Possible to extract high resolution b/w from a raw file?

On 5/28/11 5:39 PM, in article , "Ray
Fischer" wrote:

George Kerby wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote:
Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-05-28 11:56:19 -0700, John McWilliams said:

On 5/28/11 PDT 7:21 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-05-28 07:16:19 -0700, nospam said:

In article , Ray Fischer
wrote:

32-bit apps should run significantly faster, all else being equal,
because they don't need to access memory as much.

64 bit photoshop & lightroom run faster than their 32 bit counterparts.

Yup!

Not categorically: There's some break even point of RAM on any given
puter below which 32 will be faster than a 64 bit app.

Have a fine Memorial Day!

On my Mac with 8GB RAM and 5.2GB allocated to CS5, and on my MacBook
Pro with 4GB and a 2.7GB CS5 RAM allocation I have experienced a
considerable speed up of all 64 bit CS5 processes vs. 32 bit.

But those aren't equal comparisons. You're using very large image
files that requite a lot of memory and stating that more memory lets
Photoshop run faster. That's not the same as 32-bit vs. 64-bit.

What the hell? Fish-Rot, you have gone completely insane! You think people

Like a little ****ty chihuahua dog that no one pays any attention,

Well, you are doing a fine job sniffing my ass, Fish-Rot.

Too bad that you are too stupid to be aware of it, though, LOL!

On 5/28/11 5:41 PM, in article , "Ray
Fischer" wrote:

George Kerby wrote:
"Ray Fischer" wrote:
George Kerby wrote:
"nospam" wrote:
Ray Fischer

32-bit apps should run significantly faster, all else being equal,
because they don't need to access memory as much.

64 bit photoshop & lightroom run faster than their 32 bit counterparts.

Fish-Head Rot is a plethora of misinformation. In politics. In photography.

Seems like most of us in here have observed that you are the one with a
missing purpose - outside of the childish outbursts
kryby in

When you say "most of us", you are again referring to those voices in your

"arf-arf -- arf (pant) arf-arf (pant) (pant) arf"

Sounds like they all agree!

On 5/28/2011 6:49 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-05-28 13:31:13 -0700, (Ray Fischer) said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-05-28 11:56:19 -0700, John McWilliams said:

On 5/28/11 PDT 7:21 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-05-28 07:16:19 -0700, nospam said:

In article , Ray Fischer
wrote:

32-bit apps should run significantly faster, all else being equal,
because they don't need to access memory as much.

64 bit photoshop & lightroom run faster than their 32 bit
counterparts.

Yup!

Not categorically: There's some break even point of RAM on any given
puter below which 32 will be faster than a 64 bit app.

Have a fine Memorial Day!

On my Mac with 8GB RAM and 5.2GB allocated to CS5, and on my MacBook
Pro with 4GB and a 2.7GB CS5 RAM allocation I have experienced a
considerable speed up of all 64 bit CS5 processes vs. 32 bit.

But those aren't equal comparisons. You're using very large image
files that requite a lot of memory and stating that more memory lets
Photoshop run faster. That's not the same as 32-bit vs. 64-bit.

Actually the image files are all D300s NEF's which remain in the
18.5-20.5 MB range.

I have provided my machines with 8GB & 4GB of RAM respectively for my
iMac & MacBook Pro, allocating 73% of available RAM to Photoshop. Prior
to upgrading to 64 bit CS5, I was running a 32 bit CS version with the
same 73% RAM allocation, processing the same size NEF files.
My workflow remains the same and I am quite able to make an evaluation
of the process performance improvement between the two versions of CS
installed on each of my computers.

...and yes, more free RAM does help improve the performance of any
version of Photoshop by reducing writing to, and reading from the
scratch disc. Just try working with a large number of layers with
minimum RAM. With minimum RAM any version of CS, 32 or 64 bit will grind
away using I/O to the scratch disc with even just a few layers in use.


I learned a long time ago that explaining anything to him is just a
waste of bits and time. I should have followed my own advice in another
thread.
BTW: Has Ray ever posted images?

--
Peter

On 5/28/11 7:13 PM, in article
, "PeterN"
wrote:

On 5/28/2011 6:49 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-05-28 13:31:13 -0700, (Ray Fischer) said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-05-28 11:56:19 -0700, John McWilliams said:

On 5/28/11 PDT 7:21 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-05-28 07:16:19 -0700, nospam said:

In article , Ray Fischer
wrote:

32-bit apps should run significantly faster, all else being equal,
because they don't need to access memory as much.

64 bit photoshop & lightroom run faster than their 32 bit
counterparts.

Yup!

Not categorically: There's some break even point of RAM on any given
puter below which 32 will be faster than a 64 bit app.

Have a fine Memorial Day!

On my Mac with 8GB RAM and 5.2GB allocated to CS5, and on my MacBook
Pro with 4GB and a 2.7GB CS5 RAM allocation I have experienced a
considerable speed up of all 64 bit CS5 processes vs. 32 bit.

But those aren't equal comparisons. You're using very large image
files that requite a lot of memory and stating that more memory lets
Photoshop run faster. That's not the same as 32-bit vs. 64-bit.

