Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 22:56 UTC

Thread

Computing power

Computing power

2004-12-01 by Matthew Wensing

I scan in 4x5 negatives at 4800 dpi, 16-bit grayscale,
and am having a tough (read: slow) time of it with
Photoshop 6.0 with the resulting files.  Actually, I
can't even work with the 50-90 mg .jpeg's, but instead
downsize to roughly 12 megapixels and then
dodge/burn/tweak those.  Does anyone here work with
digital files around 50-90 megs in Photoshop that is
happy with the quickness of their setup in doing so? 
Right now, with the machine I have, manipulating such
files is impossible.

My machine is an Athlon XP 1.46 Ghz with 1 gig of DDR
RAM.  Two possible bottlenecks from what I know are
memory bus speed (333 Mhz with my current motherboard)
and also the version of PS I'm using.  CS might be
faster from the get-go?

Thanks in advance,

Matt

=====
E-mail: wensing@...
Blog: <http://seaofglass.blogspot.com>
Photography: <http://www.wensing-photo.com>

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-01 by sinwen

I currently process 140Mo pictures often 300,  I have an AthlonXP Barton 2600 boosted a bit, PS-CS, 1.5Go ram, bus 400.
Install PS on a separate hard drive from Windows and check how much ram you devote to PS.

Michel
Show quoted textHide quoted text
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Matthew Wensing 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 11:25 PM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Computing power


  I scan in 4x5 negatives at 4800 dpi, 16-bit grayscale,
  and am having a tough (read: slow) time of it with
  Photoshop 6.0 with the resulting files.  Actually, I
  can't even work with the 50-90 mg .jpeg's, but instead
  downsize to roughly 12 megapixels and then
  dodge/burn/tweak those.  Does anyone here work with
  digital files around 50-90 megs in Photoshop that is
  happy with the quickness of their setup in doing so? 
  Right now, with the machine I have, manipulating such
  files is impossible.

  My machine is an Athlon XP 1.46 Ghz with 1 gig of DDR
  RAM.  Two possible bottlenecks from what I know are
  memory bus speed (333 Mhz with my current motherboard)
  and also the version of PS I'm using.  CS might be
  faster from the get-go?

  Thanks in advance,

  Matt

  =====
  E-mail: wensing@...
  Blog: <http://seaofglass.blogspot.com>
  Photography: <http://www.wensing-photo.com>


  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

  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:
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
  - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
  - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

  BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.



        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Yahoo! Groups Links

    a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
      
    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      
    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-01 by Hogarth Hughes

I'm working with files a lot bigger than that - 550MB TIFF files. Drum 
scans of 4x5 film, 16bit grayscale, about an 11x enlargement. My 
computer is a 1GHz Athlon, with 3GB main memory running win2k-sp4. It's 
sloooowwww, but livable. The 1.5GB color images are killer slow though 
;-) Anything below about 250MB seems to run fine. At 100MB you might 
even think it quick.

One thing that helps is having two physical diskdrives with one 
dedicated to be Photoshop's scratch disk.

I just wish the clowns at micro$oft and adobe would get their act 
together and give us 64 bit support (I'd change to Mac in a minute, but 
Photoshop is the problem there).
--
Hogarth Hughes


Matthew Wensing wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> I scan in 4x5 negatives at 4800 dpi, 16-bit grayscale,
> and am having a tough (read: slow) time of it with
> Photoshop 6.0 with the resulting files. Actually, I
> can't even work with the 50-90 mg .jpeg's, but instead
> downsize to roughly 12 megapixels and then
> dodge/burn/tweak those. Does anyone here work with
> digital files around 50-90 megs in Photoshop that is
> happy with the quickness of their setup in doing so?
> Right now, with the machine I have, manipulating such
> files is impossible.
>
> My machine is an Athlon XP 1.46 Ghz with 1 gig of DDR
> RAM. Two possible bottlenecks from what I know are
> memory bus speed (333 Mhz with my current motherboard)
> and also the version of PS I'm using. CS might be
> faster from the get-go?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Matt
>
> =====
> E-mail: wensing@...
> Blog: <http://seaofglass.blogspot.com>
> Photography: <http://www.wensing-photo.com>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> 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:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from 
> the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group 
> Owner and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the 
> Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd 
> AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE 
> LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, 
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE 
> LOSSES (EVEN IF THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), 
> RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, 
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF 
> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD 
> PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>
> *Yahoo! Groups Sponsor*
> ADVERTISEMENT
> click here 
> <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=1296f9c0t/M=298184.5639630.6699735.3001176/D=groups/S=1705019182:HM/EXP=1102026335/A=2434971/R=0/SIG=11eeoolb0/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60185400> 
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Yahoo! Groups Links*
>
>     * To visit your group on the web, go to:
>       http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
>     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>       DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>

Re: Computing power

2004-12-01 by Michael Hung

4x4800 x5x4800 x16bit = 900M of memory for the image alone!

jpeg size is not going to matter because photoshop always work on
uncompressed image.

Your best bet is to upgrade your memory to 2G at least and then get
the fastest processor or go dual processors. But a layer or two will
still use up all your memory quickly. And you can't even convert your
image to RGB easily as 16bit RGB means your image size will triple. 

Michael

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Matthew Wensing
<wensing@s...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> I scan in 4x5 negatives at 4800 dpi, 16-bit grayscale,
> and am having a tough (read: slow) time of it with
> Photoshop 6.0 with the resulting files.  Actually, I
> can't even work with the 50-90 mg .jpeg's, but instead
> downsize to roughly 12 megapixels and then
> dodge/burn/tweak those.  Does anyone here work with
> digital files around 50-90 megs in Photoshop that is
> happy with the quickness of their setup in doing so? 
> Right now, with the machine I have, manipulating such
> files is impossible.
> 
> My machine is an Athlon XP 1.46 Ghz with 1 gig of DDR
> RAM.  Two possible bottlenecks from what I know are
> memory bus speed (333 Mhz with my current motherboard)
> and also the version of PS I'm using.  CS might be
> faster from the get-go?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> Matt
> 
> =====
> E-mail: wensing@s...
> Blog: <http://seaofglass.blogspot.com>
> Photography: <http://www.wensing-photo.com>

Re: Computing power

2004-12-01 by Scott Graham

I scan B&W 2 1/4 sq film at 4000 dpi/16 bit for 150MB psd files and work with that.  Then 
convert to RGB/ 8 bit for printing.

PS works quite well, though I do more or less straight photography (levels, curves, 
dodging, etc) which does not use filters, etc.  The levels adj layers for example are more or 
less instant, and this is on files that end up well over 500MB sometimes while still in 
grayscale, even over 1 GB.

I sure wouldn't use jpegs though.  I don't want to lose the information in compression.  I 
go to enough trouble to shoot high res (only PX) and scan high res to throw it away.

I am using PS CS but my understanding is that it is a bit slower than the previous 
versions; not sure though.  Am using a dual 2.5 ghz Mac with 2.5 MB of memory.   You 
should definitely have much more memory than file size; if you have to use disk swaps you 
"will die" before some things complete.  Note though that PS will only use a max of 2GB of 
memory, at least on a Mac, but I think it is a PS limit, not a Mac one.  Could be wrong of 
course.  Someplace I saw a note (from Adobe I think) that said 3GB was more than enough 
(leaving some for the OS, etc)

My slowest operation is actually file saving, and I do let it make thumbnails, etc, though 
NOT "max compatibility" which I feel is a waste.

Scott

PS note that "more or less instant" means that I don't notice a delay, not that I timed it  :)



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Matthew Wensing 
<wensing@s...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> I scan in 4x5 negatives at 4800 dpi, 16-bit grayscale,
> and am having a tough (read: slow) time of it with
> Photoshop 6.0 with the resulting files.  Actually, I
> can't even work with the 50-90 mg .jpeg's, but instead
> downsize to roughly 12 megapixels and then
> dodge/burn/tweak those.  Does anyone here work with
> digital files around 50-90 megs in Photoshop that is
> happy with the quickness of their setup in doing so? 
> Right now, with the machine I have, manipulating such
> files is impossible.
> 
> My machine is an Athlon XP 1.46 Ghz with 1 gig of DDR
> RAM.  Two possible bottlenecks from what I know are
> memory bus speed (333 Mhz with my current motherboard)
> and also the version of PS I'm using.  CS might be
> faster from the get-go?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> Matt
> 
> =====
> E-mail: wensing@s...
> Blog: <http://seaofglass.blogspot.com>
> Photography: <http://www.wensing-photo.com>

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-01 by Steve Kale

I had a similar feeling with my little 15in Powerbook (800Mhz).  I finally
stumped up for a 2x2.5Ghz G5 - 64bit processing rocks.  At the moment I only
have 1 Gig of RAM and I would like to go to 3Gig (my understanding from
recent posts is that PS CS can only use 2 Gig but with 3 it gets all of the
2).  I added a second internal hard drive and use that as a scratch which
helps.  I scan 35mm film at 6300 dpi (a little overkill but I figure if I am
going to go rent an Imacon 848 for an hour I might as well get the best scan
possible and it is fast), 16 bit - so that's around 90meg for B&W and 270
meg for colour...without any layers.  The G5 mulches this stuff.  If you
have colour slides and start using programmes like Photokit Sharpener (which
requires an RGB file), file sizes can rapidly peak out at a couple of gig
before you flatten them back down - even the G% twin slows down considerably
for this.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> From: Matthew Wensing <wensing@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 14:25:24 -0800 (PST)
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Computing power
> 
> 
> I scan in 4x5 negatives at 4800 dpi, 16-bit grayscale,
> and am having a tough (read: slow) time of it with
> Photoshop 6.0 with the resulting files.  Actually, I
> can't even work with the 50-90 mg .jpeg's, but instead
> downsize to roughly 12 megapixels and then
> dodge/burn/tweak those.  Does anyone here work with
> digital files around 50-90 megs in Photoshop that is
> happy with the quickness of their setup in doing so?
> Right now, with the machine I have, manipulating such
> files is impossible.
> 
> My machine is an Athlon XP 1.46 Ghz with 1 gig of DDR
> RAM.  Two possible bottlenecks from what I know are
> memory bus speed (333 Mhz with my current motherboard)
> and also the version of PS I'm using.  CS might be
> faster from the get-go?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> Matt
> 
> =====
> E-mail: wensing@...
> Blog: <http://seaofglass.blogspot.com>
> Photography: <http://www.wensing-photo.com>

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-02 by bhhc

> I'm working with files a lot bigger than that - 550MB TIFF files. Drum
> scans of 4x5 film, 16bit grayscale, about an 11x enlargement. My
> computer is a 1GHz Athlon, with 3GB main memory running win2k-sp4. It's
> sloooowwww, but livable. The 1.5GB color images are killer slow though
> ;-) Anything below about 250MB seems to run fine. At 100MB you might
> even think it quick.
>
> One thing that helps is having two physical diskdrives with one
> dedicated to be Photoshop's scratch disk.
>
> I just wish the clowns at micro$oft and adobe would get their act
> together and give us 64 bit support (I'd change to Mac in a minute, but
> Photoshop is the problem there).
> --
> Hogarth Hughes

I am going to jump in here and offer a "saner" perspective? I remember
reading many years back about computers and the incredible speed with which
they did their jobs, were going to free us from the shackles of our
miserable existence. Well, as most of you have noted it just ain't true.
Flash forward to maybe ten years later, and I was fascinated by an article
(I don't remember by whom or where), in which the author had researched
thoroughly and pointed out that the "computer revolution" had indeed chopped
10%, maybe 20%, maybe even 30% of the time required to do a task, but
frequently the time was cut away from the middle of said task. In other
words, you started at 1:00 p.m and finished at 2:00 p.m. but there was a
6-18 minute "gift" in the middle . . . what do people do? The majority sit
and stare at their screen bitching about how "slow" the computer is.
Productivity is at the same snails pace as it was years ago. If your
computer is slowing down while you wait for a conversion or a rendition or a
print, pick up the f***ing mop and clean your studio. Lick and glue some
envelopes. Return some phone calls. Dust and clean your equipment . . . this
is TIME, and should be used productively, not sitting on your fat butt and
bitching that MS or someone else isn't doing enough for YOU. Do it yourself.

Honestly . . . if the print takes five minutes instead of two, does that
make a real difference in your business? Not unless you are a real
incompetent leaving everything until the last minute. The same for scans and
renditions . . . there is ALWAYS something else you could be doing, but as
an incompetent it is so much easier to shovel the "you know what" somewhere
else.

Paul Aparycki

Re: Computing power

2004-12-02 by Bob Michaels

Think about if you really need to scan a 4x5 neg at 4800 dpi. Are you
making billboard sized prints that people will view up close? Just
figure out what rez you need to scan 4x5 at to yeild your max print
size at 360 dpi. I bet you'll find that any scan more than 1200 dpi
gets downsized in the printer driver anyway. Then you have a
reasonable file size that you can work quickly and no impact on print
quality. 

Bob Michaels

 --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Matthew Wensing
<wensing@s...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> I scan in 4x5 negatives at 4800 dpi, 16-bit grayscale,
> and am having a tough (read: slow) time of it with
> Photoshop 6.0 with the resulting files.  Actually, I
> can't even work with the 50-90 mg .jpeg's, but instead
> downsize to roughly 12 megapixels and then
> dodge/burn/tweak those.  Does anyone here work with
> digital files around 50-90 megs in Photoshop that is
> happy with the quickness of their setup in doing so? 
> Right now, with the machine I have, manipulating such
> files is impossible.
> 
> My machine is an Athlon XP 1.46 Ghz with 1 gig of DDR
> RAM.  Two possible bottlenecks from what I know are
> memory bus speed (333 Mhz with my current motherboard)
> and also the version of PS I'm using.  CS might be
> faster from the get-go?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> Matt
> 
> =====
> E-mail: wensing@s...
> Blog: <http://seaofglass.blogspot.com>
> Photography: <http://www.wensing-photo.com>

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-02 by Hogarth Hughes

>I am going to jump in here and offer a "saner" perspective? I remember
>reading many years back about computers and the incredible speed with which
>they did their jobs, were going to free us from the shackles of our
>miserable existence. Well, as most of you have noted it just ain't true.
>Flash forward to maybe ten years later, and I was fascinated by an article
>(I don't remember by whom or where), in which the author had researched
>thoroughly and pointed out that the "computer revolution" had indeed chopped
>10%, maybe 20%, maybe even 30% of the time required to do a task, but
>frequently the time was cut away from the middle of said task. In other
>words, you started at 1:00 p.m and finished at 2:00 p.m. but there was a
>6-18 minute "gift" in the middle . . . what do people do? The majority sit
>and stare at their screen bitching about how "slow" the computer is.
>Productivity is at the same snails pace as it was years ago. If your
>computer is slowing down while you wait for a conversion or a rendition or a
>print, pick up the f***ing mop and clean your studio. Lick and glue some
>envelopes. Return some phone calls. Dust and clean your equipment . . . this
>is TIME, and should be used productively, not sitting on your fat butt and
>bitching that MS or someone else isn't doing enough for YOU. Do it yourself.
>
>Honestly . . . if the print takes five minutes instead of two, does that
>make a real difference in your business? Not unless you are a real
>incompetent leaving everything until the last minute. The same for scans and
>renditions . . . there is ALWAYS something else you could be doing, but as
>an incompetent it is so much easier to shovel the "you know what" somewhere
>else.
>
>Paul Aparycki
>  
>

Are you just being silly, or are you actually serious? If you've ever 
worked on large files in PS before, you know that what we are talking 
about is an extra 20-90 seconds for some operations (for example, it 
takes my machine about 60 seconds to complete a crop on a 500MB file).. 
There's no 6-18 minute "gift" of time here. It's that everything takes 
an extra few seconds. That time, with all due respect, isn't usable. You 
can't turn around and do something else without seriously lengthening 
the time it takes to finish the editing job. If I turn around and start 
filing, it'll be 20 minutes or more before I get back to the edit, which 
will have been sitting waiting for me for 19 of those minutes.

