2002-09-20 by Julian Thomas
Guess you need to buy the workshop :-)
Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mitch Alland" <malland@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 12:05 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: 4x5 Neg Scan Resolution
>
>
> To: Dave G ["dgabbe2001" <dgabbe@...>}
>
> > Martin made a remark about large files hard to deal w/in Photoshop.
> > During the workshop, the brain trust demostrated how they used 1% of
> > PS. It is unlike anything I've read in PS books and truely makes
> > dealing w/500meg files a happening thing.
>
> That's a pretty cryptic statement. How does one deal easily with 500MB
> files in PS?
>
> --Mitch
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;quot;flames.&amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
2002-09-20 by Anthony Atkielski
Mitch writes:
> That's a pretty cryptic statement. How does one
> deal easily with 500MB files in PS?
If you have 1.5 GB or more of RAM on the machine, there is no particular
difficulty in dealing with 500 MB files in Photoshop.
2002-09-20 by Loris Medici
Try to use "Liquify" then ;)
----- Original Message -----
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: "Anthony Atkielski" <atkielski@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: 4x5 Neg Scan Resolution
> ...
> If you have 1.5 GB or more of RAM on the machine, there is no particular
> difficulty in dealing with 500 MB files in Photoshop.
2002-09-20 by Shire,Stanley
Geez! How many of us are printing 44"x33" prints (that is approximately
= to a 500meg file?)
Stan Shire
Associate Professor/Department Chair
Photographic Imaging
Community College of Philadelphia
Adobe Photoshop 6 A.C.E.
215 751-8320
sshire@...
Show quoted textHide quoted text
-----Original Message-----
From: Loris Medici [mailto:loris.medici@...]
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 6:54 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: 4x5 Neg Scan Resolution
Try to use "Liquify" then ;)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Atkielski" <atkielski@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: 4x5 Neg Scan Resolution
> ...
> If you have 1.5 GB or more of RAM on the machine, there is no
particular
> difficulty in dealing with 500 MB files in Photoshop.
Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this
same page.
Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;quot;flames.&amp;quot;
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
2002-09-20 by Truman Prevatt
My 4x5 scans at 16 bits and 2400 dpi comes out to be about 200 megs
depending on the cropping. That's plenty resolution to print a 16 by 20.
I have found Picture Window Pro handles large files with more ease than
photoshop. About the only thing I use PS for anymore is to remove
negative inperfection with the "bandaid" or "healing brush" or whatever
they call it.
I guess if you were doing 4x5 color you'd be running into 500 to 600 meg
files.
Truman.
Shire,Stanley wrote:
> Geez! How many of us are printing 44"x33" prints (that is approximately
> = to a 500meg file?)
>
>
> Stan Shire
> Associate Professor/Department Chair
> Photographic Imaging
> Community College of Philadelphia
> Adobe Photoshop 6 A.C.E.
>
> 215 751-8320
> sshire@...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loris Medici [mailto:loris.medici@...]
> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 6:54 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: 4x5 Neg Scan Resolution
>
>
> Try to use "Liquify" then ;)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Anthony Atkielski" <atkielski@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 1:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: 4x5 Neg Scan Resolution
>
>
> > ...
> > If you have 1.5 GB or more of RAM on the machine, there is no
> particular
> > difficulty in dealing with 500 MB files in Photoshop.
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
> other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this
> same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
> keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
> header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> &amp;quot;flames.&amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=233214.2377745.3805144.2225242/D=egroupweb/S=1705019182:HM/A=1227861/R=0/*http://ads.track-star.com/linker.ts?ts=1;2;312;3_2_11>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls
> and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish
> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting
> this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
> keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> &amp;quot;flames.&amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the
> various resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2002-09-20 by Editor P.O.V. Image Service
Loris Medici wrote:
>Try to use "Liquify" then ;)
>
>
>
I must be doing something wrong... ;-)
535 mB Image
Go to Liquify
Once it loads (about 10-15 seconds), it works without a problem...
Perhaps it's the dual CPUs and 2.0 gB RAM with nice BIG scratch diskS?
Sorry, I constantly edit 720 dpi images at 12 x 18 and higher... Only
when they start hitting about 1.75 gB do they become a bear..
Hardware is cheap... No reason not to get your RAM maxed out at the very
least..
Keith
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2002-09-20 by Anthony Atkielski
Stanley writes:
> Geez! How many of us are printing 44"x33" prints
> (that is approximately = to a 500meg file?)
A 6x6 image scanned at 4000 dpi and 16-bit depth will yield about 480
megabytes. A 6x9 image will reach 850 MB or so. Presumably if you are
shooting medium format in the first place, it's because you intend to make
very large prints that will be examined at close range--otherwise you could
simply shoot 35mm or even digital. This is all the more true for
large-format images. Incidentally, an 8x10 transparency scanned at 5000 dpi
(about the highest one ever need go with slide films) yields a 12,000 MB
file. Such a file could produce a backlit mural 60 feet on a side, large
enough to adorn the wall of a railroad station or airport terminal.
I've seen 15x7-foot backlit enlargements from digital camera files, and they
look horrible, as the lack of resolution is extremely easy to see unless you
are practically in another room. No such problem with large film formats.
One other reason for using very high-resolution images is that they give you
a great deal of headroom for manipulation in Photoshop before they start to
degrade visibly.
2002-09-20 by Austin Franklin
Hi Anthony,
> Presumably if you are
> shooting medium format in the first place, it's because you intend to make
> very large prints that will be examined at close range--otherwise
> you could
> simply shoot 35mm or even digital.
That's for the most part, true...but for faster films, MF hold together
better, obviously. So, for even smaller prints, depending on the film, MF
can have a distinct advantage.
Regards,
Austin
2002-09-20 by Mark Tucker
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Shire,Stanley" <sshire@c...> wrote:
> Geez! How many of us are printing 44"x33" prints (that is approximately
> = to a 500meg file?)
I'll tell you guys what -- it might not be that practical, but it's still enlightening. I
shot a personal project, where I shot these teenage kids that hang out at this
local "artsy coffeehouse"; I shot them on 8x10 BW film, and then scanned those
on an Agfa T2500. The files were, in short, just massive. Out of control. Huge.
