SMAK ENTERTAINMENTS wrote:
Now I understand software is a money making business...but really whats the difference between the 2........unless your into 3D and even then you wouldn't use photoshop....not when there Maya...Poser .....3d max and other out there.


Why won't they just perfect it and sell the advancements as add-ons

Define "Perfect".

Many of the features supported in the software were either impractical on the hardware available (1), the algorithms weren't known (2), or not necessary at the time (3).

For what it's worth, unless you get the Extended version of Photoshop, there's no difference in how CS3 and CS4 handle 3D, and if you have CS3 Extended, it has a lot more 3D capability than CS4 non-Extended.



(1) Remember trying to use Liquify on older computers, and how long it took? Going back further, how about spending $2000+ for an add-on card that only converted to and from JPEG format, because it took 1-3 minutes to convert a single 2-3 megapixel image otherwise? Remember when a gaussian blur of an image was the signal that it was time to grab a coffee?

(2) Context-aware scaling, Liquify, certain Raw converter functions

(3) JPEG wasn't a core function until v3 or perhaps v4; you had to buy a third-party plug-in for it before that. The same for JPEG2000 before v7. The ability to support files greater than 30,000x30,000 wasn't needed until images of that size became possible for other reasons.

Kevin_Connery wrote:

Define "Perfect".

Many of the features supported in the software were either impractical on the hardware available (1), the algorithms weren't known (2), or not necessary at the time (3).

For what it's worth, unless you get the Extended version of Photoshop, there's no difference in how CS3 and CS4 handle 3D, and if you have CS3 Extended, it has a lot more 3D capability than CS4 non-Extended.



(1) Remember trying to use Liquify on older computers, and how long it took? Going back further, how about spending $2000+ for an add-on card that only converted to and from JPEG format, because it took 1-3 minutes to convert a single 2-3 megapixel image otherwise? Remember when a gaussian blur of an image was the signal that it was time to grab a coffee?

(2) Context-aware scaling, Liquify, certain Raw converter functions

(3) JPEG wasn't a core function until v3 or perhaps v4; you had to buy a third-party plug-in for it before that. The same for JPEG2000 before v7. The ability to support files greater than 30,000x30,000 wasn't needed until images of that size became possible for other reasons.

That grab a coffee was true and funny...........lol

SMAK ENTERTAINMENTS wrote:
Now I understand software is a money making business...but really whats the difference between the 2........unless your into 3D and even then you wouldn't use photoshop....not when there Maya...Poser .....3d max and other out there.


Why won't they just perfect it and sell the advancements as add-ons

You already said you understood it was a money making business.  The reason they dont just sell ad-ons is because then they couldn't faze out the older versions and force you to buy newer versions.  CS3 and CS4 damn near came out back to back.  You have to believe that Adobe (as well as other software co.'s) deliberately hold back on innovations in order to continue making their versions of the software to stay in business.

  But, I feel your pain.  I was all ready and eager to buy CS3 then, CS4 came out.  So, I said I would wait until next year and spend my hard earned money on CS6.

  As for your 3D comment, PS is very much used in 3D art/ apps. as well as film/video.