TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Live Picture: Software that was way ahead of its time

46 点作者 yottoy超过 12 年前

16 条评论

pyalot2超过 12 年前
1) Your site's burning, pitty most people won't see your article/images.<p>2) The claim to "unlimited everything" repeated numerously in the article as well as "instant" anything is just hyperbole. There's no such thing in software. It might've been cleverer than photoshop about things, but unlimited and instant? No.<p>3) The claim to complete resolution independence is false. You might store editing operations/layers as parameters, but the source material is still resolution bound.<p>4) 48-bits is not that great honestly. At RGB (no word about alpha) that's 16-bit per channel. If it's normalized that's 64k graduations vs. 256 graduations. If interpreted as half float you'll only get 2 bits more per channel (half-floats use a 10-bit significand). That's cool, but not all that cool, either you get a non HDR format with a cool channel resolution, or you'll get a HDR format with 4x more graduations than 8-bpc. No you know what's cool? 32-bit single precision floats. 4 bytes, 32-bits per channel, 128-bit per pixel. You'll get 23 bits in graduations and HDR. Desktop graphics cards use this format internally anyway.
评论 #4966213 未加载
评论 #4966641 未加载
jawngee超过 12 年前
I used to use live picture back in the day. It was pretty amazing, but we never really fit it into our workflow because we were a very heavy digital shop and photoshop still had a leg up in a few areas (this was a digital pre-press and multimedia dev shop back in the early 90's).<p>Interestingly, we were also one of the first shops to have a digital camera for use in pro photo shoots. It was a Leif back that fit onto a Hasselblad. It would take one photo for each color plane, R, G, B, and each shot took about 30 seconds. You couldn't photograph people because of how long it took. But it was good for catalog and still life and high resolution enough for print. I think it cost about $10K if my memory serves.
chestnut-tree超过 12 年前
The history of desktop applications is full of examples of clever or unique applications that never took off or failed to gain widespread adoption. Sometimes these applications had a superior interface to the dominant app (and sometimes not).<p>It would be really useful to see a few side-by-side comparisons of how a task is accomplished in LivePicture compared with Photoshop.<p>Although Photoshop is powerful and feature rich, I find the interface clumsy and awkward (Illustrator, in my opinion, has an even clunkier interface). Does the lack of serious competition against Photoshop keep Adobe from re-thinking the interface?<p>Apple's Final Cut Pro clearly had some influence on subsequent releases of Premiere Pro, but there's no serious competitor to Photoshop that I can think of (yes, there are alternatives, but none that are likely to take users away from Photoshop).<p>What's more, many people simply don't go looking for alternatives. Mastering Photoshop or Illustrator will stand you in good stead in the employment market if you're looking for a visual design job. And if you get stuck with an application task, there's a good chance you'll find a solution by searching for it online. There is an absolutely enormous number of supporting resources around Adobe's Creative Suite of products: tutorials, training, books, discussion sites etc.<p>All that helps to maintain the status quo and makes it much harder for competing apps to gain attention.
评论 #4966293 未加载
评论 #4966589 未加载
mathnode超过 12 年前
The photoshop competition was all on IRIX, and was a LOT better. Matador and Amazon were great applications, and better performers on 64bit MIPS hardware. Some got ported to Linux, but were then not maintained, or integrated into other codebases.<p>Old / dead image editors (with deep colour) better than Photoshop at the time:<p>* IFX Amazon<p>* Alias Eclipse<p>* Da Vinci or something? Not the Colour/DI suite.<p>* Deep Paint<p>* Avid Matador<p>* I actually used Combustion for years. You can keep your photo-pap!<p>Alive alternatives:<p>* Cinepaint (Yes it works fine)<p>* GIMP 2.9 or GIMP 2.10 when it is released<p>* Node based compositing apps i.e. Nuke.
igul222超过 12 年前