But given this, there was still this very beautiful quality to the files, since the
scans came from such giant film.
The whole approach of scanning giant film on a flatbed is so different from
scanning 120 film on an Imacon. In general, I'm always loyal to the Imacon, due to
the amazing sharpness and the killer software, but I was surprised and very
satisfied with these flatbed scans from 8x10. I could have gone wall-size with
the prints, with gorgeous tonal range and depth.
http://www.marktucker.com/bongo/
Just the portraits were shot with the 8x10. The kids did their own mat and gave
it back to me.
But the point is: I'm jonesing for another 8x10. I know it's because that now I own
a 9600, and there's a part of me that is dying to see a 44" wide print that's still
3-D razor sharp. If you've never shot big format, it's certainly an education; I
can't imagine how anybody would be disappointed (unless you're a sports
photographer...)
MT, http://www.marktucker.com
2002-09-20 by Shire,Stanley
Didn't we go through this in the last "What size to scan" thread? If I
remember correctly, (please correct me if I'm wrong) 350 is about the
max the Epson's use. So, 44x33 @ 350spi is about 500mb (ok, 1gb in 16
bit). I, of course, scan my medium and large format in 16 bit. (Jeff
Schewe says that anyone who isn't working in 16 bit is a "recreational"
Photoshop user.) So, by the time I've mucked the pixels around in 16
bit/channel, flattened and converted to an 8 bit tiff for printing
(Can't wait for my IP5, which won't require tiff files to print) my file
is back to 500 mb. Will More than 350 ppi/spi give me a visually better
print (disregarding viewing distance)??
Stan Shire
Associate Professor/Department Chair
Photographic Imaging
Community College of Philadelphia
Adobe Photoshop 6 A.C.E.
215 751-8320
sshire@...
Show quoted textHide quoted text
-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Atkielski [mailto:atkielski@...]
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 8:53 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: 4x5 Neg Scan Resolution
Stanley writes:
> Geez! How many of us are printing 44"x33" prints
> (that is approximately = to a 500meg file?)
A 6x6 image scanned at 4000 dpi and 16-bit depth will yield about 480
megabytes. A 6x9 image will reach 850 MB or so. Presumably if you are
shooting medium format in the first place, it's because you intend to
make
very large prints that will be examined at close range--otherwise you
could
simply shoot 35mm or even digital. This is all the more true for
large-format images. Incidentally, an 8x10 transparency scanned at 5000
dpi
(about the highest one ever need go with slide films) yields a 12,000 MB
file. Such a file could produce a backlit mural 60 feet on a side,
large
enough to adorn the wall of a railroad station or airport terminal.
I've seen 15x7-foot backlit enlargements from digital camera files, and
they
look horrible, as the lack of resolution is extremely easy to see unless
you
are practically in another room. No such problem with large film
formats.
One other reason for using very high-resolution images is that they give
you
a great deal of headroom for manipulation in Photoshop before they start
to
degrade visibly.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=233214.2377745.3805144.2225242/D=egroupweb/S=1705
019182:HM/A=1227861/R=0/*http:/ads.track-star.com/linker.ts?ts=1;2;312;3
_2_11>
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=233214.2377745.3805144.2225242/D=egrou
pmail/S=:HM/A=1227861/rand=377411388>
Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this
same page.
Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;quot;flames.&amp;quot;
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2002-09-20 by Austin Franklin
Hi Stan,
> (Jeff
> Schewe says that anyone who isn't working in 16 bit is a "recreational"
> Photoshop user.)
That solely depends on what you are using PS for. If you are doing heavy
tonal manipulations, especially in B&W, that's certainly true. For color,
it's debatable even for pretty heavy tonal manipulations. If you aren't
doing any tonal manipulations, it doesn't matter.
> Will More than 350 ppi/spi give me a visually better
> print (disregarding viewing distance)??
With the Piezo driver, it very well may...that's scene dependant.
Regards,
Austin
2002-09-20 by Julian Thomas
you've been bitten!
Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Tucker" <mtucker508@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 3:06 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: 4x5 Neg Scan Resolution
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Shire,Stanley" <sshire@c...>
wrote:
> > Geez! How many of us are printing 44"x33" prints (that is approximately
> > = to a 500meg file?)
>
> I'll tell you guys what -- it might not be that practical, but it's still
enlightening. I
> shot a personal project, where I shot these teenage kids that hang out at
this
> local "artsy coffeehouse"; I shot them on 8x10 BW film, and then scanned
those
> on an Agfa T2500. The files were, in short, just massive. Out of control.
Huge.
> But given this, there was still this very beautiful quality to the files,
since the
> scans came from such giant film.
>
> The whole approach of scanning giant film on a flatbed is so different
from
> scanning 120 film on an Imacon. In general, I'm always loyal to the
Imacon, due to
> the amazing sharpness and the killer software, but I was surprised and
very
> satisfied with these flatbed scans from 8x10. I could have gone wall-size
with
> the prints, with gorgeous tonal range and depth.
>
> http://www.marktucker.com/bongo/
>
> Just the portraits were shot with the 8x10. The kids did their own mat and
gave
> it back to me.
>
> But the point is: I'm jonesing for another 8x10. I know it's because that
now I own
> a 9600, and there's a part of me that is dying to see a 44" wide print
that's still
> 3-D razor sharp. If you've never shot big format, it's certainly an
education; I
> can't imagine how anybody would be disappointed (unless you're a sports
> photographer...)
>
> MT, http://www.marktucker.com
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;quot;flames.&amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
2002-09-20 by Anthony Atkielski
Austin writes:
> That's for the most part, true...but for faster
> films, MF hold together better, obviously.
I forgot about that, but you are right. Tri-X looks nicer on MF than on
35mm (although it's not exactly the same emulsion). Portra 400F looks a tad
soft and shows some grain in 35mm, but looks great in MF.
I regularly wonder why I can't get T-Max P3200 in MF, since the grain would
be much less obvious in MF and would thus make the ultra high speed even
more useful.
> So, for even smaller prints, depending on the film, MF
> can have a distinct advantage.