Get a grip, and stop cursing at me.
--
Hogarth Hughes

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-02 by bhhc

Hogarth,

Calm down . . . I am not cursing at you . . . just the general attitude that "if it ain't fast enough" mabe I should take ANOTHER walk to my computer store. As to it taking another 20-90 seconds as you cite, well that is another minute or so. I run three computers in my "home studio". While one of them is churning and farting away, I DO other things, sometimes on another computer, sometimes on the phone. It is called as the computer geek world likes to call it "multi-tasking". I have no problem with that. Those that do, probably need not another "upgrade" but more likely a course in management. While "time is money" is a given, time well ORGANIZED is a gift that allows you more freedom, and often a chance to quit a little earlier in the day.

As to your fear about leaving your "edit" . . . are you that unsure of what you are doing after all this time?????? As I said . . . sitting and bitching in front of your monitor IS NOT PRODUCTIVE . . . at least pick your nose . . . that will be your first step in learning how to "multi-task".

Paul Aparycki

p.s. by the way, I have a real grip. I don't owe a cent to anyone and I have been using my time WISELY for nearly thirty years.
  Are you just being silly, or are you actually serious? If you've ever 
  worked on large files in PS before, you know that what we are talking 
  about is an extra 20-90 seconds for some operations (for example, it 
  takes my machine about 60 seconds to complete a crop on a 500MB file).. 
  There's no 6-18 minute "gift" of time here. It's that everything takes 
  an extra few seconds. That time, with all due respect, isn't usable. You 
  can't turn around and do something else without seriously lengthening 
  the time it takes to finish the editing job. If I turn around and start 
  filing, it'll be 20 minutes or more before I get back to the edit, which 
  will have been sitting waiting for me for 19 of those minutes.

  Get a grip, and stop cursing at me.
  --
  Hogarth Hughes


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-02 by Tom Baker

A 64 bit version (beta) of Windows XP is available for download to test.  It's supposed to be available for release in 1Q05.  I have a 64bit AMD processor, but have not downloaded the beta version.  NO GUTS!
 
Tom Baker

Hogarth Hughes <hogarth@...> wrote:

I'm working with files a lot bigger than that - 550MB TIFF files. Drum 
scans of 4x5 film, 16bit grayscale, about an 11x enlargement. My 
computer is a 1GHz Athlon, with 3GB main memory running win2k-sp4. It's 
sloooowwww, but livable. The 1.5GB color images are killer slow though 
;-) Anything below about 250MB seems to run fine. At 100MB you might 
even think it quick.

One thing that helps is having two physical diskdrives with one 
dedicated to be Photoshop's scratch disk.

I just wish the clowns at micro$oft and adobe would get their act 
together and give us 64 bit support (I'd change to Mac in a minute, but 
Photoshop is the problem there).
--
Hogarth Hughes


Matthew Wensing wrote:

> I scan in 4x5 negatives at 4800 dpi, 16-bit grayscale,
> and am having a tough (read: slow) time of it with
> Photoshop 6.0 with the resulting files. Actually, I
> can't even work with the 50-90 mg .jpeg's, but instead
> downsize to roughly 12 megapixels and then
> dodge/burn/tweak those. Does anyone here work with
> digital files around 50-90 megs in Photoshop that is
> happy with the quickness of their setup in doing so?
> Right now, with the machine I have, manipulating such
> files is impossible.
>
> My machine is an Athlon XP 1.46 Ghz with 1 gig of DDR
> RAM. Two possible bottlenecks from what I know are
> memory bus speed (333 Mhz with my current motherboard)
> and also the version of PS I'm using. CS might be
> faster from the get-go?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Matt
>
> =====
> E-mail: wensing@sbcglobal.net
> Blog: 
> Photography: 
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> 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:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from 
> the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group 
> Owner and Moderators. See �Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines� in the 
> Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE �OWNER� 
> AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE 
> LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, 
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE 
> LOSSES (EVEN IF THE �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), 
> RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, 
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF 
> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD 
> PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>
> *Yahoo! Groups Sponsor*
> ADVERTISEMENT
> click here 
> 
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Yahoo! Groups Links*
>
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> 
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service .
>
>



Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

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:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See �Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines� in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [Digital BW] Re: Computing power

2004-12-02 by Tom Baker

Another help might be to get a 10,000rpm SATA drive for you PS scratch drive.
 
Tom Baker

Scott Graham <gebilwil@...> wrote: 


I scan B&W 2 1/4 sq film at 4000 dpi/16 bit for 150MB psd files and work with that. Then 
convert to RGB/ 8 bit for printing.

PS works quite well, though I do more or less straight photography (levels, curves, 
dodging, etc) which does not use filters, etc. The levels adj layers for example are more or 
less instant, and this is on files that end up well over 500MB sometimes while still in 
grayscale, even over 1 GB.

I sure wouldn't use jpegs though. I don't want to lose the information in compression. I 
go to enough trouble to shoot high res (only PX) and scan high res to throw it away.

I am using PS CS but my understanding is that it is a bit slower than the previous 
versions; not sure though. Am using a dual 2.5 ghz Mac with 2.5 MB of memory. You 
should definitely have much more memory than file size; if you have to use disk swaps you 
"will die" before some things complete. Note though that PS will only use a max of 2GB of 
memory, at least on a Mac, but I think it is a PS limit, not a Mac one. Could be wrong of 
course. Someplace I saw a note (from Adobe I think) that said 3GB was more than enough 
(leaving some for the OS, etc)

My slowest operation is actually file saving, and I do let it make thumbnails, etc, though 
NOT "max compatibility" which I feel is a waste.

Scott

PS note that "more or less instant" means that I don't notice a delay, not that I timed it :)



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Matthew Wensing 
wrote:
> I scan in 4x5 negatives at 4800 dpi, 16-bit grayscale,
> and am having a tough (read: slow) time of it with
> Photoshop 6.0 with the resulting files. Actually, I
> can't even work with the 50-90 mg .jpeg's, but instead
> downsize to roughly 12 megapixels and then
> dodge/burn/tweak those. Does anyone here work with
> digital files around 50-90 megs in Photoshop that is
> happy with the quickness of their setup in doing so? 
> Right now, with the machine I have, manipulating such
> files is impossible.
> 
> My machine is an Athlon XP 1.46 Ghz with 1 gig of DDR
> RAM. Two possible bottlenecks from what I know are
> memory bus speed (333 Mhz with my current motherboard)
> and also the version of PS I'm using. CS might be
> faster from the get-go?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> Matt
> 
> =====
> E-mail: wensing@s...
> Blog: 
> Photography: 






Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

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:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See �Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines� in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links










[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

RE: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-02 by Ken Carney

Re the 4x5 scans, that's a big file!  Trying that in RGB would probably
result in a meltdown.  I scan 4x5 negs in 16-bit grayscale at 1200 ppi.
That is a 4800 pixel image, which gives a 16" print before cropping at
300ppi output size.  I just scan 8x10 negs at the final output size with
cropping.  Regarding the smaller files, don't know what's wrong.  I have a
plain old Staples office supply HP Pavillion, about three years old, with a
1.7 P4 and 1.5g RAM.  RGB 35mm tif scans run about 100mb+, and it seems
pretty quick, even with layers which get up to about 300mb or so.  I do have
a separate HD for the PS scratch disk, and set the MS virtual memory for
each drive per their instructions.  I am using PS CS, which doesn't seem any
faster than previous versions; the reverse, maybe.  My files going to print
are seldom above 125mb.  With really big files (like your 4x5 scans and I
don't know what a 90mb jpg unpacks to), you are no doubt looking at a major
upgrade, something that will use the RAM limit of PS, and maybe a RAID or
similar for scratch disks.  What size prints are you making?  If they're
like around 16x20 or smaller, you may cure your issues by just going to
smaller file sizes that will give you the desired print size at 300 ppi
final output.  Hope this helps a little.

Regards,

  --Ken Carney
    www.kencarney.com  
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Wensing [mailto:wensing@...] 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 4:25 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Computing power
> 
> 
> I scan in 4x5 negatives at 4800 dpi, 16-bit grayscale, and am 
> having a tough (read: slow) time of it with Photoshop 6.0 
> with the resulting files.  Actually, I can't even work with 
> the 50-90 mg .jpeg's, but instead downsize to roughly 12 
> megapixels and then dodge/burn/tweak those.  Does anyone here 
> work with digital files around 50-90 megs in Photoshop that 
> is happy with the quickness of their setup in doing so? 
> Right now, with the machine I have, manipulating such files 
> is impossible.
> 
> My machine is an Athlon XP 1.46 Ghz with 1 gig of DDR RAM.  
> Two possible bottlenecks from what I know are memory bus 
> speed (333 Mhz with my current motherboard) and also the 
> version of PS I'm using.  CS might be faster from the get-go?

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-02 by Tom Baker

Paul  -
 
I think you're missing the point.  This is a thinking/creating process.  Most people don't do that very well if they're constantly interrupted, and a very slow computer is an interruption.  This is not about the computer doing your work for you.  It's about working with you instead of against you.  It's sorta like having hammer with a loose head that keeps falling off.  Try building something with that.



Tom Baker

bhhc <tawow@...> wrote:


> I'm working with files a lot bigger than that - 550MB TIFF files. Drum
> scans of 4x5 film, 16bit grayscale, about an 11x enlargement. My
> computer is a 1GHz Athlon, with 3GB main memory running win2k-sp4. It's
> sloooowwww, but livable. The 1.5GB color images are killer slow though
> ;-) Anything below about 250MB seems to run fine. At 100MB you might
> even think it quick.
>
> One thing that helps is having two physical diskdrives with one
> dedicated to be Photoshop's scratch disk.
>
> I just wish the clowns at micro$oft and adobe would get their act
> together and give us 64 bit support (I'd change to Mac in a minute, but
> Photoshop is the problem there).
> --
> Hogarth Hughes

I am going to jump in here and offer a "saner" perspective? I remember
reading many years back about computers and the incredible speed with which
they did their jobs, were going to free us from the shackles of our
miserable existence. Well, as most of you have noted it just ain't true.
Flash forward to maybe ten years later, and I was fascinated by an article
(I don't remember by whom or where), in which the author had researched
thoroughly and pointed out that the "computer revolution" had indeed chopped
10%, maybe 20%, maybe even 30% of the time required to do a task, but
frequently the time was cut away from the middle of said task. In other
words, you started at 1:00 p.m and finished at 2:00 p.m. but there was a
6-18 minute "gift" in the middle . . . what do people do? The majority sit
and stare at their screen bitching about how "slow" the computer is.
Productivity is at the same snails pace as it was years ago. If your
computer is slowing down while you wait for a conversion or a rendition or a
print, pick up the f***ing mop and clean your studio. Lick and glue some
envelopes. Return some phone calls. Dust and clean your equipment . . . this
is TIME, and should be used productively, not sitting on your fat butt and
bitching that MS or someone else isn't doing enough for YOU. Do it yourself.

Honestly . . . if the print takes five minutes instead of two, does that
make a real difference in your business? Not unless you are a real
incompetent leaving everything until the last minute. The same for scans and
renditions . . . there is ALWAYS something else you could be doing, but as
an incompetent it is so much easier to shovel the "you know what" somewhere
else.

Paul Aparycki






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

RE: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-02 by Ken Carney

Amen to that.  Your comparison is very apt, i.e., it's like the traditional
darkroom where you have to learn to work with the materials instead of
against.  I wouldn't want a slow version of Word or a slow VPN while I'm
drafting a tax opinion in my day job.  Right now I don't feel disadvantaged
(print size is limited to a 2200, say 10x15 with nice borders, but I'm not
wound up about larger prints), but if I do start working with much larger
files it will definitely be upgrade time.  This is a hobby and my free time
is _really_ expensive.  Anyway, the home PC cost is pretty small compared to
the cost of getting the images...plane tickets, hotels, rent cars, lost
charge time, whatever.  Good point.

Regards,

  --Ken Carney
    www.kencarney.com  
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Baker [mailto:tbaker1328@...] 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2004 9:40 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Computing power
> 
> 
> Paul  -
>  
> I think you're missing the point.  This is a 
> thinking/creating process.  Most people don't do that very 
> well if they're constantly interrupted, and a very slow 
> computer is an interruption.  This is not about the computer 
> doing your work for you.  It's about working with you instead 
> of against you.  It's sorta like having hammer with a loose 
> head that keeps falling off.  Try building something with that.
>

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-02 by bhhc

I do it every day (hammer . . . then duck) with clients and others who are just "waltzing" through life. Though I do less of it now, a large part of my work in earlier years was doing stills in TV and film. If you ever want to see a community that is founded on "hurry up and wait" that is it . . . and don't forget that technically, that industry is MILES ahead of the still business, and they are real experts in "sitting on a log". My dog could teach any production unit how to speed up at least tenfold, and my dog's only interest is how to get another milk bone.

I know full well it is a creative process . . . I have frequently come to that horrific block that assails all of us at one time or another, BUT, the manipulative process on the screen is very much like the issue of film development, or print processing, and when you know what you are doing, that process can become an "intuitive" (read: push here stupid) action. I, nor you, do not need to sit and watch how mama computer re-arranges your digits. That is something that should be understood beforehand, if it isn't understood, then maybe you ain't in the right place.

As to building something with a "headless" hammer? That is why I get paid a lot of money. I make people's products look like the gifts from the gods . . . that is what YOU want, and I get paid for it.

I have survived thirty+ years in the photo business, not always pleasant, but always a challenge that I have been able to meet.

Paul Aparycki


  Paul  -

  I think you're missing the point.  This is a thinking/creating process.  Most people don't do that very well if they're constantly interrupted, and a very slow computer is an interruption.  This is not about the computer doing your work for you.  It's about working with you instead of against you.  It's sorta like having hammer with a loose head that keeps falling off.  Try building something with that.



  Tom Baker


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-02 by Tom Baker

"...an "intuitive" (read: push here stupid) action.."
 
Sure, if you're in the commercial, 'fit it in a template' world.  That's not the case for the creative artist.  
 
Tom Baker




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-02 by Anthony G. Atkielski

Matthew Wensing writes:

> I scan in 4x5 negatives at 4800 dpi, 16-bit grayscale,
> and am having a tough (read: slow) time of it with
> Photoshop 6.0 with the resulting files.  Actually, I
> can't even work with the 50-90 mg .jpeg's, but instead
> downsize to roughly 12 megapixels and then
> dodge/burn/tweak those.  Does anyone here work with
> digital files around 50-90 megs in Photoshop that is
> happy with the quickness of their setup in doing so? 
> Right now, with the machine I have, manipulating such
> files is impossible.

Buy more memory.

