PS CS5 10-bit video under Open GL on Mac OS??

[Pete_Myers]

Dear Adobe:

I have been working with the engineers at Eizo for the past year in trying to get the Eizo CG 243w monitor to work at 10-bits per color plane via mini displayport to displayport connection while using the 4870 graphics card on a Mac Pro.

Eizo re-wrote the firmware for the CG 243w to be compatible with the mini displayport standard released by Apple. As of this past summer, the CG 243w now interconnects with the 4870 graphics card to the monitor, while hosted on a Mac Pro under 10.6.

BUT in using Adobe's on test image, it is obvious that the display is still not working at 10-bits per color plane, as banding is showing.

Would you please clearly state whether Adobe Photoshop CS5 in the current version is capable of driving the 4870 graphics card and displaying 10-bits per color plane images using the MacPro and current OS? We need to know where the bottleneck is coming from---Adobe, Apple, AMD.

It is frustrating that Windows users have successfully been able to use Photoshop CS5 with a handful of different graphics cards and a large number of Eizo 10-bit monitors for a long time and it still appears that Mac users, known for being graphic intensive, cannot. We really need help getting to the bottom of this. Adobe Labs might be cranking out some fun new product, but functionality of a key issue for Photoshop would seem to be higher priority---and 10-bits per color plane seems like it would be one such issue.

cheers,

Pete

[adinatha]

I know, I was just hinting to Pete lacking high bit depth implementation of a lot of filters in PS.

[Chris Cox]

lacking high bit depth implementation of a lot of filters in PS.

That would be because we have very few specific reqeusts for them.

Just a couple of folks going "but I want everything".

[adinatha]

I won't suggest any specific filters, Chris, because I don't use PS regularly. However let me put the issue this way: it is experimentally proven - and widely agreed among video engineers - that the human visual system has the sensory ability to distinguish gradation which, in terms of digital representation, needs at least 10-bit codewords if nonlinear light coding (gamma) is utilized. In case of linear light coding 14 bits would be optimal. Adding to that some signal processing headroom 16-bit and higher wordlengths are justifiable for post-processing, particulary in case of still pictures. It is not by chance that 10-bit video interfaces are the studio industry standard since the 1980s. Well, it's 2011 and we are still arguing about whether 10-bit video is important or not in the industry standard photo manipulation tool because, from the management's point of view, it's not possibly reaping profits if not enough users demand it (ie. the filters you were talking about). This is not a vision. Adobe has been made wonderful contributions to the world of computers but this is a mentality that makes me agree with warzenbeisser's post.

[Chris Cox]

I know human vision and image coding better than most.

But do creative filters really need more than 8 bits/channel of quality?  Most of the correction and utility filters already support 16 and 32 bit/channel.

We have limited engineering resources. If we're going to convert filters, we need to know which ones to spend our time on.

There is no way we are going to convert all of them at one time. Plus many of them can't be converted at all because of the algorithms they use.

And so far, we have only a handfull of specific requests for supporting 16 and 32 bit/channel. We're trying to address the requests we have. But asking for everything to be converted without giving a reason - that's not too reasonable.

Well, it's 2011 and we are still arguing about whether 10-bit video is important or not in the industry standard photo manipulation tool because,

We aren't arguing that at all.  Photoshop implemented 10 bit/channel display support as soon as the hardware added it (actually, before you could buy the hardware).  We're just discussing the fact that Apple has so far not added the feature to their drivers, while Windows has had it working for quite some time.

[MarkDS]

I wonder whether Apple is aware that Microsoft is well ahead of them on this feature, as well as what's been stated about comparative multi-core task allocation efficiency. Is OSX slipping behind Windows generally? And if it is, one wonders whether Apple cares and whether the future of digital imaging belongs to Windows.