But one can also argue that digital would be an even better choice, if
resolution is not required and grain must be avoided. Most digicams are
pretty slow in terms of sensitivity, but that is changing, and supposedly
pro bodies manage quite well.
2002-09-20 by Austin Franklin
Hi Anthony,
> I regularly wonder why I can't get T-Max P3200 in MF,
I use Delta 3200, XTOL 1:1 and it looks pretty damn good!
> But one can also argue that digital would be an even better choice, if
> resolution is not required and grain must be avoided. Most digicams are
> pretty slow in terms of sensitivity, but that is changing, and supposedly
> pro bodies manage quite well.
Unfortunately, not many of the digicams will be B&W...and I'm not a fan of
the RGB conversions. I could live with a full frame (6cm x 6cm, not the
reduced frame size that are currently all that are available) B&W Hasselblad
6k x 6k digital back...that gave me ISO from 100 to 3200. That would
probably eliminate film for me. I wonder how many people would buy such a
back, if it were priced in the low $k's?
Austin
2002-09-20 by Anthony Atkielski
Julian writes:
> you've been bitten!
Increasing resolution is probably a slippery slope for any photographer.
Once you've seen good 35mm, digital doesn't look that good. Once you've
seen MF, 35mm doesn't look that sharp anymore. Once you've tried LF, MF
looks fuzzy.
I think it is just very satisfying to take a picture, look at the print, and
be able to get closer and closer and closer and see more and more and more
detail. It's kind of a disappointment when you squint at a large print to
see some small, interesting detail and discover that it is just a blur.
At least that is what drove me from digital back to film, and from 35mm to
MF. I'm afraid to try LF, because I would not be able to afford the desire
that it might create!
2002-09-20 by Martin Wesley
----- Original Message -----
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: "Anthony Atkielski" <atkielski@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 3:38 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: 4x5 Neg Scan Resolution
> Mitch writes:
>
> > That's a pretty cryptic statement. How does one
> > deal easily with 500MB files in PS?
>
> If you have 1.5 GB or more of RAM on the machine, there is no particular
> difficulty in dealing with 500 MB files in Photoshop.
>
I don't know. I have a 1.2GHz AMD with 1.5 GB RAM and dedicated scratch disk
but things get pretty slow when even doing simple things like rotations when
the file size hits 500+MB and at 1.6GB-1.8GB 16-bit RGB files it would take
forever to get through a series of basic actions. Moving up to a 2100XP CPU
and PC2700 memory would help but probably less than 50%.
One of the problems is that PS seems to basically have an antiquated memory
management system that does not mesh well with OS memory management. Even
with 1.5+GB of RAM PS will preferentially spool data out of memory to disk.
It is not uncommon to open a large file and have it all go into RAM but at
the first action PS spools it to disk and only uses a fraction of available
RAM.
I think there is more to gain by going to stripped disk arrays than by
adding memory beyond the 1.5 to 2GB range. Even dual CPU's offer a benefit
in only a small number of PS actions such as filtering. Seems like the
biggest speed barrier in PS is Adobe who is more interested in new tools and
Web functions than in revamping the core software and adding the ability to
use layers in 16-bit.
Martin Wesley
http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html
2002-09-20 by Martin Wesley
Mark,
Very beautiful and inspiring work as always!
Now if you really want to have your mind blown, scan one of those 8x10 negs
on a drum scanner at 4000 or 8000 dpi and zoom around the image. The detail
will make you want to try some 40x60 prints. <G>
Martin Wesley
http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Tucker" <mtucker508@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 6:06 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: 4x5 Neg Scan Resolution
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Shire,Stanley" <sshire@c...>
wrote:
> > Geez! How many of us are printing 44"x33" prints (that is approximately
> > = to a 500meg file?)
>
> I'll tell you guys what -- it might not be that practical, but it's still
enlightening. I
> shot a personal project, where I shot these teenage kids that hang out at
this
> local "artsy coffeehouse"; I shot them on 8x10 BW film, and then scanned
those
> on an Agfa T2500. The files were, in short, just massive. Out of control.
Huge.
> But given this, there was still this very beautiful quality to the files,
since the
> scans came from such giant film.
>
> The whole approach of scanning giant film on a flatbed is so different
from
> scanning 120 film on an Imacon. In general, I'm always loyal to the
Imacon, due to
> the amazing sharpness and the killer software, but I was surprised and
very
> satisfied with these flatbed scans from 8x10. I could have gone wall-size
with
> the prints, with gorgeous tonal range and depth.
>
> http://www.marktucker.com/bongo/
>
> Just the portraits were shot with the 8x10. The kids did their own mat and
gave
> it back to me.
>
> But the point is: I'm jonesing for another 8x10. I know it's because that
now I own
> a 9600, and there's a part of me that is dying to see a 44" wide print
that's still
> 3-D razor sharp. If you've never shot big format, it's certainly an
education; I
> can't imagine how anybody would be disappointed (unless you're a sports
> photographer...)
>
> MT, http://www.marktucker.com
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;quot;flames.&amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
2002-09-20 by Martin Wesley
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shire,Stanley" <sshire@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 6:16 AM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: 4x5 Neg Scan Resolution
> Didn't we go through this in the last "What size to scan" thread? If I
> remember correctly, (please correct me if I'm wrong) 350 is about the
> max the Epson's use. So, 44x33 @ 350spi is about 500mb (ok, 1gb in 16
> bit). I, of course, scan my medium and large format in 16 bit. (Jeff
> Schewe says that anyone who isn't working in 16 bit is a "recreational"
> Photoshop user.) So, by the time I've mucked the pixels around in 16
> bit/channel, flattened and converted to an 8 bit tiff for printing
> (Can't wait for my IP5, which won't require tiff files to print) my file
> is back to 500 mb. Will More than 350 ppi/spi give me a visually better
> print (disregarding viewing distance)??
Stan,
My preference is to scan to get as much info off the neg as possible and
save that. I can then throw away data latter if necessary. My next
consideration is to downsample to a file size that runs reasonably fast on
my machine and stays above 360 ppi. Better too much data than not enough.