> My machine is an Athlon XP 1.46 Ghz with 1 gig of DDR
> RAM.  Two possible bottlenecks from what I know are
> memory bus speed (333 Mhz with my current motherboard)
> and also the version of PS I'm using.  CS might be
> faster from the get-go?

Install the maximum amount of memory your motherboard will support; that
should help considerably.  Memory is the biggest bottleneck with any
version of Photoshop.  A single gigabyte isn't very much for image
editing, at least not for large film formats.

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-02 by Anthony G. Atkielski

bhhc writes:

> If your computer is slowing down while you wait for a conversion or a
> rendition or a print, pick up the f***ing mop and clean your studio.
> Lick and glue some envelopes. Return some phone calls. Dust and clean
> your equipment ...

These are not realistic options.  If you were reading a book and it took
3 minutes to turn each page, would you get up and clean house while
waiting?

Research shows that productivity with computers plummets if response
time exceeds about three seconds.  While some tasks are inherently slow
and one can step away from the PC while waiting for them (disk
defragmentation and things like that), waiting after every operation
performed in Photoshop is simply not realistic.

It's true that computers haven't really speeded up much.  Every increase
in hardware horsepower has been consumed by more bloated software.  It
takes about the same time to edit a presentation today as it did 15
years ago, despite computers that are many times faster in hardware.

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-02 by Anthony G. Atkielski

bhhc writes:

> Calm down . . . I am not cursing at you . . . just the general
> attitude that "if it ain't fast enough" mabe I should take ANOTHER
> walk to my computer store.

Time is money.

Computers do not get slower as they age.  If you avoid upgrading the
software needlessly, the computer that was fast enough a few years ago
will remain fast enough today.  Hardware upgrades are driven by software
upgrades.  And often software upgrades really add nothing useful to the
system, but bloat it further and slow it by another 20%, such that you
have to buy a faster machine just to maintain the same level of
productivity.

> Those that do, probably need not another "upgrade" but more
> likely a course in management.

It's cheaper and more productive to upgrade the hardware than to try to
chop up the day's tasks into tiny bits that can be done as filler while
waiting for a too-slow computer to respond.

Indeed, if the computer task is on the critical path, then it must be
done in a certain time.  If it isn't, big money can be lost, no matter
how the waiting periods were filled with other make-busy tasks.

> While "time is money" is a given, time well ORGANIZED is a gift that
> allows you more freedom, and often a chance to quit a little earlier
> in the day.

Context switching is extremely high in overhead and reduces overall
productivity.  Ideally, every task should be completed without
interruption from start to finish, in order to make the best use of
time.

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-02 by Anthony G. Atkielski

Tom Baker writes:

> A 64 bit version (beta) of Windows XP is available for download to
> test.  It's supposed to be available for release in 1Q05.  I have a
> 64bit AMD processor, but have not downloaded the beta version.  NO
> GUTS!

Is there a 64-bit version of Photoshop?  If not, there's no point in
having a 64-bit OS.

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-02 by Matthew Wensing

I think others actually hit the nail on the head--the
time I spend waiting on my computer that is the
greatest hindrance to the creative process is not when
waiting for a file to downsize, or for a print to get
sent to my printer . . . for those minutes I might
actually get up and see if there's another task worth
attending to.  It's when I am using my Intuo drawing
pad and I place in a dodge or a burn with the flick of
a wrist and then have to wait 5 seconds for that dodge
or burn to appear on the screen.  Or the lag between
editing a curve and then seeing the preview on screen.
 Yes, I know that the highlights will have less or
more separation, etc., but seeing the results appear
is what allows my creative lobe to move on to the next
idea or tweak further.  I can't practically do
anything in those few seconds, so all they really do
is disrupt the creative flow.  

I realize with traditional means you would have to
wait anyway--burn, burn, burn, then slap it in a tray
and see what appears--but one of the main reasons I am
using digital output is because my creative background
is in pencil sketching/drawing mediums, where each of
my changes are literally applied and rendered
instantaneously on the paper.  Doesn't mean I
*couldn't* wait those 5 seconds, absorb it, then try
again; it's just that "instant" is how I like to see
things when I'm in the creative mode.

In the commercial realm I know there is the hurry-up
and wait; but there's also a script and a timeline,
etc. etc.  By contrast, Van Gogh could not have waited
5 seconds between each brush stroke and still have
created this:
<http://www.vangoghgallery.com/painting/p_0222.htm>
because the process needed to be unrehearsed and
organic.  Lag/delays inhibit that dynamism and force a
separation between what you do and what you see as a
result of your actions.  That's what I'm trying to
avoid--I want that action-feedback loop to be tight.

Hope that makes sense.

Matt


--- bhhc <tawow@...> wrote:
and when you know what you are doing, that process can
become an "intuitive" (read: push here stupid) action.
I, nor you, do not need to sit and watch how mama
computer re-arranges your digits. That is something
that should be understood beforehand, if it isn't
understood, then maybe you ain't in the right place.


=====
E-mail: wensing@...
Blog: <http://seaofglass.blogspot.com>
Photography: <http://www.wensing-photo.com>

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-02 by B. Campbell

> I scan in 4x5 negatives at 4800 dpi, 16-bit grayscale,

Why?
Show quoted textHide quoted text
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...>
To: "Matthew Wensing" <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 12:00 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Computing power



Matthew Wensing writes:

> I scan in 4x5 negatives at 4800 dpi, 16-bit grayscale,
> and am having a tough (read: slow) time of it with
> Photoshop 6.0 with the resulting files.  Actually, I
> can't even work with the 50-90 mg .jpeg's, but instead
> downsize to roughly 12 megapixels and then
> dodge/burn/tweak those.  Does anyone here work with
> digital files around 50-90 megs in Photoshop that is
> happy with the quickness of their setup in doing so?
> Right now, with the machine I have, manipulating such
> files is impossible.

Buy more memory.

> My machine is an Athlon XP 1.46 Ghz with 1 gig of DDR
> RAM.  Two possible bottlenecks from what I know are
> memory bus speed (333 Mhz with my current motherboard)
> and also the version of PS I'm using.  CS might be
> faster from the get-go?

Install the maximum amount of memory your motherboard will support; that
should help considerably.  Memory is the biggest bottleneck with any
version of Photoshop.  A single gigabyte isn't very much for image
editing, at least not for large film formats.





Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

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:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-02 by Matthew Wensing

Because I'm the new guy that just got his Epson 4870
but hasn't yet done enough reading to really know what
he does and doesn't need out of it.  :)  

Matt

--- "B. Campbell" <bellis60@...> wrote:


---------------------------------
> I scan in 4x5 negatives at 4800 dpi, 16-bit
grayscale,

Why?
Show quoted textHide quoted text
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...>
To: "Matthew Wensing"
<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 12:00 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Computing power



Matthew Wensing writes:

> I scan in 4x5 negatives at 4800 dpi, 16-bit
grayscale,
> and am having a tough (read: slow) time of it with
> Photoshop 6.0 with the resulting files.  Actually, I
> can't even work with the 50-90 mg .jpeg's, but
instead
> downsize to roughly 12 megapixels and then
> dodge/burn/tweak those.  Does anyone here work with
> digital files around 50-90 megs in Photoshop that is
> happy with the quickness of their setup in doing so?
> Right now, with the machine I have, manipulating
such
> files is impossible.

Buy more memory.

> My machine is an Athlon XP 1.46 Ghz with 1 gig of
DDR
> RAM.  Two possible bottlenecks from what I know are
> memory bus speed (333 Mhz with my current
motherboard)
> and also the version of PS I'm using.  CS might be
> faster from the get-go?

Install the maximum amount of memory your motherboard
will support; that
should help considerably.  Memory is the biggest
bottleneck with any
version of Photoshop.  A single gigabyte isn't very
much for image
editing, at least not for large film formats.





Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files,
and other resources as
they are often being updated.

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:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of
earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal
attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be
removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group
topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts
may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the
group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions
of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in
the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE
DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT
THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP
SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR
LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN
IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE
BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE
USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)
STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP;
OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links










Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files,
and other resources as they are often being updated.

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:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of
earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal
attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or
argumentative users may be removed from the membership
without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group
topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently
make off-topic posts may be removed from the
membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the
group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the
actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in
the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE
DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY
UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd
OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN
IF THE  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE
PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY
OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE
INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF
YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR
CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE
PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING
TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor  ADVERTISEMENT
 

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

   To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.



=====
E-mail: wensing@...
Blog: <http://seaofglass.blogspot.com>
Photography: <http://www.wensing-photo.com>

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-02 by Steve Kale

Matthew 

There is nothing wrong with taking the best possible scan of your negative.
In fact I would say that you should get the best scan from the best scanner
you can afford.  I rent an Imacon 848 by the hour and scan 35mm at 6300 dpi
- grain and all.  You should scan at the optical resolution of the scanner -
which I believe you are.

But if the resolution is way overboard for your output capabilities then you
might consider down-rezzing the file to something more manageable after the
scan.  The problem with this is if you then want to print large you may have
to rework the file.  So down-rez or load up on computing power.

Enjoy!

Steve 
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> From: Matthew Wensing <wensing@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 05:32:16 -0800 (PST)
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Computing power
> 
> 
> Because I'm the new guy that just got his Epson 4870
> but hasn't yet done enough reading to really know what
> he does and doesn't need out of it.  :)
> 
> Matt
> 
> --- "B. Campbell" <bellis60@...> wrote:
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
>> I scan in 4x5 negatives at 4800 dpi, 16-bit
> grayscale,
> 
> Why?
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...>
> To: "Matthew Wensing"
> <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 12:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Computing power
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew Wensing writes:
> 
>> I scan in 4x5 negatives at 4800 dpi, 16-bit
> grayscale,
>> and am having a tough (read: slow) time of it with
>> Photoshop 6.0 with the resulting files.  Actually, I
>> can't even work with the 50-90 mg .jpeg's, but
> instead
>> downsize to roughly 12 megapixels and then
>> dodge/burn/tweak those.  Does anyone here work with
>> digital files around 50-90 megs in Photoshop that is
>> happy with the quickness of their setup in doing so?
>> Right now, with the machine I have, manipulating
> such
>> files is impossible.
> 
> Buy more memory.
> 
>> My machine is an Athlon XP 1.46 Ghz with 1 gig of
> DDR
>> RAM.  Two possible bottlenecks from what I know are
>> memory bus speed (333 Mhz with my current
> motherboard)
>> and also the version of PS I'm using.  CS might be
>> faster from the get-go?
> 
> Install the maximum amount of memory your motherboard
> will support; that
> should help considerably.  Memory is the biggest
> bottleneck with any
> version of Photoshop.  A single gigabyte isn't very
> much for image
> editing, at least not for large film formats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files,
> and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> 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:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of
> earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal
> attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be
> removed from the
> membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group
> topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts
> may be removed from
> the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the
> group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions
> of the group Owner and
> Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in
> the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT
> THE "OWNER" AND
> "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP
> SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
> FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR
> LOSS OF PROFITS,
> GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN
> IF THE  "OWNER" AND
> "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE
> BEEN ADVISED OF THE
> POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE
> USE OR THE INABILITY
> TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
> UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
> ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)
> STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
> THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP;
> OR (iv) ANY OTHER
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
> GROUP.
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files,
> and other resources as they are often being updated.
> 
> 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:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of
> earlier messages to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal
> attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or
> argumentative users may be removed from the membership
> without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group
> topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently
> make off-topic posts may be removed from the
> membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the
> group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the
> actions and decisions of the group Owner and
> Moderators. See „Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines‰ in
> the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY
> UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE „OWNER‰ AND „MODERATORS‰
> OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE
> LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
> SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING
> BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
> GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN
> IF THE  „OWNER‰ AND „MODERATORS‰ OF DIGITAL BW, THE
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY
> OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE
> INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
> GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF
> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR
> CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING
> TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor  ADVERTISEMENT
>  
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
>    To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
>  
>    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>  
>    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> Terms of Service.
> 
> 
> 
> =====
> E-mail: wensing@...
> Blog: <http://seaofglass.blogspot.com>
> Photography: <http://www.wensing-photo.com>
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> 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:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership
> without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the
> membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
> Moderators. See „Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines‰ in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE „OWNER‰ AND
> „MODERATORS‰ OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
> FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL,
> USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  „OWNER‰ AND „MODERATORS‰ OF
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
> DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW,
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR
> TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-02 by bhhc

The mechanical functions are, but I forget, the "hallowed touch of the suffering artist". What a load of crap. It is not a case of fit it in a template . . . it is a case of knowing what you are doing and being able to delegate . . . in this case NOT sitting in front of your screen looking like a dumbo, but actually doing something to free up more time.

I know how to dodge, burn or split filter a gelatin print intuitively . . . I know how to tell my computer what to do . . . in both cases it becomes a reflex action with experience. I don't get bogged down worrying about the "technical" which in turn does leave me time to create more images. You will learn someday . . . maybe.

In the meantime, go back to your "artistique" suffering.

Paul Aparycki

  "...an "intuitive" (read: push here stupid) action.."

  Sure, if you're in the commercial, 'fit it in a template' world.  That's not the case for the creative artist.  

  Tom Baker


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-02 by bhhc

Time is money.

Computers do not get slower as they age.  If you avoid upgrading the
software needlessly, the computer that was fast enough a few years ago
will remain fast enough today.  Hardware upgrades are driven by software
upgrades.  And often software upgrades really add nothing useful to the
system, but bloat it further and slow it by another 20%, such that you
have to buy a faster machine just to maintain the same level of
productivity.

> Those that do, probably need not another "upgrade" but more
> likely a course in management.

It's cheaper and more productive to upgrade the hardware than to try to
chop up the day's tasks into tiny bits that can be done as filler while
waiting for a too-slow computer to respond.

Indeed, if the computer task is on the critical path, then it must be
done in a certain time.  If it isn't, big money can be lost, no matter
how the waiting periods were filled with other make-busy tasks.


Which is why I maintain three computers . . . one is exclusively for image editing and DV work. All the gee-gaws that were with the original package have been stripped away and dumped. Just the basic OS, the graphic software, and all the memory I can fit. The other two machines have word processing, internet and all the other "necessary" functions.

While I am not advocating jumping up and running to the garage every couple of minutes to wash the car, you CAN do other things. Sitting in front of your screen looking like a bump on a log and swearing at IBM, MS, Apple, etc is one thing you can do . . . sadly, one thing most people do . . . or look in their latest 'puters 'r' us catalog and drool over new memory. On the other hand, you can work on that letter, or submission, or continue filing. Minute things that need to be done and can easily be done with no interference in your "waiting". It just takes a little commitment and effort, which seem to be a couple of four letter words that most people really like to avoid . . . especially the latter.

I have been a "creative" image maker for about thirty years. Someone who is far more efficient than I, showed me how to work smarter long before the world started downsizing and globalizing. I have never looked back.