Site appears to be down. Google cache: <a href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Fe4HrH3mYJsJ:http://www.pixiq.com/article/live-picture%2Bhttp://www.pixiq.com/article/live-picture&#38;hl=en&#38;client=safari&#38;nomo=1&#38;biw=320&#38;bih=416&#38;prmd=ivns&#38;strip=1" rel="nofollow">http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Fe4HrH3...</a>
valley_guy_12超过 12 年前
Here's a brief comparison of Live Picture vs. PhotoShop.<p>It says Live Picture is sluggish and only better than PhotoShop on really large images.<p><a href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:j7viI0yXQkoJ:philip.greenspun.com/wtr/live-picture-v-photoshop.html+&#38;cd=1&#38;hl=en&#38;ct=clnk&#38;gl=us" rel="nofollow">http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:j7viI0y...</a>
评论 #4966374 未加载
henningtegen超过 12 年前
We are currently working on a application with similar features called Leonardo although Leonardo is streamlined for digital painting, not photo editing.<p>Leonardo is still at least 6 months away from being released but all the features like "unlimited canvas", "instant painting" and handling of "huge files" are already in place.<p>Main website: <a href="http://www.getleonardo.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.getleonardo.com</a> (not much there yet)<p>We also just started a Vimeo channel were we "blog" about the progress of Leonardo: <a href="https://vimeo.com/channels/sol/" rel="nofollow">https://vimeo.com/channels/sol/</a><p>Unfortunately there is no video right now showing the "unlimited canvas" and "instant painting", but I can make one within the next couple of hours... :)
rikacomet超过 12 年前
A monopoly can also be seen as, a pioneer making something useful, others being unable to replicate or challenge with their own.<p>take gimp for example, it is nowhere near the dominance of adobe. its like windows-macintosh of the computer graphics world.
评论 #4966166 未加载
virtualritz超过 12 年前
The probable reasons this app failed, and any app that competes with PS will (regardless of how well it tackles the resolution independence/feedback speed issue): are two things:<p>1. Workflow must match PS 1:1 for the majority of everyday image editing operations. People that use PS are mostly creative folks who do no understand image editing from a technical perspective. Solving a problem (a use case) to them means to internalize a workflow. Mastering a 'deep' app like PS this way takes years. If you write a competitor to PS and dont honor this experience that took your target users years, often over a decade to aquire, you're shooting yourself in the foot too hard to ever gain enough momentum on a market that is dominated by PS (resp. its users).<p>This is imho also the reason why Adobe hasn't touched basic workflow in PS, <i>ever</i>. Because if they did this, they risked alienating users and driving them to test a competitor's product. Recall when Apple 'improved' the UI/workflow of FinalCut Pro? The screams of outrage echoing through the web? :)<p>2. Feature set must be more or less identical to PS. You can 'plus' in some areas but you can't 'minus'. If you have a use case that is not covered by your app but by PS and it is even used by the average target user only once a week in PS, this will be enough reason for them to not consider your app a worthwhile alternative, even if you do get 1. right.<p>1. is not too hard to do, engineering wise. But 2. is a huge task. PS simply has <i>a lot</i> of features.
norswap超过 12 年前
The article praises Live Picture, but offer no hints as to why it failed to "kill" or even simply concurrence Photoshop.
评论 #4966368 未加载
gallerytungsten超过 12 年前
I recall trying Live Picture a few times, back in the early 90s. It was promoted in the same kind of breathless tone as this article. My recollection is that it in no way lived up to the hype. It was slow and crashed a lot.
aneth4超过 12 年前
Why does Photoshop need to be killed? Seems like a good, powerful piece of software loved by many.
评论 #4966314 未加载
评论 #4966386 未加载
评论 #4966310 未加载
msohcw超过 12 年前
I'd like to see the 'impossible image' that was created with LivePicture and impossible for Photoshop...
wyck超过 12 年前
Could have..would have.<p>There is one thing than can still kill Photoshop, something on par for linux.<p>ps. do not say gimp, really.
评论 #4966524 未加载
yottoy超过 12 年前
Or is it 'should have killed Photoshop'...
评论 #4966025 未加载
lucian303超过 12 年前
Just another case of superior tech losing out. Sad but true. All too often.