I only do major adjustments in 16 bit and then drop to 8-bit in order to use
masked layers. I find that adjustment layers and using the layer opacity
control this gives me the control I want to do very fine tweaking of an
image. It is not unusual for me to wind up with 10 to 20 layers for making
different adjustments to small areas of the image. I have occasionally hit
an image where I needed to go back and apply all the 8-bit work to a 16-bit
version of the file but this has been extremely rare. As a general rule I
don't see any advantage to staying in 16-bit all the way through.
Personally I don't see any difference in sending more than 360ppi to the
printer. This will be especially true for IP5 which renders at a max of 360.
Martin Wesley
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> Stan Shire
> Associate Professor/Department Chair
> Photographic Imaging
> Community College of Philadelphia
> Adobe Photoshop 6 A.C.E.
>
> 215 751-8320
> sshire@...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anthony Atkielski [mailto:atkielski@...]
> Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 8:53 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: 4x5 Neg Scan Resolution
>
> Stanley writes:
>
> > Geez! How many of us are printing 44"x33" prints
> > (that is approximately = to a 500meg file?)
>
> A 6x6 image scanned at 4000 dpi and 16-bit depth will yield about 480
> megabytes. A 6x9 image will reach 850 MB or so. Presumably if you are
> shooting medium format in the first place, it's because you intend to
> make
> very large prints that will be examined at close range--otherwise you
> could
> simply shoot 35mm or even digital. This is all the more true for
> large-format images. Incidentally, an 8x10 transparency scanned at 5000
> dpi
> (about the highest one ever need go with slide films) yields a 12,000 MB
> file. Such a file could produce a backlit mural 60 feet on a side,
> large
> enough to adorn the wall of a railroad station or airport terminal.
>
> I've seen 15x7-foot backlit enlargements from digital camera files, and
> they
> look horrible, as the lack of resolution is extremely easy to see unless
> you
> are practically in another room. No such problem with large film
> formats.
>
> One other reason for using very high-resolution images is that they give
> you
> a great deal of headroom for manipulation in Photoshop before they start
> to
> degrade visibly.
>
2002-09-20 by Martin Wesley
----- Original Message -----
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: "Anthony Atkielski" <atkielski@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 7:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: 4x5 Neg Scan Resolution
(snip)
>
> At least that is what drove me from digital back to film, and from 35mm to
> MF. I'm afraid to try LF, because I would not be able to afford the
desire
> that it might create!
Anthony,
Actually I think you can get into LF a lot cheaper than most of the MF
systems, especially if you buy used. Not much to go wrong with a LF body or
lens.
The killer part is a scanner to match the quality of LF negs. Not much out
there that offers both quality and affordability.
Martin Wesley
2002-09-20 by Moreno Polloni
> That's a pretty cryptic statement. How does one deal easily with 500MB
> files in PS?
Easy. A dual Xeon PC loaded with 4gb of Rambus and a striped HD array.
2002-09-20 by Bill Morse
Hi Martin-
That does not really conform with my experience with PS- albeit on a Mac...
(but let's not go there! ;^)
With the operations that you feel are slowing down, what does the
"efficiency" box tell you is going on? The scratch disk utilization numbers
are only numbers- they don't directly tell you whether PS is slowing down or
not.
If the efficiency goes down, then there is a problem, presumably with your
Windows memory settings.
On a Mac, PS can't use more than 1 Gig anyway, so I use 350 MB of ram as a
ram scratch disk; makes a big difference with 500 MB files.
Bill Morse
PhotoProspect
Cambridge, MA 02139
on 9/20/02 11:25 AM, Martin Wesley wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> One of the problems is that PS seems to basically have an antiquated memory
> management system that does not mesh well with OS memory management. Even
> with 1.5+GB of RAM PS will preferentially spool data out of memory to disk.
> It is not uncommon to open a large file and have it all go into RAM but at
> the first action PS spools it to disk and only uses a fraction of available
> RAM.
2002-09-20 by Martin Wesley
----- Original Message -----
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: "Moreno Polloni" <mp@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 9:01 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: 4x5 Neg Scan Resolution
> > That's a pretty cryptic statement. How does one deal easily with 500MB
> > files in PS?
>
> Easy. A dual Xeon PC loaded with 4gb of Rambus and a striped HD array.
>
Uh, so where does the "easy" part come in? My wallet is cringing.<G>
Martin
2002-09-20 by Austin Franklin
> > > That's a pretty cryptic statement. How does one deal easily
> with 500MB
> > > files in PS?
> >
> > Easy. A dual Xeon PC loaded with 4gb of Rambus and a striped HD array.
> >
> Uh, so where does the "easy" part come in? My wallet is cringing.<G>
>
> Martin
I also don't know if all versions of Windows can address that much memory.
I know I have 2G on a Win2k Professional computer, and it seems to "see" all
of it, so with W2kP 2G is not an issue...
And, BTW, I wouldn't recommend spending the money on a Xeon. It only has
larger cache, and that probably doesn't help with PS.
Austin
2002-09-20 by Moreno Polloni
> Uh, so where does the "easy" part come in? My wallet is cringing.<G>
No problem. Just sell another print or two.
2002-09-20 by Moreno Polloni
> I also don't know if all versions of Windows can address that much memory.
> I know I have 2G on a Win2k Professional computer, and it seems to "see"
all
> of it, so with W2kP 2G is not an issue...
Any of the NT based OS's can use 4gb. Some of ram is used by the system
itself, leaving about 3.8gb of useable ram for the OS.
> And, BTW, I wouldn't recommend spending the money on a Xeon. It only has
> larger cache, and that probably doesn't help with PS.
The Xeon CPU's have come down quite a bit in price, and the newer versions
have a feature called hyperthreading, which may or may not help with
Photoshop (depends on the operation being performed). Since dual P4's are
not available, someone who wants a fast PC should definitely consider the
Xeons. The price of a dual G4 and dual Xeon are comparable.
Here's the results of a quick & dirty PS Guassian blur test: dual G4 - 25
seconds, dual Athlon MP1800 - 15 seconds, dual 2.2 Xeon - 8 seconds.
2002-09-20 by Tim Spragens
> > I also don't know if all versions of Windows can address that much memory.
> > I know I have 2G on a Win2k Professional computer, and it seems to "see"
> all
> > of it, so with W2kP 2G is not an issue...