Paul Aparycki

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-02 by B. Campbell

I asked because I thought you might have a good reason for scanning 4x5
negatives at that high a ppi such as a need for really large prints. But if
your prints are in the 16x20 range or less you should be able to scan at
something like 1200 ppi range and greatly reduce your file size, which
should speed things up without affecting the quality of the print.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Matthew Wensing" <wensing@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 8:32 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Computing power


>
> Because I'm the new guy that just got his Epson 4870
> but hasn't yet done enough reading to really know what
> he does and doesn't need out of it.  :)
>
> Matt
>
> --- "B. Campbell" <bellis60@...> wrote:
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> > I scan in 4x5 negatives at 4800 dpi, 16-bit
> grayscale,
>
> Why?
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...>
> To: "Matthew Wensing"
> <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 12:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Computing power
>
>
>
> Matthew Wensing writes:
>
> > I scan in 4x5 negatives at 4800 dpi, 16-bit
> grayscale,
> > and am having a tough (read: slow) time of it with
> > Photoshop 6.0 with the resulting files.  Actually, I
> > can't even work with the 50-90 mg .jpeg's, but
> instead
> > downsize to roughly 12 megapixels and then
> > dodge/burn/tweak those.  Does anyone here work with
> > digital files around 50-90 megs in Photoshop that is
> > happy with the quickness of their setup in doing so?
> > Right now, with the machine I have, manipulating
> such
> > files is impossible.
>
> Buy more memory.
>
> > My machine is an Athlon XP 1.46 Ghz with 1 gig of
> DDR
> > RAM.  Two possible bottlenecks from what I know are
> > memory bus speed (333 Mhz with my current
> motherboard)
> > and also the version of PS I'm using.  CS might be
> > faster from the get-go?
>
> Install the maximum amount of memory your motherboard
> will support; that
> should help considerably.  Memory is the biggest
> bottleneck with any
> version of Photoshop.  A single gigabyte isn't very
> much for image
> editing, at least not for large film formats.
>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files,
> and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
>
> 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:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of
> earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal
> attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be
> removed from the
> membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group
> topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts
> may be removed from
> the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the
> group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions
> of the group Owner and
> Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in
> the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT
> THE "OWNER" AND
> "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP
> SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
> FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR
> LOSS OF PROFITS,
> GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN
> IF THE  "OWNER" AND
> "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE
> BEEN ADVISED OF THE
> POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE
> USE OR THE INABILITY
> TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
> UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
> ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)
> STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
> THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP;
> OR (iv) ANY OTHER
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
> GROUP.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files,
> and other resources as they are often being updated.
>
> 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:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of
> earlier messages to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal
> attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or
> argumentative users may be removed from the membership
> without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group
> topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently
> make off-topic posts may be removed from the
> membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the
> group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the
> actions and decisions of the group Owner and
> Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in
> the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY
> UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS"
> OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE
> LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
> SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING
> BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
> GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN
> IF THE  "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY
> OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE
> INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
> GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF
> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR
> CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING
> TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor  ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>    To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
>
>    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> =====
> E-mail: wensing@...
> Blog: <http://seaofglass.blogspot.com>
> Photography: <http://www.wensing-photo.com>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.
>
> 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:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-02 by Matthew Wensing

Ah.  Thanks.  

I really do need to do more reading to really get a
grasp on dpi in relation to ppi in relation to pixels
etc.  I have done so once before (but never really
understood it thoroughly), but now that I have the
scanner I plan to go back to it again.

So you're saying that 4800 isn't really giving you
more detail than 1200 for say an 8x10 print? (Not to
ask a dumb question or start a war here...).

If anyone has any recommended articles for figuring
these things out, I'm all ears.

Matt

--- "B. Campbell" <bellis60@...> wrote:


---------------------------------
I asked because I thought you might have a good reason
for scanning 4x5
negatives at that high a ppi such as a need for really
large prints. But if
your prints are in the 16x20 range or less you should
be able to scan at
something like 1200 ppi range and greatly reduce your
file size, which
should speed things up without affecting the quality
of the print.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Matthew Wensing" <wensing@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 8:32 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Computing power


>
> Because I'm the new guy that just got his Epson 4870
> but hasn't yet done enough reading to really know
what
> he does and doesn't need out of it.  :)
>
> Matt
>
> --- "B. Campbell" <bellis60@...> wrote:
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> > I scan in 4x5 negatives at 4800 dpi, 16-bit
> grayscale,
>
> Why?
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...>
> To: "Matthew Wensing"
> <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 12:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Computing power
>
>
>
> Matthew Wensing writes:
>
> > I scan in 4x5 negatives at 4800 dpi, 16-bit
> grayscale,
> > and am having a tough (read: slow) time of it with
> > Photoshop 6.0 with the resulting files.  Actually,
I
> > can't even work with the 50-90 mg .jpeg's, but
> instead
> > downsize to roughly 12 megapixels and then
> > dodge/burn/tweak those.  Does anyone here work
with
> > digital files around 50-90 megs in Photoshop that
is
> > happy with the quickness of their setup in doing
so?
> > Right now, with the machine I have, manipulating
> such
> > files is impossible.
>
> Buy more memory.
>
> > My machine is an Athlon XP 1.46 Ghz with 1 gig of
> DDR
> > RAM.  Two possible bottlenecks from what I know
are
> > memory bus speed (333 Mhz with my current
> motherboard)
> > and also the version of PS I'm using.  CS might be
> > faster from the get-go?
>
> Install the maximum amount of memory your
motherboard
> will support; that
> should help considerably.  Memory is the biggest
> bottleneck with any
> version of Photoshop.  A single gigabyte isn't very
> much for image
> editing, at least not for large film formats.
>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files,
> and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
>
>
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:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of
> earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal
> attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be
> removed from the
> membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group
> topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic
posts
> may be removed from
> the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the
> group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and
decisions
> of the group Owner and
> Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines"
in
> the Files section:
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT
> THE "OWNER" AND
> "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP
> SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
> FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR
> LOSS OF PROFITS,
> GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN
> IF THE  "OWNER" AND
> "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP
HAVE
> BEEN ADVISED OF THE
> POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i)
THE
> USE OR THE INABILITY
> TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
> UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
> ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)
> STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
> THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
GROUP;
> OR (iv) ANY OTHER
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
> GROUP.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files,
> and other resources as they are often being updated.
>
>
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:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of
> earlier messages to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal
> attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or
> argumentative users may be removed from the
membership
> without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group
> topic of digital B&W printing. Users who
persistently
> make off-topic posts may be removed from the
> membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the
> group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the
> actions and decisions of the group Owner and
> Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines"
in
> the Files section:
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY
> UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS"
> OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE
> LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
> SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES,
INCLUDING
> BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
> GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN
> IF THE  "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY
> OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE
> INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
> GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF
> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR
> CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING
> TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor  ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>    To visit your group on the web, go to:
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
>
>    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
Yahoo!
> Terms of Service.
>
>
>
> =====
> E-mail: wensing@...
> Blog: <http://seaofglass.blogspot.com>
> Photography: <http://www.wensing-photo.com>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files,
and other resources as
they are often being updated.
>
>
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:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of
earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal
attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be
removed from the
membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group
topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts
may be removed from
the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the
group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions
of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in
the Files section:
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE
DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT
THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP
SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR
LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN
IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE
BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE
USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)
STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP;
OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
GROUP.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>




Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files,
and other resources as they are often being updated.

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:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of
earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal
attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or
argumentative users may be removed from the membership
without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group
topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently
make off-topic posts may be removed from the
membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the
group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the
actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in
the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE
DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY
UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd
OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN
IF THE  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE
PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY
OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE
INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF
YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR
CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE
PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING
TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor  ADVERTISEMENT
 

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

   To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
 
   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
 
   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.



=====
E-mail: wensing@...
Blog: <http://seaofglass.blogspot.com>
Photography: <http://www.wensing-photo.com>

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-02 by Steve Kale

8in x 10 in.  Let's say we want 360dpi to be sent to the printer then you
need 2880x3600dpi.  You are scanning 4x5in negs.  So you need only scan at
2880/4 dpi or 720dpi.

BUT who knows whether you might like one of those images printed larger -
even if you have to outsource it.  Rule:  scan at the best optical
resolution of your scanner and tuck the file away.  If computing constraints
are making work too cumbersome then copy this file and down-res it to 720dpi
for your 8x10s.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> From: Matthew Wensing <wensing@sbcglobal.net>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 09:12:10 -0800 (PST)
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Computing power
> 
> 
> Ah.  Thanks.  
> 
> I really do need to do more reading to really get a
> grasp on dpi in relation to ppi in relation to pixels
> etc.  I have done so once before (but never really
> understood it thoroughly), but now that I have the
> scanner I plan to go back to it again.
> 
> So you're saying that 4800 isn't really giving you
> more detail than 1200 for say an 8x10 print? (Not to
> ask a dumb question or start a war here...).
> 
> If anyone has any recommended articles for figuring
> these things out, I'm all ears.
> 
> Matt
> 
> --- "B. Campbell" <bellis60@...> wrote:
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> I asked because I thought you might have a good reason
> for scanning 4x5
> negatives at that high a ppi such as a need for really
> large prints. But if
> your prints are in the 16x20 range or less you should
> be able to scan at
> something like 1200 ppi range and greatly reduce your
> file size, which
> should speed things up without affecting the quality
> of the print.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matthew Wensing" <wensing@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 8:32 AM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Computing power
> 
> 
>> 
>> Because I'm the new guy that just got his Epson 4870
>> but hasn't yet done enough reading to really know
> what
>> he does and doesn't need out of it.  :)
>> 
>> Matt
>> 
>> --- "B. Campbell" <bellis60@...> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------
>>> I scan in 4x5 negatives at 4800 dpi, 16-bit
>> grayscale,
>> 
>> Why?
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...>
>> To: "Matthew Wensing"
>> <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 12:00 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Computing power
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Matthew Wensing writes:
>> 
>>> I scan in 4x5 negatives at 4800 dpi, 16-bit
>> grayscale,
>>> and am having a tough (read: slow) time of it with
>>> Photoshop 6.0 with the resulting files.  Actually,
> I
>>> can't even work with the 50-90 mg .jpeg's, but
>> instead
>>> downsize to roughly 12 megapixels and then
>>> dodge/burn/tweak those.  Does anyone here work
> with
>>> digital files around 50-90 megs in Photoshop that
> is
>>> happy with the quickness of their setup in doing
> so?
>>> Right now, with the machine I have, manipulating
>> such
>>> files is impossible.
>> 
>> Buy more memory.
>> 
>>> My machine is an Athlon XP 1.46 Ghz with 1 gig of
>> DDR
>>> RAM.  Two possible bottlenecks from what I know
> are
>>> memory bus speed (333 Mhz with my current
>> motherboard)
>>> and also the version of PS I'm using.  CS might be
>>> faster from the get-go?
>> 
>> Install the maximum amount of memory your
> motherboard
>> will support; that
>> should help considerably.  Memory is the biggest
>> bottleneck with any
>> version of Photoshop.  A single gigabyte isn't very
>> much for image
>> editing, at least not for large film formats.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files,
>> and other resources as
>> they are often being updated.
>> 
>> 
> 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:
>> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of
>> earlier messages to keep
>> them short.
>> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal
>> attacks or flames.
>> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be
>> removed from the
>> membership without notice.
>> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group
>> topic of digital B&W
>> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic
> posts
>> may be removed from
>> the membership.
>> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the
>> group rules and
>> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and
> decisions
>> of the group Owner and
>> Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines"
> in
>> the Files section:
>> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>> 
>> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE
>> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
>> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT
>> THE "OWNER" AND
>> "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP
>> SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
>> FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
>> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
>> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR
>> LOSS OF PROFITS,
>> GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN
>> IF THE  "OWNER" AND
>> "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP
> HAVE
>> BEEN ADVISED OF THE
>> POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i)
> THE
>> USE OR THE INABILITY
>> TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
>> UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
>> ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)
>> STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
>> THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
> GROUP;
>> OR (iv) ANY OTHER
>> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
>> GROUP.
>> 
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files,
>> and other resources as they are often being updated.
>> 
>> 
> 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:
>> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of
>> earlier messages to keep them short.
>> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal
>> attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or
>> argumentative users may be removed from the
> membership
>> without notice.
>> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group
>> topic of digital B&W printing. Users who
> persistently
>> make off-topic posts may be removed from the
>> membership.
>> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the
>> group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the
>> actions and decisions of the group Owner and
>> Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines"
> in
>> the Files section:
>> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>> 
>> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE
>> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY
>> UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
> "MODERATORS"
>> OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE
>> LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
>> SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES,
> INCLUDING
>> BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
>> GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN
>> IF THE  "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE
>> PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
> POSSIBILITY
>> OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE
>> INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
>> GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF
>> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR
>> CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE
>> PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING
>> TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor  ADVERTISEMENT
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>> 
>>    To visit your group on the web, go to:
>> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
>> 
>>    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>> 
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>> 
>>    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> Yahoo!
>> Terms of Service.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> =====
>> E-mail: wensing@...
>> Blog: <http://seaofglass.blogspot.com>
>> Photography: <http://www.wensing-photo.com>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files,
> and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
>> 
>> 
> 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:
>> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of
> earlier messages to keep
> them short.
>> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal
> attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be
> removed from the
> membership without notice.
>> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group
> topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts
> may be removed from
> the membership.
>> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the
> group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions
> of the group Owner and
> Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in
> the Files section:
>> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>> 
>> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT
> THE "OWNER" AND
> "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP
> SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
> FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR
> LOSS OF PROFITS,
> GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN
> IF THE  "OWNER" AND
> "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE
> BEEN ADVISED OF THE
> POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE
> USE OR THE INABILITY
> TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
> UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
> ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)
> STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
> THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP;
> OR (iv) ANY OTHER
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
> GROUP.
>> 
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files,
> and other resources as they are often being updated.
> 
> 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:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of
> earlier messages to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal
> attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or
> argumentative users may be removed from the membership
> without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group
> topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently
> make off-topic posts may be removed from the
> membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the
> group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the
> actions and decisions of the group Owner and
> Moderators. See „Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines‰ in
> the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY
> UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE „OWNER‰ AND „MODERATORS‰
> OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE
> LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
> SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING
> BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
> GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN
> IF THE  „OWNER‰ AND „MODERATORS‰ OF DIGITAL BW, THE
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY
> OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE
> INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
> GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF
> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR
> CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING
> TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor  ADVERTISEMENT
>  
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
>    To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
>  
>    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>  
>    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
> Terms of Service.
> 
> 
> 
> =====
> E-mail: wensing@sbcglobal.net
> Blog: <http://seaofglass.blogspot.com>
> Photography: <http://www.wensing-photo.com>
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> 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:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership
> without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the
> membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
> Moderators. See „Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines‰ in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE „OWNER‰ AND
> „MODERATORS‰ OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
> FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL,
> USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  „OWNER‰ AND „MODERATORS‰ OF
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
> DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW,
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR
> TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>

RE: Computing power

2004-12-02 by bruce greene

I scan 6x9 film at 16bit and 4000ppi for something like 650mb starting 
file size. After adding layers it can grow to 2gig. I shoot all my b&w 
with color neg now and keep the image in RGB mode until ready for 
printing. Of course it looks b&w once I've added a channel mixer 
(monochrome checked) adjustment layer.

I'm working on a mac G4 dual 1gig machine with photoshop CS. Opening 
the files can take a while, and even though I have 2 gig of memory, I'm 
always into disk swapping with these large files.

