ways I hope I have described that correctly, but Bill will no doubt clarify if I am not quite right.)
In my own development of plug-ins that use the GPU via OpenGL for accelerated display operations, I've seen up to a 50x increase in speed, and that's over a highly optimized CPU implementation, and that's no exaggeration.
It's also possible for results to be more accurate, as GPUs deal in floating point numbers quite well. Even inexpensive video cards nowadays have teraflop (trillions of floating point operations per second) power?
I think dotted and dashed lines with gradients sounds useful. I won't have to go to Illustrator and back to get those functions.
BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY
I would like to see some other upgrades to the pen tool and vector masks:
• All too often I can't really see the pen tool line when I am making a vector selection – it gets lost in the clutter. Could there be an option to assign a color to the path? Hot green or magenta?
• I would like to be able to change the size that vector points display. If I could make the points appear slightly larger it would often make editing easier.
• I would like to be able to select two points very close to one another and JOIN them like in AI. I don't understand why the pen tool doesn't share more of the functions of the pen tool in Illustrator such as CUT. It sometimes seems like the vector tools in Photoshop and Illustrator were developed completetly independent of one another.
Attached (I hope) are images demonstrating how hard it can be to see paths. Can you see the paths? In the first image the path is there, not selected. In the second the path is selected. This makes my work very irritating sometimes.
Craig you make some good points, and while I don't use Illustrator, I have had all the problems you decribe using the pen tool with photoshop. I particularly like the idea of a coloured path as it sounds like it might fit into the 'Just do It' category of improvements.
BTW Your image has remided me that stitches are not perfectly aligned on a center-line. Stuff like that makes all the difference to making things look real IME. I have also been thinking about how to 'quickly' incorperate the tiny shadow at the each end of Photoshopped stiches to give the impression of the ends being slightly indented. I am a big fan of the Steve Caplin books, because he pays attention to those sort of details.
Just from the Blur reduction sneak in which it was impossible to see any improvement because of the filming distance, I could get the impression that it is a far more sophisticated process than Focus Magic. The developer said that it analyzes the convolution before it applies the deconvolve, and I believe that Focus Magic just applies a default lens transfer function. FM has a separate motion blur function and the CS 6 seems like it must handle both with one analysis. I think I will upgrade as soon as it's out. Any guesses how soon?
CS6 will be anounced in April and will be available to purchase a few weeks later, probably early May.
I have also seen the online demo of the deblurring algorithm. I'm primarily an event photographer, and probably 90% of my shots are taken at f2.8, so I'm always working with minimal DoF under less then optimal lighting conditions; I don't use flash. If this new algorithm were able to "fix" issues caused by Front/Back Focusing, for instance, I would probably upgrade pretty much immediately.
The problem, so far, as we have been discussing above, some of us (Me! LOL!) more snarkily than others, is that Adobe is not giving us any of the good stuff, just a bunch of, for me, utterly underwhelming work-a-day "improvements" or enhancements. And as I mentioned above, you'd think with the firestorm of criticism their new upgrade policy ignited, they'd want to simply blow us away with the sexy stuff, and show us exactly why we'd want to upgrade!
Anyway, I'm keeping my fingers crossed for the deblurring algorithm!
The Blur Reduction deconvolution tool is right on target as far as it goes, but they're missing several key pieces of functionality before it reaches "Star Trek" level - unless there's a lot that wasn't revealed in that sneak. That's not to say it wouldn't do amazing things, but I can envision a 2nd release that would increase complexity and improve results beyond what it could possibly do in the form shown. Dotted lines notwithstanding, the Blur Reduction feature - that one single feature alone - will make upgrading to Photoshop CS6 worth the hundreds of dollars.
We'll see if the Focus Magic people meet the challenge by June.
I'm a guy who is still using a 16 year old Microspeed Apple keyboard
with an ADB/USB adapter, and a Microsoft optical mouse held together
with transparent Scotch tape, so I don't upgrade at the drop of an app,
but I think the deblur tool is a biggie. The Focus Magic website says
they're not working on a Mac Lion version yet, but you would think they
would have to, soon.
I wish LaCie would set a sell date for their Thunderbolt to ESATA box,
which, like CS6 is expensive but a must-have.
I've read that the deblurring feature is unlikely to make CS6.
pf22 I'd be interested in the distances you are shooting from? I would be lost without a flash for my event work, and f2.8 often does not give front to back sharp focus of a persons head. I don't use anything longer than 200mm though.
Noel, Focus Magic is indeen a third party app, but like the Topaz inFocus plugin, some people believe them to be the current state of the art at fixing OOF and motion blurred images. Focus Magic is old news, but I don't know if it has been updated recently. inFocus is a more recent product, but while I am a fan of Topaz products in general, I could not match the performance shown in the demonstration videos. But neither product would come even remotely close to what we have seen in the Adobe Max demonstration.
Hi Trevor, I agree with you about the video... "jaw dropping" just about sums it up!
I use the term "event photographer," but what I mainly shoot are gigging musicians in small bars and clubs, hence the less than optimal lighting I mentioned!
The two shots below are a good example of what I like to do, and why I don't use a flash.