>
> Any of the NT based OS's can use 4gb. Some of ram is used by the system
> itself, leaving about 3.8gb of useable ram for the OS.
Partially true, in that an NT system, 32-bit processor, can address
4GB, and that some of that is used for hardware maintenance, but most
of the NT-based OSs only allow 2GB for an application. Some have boot
switches to allow more.
Tim
--
Tim Spragens
http://www.borderless-photos.de
http://www.borderless-photos.com
2002-09-20 by Anthony Atkielski
Austin writes:
> I use Delta 3200, XTOL 1:1 and it looks pretty
> damn good!
But then there is the problem of Ilford take-up spools, which I prefer to
avoid.
> Unfortunately, not many of the digicams will be
> B&W...and I'm not a fan of the RGB conversions.
There's a tremendous amount of flexibility in shooting B&W on film. I fear
much of that may fall by the wayside with the move to digital, and
everything will just be little more than desaturated RGB.
> I wonder how many people would buy such a
> back, if it were priced in the low $k's?
I'd say that it would have to cost no more than the 'Blad body (the least
expensive body), and it would have to be fully autonomous and would have to
be able to work for hours and store hundreds of images. It will be a while.
And even when it comes, it will be a RGB back, not a B&W back, and I'm sure
there will be no way to get it to work in pure black and white.
2002-09-20 by Tim Atherton
> > I use Delta 3200, XTOL 1:1 and it looks pretty
> > damn good!
>
> But then there is the problem of Ilford take-up spools, which I
> prefer to
> avoid.
Uhhh? I've never had a problem with Ilford spools.
2002-09-20 by Anthony Atkielski
Martin writes:
> One of the problems is that PS seems to basically
> have an antiquated memory management system that
> does not mesh well with OS memory management.
PS memory management is seriously brain-dead, although Adobe stubbornly
insists that this defective memory management is necessary. It's a holdover
from the days when Macs could not manage memory decently (they still can't,
in the Mac OS, but I presume that OS/X fixes this). They've never fixed it
or removed it.
> Seems like the biggest speed barrier in PS is
> Adobe who is more interested in new tools and
> Web functions than in revamping the core software
> and adding the ability to use layers in 16-bit.
Adobe wants to come out with new updates regularly in order to maintain a
fat revenue stream. It's _far_ easier to add new (albeit useless) bells and
whistles for each update than it is to revamp the fundamental design of the
code. I'd like to see better memory management and 16-bit layers, too (that
might actually justify upgrading from 5.0.2 for me), but I'm not holding my
breath. The Web toys and other junk are the key Adobe priorities, so that
they can sell the software to people who have never used it before, and so
that they can churn out updates and overcharge for them at very close
intervals, and thereby support the price of their stock.
2002-09-20 by Anthony Atkielski
Martin writes:
> The killer part is a scanner to match the quality
> of LF negs. Not much out there that offers both
> quality and affordability.
That would indeed be the killer for me, because I scan everything.
Additionally, even if I got it scanned, where would I get a computer and
operating system powerful enough to manipulate the result? And how would I
print it?
2002-09-20 by Austin Franklin
Hi Moreno,
> Here's the results of a quick & dirty PS Guassian blur test: dual G4 - 25
> seconds, dual Athlon MP1800 - 15 seconds, dual 2.2 Xeon - 8 seconds.
What's the memory architecture/speed of the two x86 systems? The issue is
the cache of the Xeon isn't near large enough to hold the imaging file, so
it resides in memory...and I'd bet you most anything, that memory speed
"helps" more than the fact that it's a Xeon vs a non-Xeon.
Austin
2002-09-20 by Austin Franklin
Hi Anthony,
> > I use Delta 3200, XTOL 1:1 and it looks pretty
> > damn good!
>
> But then there is the problem of Ilford take-up spools, which I prefer to
> avoid.
It really isn't a big issue...either just don't use Ilford take up spools,
or simply set the start of tilm before the little arrow...works fine.
> > Unfortunately, not many of the digicams will be
> > B&W...and I'm not a fan of the RGB conversions.
>
> There's a tremendous amount of flexibility in shooting B&W on
> film. I fear
> much of that may fall by the wayside with the move to digital, and
> everything will just be little more than desaturated RGB.
Agreed.
> > I wonder how many people would buy such a
> > back, if it were priced in the low $k's?
>
> I'd say that it would have to cost no more than the 'Blad body (the least
> expensive body), and it would have to be fully autonomous and
> would have to
> be able to work for hours and store hundreds of images. It will
> be a while.
Or use removable memory, just like one uses film...
> And even when it comes, it will be a RGB back, not a B&W back,
> and I'm sure
> there will be no way to get it to work in pure black and white.
There is a demand for pure monochrome sensors, believe it or not. They are
made.
Regards,
Austin
2002-09-20 by Austin Franklin
> > > I use Delta 3200, XTOL 1:1 and it looks pretty
> > > damn good!
> >
> > But then there is the problem of Ilford take-up spools, which I
> > prefer to
> > avoid.
>
> Uhhh? I've never had a problem with Ilford spools.
Tim,
They are slightly larger than other manufacturers spools, and when used as a
take-up spool in a Hasselblad back (apparently more so than any other back),
then can cause the last frame to get cut off. Simply starting the film
"early" solves that problem.
I just don't use them for take-up spools...that simple.
Austin
2002-09-20 by Anthony Atkielski
Austin writes:
> I also don't know if all versions of Windows can
> address that much memory.
The NT family has traditionally limited application memory to 2 GB. The
other 2 GB of address space in the 32-bit addressing scheme is reserved for
the OS. Some special versions of NT (Enterprise versions) raise the
application limit to 3 GB, and lower the OS limit to 1 GB in consequence.
I don't believe any 32-bit version of Windows can get past 4 GB overall.
Some versions of Windows are crippled deliberately, e.g., NT workstation and
XP Home Edition (and probably the same for 2K, although I'm not sure). Some
other versions of Windows are too poorly written to handle extremely large
amounts of memory; all of the 9x versions are in this category, and Win98
will gag on more than 512 MB without special tweaking.
Ultimately 64-bit addressing and OSes to match will be necessary to deal
with all of this. Only things like digital photography actually require
this kind of memory over the short term, however, so I don't know how much
incentive there is for vendors to support it.