What I find workable, with the least waiting for computer rendering, is 
to make all my changes via adjustment layers. Adjustment layers don't 
render the large file until flattening or printing, so changes appear 
instantly on screen while I work. Using a filter such as unsharp 
masking does render the one layer I'm working on, but not the others, 
so it's not too too bad. And, I don't do the sharpening, till I'm 
finished tinkering with the image. I do all my "dodging and burning" 
through curve adjustment layers and painting them on the image using 
the layer mask. Much more accurate and flexible than using the dodge or 
burn tools which require rendering in real time. For those not familiar 
with this technique, you will love it once you've learned it and you'll 
wonder how you ever worked applying each curve or hue/sat to the entire 
image for each edit.

Using this strategy, I avoid the big WAIT until I want to print or 
save. Then I have plenty of time to wash the dishes etc.

I work on the big files because once I've done all this work, I would 
not want to do it again should I desire a large print in the future. I 
save the images with all the layers intact so future changes do not 
require multiple rendering of the image and loss of data.

-bruce

www.brucealangreene.com

On Thursday, Dec 2, 2004, at 06:48 US/Pacific, 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> RE: Computing power

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-02 by bhhc

Matt;

Go to the website www.scantips.com . It has a very well written article(s)
starting on the right hand side of the page, Scanning 101 - The Basics. The
author encourages you to download and print the entire thing if you wish or
you can buy his book. It will not make you the worlds greatest technical
wiz, but it will give you virtually all the info you need to work easily
with your new toys!

good luck

Paul Aparycki
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> So you're saying that 4800 isn't really giving you
> more detail than 1200 for say an 8x10 print? (Not to
> ask a dumb question or start a war here...).
>
> If anyone has any recommended articles for figuring
> these things out, I'm all ears.
>
> Matt

Re: Computing power

2004-12-02 by marcsitkin

Make sure you have a seperate hard drive dedicated to use as a
photoshop scratch disk.

Also, in photoshop preferences, set the available memory to a bit more
than 3 times your common file size. Don't forget to include layers in
that calculation.

These two criteria greatly affect your performance.

Regards, 

Marc Sitkin
digitalMomentum

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-02 by weareallsosmall

From what i understand, the actual optical resolution of your 4180 is
probably around 1800, not 4800 as epson touts (someone please correct
me if I'm wrong). Many believe that the scanner is actually upsampling
when you use settings higher than this. The 3170 i use is rated at
3200 spi, but i usually don't scan any higher than 1800, as there are
many better solutions to increasing image size than the scanner's
software. i haven't heard what the true resolution of this scanner is
supposed to be, btw. 

Since I started scanning at this lower resolution, the frustration
factor has gone WAY down. I have a P4/2.4G and a meager 512m of ram,
and rarely have to wait at all when working on 16 bit greyscale images
made from medium format negs (RGB is a different story, however). 

Btw, there are advantages to working on images of greater resolution
than the final output size of 300 ppi (which equals say a 600spi 4x5
scan for an 8x10 image).  For one, larger files hold up far better to
higher levels of sharpening, which is why it is recomended that it be
your final step BEFORE "rezzing down" to your final print dimentions.
And of cousre working with a larger file of say 1800 ppi would allow
you to print the same 4x5 scan on say an Epson 7600, a 1280, or c86
without upsampling or rescanning/reworking an image.

For a thorough explanation of scanning, spi, ppi, dpi, and other
things related try this site: http://www.scantips.com/

Hope this helps, and hope this is acurate;)
john


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Matthew Wensing
<wensing@s...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> Ah.  Thanks.  
> 
> I really do need to do more reading to really get a
> grasp on dpi in relation to ppi in relation to pixels
> etc.  I have done so once before (but never really
> understood it thoroughly), but now that I have the
> scanner I plan to go back to it again.
> 
> So you're saying that 4800 isn't really giving you
> more detail than 1200 for say an 8x10 print? (Not to
> ask a dumb question or start a war here...).
> 
> If anyone has any recommended articles for figuring
> these things out, I'm all ears.
> 
> Matt
>

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-02 by Anthony G. Atkielski

B. Campbell writes:

> Why?

It's always a good idea to scan at maximum resolution and depth, if you
are scanning for archives.

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-02 by Anthony G. Atkielski

B. Campbell writes:

> I asked because I thought you might have a good reason for scanning 4x5
> negatives at that high a ppi such as a need for really large prints. But if
> your prints are in the 16x20 range or less you should be able to scan at
> something like 1200 ppi range and greatly reduce your file size, which
> should speed things up without affecting the quality of the print.

Not much point in shooting larger formats if you plan to scan them at
such low resolution that they produce the same size files as smaller
formats.

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-02 by Anthony G. Atkielski

Matthew Wensing writes:

> So you're saying that 4800 isn't really giving you
> more detail than 1200 for say an 8x10 print?

It depends on the resolution at which you prepare the print.

> If anyone has any recommended articles for figuring
> these things out, I'm all ears.

If you plan on archiving your scan, scan at the highest possible optical
resolution with the greatest possible bit depth.

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-02 by B. Campbell

>It's always a good idea to scan at maximum resolution and depth, if you
>are scanning for archives.

Not, IMHO, if doing that results in a file so large that it creates the
difficulties the OP is having and if the resulting file is far larger than
you will ever need given the size limitations of your printer and/or your
printing practices.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...>
To: "B. Campbell" <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Computing power



B. Campbell writes:

> Why?

It's always a good idea to scan at maximum resolution and depth, if you
are scanning for archives.





Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

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:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-03 by B. Campbell

>Not much point in shooting larger formats if you plan to scan them at
>such low resolution that they produce the same size files as smaller
>formats.

Sure there is. If I did my job my larger negative contains better detail and
tonal range than a smaller negative.  I don't lose that detail and range by
scanning for a file size that produces the maximum dpi my printer driver
will allow at the largest print size it will make and/or that I want or
need.  In other words, there's

I would nevertheless do as you suggest and scan at the highest possible dpi
if it didn't produce any speed, storage, or other problems just on the
theory of "why not?" But if doing that creates the problems the OP is having
then IMHO he should should reduce his scan ppi so that he gets a file size
that will still produce the maximum dpi his printer will give him at the
maximum print size he wants to make.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...>
To: "B. Campbell" <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Computing power



B. Campbell writes:

> I asked because I thought you might have a good reason for scanning 4x5
> negatives at that high a ppi such as a need for really large prints. But
if
> your prints are in the 16x20 range or less you should be able to scan at
> something like 1200 ppi range and greatly reduce your file size, which
> should speed things up without affecting the quality of the print.

Not much point in shooting larger formats if you plan to scan them at
such low resolution that they produce the same size files as smaller
formats.





Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

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:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links

RE: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-03 by Ken Carney

Matt, the simplest approach is just to think of your final print size.
Suppose you have a 4x5 neg and you want to make an uncropped print that is
10 x 12.5", at 300 dpi print size.  That is 10" x 300 = 3,000 pixels on the
short side.  So, 3,000 pixels / 4" for the neg = a scan at 750 dpi on the
Epson scanner.  Once I'd gone to the trouble to scan, I'd probably just scan
at 1200 ppi so I could have a bigger digital neg in case I needed it later.
That is only a 55mb 16-bit grayscale file.  Once you decide the crop you
want, in the scanner, you can use the same formula to scan.  Also you should
find out what the optical resolution of the Epson scanner is without any
interpolation and use that as the maximum ppi of which the scanner is
capable.  My Lino scanner for 8x10" and smaller film has some outrageous max
ppi number, but it's optical resolution is only 1200 ppi.  If I need to res
up a little for a print I'll use Genuine Fractals or stair-step
interpolation in PS, not the scanner interpolation. 

Regards,

  --Ken Carney
    www.kencarney.com 
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Wensing [mailto:wensing@...] 
> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 7:32 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Computing power
> 
> 
> Because I'm the new guy that just got his Epson 4870 but 
> hasn't yet done enough reading to really know what he does 
> and doesn't need out of it.  :)

RE: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-03 by Matthew Wensing

Thanks, Ken.  Your response is, as have been many
others, very helpful.

Matt


--- Ken Carney <kcarney1@...> wrote:

=====
E-mail: wensing@...
Blog: <http://seaofglass.blogspot.com>
Photography: <http://www.wensing-photo.com>

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-03 by lenzzman44

Dear Folks -- Anyone notice the return of Anthony G. the Troll, Dark
Lord of Wasted Controversy. In my experience he has NEVER contributed
a useful post to this forum. Would someone please join the numerous
other Moderators who've 86ed him. Please.

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-03 by mark_gatehouse

> Dear Folks -- Anyone notice the return of Anthony G. the Troll, Dark
> Lord of Wasted Controversy. In my experience he has NEVER 
contributed
> a useful post to this forum. Would someone please join the numerous
> other Moderators who've 86ed him. Please.

Is that the same Anthony who compares his photographs to those of 
Atget on his website...?

Uuhu

Gatesy

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-03 by Anthony G. Atkielski

B. Campbell writes:

> Not, IMHO, if doing that results in a file so large that it creates the
> difficulties the OP is having and if the resulting file is far larger than
> you will ever need given the size limitations of your printer and/or your
> printing practices.

Even then, you scan at the highest resolution and deepest depth you can,
unless you are certain that you will be able to scan the film against at
at least the same maximum resolution depth in the future.

If it's too large to handle, you archive it and then reduce the archived
version so you can work with it.

And "far larger than you will ever need" are famous last words.

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-03 by Anthony G. Atkielski

B. Campbell writes:

> Sure there is. If I did my job my larger negative contains better detail and
> tonal range than a smaller negative.

The difference is virtually non-existent if you don't scan to take
advantage of it.

> I don't lose that detail and range by scanning for a file size that
> produces the maximum dpi my printer driver will allow at the largest
> print size it will make and/or that I want or need.

Yes, you did, or at least a good part of it.

RE: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-03 by ellery

Paul has a point -  in the wet darkroom after a while you look at the
projected image and yr instincts kick and the hands do the necessaary. Even
on the computer - the image normally suggests what it needs as you work. -
That's the way I work with the flow but you could try the other way and made
a wooden statue out  a granite block.
that bad.

Tom I think you are overstating the case - in the commercial world there is
a need to flesh out a vague concept that the AD has - there is as in all
things a range of work from very creative artistic to common hack. Suffering
does not mean you are creative - but suffering does seem to be part of the
process at some point of time.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
 -----Original Message-----
From: bhhc [mailto:tawow@...]
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 10:49 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Computing power


  The mechanical functions are, but I forget, the "hallowed touch of the
suffering artist". What a load of crap. It is not a case of fit it in a
template . . . it is a case of knowing what you are doing and being able to
delegate . . . in this case NOT sitting in front of your screen looking like
a dumbo, but actually doing something to free up more time.

  I know how to dodge, burn or split filter a gelatin print intuitively . .
. I know how to tell my computer what to do . . . in both cases it becomes a
reflex action with experience. I don't get bogged down worrying about the
"technical" which in turn does leave me time to create more images. You will
learn someday . . . maybe.

  In the meantime, go back to your "artistique" suffering.

  Paul Aparycki

    "...an "intuitive" (read: push here stupid) action.."

    Sure, if you're in the commercial, 'fit it in a template' world.  That's
not the case for the creative artist.

    Tom Baker




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

RE: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-03 by ellery

Steve 

While on one face your calculations are correct on the end where we deal with the scanner your calculations are dead wrong.

You need to scan at the optical resolution of your scanner example if the scanner's optical resolution is 1200 then scan at that and work out what max size you can print from there.  No point to interpolation up or down to hit magic number arising from output size. The files used from this interpolation are often not the best scans - and in a real sense you have shot yourself in the foot even before you begin, 

Yes this may give very large files but data is data - too much you can always down sample safely in PS ; too little is when you have to weigh the pros and cons to get the best way to interpolate. 
Show quoted textHide quoted text
  -----Original Message-----
  From: Steve Kale [mailto:stevekale@...]
  Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 1:19 AM
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Computing power


  8in x 10 in.  Let's say we want 360dpi to be sent to the printer then you
  need 2880x3600dpi.  You are scanning 4x5in negs.  So you need only scan at
  2880/4 dpi or 720dpi.

  BUT who knows whether you might like one of those images printed larger -
  even if you have to outsource it.  Rule:  scan at the best optical
  resolution of your scanner and tuck the file away.  If computing constraints
  are making work too cumbersome then copy this file and down-res it to 720dpi
  for your 8x10s.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-03 by B. Campbell

>The difference is virtually non-existent if you don't scan to take
>advantage of it.

I agree. But you don't necessarily take advantage of it by creating the
largest possible file size if that exceeds the size needed to create the
print you want to make. You seem to think there's something inherently good
about a huge file.  I disagree.  So you do what you want, I'll do what I
want. But the OP needs to either reduce his file size given the kinds of
problems he's having or if he can't do that and still make the quality
prints he wants then he needs to get different hardware. The one thing he
doesn't need to do is what you seem to advocate, which is to persist in
blindly scanning his 4x5 negatives at 4800 ppi in the face of the problems
that's creating for him.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...>
To: "B. Campbell" <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 12:14 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Computing power



B. Campbell writes:

> Sure there is. If I did my job my larger negative contains better detail
and
> tonal range than a smaller negative.

The difference is virtually non-existent if you don't scan to take
advantage of it.

> I don't lose that detail and range by scanning for a file size that
> produces the maximum dpi my printer driver will allow at the largest
> print size it will make and/or that I want or need.

Yes, you did, or at least a good part of it.





Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

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:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-03 by Steven Karafyllakis

What the heck; since the Athlon Xp 1.4 was my 2nd processor and is 
still my back-up machine, I'll add my 2cents worth; with PS 6 and 
7.0 it never had any trouble with 50 MB files. It didn't really 
choke until it got above 150-200mb. My current processor is an 
Athlon XP 3000+ and it is doing fine in the 300-500mb range and 
doesn't really groan until it gets up over a Gig. So I think 
something is a bit gamey with your system, or maybe you've got too 
many things running in the background. More memory as Anthony 
suggests can't hurt, but check your CPU operating temperature also. 
AMD lists 80 celsius as max, but that's actually a meltdown temp; my 
impression is that the AMDs slow down to prevent overheating long 
before that.

As for the file-size argument: maybe I missed it, having jumped in 
rather late, but there's a point that has been implied but not 
stated clearly enough perhaps: the printer driver throws away 
(downsamples) data beyond it's stated hardware DPI: 720 for the 
desktop Epsons, and 360 for the bigger models. Any higher res you 
may think you're printing at, is actually dithering; the printer 
lays down several dots for each actual dot of input info. So feeding 
it a big file to make a small print will produce no better quality 
than having the correct file size to begin with. I have read that at 
least in theory scanning at full hardware resolution produces the 
sharpest scan, but I for one have been unable to see the difference. 
 
Hope this helps

Steve Karafyllakis


  --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Matthew 
Wensing <wensing@s...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> Thanks, Ken.  Your response is, as have been many
> others, very helpful.
> 
> Matt
> 
> 
> --- Ken Carney <kcarney1@c...> wrote:
> 
> =====
> E-mail: wensing@s...
> Blog: <http://seaofglass.blogspot.com>
> Photography: <http://www.wensing-photo.com>

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-03 by Matthew Wensing

Thanks, Steve.  Not to be a dolt, but are you
referring to compressed or uncompressed?  I'm
generating jpegs (maybe I shouldn't be--maybe tiffs
instead?), but the uncompressed sizes (ie. what PS
lists in the bottom left hand corner with ???/??? MB
are usually around 900/900 or 1000/1000. 