Actually the image files are all D300s NEF's which remain in the
18.5-20.5 MB range.

I have provided my machines with 8GB & 4GB of RAM respectively for my
iMac & MacBook Pro, allocating 73% of available RAM to Photoshop. Prior
to upgrading to 64 bit CS5, I was running a 32 bit CS version with the
same 73% RAM allocation, processing the same size NEF files.
My workflow remains the same and I am quite able to make an evaluation
of the process performance improvement between the two versions of CS
installed on each of my computers.

...and yes, more free RAM does help improve the performance of any
version of Photoshop by reducing writing to, and reading from the
scratch disc. Just try working with a large number of layers with
minimum RAM. With minimum RAM any version of CS, 32 or 64 bit will grind
away using I/O to the scratch disc with even just a few layers in use.


I learned a long time ago that explaining anything to him is just a
waste of bits and time. I should have followed my own advice in another
thread.
BTW: Has Ray ever posted images?

Yeah, a self-portrait...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNj9UJmAnC4&feature=related

Those are all the voices in his head that he refers to as "we", BTW.

On 2011-05-28 17:13:54 -0700, PeterN said:

On 5/28/2011 6:49 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-05-28 13:31:13 -0700, (Ray Fischer) said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-05-28 11:56:19 -0700, John McWilliams said:

On 5/28/11 PDT 7:21 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-05-28 07:16:19 -0700, nospam said:

In article , Ray Fischer
wrote:

32-bit apps should run significantly faster, all else being equal,
because they don't need to access memory as much.

64 bit photoshop & lightroom run faster than their 32 bit
counterparts.

Yup!

Not categorically: There's some break even point of RAM on any given
puter below which 32 will be faster than a 64 bit app.

Have a fine Memorial Day!

On my Mac with 8GB RAM and 5.2GB allocated to CS5, and on my MacBook
Pro with 4GB and a 2.7GB CS5 RAM allocation I have experienced a
considerable speed up of all 64 bit CS5 processes vs. 32 bit.

But those aren't equal comparisons. You're using very large image
files that requite a lot of memory and stating that more memory lets
Photoshop run faster. That's not the same as 32-bit vs. 64-bit.

Actually the image files are all D300s NEF's which remain in the
18.5-20.5 MB range.

I have provided my machines with 8GB & 4GB of RAM respectively for my
iMac & MacBook Pro, allocating 73% of available RAM to Photoshop. Prior
to upgrading to 64 bit CS5, I was running a 32 bit CS version with the
same 73% RAM allocation, processing the same size NEF files.
My workflow remains the same and I am quite able to make an evaluation
of the process performance improvement between the two versions of CS
installed on each of my computers.

...and yes, more free RAM does help improve the performance of any
version of Photoshop by reducing writing to, and reading from the
scratch disc. Just try working with a large number of layers with
minimum RAM. With minimum RAM any version of CS, 32 or 64 bit will grind
away using I/O to the scratch disc with even just a few layers in use.


I learned a long time ago that explaining anything to him is just a
waste of bits and time. I should have followed my own advice in another
thread.
BTW: Has Ray ever posted images?

Not that I recall.
That said, there are several other participants in the general fracas
of photo newsgroup discussions who have yet to provide evidence of even
basic photographic skill.
Our most prolific poster remains our Peruvian pal Manuel.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 5/28/2011 8:44 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-05-28 17:13:54 -0700, PeterN said:

On 5/28/2011 6:49 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-05-28 13:31:13 -0700, (Ray Fischer) said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-05-28 11:56:19 -0700, John McWilliams
said:

On 5/28/11 PDT 7:21 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-05-28 07:16:19 -0700, nospam said:

In article , Ray Fischer
wrote:

32-bit apps should run significantly faster, all else being equal,
because they don't need to access memory as much.

64 bit photoshop & lightroom run faster than their 32 bit
counterparts.

Yup!

Not categorically: There's some break even point of RAM on any given
puter below which 32 will be faster than a 64 bit app.

Have a fine Memorial Day!

On my Mac with 8GB RAM and 5.2GB allocated to CS5, and on my MacBook
Pro with 4GB and a 2.7GB CS5 RAM allocation I have experienced a
considerable speed up of all 64 bit CS5 processes vs. 32 bit.

But those aren't equal comparisons. You're using very large image
files that requite a lot of memory and stating that more memory lets
Photoshop run faster. That's not the same as 32-bit vs. 64-bit.

Actually the image files are all D300s NEF's which remain in the
18.5-20.5 MB range.

I have provided my machines with 8GB & 4GB of RAM respectively for my
iMac & MacBook Pro, allocating 73% of available RAM to Photoshop. Prior
to upgrading to 64 bit CS5, I was running a 32 bit CS version with the
same 73% RAM allocation, processing the same size NEF files.
My workflow remains the same and I am quite able to make an evaluation
of the process performance improvement between the two versions of CS
installed on each of my computers.

