4 ms·

Are we at the point when browser-based photo editors can be suitable for advanced or professional use for something like this to succeed? I don't think we are o

Are we at the point when browser-based photo editors can be suitable for advanced or professional use for something like this to succeed? I don't think we are or will be anytime soon. This limits its target audience to novice users, but they don't really need Photoshop in the browser, but something much simpler and more approachable. Maybe novice users should be a direction to consider.

bufferoverflow 9y ago
I think we will see open source editors compiled into WASM soon, and maybe even GIMP one day. Implementing something like that from scratch is a tremendous task. I'd say impossible for one person if he/she wants to create a Photoshop alternative.
disordinary 9y ago
Why wouldn't we be? I can't think of anything that you can do in Photoshop that you couldn't do with Canvas or WebGL. Add in WASM and it might even perform better than the native photoshop app.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  I think you are underestimating how resource intensive advanced editing with Photoshop is. I think you can get a lot of basic stuff into the browser but then you'll probably hit a wall.
  - bryanlarsen 9y ago
    Resource intensive stuff can be done server side, possibly resulting in better performance than most desktops. We do that for some tasks on https://clara.io https://clara.io, a 3D editor.
    - erk__ 9y ago
      Then you offload it to the server, which would require a fee or subscribtion to be feasible to host.
    - maxxxxx 9y ago
      Getting the data to the server is difficult when you work with several 1 GB files. It's OK to do cool stuff in the browser but I think the professional use cases for Photoshop are better met by native applications written in the fastest language available.
      - bryanlarsen 9y ago
        And in some use cases it's far easier to deal with 1GB files in the cloud than it is on your desktop. Generate it there, process it there, and then deliver it from there.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - disordinary 9y ago
    WASM is 80-90% native performance and you can do a lot of the grunt work in web workers. I think you'd be surprised just how fast a web browser is.

bufferoverflow 9y ago

I think we will see open source editors compiled into WASM soon, and maybe even GIMP one day. Implementing something like that from scratch is a tremendous task. I'd say impossible for one person if he/she wants to create a Photoshop alternative.

disordinary 9y ago

Why wouldn't we be? I can't think of anything that you can do in Photoshop that you couldn't do with Canvas or WebGL. Add in WASM and it might even perform better than the native photoshop app.

maxxxxx 9y ago
I think you are underestimating how resource intensive advanced editing with Photoshop is. I think you can get a lot of basic stuff into the browser but then you'll probably hit a wall.
- bryanlarsen 9y ago
  Resource intensive stuff can be done server side, possibly resulting in better performance than most desktops. We do that for some tasks on https://clara.io https://clara.io, a 3D editor.
  - erk__ 9y ago
    Then you offload it to the server, which would require a fee or subscribtion to be feasible to host.
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    Getting the data to the server is difficult when you work with several 1 GB files. It's OK to do cool stuff in the browser but I think the professional use cases for Photoshop are better met by native applications written in the fastest language available.
    - bryanlarsen 9y ago
      And in some use cases it's far easier to deal with 1GB files in the cloud than it is on your desktop. Generate it there, process it there, and then deliver it from there.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- disordinary 9y ago
  WASM is 80-90% native performance and you can do a lot of the grunt work in web workers. I think you'd be surprised just how fast a web browser is.