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

In article , Mxsmanic
wrote:

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

The vast majority of the time, it is. Probably 99% of the delay in computer
response for the average user is disk or network I/O, not processor time.

wrong. if the bottleneck was i/o then a faster computer wouldn't make
much of a difference, and it does.

And it is worth noting that in systems with a GUI, sometimes 80% or more of
the processor time availale is spent rendering the GUI, rather than doing
productive work.

also wrong.

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.

Which makes it an unequal comparison.

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.

I don't believe anything that isn't objective numbers measured with an
accurate timer.

Set up a script to run through several steps. Use the exact same
hardware. Run the test in a 32-bit OS and then a 64-bit OS.

THAT's the test I'll accept.

--
Ray Fischer | Mendocracy (n.) government by lying
| The new GOP ideal

PeterN wrote:
I learned a long time ago that explaining anything to him is just a
waste of bits and time.

My, what a reasoned response you write. Not one word address the
subject. Just another bitter whine.

BTW: Has Ray ever posted images?

Have you?

--
Ray Fischer | Mendocracy (n.) government by lying
| The new GOP ideal

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.

No they don't.

Is status as UNIX determined by
tests, or by an arbitrary authority?

Tests as specified by the owner of the UNIX name.

What do YOU believe "UNIX" means?

--
Ray Fischer | Mendocracy (n.) government by lying
| The new GOP ideal

In article , Mxsmanic
wrote:

wrong. if the bottleneck was i/o then a faster computer wouldn't make
much of a difference, and it does.

No, it doesn't. Many applications take almost exactly the same time to open on
a fast computer as they do on a slow computer, and that's because almost all
the delay is disk I/O.

some do, some don't, and the time to open an application is irrelevant
anyway. what matters is actually *using* the application to do real
work.

In fact, one of the consistent disappointments of getting a faster computer is
that things really don't run that much faster, if they do any kind of disk
I/O. And today's bloated software does huge amounts of disk I/O. I've seen
browsers do thousands of disk I/Os before they even create their first visible
window.

you obviously need better software.

also wrong.

I've measured it.

so have i. you're wrong.

In article , Ray Fischer
wrote:

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.

I don't believe anything that isn't objective numbers measured with an
accurate timer.

Set up a script to run through several steps. Use the exact same
hardware. Run the test in a 32-bit OS and then a 64-bit OS.

the os is 64 bit. the apps can be either 32 or 64 bit, toggled by a
single mouse click.

THAT's the test I'll accept.

it's been done, but you'll no doubt find something to further your
preconceived notions.

the fact remains that 64 bit photoshop is faster than 32 bit on the
same hardware except in edge cases such as editing postage stamp sized
images where it doesn't matter.

On 2011-05-29 13:54:30 -0700, (Ray Fischer) said:

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.

Which makes it an unequal comparison.

How so?
Both of my machines running OSX 10.6.7, have a 32 bit & a 64 bit
version of CS installed. Both versions of CS have the same RAM
allocation. When running each independently with the same PS processes,
the 64 bit version is tangibly faster on either computer.


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.

I don't believe anything that isn't objective numbers measured with an
accurate timer.

Believe what you want, that is just my experience. I have both versions
and I can see the difference.


Set up a script to run through several steps. Use the exact same
hardware. Run the test in a 32-bit OS and then a 64-bit OS.

....and I am talking about running 32 bit & 64 bit versions of CS, not
OSX. 64 bit CS was first made available for Windows. Us Mac users had
to wait for CS5 to be released for access to the 64 bit version.

THAT's the test I'll accept.

That's just fine with me. Seeing as I am not running a computer test
facility, and I am just an old fart using Photoshop as it has evolved,
you are going to have to wait for me to provide the test you find
acceptable.
I am only stating my experience, noting my perception of the
performance difference between 64 bit & 32 bit versions under the same
conditions, on the same computer.
I have run PS7, CS2, CS3, CS4 & now CS5 on a variety of machines. The
current version of CS5 running in 64 bit is the fastest version I have
run on any computer, when performing any of the basic PS processes.



--
Regards,

Savageduck

nospam wrote:
Ray Fischer

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.

I don't believe anything that isn't objective numbers measured with an
accurate timer.

Set up a script to run through several steps. Use the exact same
hardware. Run the test in a 32-bit OS and then a 64-bit OS.

the os is 64 bit. the apps can be either 32 or 64 bit, toggled by a
single mouse click.

And that's supposed to be the same as a 32-bit OS running a 32-bit
app?

THAT's the test I'll accept.

it's been done,

Where?

the fact remains that 64 bit photoshop is faster than 32 bit on the

Where's your evidence?

--
Ray Fischer | Mendocracy (n.) government by lying
| The new GOP ideal

In article , Ray Fischer
wrote:

Set up a script to run through several steps. Use the exact same
hardware. Run the test in a 32-bit OS and then a 64-bit OS.

the os is 64 bit. the apps can be either 32 or 64 bit, toggled by a
single mouse click.

And that's supposed to be the same as a 32-bit OS running a 32-bit
app?

the only difference is the app. everything else is the same. that's
what you asked for.

THAT's the test I'll accept.

it's been done,

Where?

adobe, intel, and by many many users.

the fact remains that 64 bit photoshop is faster than 32 bit on the

Where's your evidence?

my computer as well as reports from other users who have used both
versions.

why do you refuse to accept it? where's *your* evidence that it's not
faster?

On Sun, 29 May 2011 15:15:21 +0200, Mxsmanic wrote:

Andrew Reilly writes:

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.

So an arbitrary authority licenses the use of a trademark. And how does
the use of the trademark relate to actually being a UNIX system or not?

The authority is (by dint of a long and circuitous legal journey) the
legitimate owner of the UNIX trademark, and was established by the
previous owners and a bunch of interested commercial vendors to perform
exactly that function. This was back in the day when "open" was an
important catch-cry for govermnent procurement contracts. Perhaps it
still is. Explains the MVS and VMS weirdness...

I've never seen the tests myself, personally, but the manual pages that
the open group provide on-line access to describe (in minute detail) a
system that anyone who had seen a Unix system would recognise as
describing something functionally indistinguishable from Unix, so I see
no particular reason for doubting that the tests are reasonably complete.

This probably involves the exchange of some money, because only
commercially produced Unix-ish systems have been so certified.

So at least one of the criteria has nothing at all to do with the actual
operating system code.

Just a guess on my part, but I think it's a fairly safe one.

The very popular quacks-like-unix systems, like Linux and the BSDs have
never bothered, as far as I know.

So they can't use the UNIX trademark. Does that make them non-UNIX?

That depends on who you ask. It almost certainly makes them non-"UNIX
(TM)", but there are plenty of people who are prepared to grant them
"unix" status. Particularly the BSDs, which are lineal descendants (in
the sense of Benjamin Franklin's shovel.)

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.

I'm sure a copy of Minesweeper could be "certified" in exchange for
enough cash.

Wouldn't know. It would almost certainly have to be a version of
Minesweeper that knew how to fork(), and which could distinguish between
different-only-by-case filenames... (of course, neither feature would
have to be either fast or interoperate well with anything else that it
did... ;-)

Cheers,

--
Andrew