2002-09-20 by Tim Atherton
> They are slightly larger than other manufacturers spools, and when
> used as a
> take-up spool in a Hasselblad back (apparently more so than any
> other back),
> then can cause the last frame to get cut off. Simply starting the
> film"early" solves that problem.
>
> I just don't use them for take-up spools...that simple.
>
> Austin
Guess I've never used em on one of those finicky Blads (all three
around here - different models - keep breaking down and spend more
getting repaired than used...) - only in Fujis, Pentax' and Rolleis
(and of course the old Koni Omega tank buster)
tim
2002-09-20 by Editor P.O.V. Image Service
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
>Adobe wants to come out with new updates regularly in order to maintain a
>fat revenue stream. It's _far_ easier to add new (albeit useless) bells and
>whistles for each update than it is to revamp the fundamental design of the
>code. I'd like to see better memory management and 16-bit layers, too (that
>might actually justify upgrading from 5.0.2 for me), but I'm not holding my
>breath. The Web toys and other junk are the key Adobe priorities, so that
>they can sell the software to people who have never used it before, and so
>that they can churn out updates and overcharge for them at very close
>intervals, and thereby support the price of their stock.
>
>
>
They've seen M$ get rich doing that with WORD...
Keith
****************************************************************
CONFIDENTIALITY & COPYRIGHT NOTICE:
This e-mail message, including attachments and contents, is © Copyright,
Keith Krebs, 2001-2002, All Rights Reserved. It is expressly for the
sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and
privileged information. Absent the express written authorization of the
author, any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, transfer, or
distribution is explicitly prohibited and taken at your own risk. If you
are not, or are unsure whether you are, the intended recipient, please
contact the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the original
message. Violations will be prosecuted to the FULL extent allowed under
applicable civil and criminal law. Imagery published or distributed in
violation of these conditions shall be subject to a $1500/image
liquidated damages charge, in addition to any applicable Copyright
violation penalties.
POV IMage Service Banner
****************************************************************
{ The P.O.V. Image Service Website is still at http://www.p-o-v-image.com/ }
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]2002-09-20 by Moreno Polloni
> > Here's the results of a quick & dirty PS Guassian blur test: dual G4 -
25
> > seconds, dual Athlon MP1800 - 15 seconds, dual 2.2 Xeon - 8 seconds.
>
> What's the memory architecture/speed of the two x86 systems? The issue is
> the cache of the Xeon isn't near large enough to hold the imaging file, so
> it resides in memory...and I'd bet you most anything, that memory speed
> "helps" more than the fact that it's a Xeon vs a non-Xeon.
DDR 333 vs 800mhz Rambus. Rambus is faster ram, no doubt, but in practice
the difference in performance isn't nearly as great as the difference in
memory bandwidth between the two systems would lead you to expect.
Would you be willing to bet your Hassie gear? The Xeon has almost twice the
floating point performance of the Athlon system (used in this comparison),
and the hyperthreading under XP shows four virtual CPU's. The Gaussian blur
filter uses both CPU's, and with the Xeon/XP setup, Windows task manager
shows all four being used. So yes, it is a Xeon vs non-Xeon thing.
Anyway, this is starting to veer OT, so I'd like to bow out of this
discussion. I'll send your the address where you can ship the Hassie gear
off-list.
2002-09-20 by Moreno Polloni
> I don't believe any 32-bit version of Windows can get past 4 GB overall.
Windows 2000 Advanced Server can use up to 8gb.
2002-09-21 by Austin Franklin
Hi Moreno,
> Would you be willing to bet your Hassie gear?
I've got some Hasselblad gear I'd be willing to bet, but not Athlon vs
Pentium, but Intel Xeon vs Intel non-Xeon.
> The Xeon has almost
> twice the
> floating point performance of the Athlon system (used in this comparison),
> and the hyperthreading under XP shows four virtual CPU's.
But what about Intel Xeon vs Intel non-Xeon? Ya gots ta compare apples to
pineapples!
> Anyway, this is starting to veer OT, so I'd like to bow out of this
> discussion. I'll send your the address where you can ship the Hassie gear
> off-list.
What do you bet in return?
Austin
2002-09-21 by Moreno Polloni
> But what about Intel Xeon vs Intel non-Xeon? Ya gots ta compare apples to
> pineapples!
Nice try. My post compared the dual Xeon to the Athlon MP and dual G4. In
Your first reply, you mentioned Xeon vs non-Xeon, and now you've modified
that statement to Xeon vs "Intel" non-Xeon. Doesn't really matter though, as
the dual Xeon is much faster than any other dual Intel (Itanium excluded).
> What do you bet in return?
Whatever you want, but it doesn't matter, because your camera equipment is
heading north. I'll even pay for the shipping, to help soften your loss.
2002-09-21 by Anthony Atkielski
Tim writes:
> Uhhh? I've never had a problem with Ilford spools.
Each time I've shot 120 with an Ilford spool as the take-up spool, the frame
spacing has been way off, so I gave up. This is on a Hasselblad body; I
don't know if other 6x6 bodies have the same problem. I usually shoot Kodak
film for B&W and Fuji or Kodak for color, so it wasn't much of a sacrifice.
2002-09-21 by Anthony Atkielski
Austin writes:
> There is a demand for pure monochrome sensors,
> believe it or not. They are made.
In digital, though, another type of "film" means another body or back, which
may increase the cost of gear by 2 to 10 times. With film, all you have to
do is load a different roll, at a cost of a few dollars.
2002-09-21 by Anthony Atkielski
Keith writes:
> They've seen M$ get rich doing that with WORD...
No, they've seen every other PC and Mac software company in the world
getting rich that way. Believe it or not, Microsoft didn't invent the
concept, nor is it any greater a practitioner of it than any other company.
Adobe is just as bad. So is Quark. So is Corel. So is Apple. And so on.
They all do it.
2002-09-21 by Editor P.O.V. Image Service
Anthony Atkielski wrote:
>Keith writes:
>
>
>
>>They've seen M$ get rich doing that with WORD...