Mark

[MarkDS]

Hi Chris,

As a person who switched from Windows to Mac last year in order the improve the

overall computing experience, needless to say I did know about these speed hits

and the performance tests I saw on the Mac side looked pretty impressive

compared to what I was using before this upgrade (Windows XP on a four year old

Dell). So I guess this kind of experience raises a question about practicality

and criticality. I think many of our decisions are based on compromises wherein

some things stand out for practicality and others are more or less critical as

the case may be. So reading what you are saying here, had I known this last year

would I have decided just to upgrade to Windows 7 instead of going Mac? Mac has

a lot going for it, so to answer that question I would have needed to know how

different these performance speeds really are between my 12/24 intel Mac and its

equivalent in Windows. I've been told in the past by other Photoshop engineers

that some things in Photoshop can't really benefit much from multi-core

technology while others can. As well, the most usual operations I perform in

Photoshop don't require using various filters that really do tax a machine

heavily. By the time I take an image into Photoshop, it's been Lightroomed

already, so much of the heavy lifting is done there, and in Photoshop I do

finishing touches - maybe some transforms, some layer masking, some contrast and

vibrancy adjustments, sharpening with Photokit Sharpeber and printing.

With that as background and getting down to brass tacks - would I really notice

much difference in performance speed between 12/24 Mac and Windows for stuff

like importing images to LR and building LR thumbnails, and doing the basic

image editing adjustments in LR 3 and PSCS5? Or does one need to do bench

testing to see that theoretical speed differences of little practical importance

do occur? Of course whatever the answer, it is disappointing that Apple is

losing it technologically, but this is a company making gazillions in iPhones,

iPads and iTunes, so if they're dropping the ball on their less remunerative

computer business it's not totally unexplainable.

Mark

[Guest]

MarkDS wrote:

...had I known this last year would I have decided just to upgrade to Windows 7 instead of going Mac...

Mac can run Windows 7. So you have not gotten yourself stuck to a single platform.

[MarkDS]

It was a question, not something I'd necessarily do. Anyhow, reverting to your

answer - yes I know. BUT it runs as a virtual machine under Parallels - not

clear what kind of a performance hit that creates. Likewise for the less

flexible and more inconvenient option of using Bootcamp. Also, Adobe has not yet

seen fit to make Photoshop a cross-platform license, unlike what the same

company allows for Lightroom; don't ask me about the logic of that - it's nuts,

but that being the case, one would need to buy another copy of Photoshop IF one

wanted the flexibility to run it on both platforms. There are of course other

issues using Windows, why from an overall computing experience perspective it

may still be preferable to remain using a Mac as a Mac. That is why I reverted

to Chris about the real impact of the performance differences.

Mark

[Guest]

Because our work and needs in Photoshop are different, only you can determine difference in performance. Adobe offers a 30-day trial for Windows that would let you compare performance.

Crossgrades are available from Adobe to switch platforms if you find that the Windows trial runs better than your Mac license.

http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/405/kb405819.html

[MarkDS]

Yes Marian, I realize all that. There are also plugins and linkages with other

applications to consider. It's not simply a "which OS works faster" issue,

unfortunately. It may be worth test or two anyhow, but if Chris can share

further insight into the practical extent of these performances differences it

would help to decide whether the time and trouble experimenting could be

worthwhile.

The availability of cross-grades is fine, but in this day and age Photoshop's

licensing policy remains an industry anachronism.

Mark

[videonow.info]

I would love to see a cross platform license arrangement.  I would probably use Windows for Premier Pro CS 5, but am locked out unless I buy another copy or totally abandon my Mac license.  Come on Adobe...  help us out!

[Chris Cox]

Without knowing your exact workflow, I can't tell you how much the OS problems will affect your performance.

Overall, Windows benchmarks as faster than MacOS when runninng on the same hardware.

A few operations are faster on MacOS, but many common operations are faster running Windows.

[MarkDS]

Chris,

I understand where you are coming from, but let me put it this way: when I draw

a curve, create a layer, draw a gradient on a layer mask, etc. etc. the reaction

is imperceptibly fast on my Mac, so these kinds of things would be even more

imperceptible on Windows. However, if I allow a plugin e.g. Photokit Sharpener

to run through its Action set, that can take visible time because numerous

complex operations are involved. In such a case, the question is how much faster

would it be on Win7 vs Mac OSX with the same hardware: 24GB RAM, 12/24 cores,

clock-speed 2.63 GHz. Let us say - hypothetically a complex Action set of

Photokit Sharpener takes 5 seconds to complete on this Mac. Can you estimate how

much faster this would play on a comparable Win7 platform?

Mark

[Chris Cox]

Again, it is difficult to estimate.