...and yes, more free RAM does help improve the performance of any
version of Photoshop by reducing writing to, and reading from the
scratch disc. Just try working with a large number of layers with
minimum RAM. With minimum RAM any version of CS, 32 or 64 bit will grind
away using I/O to the scratch disc with even just a few layers in use.


I learned a long time ago that explaining anything to him is just a
waste of bits and time. I should have followed my own advice in
another thread.
BTW: Has Ray ever posted images?

Not that I recall.
That said, there are several other participants in the general fracas of
photo newsgroup discussions who have yet to provide evidence of even
basic photographic skill.
Our most prolific poster remains our Peruvian pal Manuel.


Miguel?

--
Peter

On 2011-05-28 17:52:20 -0700, PeterN said:

On 5/28/2011 8:44 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-05-28 17:13:54 -0700, PeterN said:

On 5/28/2011 6:49 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-05-28 13:31:13 -0700, (Ray Fischer) said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-05-28 11:56:19 -0700, John McWilliams
said:

On 5/28/11 PDT 7:21 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-05-28 07:16:19 -0700, nospam said:

In article , Ray Fischer
wrote:

32-bit apps should run significantly faster, all else being equal,
because they don't need to access memory as much.

64 bit photoshop & lightroom run faster than their 32 bit
counterparts.

Yup!

Not categorically: There's some break even point of RAM on any given
puter below which 32 will be faster than a 64 bit app.

Have a fine Memorial Day!

On my Mac with 8GB RAM and 5.2GB allocated to CS5, and on my MacBook
Pro with 4GB and a 2.7GB CS5 RAM allocation I have experienced a
considerable speed up of all 64 bit CS5 processes vs. 32 bit.

But those aren't equal comparisons. You're using very large image
files that requite a lot of memory and stating that more memory lets
Photoshop run faster. That's not the same as 32-bit vs. 64-bit.

Actually the image files are all D300s NEF's which remain in the
18.5-20.5 MB range.

I have provided my machines with 8GB & 4GB of RAM respectively for my
iMac & MacBook Pro, allocating 73% of available RAM to Photoshop. Prior
to upgrading to 64 bit CS5, I was running a 32 bit CS version with the
same 73% RAM allocation, processing the same size NEF files.
My workflow remains the same and I am quite able to make an evaluation
of the process performance improvement between the two versions of CS
installed on each of my computers.

...and yes, more free RAM does help improve the performance of any
version of Photoshop by reducing writing to, and reading from the
scratch disc. Just try working with a large number of layers with
minimum RAM. With minimum RAM any version of CS, 32 or 64 bit will grind
away using I/O to the scratch disc with even just a few layers in use.


I learned a long time ago that explaining anything to him is just a
waste of bits and time. I should have followed my own advice in
another thread.
BTW: Has Ray ever posted images?

Not that I recall.
That said, there are several other participants in the general fracas of
photo newsgroup discussions who have yet to provide evidence of even
basic photographic skill.
Our most prolific poster remains our Peruvian pal Manuel.


Miguel?

Yup! I am confusing Hispanic names.
Who knows, I might have been thinking of somebody from Barcelona?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sun, 29 May 2011 13:17:26 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

Ray Fischer writes:

Whether an OS is UNIX is determined by it's performance with tests and
not by some arbitrary rules made up by you.

Mac OS is Unix according to the authority.

These two statements conflict with each other. Is status as UNIX
determined by tests, or by an arbitrary authority?

The authority in question (the Open Group) requires an OS to pass a set
of tests before it will allow the use of the UNIX trademark.

This probably involves the exchange of some money, because only
commercially produced Unix-ish systems have been so certified. The very
popular quacks-like-unix systems, like Linux and the BSDs have never
bothered, as far as I know.

Several OSes that one wouldn't expect to be UNIX have been certified,
though. I belive that both MVS and VMS have/had Unix certification, and
it wouldn't surprise me if WNT+SFU had too.

Cheers,

--
Andrew

Mxsmanic wrote:
Ray Fischer writes:

Whether an OS is UNIX is determined by it's performance with
tests and not by some arbitrary rules made up by you.

Mac OS is Unix according to the authority.

These two statements conflict with each other. Is status as UNIX determined by
tests, or by an arbitrary authority?

More silliness. The authority is not arbitrary, *you* are.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article , Mxsmanic
wrote:

actually, it's not that simple. one major advantage for 64 bit are the
additional cpu registers which allow for code optimizations, and that
can help regardless of how much memory there is. another benefit is
being able to directly address huge amounts of memory. there are also
situations where 64 bit may be slower.

Sixty-four bit architecture simply concerns the direct addressing space. It
does not necessarily imply any other optimizations of the processor
architecture, such as the width of data paths or the use of internal processor
components.

however, on intel it does mean that, and since you think windows is the
only operating system to use, you *are* running on intel.

however, 64 bit photoshop & lightroom *are* faster (and this is trivial
to test) unless the images are small, in which case adjustments are
going to be instant so it won't matter either way. on the other hand,
if the images are large, there can be a significant performance
improvements with 64 bit, in some cases 10x or more.

In general, anything that reduces disk I/O results in a performance
improvement.

only if disk i/o is the bottleneck. many times, it isn't.