Matt


--- Steven Karafyllakis <steve@...> wrote:
I'll add my 2cents worth; with PS 6 and 
7.0 it never had any trouble with 50 MB files. It
didn't really 
choke until it got above 150-200mb. My current
processor is an 
Athlon XP 3000+ and it is doing fine in the 300-500mb
range and 
doesn't really groan until it gets up over a Gig.

=====
E-mail: wensing@...
Blog: <http://seaofglass.blogspot.com>
Photography: <http://www.wensing-photo.com>

RE: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-03 by Nunan, Mike

Hi Steve,

Dunno if you saw my recent post on the subject, but if you have 4GB in your PC
you can get PS to use 3GB of it. Take a look here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/message/51522

Best regards,

-= mike =-
Show quoted textHide quoted text
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Kale [mailto:stevekale@...] 
Sent: 01 December 2004 23:18
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Computing power


I had a similar feeling with my little 15in Powerbook (800Mhz).  I finally
stumped up for a 2x2.5Ghz G5 - 64bit processing rocks.  At the moment I only
have 1 Gig of RAM and I would like to go to 3Gig (my understanding from recent
posts is that PS CS can only use 2 Gig but with 3 it gets all of the 2).  I
added a second internal hard drive and use that as a scratch which helps.  I
scan 35mm film at 6300 dpi (a little overkill but I figure if I am going to go
rent an Imacon 848 for an hour I might as well get the best scan possible and
it is fast), 16 bit - so that's around 90meg for B&W and 270 meg for
colour...without any layers.  The G5 mulches this stuff.  If you have colour
slides and start using programmes like Photokit Sharpener (which requires an
RGB file), file sizes can rapidly peak out at a couple of gig before you
flatten them back down - even the G% twin slows down considerably for this.


> From: Matthew Wensing <wensing@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 14:25:24 -0800 (PST)
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Computing power
> 
> 
> I scan in 4x5 negatives at 4800 dpi, 16-bit grayscale, and am having a 
> tough (read: slow) time of it with Photoshop 6.0 with the resulting 
> files.  Actually, I can't even work with the 50-90 mg .jpeg's, but 
> instead downsize to roughly 12 megapixels and then dodge/burn/tweak 
> those.  Does anyone here work with digital files around 50-90 megs in 
> Photoshop that is happy with the quickness of their setup in doing so?
> Right now, with the machine I have, manipulating such files is 
> impossible.
> 
> My machine is an Athlon XP 1.46 Ghz with 1 gig of DDR RAM.  Two 
> possible bottlenecks from what I know are memory bus speed (333 Mhz 
> with my current motherboard) and also the version of PS I'm using.  CS 
> might be faster from the get-go?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> 
> Matt
> 
> =====
> E-mail: wensing@...
> Blog: <http://seaofglass.blogspot.com>
> Photography: <http://www.wensing-photo.com>




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Make a
clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/ucIolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

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:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership
without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the
membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL,
USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF
DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW,
THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR
TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE
DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE
DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
 
Yahoo! Groups Links



 




==============================================================================
This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you received
this message in error please delete it and notify us. If this message was
misdirected, CSFB does not waive any confidentiality or privilege. CSFB
retains and monitors electronic communications sent through its network.
Instructions transmitted over this system are not binding on CSFB until they
are confirmed by us. Message transmission is not guaranteed to be secure.
==============================================================================

RE: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-04 by Ken Carney

You are welcome.  BTW, I wouldn't save anything as a jpg.  Repeated saves of
a jpg image will result in a degraded image, as jpg is a "lossy"
compression.  Using uncompressed tif should work fine, or native Photoshop
format. 
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Wensing [mailto:wensing@...] 
> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 8:04 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Computing power
> 
> 
> Thanks, Ken.  Your response is, as have been many others, 
> very helpful.
> 
> Matt
>

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-04 by Anthony G. Atkielski

Ken Carney writes:

> You are welcome.  BTW, I wouldn't save anything as a jpg.  Repeated saves of
> a jpg image will result in a degraded image, as jpg is a "lossy"
> compression.

JPEG is generally fine for archiving, and it saves a tremendous amount
of space.  You don't normally resave archived JPEGs over and over, so
the lossy compression is not a factor (provided that you save the
original archive image with minimal compression).

Alternatives are lossless formats like TIFF or PNG, but they are only
practical if you have a great deal of space for archives.  I can only
put one TIFF on a CD, for example, and with thousands of images at one
image per CD, it gets impractical.  I would if I could, though.

> Using uncompressed tif should work fine, or native Photoshop
> format.

PSDs are sometimes even larger than TIFFs.

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-04 by The Wogster

Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
> Ken Carney writes:
> 
> 
>>You are welcome.  BTW, I wouldn't save anything as a jpg.  Repeated saves of
>>a jpg image will result in a degraded image, as jpg is a "lossy"
>>compression.
> 
> 
> JPEG is generally fine for archiving, and it saves a tremendous amount
> of space.  You don't normally resave archived JPEGs over and over, so
> the lossy compression is not a factor (provided that you save the
> original archive image with minimal compression).
> 
> Alternatives are lossless formats like TIFF or PNG, but they are only
> practical if you have a great deal of space for archives.  I can only
> put one TIFF on a CD, for example, and with thousands of images at one
> image per CD, it gets impractical.  I would if I could, though.
> 
> 
>>Using uncompressed tif should work fine, or native Photoshop
>>format.
> 
> 
> PSDs are sometimes even larger than TIFFs.
> 

For archiving though, where you are not looking at the image on a 
regular basis, you can use other compression mechanisms.  For example if 
you can compress a 600MB file down to say 50MB for archiving, and then 
decompress it again later, who cares?  Even if it takes an hour to 
compress/decompress.

W

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-05 by Anthony G. Atkielski

The Wogster writes:

> For archiving though, where you are not looking at the image on a
> regular basis, you can use other compression mechanisms.  For example if
> you can compress a 600MB file down to say 50MB for archiving, and then
> decompress it again later, who cares?  Even if it takes an hour to 
> compress/decompress.

Agreed.  But what file formats would be in this category?

Theoretically, you could compress most image files enormously with no
loss, given time and space to do an absolutely optimal compression.
I've never heard of a file format that is designed for this purpose,
though.

RE: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-05 by Paul D. DeRocco

> From: Anthony G. Atkielski [mailto:anthony@...]
>
> Agreed.  But what file formats would be in this category?
>
> Theoretically, you could compress most image files enormously with no
> loss, given time and space to do an absolutely optimal compression.
> I've never heard of a file format that is designed for this purpose,
> though.

There are no file formats that I'm aware of that take an hour to compress,
unless you write the compressor in interpreted Basic and run it on an Apple
2. ;-)

However, in a more realistic vein, if you want to archive scanned images
with no visible loss, but significant space savings, and you want to
preserve more than eight-bit data, use JPEG2000.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-05 by Anthony G. Atkielski

Paul D. DeRocco writes:

> There are no file formats that I'm aware of that take an hour to compress,
> unless you write the compressor in interpreted Basic and run it on an Apple
> 2. ;-)

It's not difficult to imagine optimal compression taking an extremely
long time.  For example, in theory, you can examine an entire file as a
unit and use Fourier or Walsh transformations to optimally compress the
whole thing, and the resulting file may be small indeed, but it would
take an extremely long time to compress, and potentially quite a lot time to
decompress as well.

> However, in a more realistic vein, if you want to archive scanned images
> with no visible loss, but significant space savings, and you want to
> preserve more than eight-bit data, use JPEG2000.

Unfortunately, I don't have any decent support for JPEG2000 in my
image-editing applications, and obtaining it does not justify the cost
and nightmare of "upgrading" Photoshop or other tools to more recent
versions.

RE: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-05 by Paul D. DeRocco

> From: Anthony G. Atkielski [mailto:anthony@...]
>
> Unfortunately, I don't have any decent support for JPEG2000 in my
> image-editing applications, and obtaining it does not justify the cost
> and nightmare of "upgrading" Photoshop or other tools to more recent
> versions.

If you're interested, LuraWave makes a very good, fast JPEG2000 plug-in that
works in Photoshop and other PS-compatible applications. There are probably
others out there, but I can vouch for that particular one.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-05 by johnglodge

There is also a lurawave plugin for Irfanview, still it needs more CPU
than some of the others.

...John

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul D. DeRocco"
<pderocco@i...> wrote:
> > From: Anthony G. Atkielski [mailto:anthony@a...]
> >
> > Unfortunately, I don't have any decent support for JPEG2000 in my
> > image-editing applications, and obtaining it does not justify the cost
> > and nightmare of "upgrading" Photoshop or other tools to more recent
> > versions.
> 
> If you're interested, LuraWave makes a very good, fast JPEG2000
plug-in that
> works in Photoshop and other PS-compatible applications. There are
probably
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> others out there, but I can vouch for that particular one.
> 
> --
> 
> Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
> Paul                mailto:pderocco@i...

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-05 by The Wogster

Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
> The Wogster writes:
> 
> 
>>For archiving though, where you are not looking at the image on a
>>regular basis, you can use other compression mechanisms.  For example if
>>you can compress a 600MB file down to say 50MB for archiving, and then
>>decompress it again later, who cares?  Even if it takes an hour to 
>>compress/decompress.
> 
> 
> Agreed.  But what file formats would be in this category?
> 
> Theoretically, you could compress most image files enormously with no
> loss, given time and space to do an absolutely optimal compression.
> I've never heard of a file format that is designed for this purpose,
> though.
> 

The best I have seen is around 50% compression, having tried a few 
general purpose compression formats, with a ~6MB TIFF file, I would 
expect that a compression format designed specifically, would have 
better luck, even in a lossless form.

The real issue comes down to, if your scanning a 4x5 negative, and then 
post processessing, do you need to store the files forever on the 
computer? As long as you still have the negative, then you can always 
rescan and repeat the processing can be done again, to give a new result.

When I did printing is the darkroom, I rarely kept printing notes, other 
then that on the back of the contact print, so I knew where to start 
from.  This was often because, the print I wanted 6 months or 3-4 years 
later might be very different, considering the mood I was in.

We sometimes forget in print photograpy that, like music and theatre, 
the art is double staged, the negative (or initial digital image) is the 
symphony (or script), the print is the performance.

W

Re: File compression - was [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-05 by ccolbertbw

It is not just an issue of speed. There is an information theory theorem upon which the 
Lempel-Ziv compression algorithm is based. It says that for arbitrary data, there is an 
optimal compression. Once files get pretty big - and just about
anything that we would  care to compress counts as pretty big - on average you can't do
better than Lempel-Ziv  coding.  That's what is used in a standard zip and unix compress
files.

It's one of those "obey the speed limit of light, it's the law!" kind
of things.

The best you can do lossless is usually about 2-fold compression.  That is why we accept 
lossy coding for images. With lossy coding we all know you can do much better, and the 
price paid is relatively small. But it is not lossless and the picture will continue to degrade 
as you make changes and resave.

There may be better compression for certain types of images, if one can make  
assumptions, but that's not usually a useful strategy across many images. Examples where 
it can help is in high resolution "line art" where the vast majority pixels are white. It may 
turn out that one can make more assumptions about data in images than one can, for 
example, do with an arbitrary program file.  But, in general, it just does not seem like this 
is the case. That is why you don't see lots of better coding schemes being used. On  
average they are just not better.

Costa Colbert

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, The Wogster
<wogsterca@y...> 
wrote:
> Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
> > The Wogster writes:
> > 
> > 
> >>For archiving though, where you are not looking at the image on a
> >>regular basis, you can use other compression mechanisms.  For
example if
> >>you can compress a 600MB file down to say 50MB for archiving, and
then
> >>decompress it again later, who cares?  Even if it takes an hour
to 
> >>compress/decompress.
> > 
> > 
> > Agreed.  But what file formats would be in this category?
> > 
> > Theoretically, you could compress most image files enormously
with no
> > loss, given time and space to do an absolutely optimal
compression.
> > I've never heard of a file format that is designed for this
purpose,
> > though.
> > 
> 
> The best I have seen is around 50% compression, having tried a few 
> general purpose compression formats, with a ~6MB TIFF file, I would 
> expect that a compression format designed specifically, would have 
> better luck, even in a lossless form.
> 
> The real issue comes down to, if your scanning a 4x5 negative, and
then 
> post processessing, do you need to store the files forever on the 
> computer? As long as you still have the negative, then you can
always 
> rescan and repeat the processing can be done again, to give a new
result.
> 
> When I did printing is the darkroom, I rarely kept printing notes,
other 
> then that on the back of the contact print, so I knew where to
start 
> from.  This was often because, the print I wanted 6 months or 3-4
years 
> later might be very different, considering the mood I was in.
> 
> We sometimes forget in print photograpy that, like music and
theatre, 
> the art is double staged, the negative (or initial digital image)
is the 
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> symphony (or script), the print is the performance.
> 
> W

Re: File compression - was [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-06 by Anthony G. Atkielski

ccolbertbw writes:

> It is not just an issue of speed. There is an information theory
> theorem upon which the Lempel-Ziv compression algorithm is based. It
> says that for arbitrary data, there is an optimal compression. Once
> files get pretty big - and just about anything that we would care to
> compress counts as pretty big - on average you can't do better than
> Lempel-Ziv coding. That's what is used in a standard zip and unix
> compress files.

Those coding methods are hardly optimal.  Optimal compression requires a
great deal of analysis of the data, usually more than the compression
achieved would be worth.  There's a tremendous amount of redundancy in
most image files, but removing it efficiently without losing anything
requires considerable time, and it's enormously dependent on the exact
image content.  Generalized compression schemes compromise to achieve
reasonable compression in reasonable time.

> The best you can do lossless is usually about 2-fold compression.

There isn't any way to say with certainty how much lossless compression
is possible in a general way.  But most lossless, generalized
compression algorithms today achieve no more than about 50% compression.
Future algorithms may do better, but we aren't likely to ever see 90%
compression, simply because images may not truly be 90% redundant (most
of the time).

> That is why we accept lossy coding for images.

One reason we accept lossy compression is that images are very
redundant.  We don't have an efficient way of removing all this
redundancy losslessly, but we can remove it in lossy compression and
depend upon the human brain to fill in the blanks upon decompression,
with fairly good results.

In any case, I think the future is not in more efficient compression,
but instead in greater bandwidth and storage capacity.

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-06 by Bob Frost

B,

For best results you should scan at the optical resolution of your scanner, 
and then reduce the file size/ppi in Photoshop if you need to reduce it.

If you scan at a reduced resolution eg. 1200ppi instead of 4800ppi (assuming 
that is the optical resolution), your scanner simply throws away 
three-quarters of the detail in your film, leaving you with just one-quarter 
of the original detail.

If on the other hand, you scan at 4800ppi and then reduce to 1200ppi in 
Photoshop, PS doesn't simply throw away three-quarters of the detail, it 
effectively 'averages' the 4800ppi detail to provide you with a new 1200ppi 
image that more accurately reflects the original than just throwing pixels 
away.

Bob Frost.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "B. Campbell" <bellis60@...>



>Not much point in shooting larger formats if you plan to scan them at
>such low resolution that they produce the same size files as smaller
>formats.