I mainly use a Canon 70-200mm f2.8 wide open, and for the shot on the left, I was basically kneeling at the guys feet shooting up, and for the one on the right, I was shooting across the tops of people's heads from about 20ft away.
I don't understand why the pen tool doesn't share more of the functions of the pen tool in Illustrator such as CUT. It sometimes seems like the vector tools in Photoshop and Illustrator were developed completetly independent of one another.
Personally I think it is good for the Photoshop team to stay away from Illustrator’s methods, like the destroy-backward-handle-on-click-path-closing behaviour, the missing perspectival-free-transform, …
And how about »no keyboard shortcuts for Scripts« and »remove Scripts from Actions on restarting« in Illustrator? But maybe trying to enable users to work efficiently is not considered desireable for all of Adobe’s teams …
Craig, I strongly suggest that you post each of your suggestions to the http://feedback.photoshop.com site. Each in a separate thread, and maybe search if there are not exisiting ones, where you could add your vote, and maybe post the image or add more information about why it would be useful. (for the colored path, I'm pretty sure there is already a thread),
Nice one Trevor, "Concert Photographer" it is, and thank you for the kind words... but wait, one of my pro-photographer clients told me that what I take are, "Environmental Portraits!" (Pretentious, Moi?!" )
Lundberg, you've seen the unofficial deblurring video, here is the official one, with more definition: http://blogs.adobe.com/photoshopdotcom/2011/10/behind-all-the-buzz-deb lur-sneak-peek.html . According to posts on Official blogs, the technology is still in its very early stages. The Photoshop sneak peeks are from the Photoshop team, while the deblurring one is from the Advanced Technology Lab, that makes "pure research".
Noel, if you read the entire 'Behind All the Buzz: Deblur Sneak Peek' blog post, it rather deflates a lot of the awe and wonder the Adobe Max demonstration initially inspired. In fact the full size shots of the before and after Plaza image are even more incredible, and the detail gained is barely short of magic!
However the article makes it clear that the Plaza shot was synthetically applied and a ‘simple’ motion blur. Real life blurry images apparently tend to have more complex blur going on, and that is currently beyond the deblur algorithms employed in the Adobe Max demonstration. It also made it clear that those algorithms need strongly contrasted edges to lock onto. The last bugbear stated was the heavy computing employed in making it work.
The blog article, it strongly stresses that the team behind deblur are from Adobe’s Advance Technology Labs, and makes it clear that there is a way to go before we see it in Photoshop. But in actual fact, I bet that most of us would be more than pleased to have a flawed version of deblur in CS6, and I think it would work on enough images to be worthwhile. I use a tripod for important non dynamic shots, but still see evidence of motion blur. But because of the tripod, that would be the sort of simple, one directional, blur that deblur would work very nicely on. Incidentally, before anyone comments, my grip gear probably cost more than some of the cameras people here use. I mainly shoot with a Canon 1DsMK3, (I also own a 1DMK4) and with very sharp lenses, you get to be hyper-critical when it comes to acceptable sharpness.
I really don't think that you can expect depth of field fronm a
deconvolver. A deconvolver attempts to restore the actual lens transfer
function by estimating the defocus transfer function. The depth of field
would be reduced, in a sense, to its true value. A completely defocussed
lens would have an infinite depth of field.
Interesting that the presenter did not say they were only removing
camera shake, and not deconvolving. Actually, deconvolving is probably
easier than shake and motion blur. If they can get a first cut version
of this into CS6 , it will still be a bestseller.
Lundberg, Noel, Do check all the demos from ATL that Trevor pointed out, then on the right side, check under technology: http://www.adobe.com/technology/ you will find many techs that made it to the different programs, and some that did not yet make it to release. (here is what Jue Wang worked on that made it to different Adobe Programs: http://www.juew.org/techtransfer.htm )
Trevor, the plaza pic is a real camera blur. Only the Kevin Lynch one was a synthetic blur, to make a joke with their CTO. They applied, it seems, a blur kernel, only to remove it. The most interesting part is not the removal of the blur, but the detection, and recreation of the kernel.
All, do Check also the other sneak peeks from Max: http://tv.adobe.com/show/max-2011-sneak-peeks
Noel, here is some info about CS6 and deblur: http://www.practicalphotoshopmag.com/2011/12/06/photoshop-image-deblur ring-–-dont-expect-it-to-launch-with-cs6-practical-photoshop/ (there are some great links in this and the linked article about famous photos that had the unblur process applied.)
Great links Pierre. Most of the Max sneak peeks were new to me, and I have just sat through all of them. The one that excited me almost as much as debur was the image search facility Pixel Nuggets
If you go to the Focus Magic site and send them an email asking when it will be avaiable for CS5 on Mac, they will reply telling you that they are busy on something else, and ask if you want to be put on their waiting list.
If you own a copy of the Fractalius plugin, then every time you use it, you have to go on a waiting list to find out when it has finished! It must have taken real skill to code something to run so slowly.
I really don't think that you can expect depth of field from a deconvolver. A deconvolver attempts to restore the actual lens transfer function by estimating the de-focus transfer function. The depth of field would be reduced, in a sense, to its true value. A completely defocussed lens would have an infinite depth of field.
Adaan Pre-Media Services
For more image editing services follow us @
Europe, Middle East and Africa