>>
>>
>
>No, they've seen every other PC and Mac software company in the world
>getting rich that way. Believe it or not, Microsoft didn't invent the
>concept, nor is it any greater a practitioner of it than any other company.
>
Again defending M$?
Got a bunch of stock options. or just stock, in Gates Inc?
Keith
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2002-09-21 by Editor P.O.V. Image Service
Moreno Polloni wrote:
>>But what about Intel Xeon vs Intel non-Xeon? Ya gots ta compare
apples to
>>pineapples!
>>
>>
>
>Nice try. My post compared the dual Xeon to the Athlon MP and dual G4. In
>Your first reply, you mentioned Xeon vs non-Xeon, and now you've modified
>that statement to Xeon vs "Intel" non-Xeon. Doesn't really matter
though, as
>the dual Xeon is much faster than any other dual Intel (Itanium excluded).
>
>
For those who want to undrstand WHY Moreno may be reticent to do such a
comparison, start at:
http://www.arstechnica.com/ask-ars/2000/ask-11202000.html
Keep in mind that all the PIII chips since about 99 have been made with
Coppermine technology, the PIII technology referenced in the article...
I've got dual PIII1000e (Coppermine) CPUs... If you buy PIIIs make sure
they are Coppermine..
Also try this link for fuller comparisons including Macs:
http://macspeedzone.com/archive/html/hardw/misc/a/win_vs_mac/ray.html
To get any significant increased Performance of a Xeon PIII over a
Coppermine PIII (and that mostly in database type apps) you need more
than 256k on die L2 cache...
Chip prices for those chips are double or more than of a PIII Coppermine...
There is no way in hell you will get more than a 10% performance
increase in PShop over a similar Coppermine equipped PIII...
FOR ACTUAL Photoshop tests check:
http://www.digit-life.com/articles/pentium4xeonsmp/
As you will read there, even SMP won't give more than a max of 15% on
average in PShop.. (Filtering operations may IMHO be about 60% faster
on a dual CPU than a single CPU -- so a dualie only makes sense if like
I, you are doing a lot of filtering, and the additional L2 cache of the
Xeon ain't gonna boost that much..)
Since Pshop still uses a lot of disk caching (scratch disk), me
suspects the RAID array makes a big difference in Moreno's numbers...
:-)
Keith
****************************************************************
CONFIDENTIALITY & COPYRIGHT NOTICE:
This e-mail message, including attachments and contents, is \ufffd Copyright,
Keith Krebs, 2001-2002, All Rights Reserved. It is expressly for the
sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and
privileged information. Absent the express written authorization of the
author, any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, transfer, or
distribution is explicitly prohibited and taken at your own risk. If you
are not, or are unsure whether you are, the intended recipient, please
contact the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the original
message. Violations will be prosecuted to the FULL extent allowed under
applicable civil and criminal law. Imagery published or distributed in
violation of these conditions shall be subject to a $1500/image
liquidated damages charge, in addition to any applicable Copyright
violation penalties.
POV IMage Service Banner
****************************************************************
{ The P.O.V. Image Service Website is still at http://www.p-o-v-image.com/ }
</div>2002-09-21 by Anthony Atkielski
Keith writes:
> Again defending M$?
No, I am introducing a balanced point of view, uninfluenced by emotion.
I've worked with computers for decades, since long before Microsoft ever
existed, and I can assure you that MS is no different from any other
computer company, nor has it invented anything in the way of business
practices that had not already been used by someone else, nor is it
particularly evil when compared to its many competitors today and in times
past. Just as there are woefully uninformed but highly emotional young
males demonizing Microsoft today, there have been equally uninformed and
emotional young males demonizing IBM, AT&T, Sun, DEC, Burroughs, Univac,
General Electric, Honeywell, and dozens of other companies for as long as
the industrialized world has existed. I simply try to counter ignorance
with knowledge, and emotion with reason, for the benefit of those who want
the straight story, rather than the religious sermon.
2002-09-21 by Austin Franklin
Hi Anthony,
> > There is a demand for pure monochrome sensors,
> > believe it or not. They are made.
>
> In digital, though, another type of "film" means another body or
> back,
When the resolution is sufficient (say, 6k x 6k), then you really only need
two, one B&W and one color. Most Hasselblad owners have more than one back
;-)
Austin
2002-09-21 by Austin Franklin
Hi Moreno,
> > But what about Intel Xeon vs Intel non-Xeon? Ya gots ta
> compare apples to
> > pineapples!
>
> Nice try. My post compared the dual Xeon to the Athlon MP and dual G4. In
> Your first reply, you mentioned Xeon vs non-Xeon, and now you've modified
> that statement to Xeon vs "Intel" non-Xeon.
I didn't modify my intent, which was comparing the same CPU with Xeon
features (more cache specifically) with same CPU without Xeon features.
> Doesn't really matter
> though, as
> the dual Xeon is much faster than any other dual Intel (Itanium excluded).
That's not necessarily true. It depends on the function. Reading a file
has nothing to do with the CPU, so what faster means is dubious in your
statement. Or, are you going by the Intel advertising, claiming that you
need a dual 2.4G computer to browse the internet "faster" ;-)
> > What do you bet in return?
>
> Whatever you want, but it doesn't matter, because your camera equipment is
> heading north. I'll even pay for the shipping, to help soften your loss.
Oh, but it does matter my friend, it does ;-)
Austin
2002-09-21 by Anthony Atkielski
Austin writes:
> When the resolution is sufficient (say, 6k x 6k),
> then you really only need two, one B&W and one
> color.
Make that 12K by 12K, with true color for the color back (not a matrix
filter), and I'll agree. At least until the CCD gets dusty, that is.
> Most Hasselblad owners have more than one back
> ;-)
Yes, but even at Hasselblad's caviar prices, an A12 back is only $850 ...
compared to $26,000 for a digital back.
2002-09-21 by Moreno Polloni
> To get any significant increased Performance of a Xeon PIII over a
> Coppermine PIII (and that mostly in database type apps) you need more
> than 256k on die L2 cache...
The current Xeons have 512k.
> There is no way in hell you will get more than a 10% performance
> increase in PShop over a similar Coppermine equipped PIII...