Sure there is. If I did my job my larger negative contains better detail and
tonal range than a smaller negative.  I don't lose that detail and range by
scanning for a file size that produces the maximum dpi my printer driver
will allow at the largest print size it will make and/or that I want or
need.  In other words, there's

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-06 by Roger Howard

On Dec 4, 2004, at 10:00 PM, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:

>
> The Wogster writes:
>
>> For archiving though, where you are not looking at the image on a
>> regular basis, you can use other compression mechanisms.  For example 
>> if
>> you can compress a 600MB file down to say 50MB for archiving, and then
>> decompress it again later, who cares?  Even if it takes an hour to
>> compress/decompress.
>
> Agreed.  But what file formats would be in this category?
>
> Theoretically, you could compress most image files enormously with no
> loss, given time and space to do an absolutely optimal compression.
> I've never heard of a file format that is designed for this purpose,
> though.

No - assuming no loss, there are real limits to how far compression can 
take you. It's closely related to Shannon's Law.

However, what you say is very true if you allow for a little loss... 
then yes, we can keep devising deeper, more sophisticated, lossy 
compressors that take more and more memory and CPU. But if the 
requirement is lossless, then we can do pretty nearly optimal 
compression today - even throwing tons more CPU at it with much more 
complex lossless algorithms you'll never get past Shannon.

Today, the best compressors for really great efficiency on really high 
rez materials tends to be wavelets... JPEG2000 and MrSid are both 
popular implementations. The artifacts are much less obnoxious than 
DCT, and the compression ratios are much better. For really large 
images, unless you regularly view them at 100% then a wavelet 
compressor (or even DCT) can be used pretty heavily without losing too 
much significant detail.

Best,

Roger

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-06 by Roger Howard

On Dec 4, 2004, at 10:23 PM, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
> Unfortunately, I don't have any decent support for JPEG2000 in my
> image-editing applications, and obtaining it does not justify the cost
> and nightmare of "upgrading" Photoshop or other tools to more recent
> versions.

But that would be the same argument against these other superior 
compressors too... so it's not really a factor.

JPEG2000 is the best bet today, if you asked me as an archivist for 
something superior to JPEG. There was just an archival-oriented 
JPEG2000 conference a few months back, in fact. It's pretty widely 
supported - though not deeply supported (very few apps can really 
exploit it's cool *new* features, but lots of apps can just use it like 
another flat image compressor).

It has more pleasing artifacts (than JPEG)
It delivers much better results at much higher compression ratios (than 
JPEG)
and has support for lots of features - like >3 color channels, a good 
metadata implementation, etc - that are important in an archive.

Plus, since like JPEG, you don't use it as an interim format, if you're 
archiving a file at most what you need to do is decompress it for print 
or repurposing later. There are free JPEG2000 converters to generate a 
TIFF, for instance, without having to upgrade Photoshop. In fact, if 
you write code, it'd be an awfully short app to do it via Quicktime 
APIs (which support JPEG2000 since v6).

Cheers,

Roger

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-06 by B. Campbell

>If you scan at a reduced resolution eg. 1200ppi instead of 4800ppi
(assuming
>that is the optical resolution), your scanner simply throws away
>three-quarters of the detail in your film, leaving you with just
one-quarter
>of the original detail.

I thought that ppi in the scan was relevant in determining the amount of
"detail" in the print but that detail in the scan was a function of the
scanner's optics and mechanics, not the ppi setting. I would expect to lose
detail in the print if for example I scan a 4x5 negative at 300 ppi and then
make a 16x20 print but I never thought that if the scanner is capable of say
4800 ppi and I scan at 1200 ppi I've necessarily lost  three quarters of the
"original detail" in the negative regardless of the size at which I print.
Or stated another way, I would have thought I could scan the 4x5 negative at
say 720 ppi with a 4800 ppi scanner and make a 4x5 print that has as much
detail as the scanner, printer, and paper are capable of producing, i.e.
that I wouldn't lose most of the detail in the negative by doing that.

"Printer drivers vary but probably you don't need to help it resample by
scanning larger than is reasonable. The (maximum ppi) will consume vast
amounts of memory for no good reason. . . So this article might make us
ponder why it is that we think we must routinely scan a photograph at
(maximum ppi)? We can't show that size on our monitor. Our printers cannot
print that much resolution. The photograph doesn't have that much detail
anyway. Our memory size doesn't tolerate it and our disk space hurts too. It
must be a macho thing to do it." Fulton, "A Few Scanning Tips," pp. 49 & 54.

However, I'm certainly open to being corrected, I don't claim to be an
expert. I just haven't before heard that the scan (as opposed to the print)
loses detail as the ppi is reduced below the maximum of which the scanner is
capable.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Frost" <bob@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Computing power



B,

For best results you should scan at the optical resolution of your scanner,
and then reduce the file size/ppi in Photoshop if you need to reduce it.

If you scan at a reduced resolution eg. 1200ppi instead of 4800ppi (assuming
that is the optical resolution), your scanner simply throws away
three-quarters of the detail in your film, leaving you with just one-quarter
of the original detail.

If on the other hand, you scan at 4800ppi and then reduce to 1200ppi in
Photoshop, PS doesn't simply throw away three-quarters of the detail, it
effectively 'averages' the 4800ppi detail to provide you with a new 1200ppi
image that more accurately reflects the original than just throwing pixels
away.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "B. Campbell" <bellis60@...>



>Not much point in shooting larger formats if you plan to scan them at
>such low resolution that they produce the same size files as smaller
>formats.

Sure there is. If I did my job my larger negative contains better detail and
tonal range than a smaller negative.  I don't lose that detail and range by
scanning for a file size that produces the maximum dpi my printer driver
will allow at the largest print size it will make and/or that I want or
need.  In other words, there's





Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

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:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-06 by Roger Howard

On Dec 6, 2004, at 3:22 PM, B. Campbell wrote:

>
>> If you scan at a reduced resolution eg. 1200ppi instead of 4800ppi
> (assuming
>> that is the optical resolution), your scanner simply throws away
>> three-quarters of the detail in your film, leaving you with just
> one-quarter
>> of the original detail.
>
> I thought that ppi in the scan was relevant in determining the amount 
> of
> "detail" in the print but that detail in the scan was a function of the
> scanner's optics and mechanics, not the ppi setting. I would expect to 
> lose
> detail in the print if for example I scan a 4x5 negative at 300 ppi 
> and then
> make a 16x20 print but I never thought that if the scanner is capable 
> of say
> 4800 ppi and I scan at 1200 ppi I've necessarily lost  three quarters 
> of the
> "original detail" in the negative regardless of the size at which I 
> print.
> Or stated another way, I would have thought I could scan the 4x5 
> negative at
> say 720 ppi with a 4800 ppi scanner and make a 4x5 print that has as 
> much
> detail as the scanner, printer, and paper are capable of producing, 
> i.e.
> that I wouldn't lose most of the detail in the negative by doing that.

I think in this context you should interpret the previous posters use 
of the term "detail" as really to mean "data". Your analysis is correct 
on the whole, when taking a less mathematical definition of detail - if 
you simply mean the visible details of a particular image, then of 
course it varies from image to image, and you may well not lose 3/4's 
of the detail by sacrificing 3/4's of the scanning resolution - you 
will loose 3/4's of the scanned data however. This distinction between 
significant visual detail and the much more literal "data" needs to be 
kept pretty clear... scanning at twice the resolution will often not 
give you four the detail, just four times the data.

- R

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-07 by Anthony G. Atkielski

Roger Howard writes:

> No - assuming no loss, there are real limits to how far compression can
> take you. It's closely related to Shannon's Law.

Yes, but we aren't hitting those limits, because practical compression
algorithms can't do optimal compression.

For example, many modern algorithms do Walsh-Fourier transformations to
compress data.  For practical reasons, these do these only on tiny
chunks of image data at a time; but it's possible to do a single
transformation on the _entire image_.  This latter transformation
results in much better compression ... but it takes an extremely long
time to complete.  And so nobody actually does it.

Exactly how much of a gain this represents, I don't know, because nobody
actually does it.

> Today, the best compressors for really great efficiency on really high
> rez materials tends to be wavelets... JPEG2000 and MrSid are both 
> popular implementations. The artifacts are much less obnoxious than 
> DCT, and the compression ratios are much better. For really large 
> images, unless you regularly view them at 100% then a wavelet 
> compressor (or even DCT) can be used pretty heavily without losing too
> much significant detail.

If you keep the frequencies high enough, you should be able to get
effectively lossless compression.  The frequencies would have to be
infinitely high to get perfect lossless compression, though (if I'm not
mistaken).

In any case, as I've said, I think the future is in more bandwidth and
more storage space, not greater compression.  As you point out yourself,
Shannon proved that one can only do so much with (lossless--meaning
perfectly reversible) compression.

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-07 by Anthony G. Atkielski

Roger Howard writes:

> But that would be the same argument against these other superior
> compressors too... so it's not really a factor.

It is for me, since it makes these newer compressors inaccessible to me.

> JPEG2000 is the best bet today, if you asked me as an archivist for
> something superior to JPEG. There was just an archival-oriented 
> JPEG2000 conference a few months back, in fact. It's pretty widely 
> supported - though not deeply supported (very few apps can really 
> exploit it's cool *new* features, but lots of apps can just use it like
> another flat image compressor).

I actually have a plug-in for JPEG2000 in Photoshop 5.0.2, but it has
never worked correctly.

Does JPEG2000 provide any type of scripting or executable code features
in the file format?

> There are free JPEG2000 converters to generate a
> TIFF, for instance, without having to upgrade Photoshop.

What about vice versa?  I could use a nice little converter that would
generate clean JPEG2000 files from a lossless format, such as, say,
TIFF.

> In fact, if you write code, it'd be an awfully short app to do it via
> Quicktime APIs (which support JPEG2000 since v6).

I've written code, but I don't really have much of a development
environment set up at the moment.

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-07 by Roger Howard

On Dec 6, 2004, at 7:06 PM, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:

>
> Roger Howard writes:
>
>> But that would be the same argument against these other superior
>> compressors too... so it's not really a factor.
>
> It is for me, since it makes these newer compressors inaccessible to 
> me.

Oh I know, I'm just saying that when discussing new compressors, the 
lack of support for older platforms is pretty much consistently bad, so 
it's not a particular weakness of JPEG2000 (in fact, JPEG2000 is 
probably the most accessible, since it's an open format and there are a 
lot of implementations out there... it's just not widely used by 
individuals).

>> JPEG2000 is the best bet today, if you asked me as an archivist for
>> something superior to JPEG. There was just an archival-oriented
>> JPEG2000 conference a few months back, in fact. It's pretty widely
>> supported - though not deeply supported (very few apps can really
>> exploit it's cool *new* features, but lots of apps can just use it 
>> like
>> another flat image compressor).
>
> I actually have a plug-in for JPEG2000 in Photoshop 5.0.2, but it has
> never worked correctly.
>
> Does JPEG2000 provide any type of scripting or executable code features
> in the file format?

Nope, thank god! It's all client side, if you're referring to many of 
the nifty tricks they initially tried to sell it on. It's just a file 
stream - there is a lot of cool functionality that could be implemented 
- bitpeeling to deliver reduced size thumbs from the same master file 
as a larger view, some cool progressive loading options, regions of 
interest, etc. But no, it's just data.

Of course, probably all the same old exploits probably exist with 
JPEG2000... someone must have a Windows plugin that will happily 
execute arbitrary code in a JPEG2000 file, but that's not part of the 
spec.

>> There are free JPEG2000 converters to generate a
>> TIFF, for instance, without having to upgrade Photoshop.
>
> What about vice versa?  I could use a nice little converter that would
> generate clean JPEG2000 files from a lossless format, such as, say,
> TIFF.

Same... do a Google on "free JPEG2000 tools"... there should be a 
bunch, pick your poison :)

>> In fact, if you write code, it'd be an awfully short app to do it via
>> Quicktime APIs (which support JPEG2000 since v6).
>
> I've written code, but I don't really have much of a development
> environment set up at the moment.

Got it... it's just a handy library that supports JPEG2000 and is on 
many machines already... just a thought.

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-07 by Roger Howard

On Dec 6, 2004, at 7:04 PM, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:

>
> Roger Howard writes:
>
>> No - assuming no loss, there are real limits to how far compression 
>> can
>> take you. It's closely related to Shannon's Law.
>
> Yes, but we aren't hitting those limits, because practical compression
> algorithms can't do optimal compression.
>
> For example, many modern algorithms do Walsh-Fourier transformations to
> compress data.  For practical reasons, these do these only on tiny
> chunks of image data at a time; but it's possible to do a single
> transformation on the _entire image_.  This latter transformation
> results in much better compression ... but it takes an extremely long
> time to complete.  And so nobody actually does it.
>
> Exactly how much of a gain this represents, I don't know, because 
> nobody
> actually does it.

Again, there are limits, and plenty of people have tested them (not in 
a typical design production environment of course)... there are 
seriously diminishing returns until you start getting into other 
concepts that aren't compression - like using huge codebooks and clever 
indexing to transmit large sequences of arbitrary data as just an 
offset to lookup in your codebook (the various compression forums see 
claims based on these techniques every year or so).

Typically, lossless compressors bottom out within maybe 10% of each 
other in compression efficiency... so there's not much to be gained 
even by huge increases in the resources you throw at it. Look beyond 
image compression at the general data compression market - folks like 
Aladdin and Pkware have been struggling to eke out minor improvements 
in efficiency without huge losses in performance for years...

The real gains are in lossy compressors, but those have to be treated 
with care.

>> Today, the best compressors for really great efficiency on really high
>> rez materials tends to be wavelets... JPEG2000 and MrSid are both
>> popular implementations. The artifacts are much less obnoxious than
>> DCT, and the compression ratios are much better. For really large
>> images, unless you regularly view them at 100% then a wavelet
>> compressor (or even DCT) can be used pretty heavily without losing too
>> much significant detail.
>
> If you keep the frequencies high enough, you should be able to get
> effectively lossless compression.  The frequencies would have to be
> infinitely high to get perfect lossless compression, though (if I'm not
> mistaken).

Oh for sure - this is the same of course for most lossy compressors... 
but it's still critical to consider them lossy, unless they are 
provably lossless in a very literal way.

> In any case, as I've said, I think the future is in more bandwidth and
> more storage space, not greater compression.  As you point out 
> yourself,
> Shannon proved that one can only do so much with (lossless--meaning
> perfectly reversible) compression.

I totally agree, which is why I've steadfastly been doubtful about the 
potential successes for JPEG2000 - I just don't see the demand today, 
as nifty as it might all seem. I have a 7 year old image server based 
on FlashPix (yuck!) that can do thumbnails dynamically from a 80MB 
master. Disk is cheap. And there are no really hot JPEG2000 systems in 
wide deployment - lots of great demos and whitepapers... but it would 
have to be supported as a new media type - rather than just a better 
compressed static image - to really benefit in most applications.

Ok now we're way OT I'm sure :)

-R

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-07 by The Wogster

Roger Howard wrote:
> 
> On Dec 4, 2004, at 10:00 PM, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
> 
> 
>>The Wogster writes:
>>
>>
>>>For archiving though, where you are not looking at the image on a
>>>regular basis, you can use other compression mechanisms.  For example 
>>>if
>>>you can compress a 600MB file down to say 50MB for archiving, and then
>>>decompress it again later, who cares?  Even if it takes an hour to
>>>compress/decompress.
>>
>>Agreed.  But what file formats would be in this category?
>>
>>Theoretically, you could compress most image files enormously with no
>>loss, given time and space to do an absolutely optimal compression.
>>I've never heard of a file format that is designed for this purpose,
>>though.
> 
> 
> No - assuming no loss, there are real limits to how far compression can 
> take you. It's closely related to Shannon's Law.