Some things would be 50% faster, while some might be 5% slower.

[MarkDS]

Thanks Chris. That ballparks it. Not a spread that would influence my decision

about what OS to buy because there are other more determinative factors. But

that does not let Apple off the hook technologically to be at the forefront of

computing excellence, and the upshot of this, combined with how they've broken

colour management at both the monitor and print ends of the chain, indicates

that their interests now lie elsewhere than in computing. I guess we're drawing

to the end of an era with the vaunted pre-eminence of the Mac OS for digital

imaging.

Mark

[videonow.info]

MarkDS, I am afraid you are right.  Pro apps are gone from Apple's attention.  Back to Windoze I guess.  Crap.

[Tai_Lao]

ggriswold wrote:

…Pro apps are gone from Apple's attention.  Back to Windoze I guess.  Crap.

Recent, plaintive post by one of the top contributors on the Apple discussion boards:

(at https://discussions.apple.com/message/15858125?tstart=0#15858125 , bottom of discussion at this time) 

[Max_Ramuschi]

Ok, let's return to talk about 10bit x channel support. I've just upgraded to Lion and my quadro 4000 now runs better with 10.7 new drivers, but no 10 bit support... well there isn't any option anywhere to enable this feature....

Does someone know more about it?

[Guest]

What talk is there to return to if you have recognized that it is still not available in Lion?

Max_Ramuschi wrote:

...well there isn't any option anywhere to enable this feature....

One option allows this feature but you seem to think it is a distraction from the conversation. 

[MarkDS]

Yes, the "more about it" is that Apple Computer in its infinite wisdom hasn't yet seen fit to provide for this in OSX. The fact that Windows 7 does hasn't made a dent on Apple, despite all the representations made to them for the better part of a year on this matter. Apple is as insular and secretive as they get so one doesn't get any insight into what the situation is or will be as to the provision of this functionality. It's obviously just not high on their "to do" list.

Mark

[Chris Cox]

well there isn't any option anywhere to enable this feature....

You are correct - MacOS 10.7 have no such option.

[Julian Vrieslander]

It seems like this thread is going stale.  If, as Chris Cox claims, Adobe has already implemented support for 10-bit video, then we should be badgering Apple to add the missing piece: 10-bit support in the driver. Post messages in the Apple user forums, call your local reps, button-hole the developers and managers at WWDC, file RADARs and feature requests, send emails to steve@apple.com, etc.  I hope that future submissions to this thread will be limited to reports of progress in getting Apple to support 10-bit tech, or tips on how to influence them to make this happen.

A bit of perspective, at the risk of going off-topic.  I have a 10-bit capable monitor and I would love to use all 10-bits when running Photoshop.  But realistically, there are relatively few people who care about this feature, or need it.  I sometimes use 16-bit filters in PS, but have no current need for 32-bit.  Rather than devoting resources to such esoteric needs, I would rather see Adobe improving their software installers and online updaters. These systems are, and have been for a long time, an overly complex and buggy mess.  Everyone I know who uses Adobe products (even the free ones) curses the installers and updaters.

Just one example: I had so many update nag dialogs from Acrobat (sometimes several per day, and for updates that I had already done) that I banished Acrobat from my hard disk.  I still get those nag dialogs, and I don't know how to kill them.

[Chris Cox]

It seems like this thread is going stale.  If, as Chris Cox claims, Adobe has already implemented support for 10-bit video, then we should be badgering Apple to add the missing piece: 10-bit support in the driver.

Yes, that's what the topic has said for several months now.

[MarkDS]

Apple has been badgered about this issue like you wouldn't believe. They are immune.

Mark

[Barry Rudick]

Just to add to the conversation. The NEC Wide Gamut LCD monitors holds a 10 bit LUT internally in the monitor to return a solid 8 bit video data to the video card. You will not see banding.

This is only working as explained above if the Spectraview II software solution (NEC only) is used as the calibration software. It also requires DVI-D cable to the monitor for full  two-way comminication. The lower end NEC Wide Gamut LCD (i.e. P221W) has the 10 bit LUT enabled but other features such as ColorComp, etc. are not available. It may be connected with DVI-I, I believe.

Cheers,

Barry Rudick

Aker Imaging