That's an interesting statement. Aside from the differences in architecture,
the fastest Xeon is twice as fast as the fastest PIII, 1.4ghz vs 2.8ghz. I
think you'll see much more than 10% difference.
> As you will read there, even SMP won't give more than a max of 15% on
> average in PShop.. (Filtering operations may IMHO be about 60% faster
> on a dual CPU than a single CPU -- so a dualie only makes sense if like
> I, you are doing a lot of filtering, and the additional L2 cache of the
> Xeon ain't gonna boost that much..)
I'd agree with that. Dual CPU's only help in some situations, and only when
the application can take advantage of the hardware. In Photoshop, the
performance advantage with dual CPU's varies from 0% to probably 80%.
> Since Pshop still uses a lot of disk caching (scratch disk), me
> suspects the RAID array makes a big difference in Moreno's numbers...
These were seat-of-the-pants comparisons, and the only RAID was in the
Athlon system. The files were only 100mb, and the cache was cleared before
each run, so everything took place in ram.
2002-09-21 by Moreno Polloni
> That's not necessarily true. It depends on the function. Reading a file
> has nothing to do with the CPU, so what faster means is dubious in your
> statement.
My original post referred to a CPU intensive function, and we've been
discussing different CPU's. Who's talking about file load times?
> Or, are you going by the Intel advertising, claiming that you
> need a dual 2.4G computer to browse the internet "faster" ;-)
Yes. I'm totally brainwashed by Intel's advertising. I'm even going to order
one of their bunny suits.
2002-09-21 by Austin Franklin
Hi Moreno,
> > That's not necessarily true. It depends on the function.
> Reading a file
> > has nothing to do with the CPU, so what faster means is dubious in your
> > statement.
>
> My original post referred to a CPU intensive function, and we've been
> discussing different CPU's. Who's talking about file load times?
We were talking about performance in general with PS, and that really takes
everything into consideration, disk speed, memory speed, somewhat display
speed... etc.
> > Or, are you going by the Intel advertising, claiming that you
> > need a dual 2.4G computer to browse the internet "faster" ;-)
>
> Yes. I'm totally brainwashed by Intel's advertising. I'm even
> going to order
> one of their bunny suits.
Actually, funny you should mention that...I have a couple of them. I got
them when Intel bought the Digital fab in Hudson...they can be used in
certain fun circumstances ;-)
Austin
2002-09-21 by Moreno Polloni
> > My original post referred to a CPU intensive function, and we've been
> > discussing different CPU's. Who's talking about file load times?
>
> We were talking about performance in general with PS, and that really
takes
> everything into consideration, disk speed, memory speed, somewhat display
> speed... etc.
I was talking only about Guassian blur performance. Disk speed and display
speed don't apply.
> > > Or, are you going by the Intel advertising, claiming that you
> > > need a dual 2.4G computer to browse the internet "faster" ;-)
> >
> > Yes. I'm totally brainwashed by Intel's advertising. I'm even
> > going to order
> > one of their bunny suits.
>
> Actually, funny you should mention that...I have a couple of them. I got
> them when Intel bought the Digital fab in Hudson...they can be used in
> certain fun circumstances ;-)
Send one up along with your camera gear.
2002-09-21 by Editor P.O.V. Image Service
Moreno Polloni wrote:
>
>
>>There is no way in hell you will get more than a 10% performance
>>increase in PShop over a similar Coppermine equipped PIII...
>>
>>
>
>That's an interesting statement. Aside from the differences in architecture,
>the fastest Xeon is twice as fast as the fastest PIII, 1.4ghz vs 2.8ghz. I
>think you'll see much more than 10% difference.
>
>
Did I say the fastest? Nope... I said "similar"...
i.e. a 1.4mhZ PIIIeb vs a 1.4 mHz PIIIXeon w/512k L2
>
>
>>Since Pshop still uses a lot of disk caching (scratch disk), me
>>suspects the RAID array makes a big difference in Moreno's numbers...
>>
>>
>
>These were seat-of-the-pants comparisons, and the only RAID was in the
>Athlon system. The files were only 100mb, and the cache was cleared before
>each run, so everything took place in ram.
>
>
>
PhotoShop AFAIK never does EVERYTHING in RAM.. It's memory model is
flawed.. There is one way around that.. But you need really beaucoup
RAM, and utilities that M$ doesn't approve of.... You create a LARGE
VRAM disk and use that as your scratch disk..
You know, with all the cheap RAM, if you have 4-8 gB running on a
machine or two, I'd love to see if something like that helped.... Any
chance you'd be willing to give it a shot and let us know if it was any
faster? I know under earlier versions of PShop that trick could help..
(of course we weren't using 1 or 2 GB RAM disks..
Keith
****************************************************************
CONFIDENTIALITY & COPYRIGHT NOTICE:
This e-mail message, including attachments and contents, is © Copyright,
Keith Krebs, 2001-2002, All Rights Reserved. It is expressly for the
sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential and
privileged information. Absent the express written authorization of the
author, any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, transfer, or
distribution is explicitly prohibited and taken at your own risk. If you
are not, or are unsure whether you are, the intended recipient, please
contact the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the original
message. Violations will be prosecuted to the FULL extent allowed under
applicable civil and criminal law. Imagery published or distributed in
violation of these conditions shall be subject to a $1500/image
liquidated damages charge, in addition to any applicable Copyright
violation penalties.
POV IMage Service Banner
****************************************************************
{ The P.O.V. Image Service Website is still at http://www.p-o-v-image.com/ }
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]2002-09-21 by Editor P.O.V. Image Service
Moreno Polloni wrote:
>>
>>
>Yes. I'm totally brainwashed by Intel's advertising. I'm even going to order
>one of their bunny suits.
>
>
>
That statement is up there for "silliest of 2002"...
You gotta take a B&W self-portrait in it and use the print for an
exchange... ;-)
Keith
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2002-09-21 by Moreno Polloni
> >Yes. I'm totally brainwashed by Intel's advertising. I'm even going to
order
> >one of their bunny suits.
> That statement is up there for "silliest of 2002"...
Thanks. I think.
> You gotta take a B&W self-portrait in it and use the print for an
> exchange... ;-)
You need to talk to Austin. He has a couple of suits.