It's more related to the type of data, data like databases and ISAM 
files, tend to contain a lot of empty space or "air", therefore it's not 
uncommon to compress a database to 20%, if you ignore rebuildable 
indexes, and dead chains, then you can reduce it to 5%-10%, it's still 
lossless, because you didn't throw away unrecoverable data.  Text files 
contain lots of repeating information, so they compress fairly well also.

> However, what you say is very true if you allow for a little loss... 
> then yes, we can keep devising deeper, more sophisticated, lossy 
> compressors that take more and more memory and CPU. But if the 
> requirement is lossless, then we can do pretty nearly optimal 
> compression today - even throwing tons more CPU at it with much more 
> complex lossless algorithms you'll never get past Shannon.

That may be true, a bitmap consists of lots of non-repeating data, the 
ideal compression would be something that reduces the amount of 
information that needs to be stored.  Something along the lines of 
vector graphics might work. Something else that might work, is to split 
the information out, for example into R/G/B and see if the repeatable 
data amount goes up.

One thing to remember though, Shannon did his work circa 1948, so far 
nobody has challenged his theory, however many, many theories have been 
though impassable before, until someone proves them wrong.

> 
> Today, the best compressors for really great efficiency on really high 
> rez materials tends to be wavelets... JPEG2000 and MrSid are both 
> popular implementations. The artifacts are much less obnoxious than 
> DCT, and the compression ratios are much better. For really large 
> images, unless you regularly view them at 100% then a wavelet 
> compressor (or even DCT) can be used pretty heavily without losing too 
> much significant detail.
> 
The ideal, is to stay away from the idea of repeated Jpeg Load/Save 
cycles.....

W

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-07 by Anthony G. Atkielski

Roger Howard writes:

> Of course, probably all the same old exploits probably exist with
> JPEG2000... someone must have a Windows plugin that will happily 
> execute arbitrary code in a JPEG2000 file, but that's not part of the 
> spec.

And probably most of the JPEG2000 libraries are built without buffer
length checks.  (But this is also a compiler problem, not just a
programming problem.)

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-07 by Anthony G. Atkielski

The Wogster writes:

> One thing to remember though, Shannon did his work circa 1948, so far
> nobody has challenged his theory, however many, many theories have been
> though impassable before, until someone proves them wrong.

It's not just theory.  There are proofs as well.

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-07 by Bob Frost

B & Roger,

OK, I accept the slap-on-the-wrist for using imprecise terminology. So 
whether the three-quarters of the data that are thrown away contain detail, 
obviously depends on the image. Some will, some won't. But it doesn't change 
the fact that AFAIK most scanner software simply throws away or ignores the 
excess sample points. In which case, why use a large format film if you are 
going to ignore three-quarters of the data on it? A film format one-quarter 
of the size would give better results.

I seem to remember Vuescan scanner software does allow for scanning at 
optical resolution and averaging the data points to produce a smaller file.

Bob Frost.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roger Howard" <rogerhoward@...>

I think in this context you should interpret the previous posters use
of the term "detail" as really to mean "data". Your analysis is correct
on the whole, when taking a less mathematical definition of detail - if
you simply mean the visible details of a particular image, then of
course it varies from image to image, and you may well not lose 3/4's
of the detail by sacrificing 3/4's of the scanning resolution - you
will loose 3/4's of the scanned data however. This distinction between
significant visual detail and the much more literal "data" needs to be
kept pretty clear... scanning at twice the resolution will often not
give you four the detail, just four times the data.

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-07 by Julian Yahoo 1

On Dec 6, 2004, at 7:06 PM, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:

>Oh I know, I'm just saying that when discussing new compressors, the
>lack of support for older platforms is pretty much consistently bad, so
>t's not a particular weakness of JPEG2000 (in fact, JPEG2000 is
>probably the most accessible, since it's an open format and there are a
>lot of implementations out there... it's just not widely used by
>individuals).

The old critical mass problem. Does anyone have a figure for takeup, in, say
browsers.

If I believed that more than say 20% of the viewers of my website would be
able to see the images, I'd provide JPEG2000 as an alternative - due to the
higher quality for the same filesize. I think I need to see native support
in at least one browser.

Instead most of the JPEG2000 "demos" I have seen are low compression JPEGs
("it would look like this if you could view it).

At present it seems that it is not worth the overhead.

Julian

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-07 by B. Campbell

>if
>you simply mean the visible details of a particular image, then of
>course it varies from image to image, and you may well not lose 3/4's
>of the detail by sacrificing 3/4's of the scanning resolution - you
>will loose 3/4's of the scanned data however.

Thanks, I understand and agree that "data amount" (i.e.size of file) depends
on the ppi of the scan and that you obviously will have a smaller file (i.e.
less "data") if you scan at smaller ppi. But that's a much different
statement than saying that scanning at a fourth of the resolution of which
the scanner is capable will result in the scanner "throwing away" three
fourths of the "detail in the film. " In fact the scanner doesn't "throw
away" anything in the film by scanning at a smaller ppi.. It just creates a
smaller file (i.e. fewer pixels, less "data") than could have been produced
had the scan been made at a higher ppi, which may or may not matter
depending on the size of the print.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roger Howard" <rogerhoward@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 6:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Computing power




On Dec 6, 2004, at 3:22 PM, B. Campbell wrote:

>
>> If you scan at a reduced resolution eg. 1200ppi instead of 4800ppi
> (assuming
>> that is the optical resolution), your scanner simply throws away
>> three-quarters of the detail in your film, leaving you with just
> one-quarter
>> of the original detail.
>
> I thought that ppi in the scan was relevant in determining the amount
> of
> "detail" in the print but that detail in the scan was a function of the
> scanner's optics and mechanics, not the ppi setting. I would expect to
> lose
> detail in the print if for example I scan a 4x5 negative at 300 ppi
> and then
> make a 16x20 print but I never thought that if the scanner is capable
> of say
> 4800 ppi and I scan at 1200 ppi I've necessarily lost  three quarters
> of the
> "original detail" in the negative regardless of the size at which I
> print.
> Or stated another way, I would have thought I could scan the 4x5
> negative at
> say 720 ppi with a 4800 ppi scanner and make a 4x5 print that has as
> much
> detail as the scanner, printer, and paper are capable of producing,
> i.e.
> that I wouldn't lose most of the detail in the negative by doing that.

I think in this context you should interpret the previous posters use
of the term "detail" as really to mean "data". Your analysis is correct
on the whole, when taking a less mathematical definition of detail - if
you simply mean the visible details of a particular image, then of
course it varies from image to image, and you may well not lose 3/4's
of the detail by sacrificing 3/4's of the scanning resolution - you
will loose 3/4's of the scanned data however. This distinction between
significant visual detail and the much more literal "data" needs to be
kept pretty clear... scanning at twice the resolution will often not
give you four the detail, just four times the data.

- R




Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

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:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-07 by Roger Howard

On Dec 7, 2004, at 12:04 AM, Bob Frost wrote:

>
> B & Roger,
>
> OK, I accept the slap-on-the-wrist for using imprecise terminology.

Sorry, I didn't mean it that way... just clarifying the two different 
uses of detail in this thread... I use it the same way myself, 
especially when showing staff that just because a $100 flatbed claims 
4800ppi doesn't mean it's the same as a drum!

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-07 by Bob Frost

B,

I don't think that is correct. As I understand things, a scanner with an 
optical resolution of 4800dpi can take a sample reading every 1/4800 of an 
inch. If you scan at the optical resolution, that is what is does and you 
get 4800 readings per inch along that axis (usually a different resolution 
on the other axis).

If you scan at 1200dpi, the scanner usually either samples all the 4800 
possible data points per inch and throws three out of every four away, or 
only samples every fourth possible point. So you are only getting one 
quarter of the possible data from the film.

With Vuescan software, you can set it to scan all 4800 data points per inch, 
but then to take the average of every four data points and reduce them to 
one, so that the file you get out is the equivalent of a 1200dpi scan, but 
all the data points have contributed to the final result.

I'm open to correction from any scanner experts.

Bob Frost.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "B. Campbell" <bellis60@...>




Thanks, I understand and agree that "data amount" (i.e.size of file) depends
on the ppi of the scan and that you obviously will have a smaller file (i.e.
less "data") if you scan at smaller ppi. But that's a much different
statement than saying that scanning at a fourth of the resolution of which
the scanner is capable will result in the scanner "throwing away" three
fourths of the "detail in the film. " In fact the scanner doesn't "throw
away" anything in the film by scanning at a smaller ppi.. It just creates a
smaller file (i.e. fewer pixels, less "data") than could have been produced
had the scan been made at a higher ppi, which may or may not matter
depending on the size of the print.

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-07 by Anthony G. Atkielski

Julian Yahoo 1 writes:

> The old critical mass problem.

I'm still waiting for PNG support in browsers.  Sometimes I think it's a
miracle that JPEG ever became widespread.  The inertia in the IT
industry is enormous these days, and it is routinely underestimated.  It
might have been possible to change things in a few months in 1955, but
it takes decades today.

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-07 by Roger Howard

On Dec 7, 2004, at 12:01 PM, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:

>
> Julian Yahoo 1 writes:
>
>> The old critical mass problem.
>
> I'm still waiting for PNG support in browsers.

Virtually every important browser supports it, and quite well... with 
one minor exception - IE/Windows, which seems to have intentionally 
broken support (as they've been aware of the problem for 4 or 5 years 
and even have an ugly workaround that requires IE specific coding).

If IE supported PNG properly it would pop up everywhere for new sites. 
Alas...

-R

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-07 by Anthony G. Atkielski

Roger Howard writes:

> Virtually every important browser supports it, and quite well... with
> one minor exception - IE/Windows, which seems to have intentionally 
> broken support ...

The "minor exception" represents 96% of all browser traffic.

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-07 by Roger Howard

On Dec 7, 2004, at 12:16 PM, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:

>
> Roger Howard writes:
>
>> Virtually every important browser supports it, and quite well... with
>> one minor exception - IE/Windows, which seems to have intentionally
>> broken support ...
>
> The "minor exception" represents 96% of all browser traffic.

Sorry, I'll include an emoticon next time ;) That was exactly my point. 
But it's not industry inertia holding back PNG as a result... it's a 
single company holding a lot of control and not giving a whit about 
certain standards. Hopefully now that they've restarted IE development 
maybe it will get fixed by IE 10, but their product folks have 
consistently shown zero interest in fixing this, until they hear about 
it from end-users (who are not going to be the ones complaining).

Cheers,

Roger

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-07 by Anthony G. Atkielski

Roger Howard writes:

> Sorry, I'll include an emoticon next time ;) That was exactly my point.
> But it's not industry inertia holding back PNG as a result... it's a 
> single company holding a lot of control and not giving a whit about 
> certain standards. Hopefully now that they've restarted IE development
> maybe it will get fixed by IE 10, but their product folks have 
> consistently shown zero interest in fixing this, until they hear about
> it from end-users (who are not going to be the ones complaining).

PNG, like JPEG2000, is largely a solution looking for a problem.

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-07 by Roger Howard

On Dec 7, 2004, at 1:28 PM, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:

>
> Roger Howard writes:
>
>> Sorry, I'll include an emoticon next time ;) That was exactly my 
>> point.
>> But it's not industry inertia holding back PNG as a result... it's a
>> single company holding a lot of control and not giving a whit about
>> certain standards. Hopefully now that they've restarted IE development
>> maybe it will get fixed by IE 10, but their product folks have
>> consistently shown zero interest in fixing this, until they hear about
>> it from end-users (who are not going to be the ones complaining).
>
> PNG, like JPEG2000, is largely a solution looking for a problem.

I disagree. 8 bit masks are important for design; getting good layered 
images on the Web with GIF is difficult due to the 1 bit masks - many 
ugly workarounds.  There are many other features of PNG, but I think 
that's really the only important one that warrants wide support, and 
something Web designers have struggled with for, well, ever.

I do agree that in general, marginally better compression efficiency is 
almost never a solution to any real world problem.

Ok, I'm gonna quite her, as I know we're so way OT now it's 
unforgivable. Any general imaging geek lists you know of?

Best,

Roger

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-07 by B. Campbell

>I'm open to correction from any scanner experts.

Me too, I'm certainly not a scanner expert. However, if what you say below
is true then Wayne Fulton, who I think is a scanner expert, was incorrect in
saying there's no reason to scan at maximum ppi every time (unless of course
I'm not understanding what he said or what you're saying below, either or
both of which is always a possibility).
Show quoted textHide quoted text
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Frost" <bob@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2004 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Computing power



B,

I don't think that is correct. As I understand things, a scanner with an
optical resolution of 4800dpi can take a sample reading every 1/4800 of an
inch. If you scan at the optical resolution, that is what is does and you
get 4800 readings per inch along that axis (usually a different resolution
on the other axis).

If you scan at 1200dpi, the scanner usually either samples all the 4800
possible data points per inch and throws three out of every four away, or
only samples every fourth possible point. So you are only getting one
quarter of the possible data from the film.

With Vuescan software, you can set it to scan all 4800 data points per inch,
but then to take the average of every four data points and reduce them to
one, so that the file you get out is the equivalent of a 1200dpi scan, but
all the data points have contributed to the final result.

I'm open to correction from any scanner experts.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "B. Campbell" <bellis60@...>




Thanks, I understand and agree that "data amount" (i.e.size of file) depends
on the ppi of the scan and that you obviously will have a smaller file (i.e.
less "data") if you scan at smaller ppi. But that's a much different
statement than saying that scanning at a fourth of the resolution of which
the scanner is capable will result in the scanner "throwing away" three
fourths of the "detail in the film. " In fact the scanner doesn't "throw
away" anything in the film by scanning at a smaller ppi.. It just creates a
smaller file (i.e. fewer pixels, less "data") than could have been produced
had the scan been made at a higher ppi, which may or may not matter
depending on the size of the print.




Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

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:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links

RE: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-07 by Paul D. DeRocco

> From: Roger Howard [mailto:rogerhoward@...]
>
> Virtually every important browser supports it, and quite well... with
> one minor exception - IE/Windows, which seems to have intentionally
> broken support (as they've been aware of the problem for 4 or 5 years
> and even have an ugly workaround that requires IE specific coding).

What about IE's PNG support is broken? I've made a couple PNG images and
they displayed okay.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

RE: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-07 by Paul D. DeRocco

> From: Anthony G. Atkielski [mailto:anthony@...]
>
> PNG, like JPEG2000, is largely a solution looking for a problem.

The main problem that PNG was intended to solve, as I understand it, was the
sudden decision by Unisys to sue everyone who was using GIF. That's recently
become a non-issue, since the patent has finally expired, although there are
other good things about PNG for graphics (as opposed to photo) images.

JPEG2000, however, has real value. I don't use it much, because I shoot all
digital now, so I archive raw files. But if I were doing a lot of film
scanning, I would certainly use JPEG2000 for archiving all my raw scans,
because it gives the greatest degree of compression without visible
artifacts, and can preserve more than eight bits of resolution.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

Re: [Digital BW] Computing power

2004-12-08 by Anthony G. Atkielski

Paul D. DeRocco writes:

> What about IE's PNG support is broken? I've made a couple PNG images and
> they displayed okay.

IE cannot handle PNG transparency, for one thing.

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.