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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by bob, May 10, 2011.

  1. bob

    Ray Fischer Guest

    nospam <> wrote:
    >In article <4de2c803$0$2197$>, 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.


    Except that one OS is 64-bit and the other is 32-bit.

    >> >> THAT's the test I'll accept.
    >> >
    >> >it's been done,

    >>
    >> Where?

    >
    >adobe, intel, and by many many users.


    Bullshitting isn't evidence.

    --
    Ray Fischer | Mendocracy (n.) government by lying
    | The new GOP ideal
     
    Ray Fischer, May 31, 2011
    #61
    1. Advertising

  2. bob

    nospam Guest

    In article <4de48c9d$0$2165$>, 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.

    >
    > Except that one OS is 64-bit and the other is 32-bit.


    except it's the same os, and it runs both 32 and 64 bit apps the same
    time.

    > >> >> THAT's the test I'll accept.
    > >> >
    > >> >it's been done,
    > >>
    > >> Where?

    > >
    > >adobe, intel, and by many many users.

    >
    > Bullshitting isn't evidence.


    i know what i and others have seen and your telling me otherwise is
    bullshit.
     
    nospam, May 31, 2011
    #62
    1. Advertising

  3. On 5/28/11 PDT 3:49 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2011-05-28 13:31:13 -0700, (Ray Fischer) said:
    >
    >> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>> On 2011-05-28 11:56:19 -0700, John McWilliams <> said
    >>>
    >>> 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.


    Of course. But there is some breakeven point of RAM in a given machine
    where 32 bit will run a bit better than 64. You are well above such a
    point, and I suspect said point is now..................


    pointless.
     
    John McWilliams, Jun 1, 2011
    #63
  4. bob

    Ray Fischer Guest

    nospam <> wrote:
    >In article <4de48c9d$0$2165$>, 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.

    >>
    >> Except that one OS is 64-bit and the other is 32-bit.

    >
    >except it's the same os, and it runs both 32 and 64 bit apps the same
    >time.


    The fact that one is a 64-bit OS and the other is 32-bit proves that
    you're full of shit when you claim that they're the same.

    >> >> >> THAT's the test I'll accept.
    >> >> >
    >> >> >it's been done,
    >> >>
    >> >> Where?
    >> >
    >> >adobe, intel, and by many many users.

    >>
    >> Bullshitting isn't evidence.

    >
    >i know what i and others have seen


    No, you know what you believe. That's something completely different.

    --
    Ray Fischer | Mendocracy (n.) government by lying
    | The new GOP ideal
     
    Ray Fischer, Jun 1, 2011
    #64
  5. bob

    nospam Guest

    In article <4de5bd75$0$2180$>, 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.
    > >>
    > >> Except that one OS is 64-bit and the other is 32-bit.

    > >
    > >except it's the same os, and it runs both 32 and 64 bit apps the same
    > >time.

    >
    > The fact that one is a 64-bit OS and the other is 32-bit proves that
    > you're full of shit when you claim that they're the same.


    no, it proves that you're full of shit.

    there is no one or the other, there is just one operating system in
    this case, and it's both 32 & 64 bit.

    mac os x is a *single* operating system on which 32 bit apps and 64 bit
    apps can run, at the same time and side by side.

    many applications contain both 32 & 64 bit binaries in case the user
    has an older 32 bit mac (still the same os), but some recent apps are
    already dropping 32 bit support, as they should. regarding photoshop, a
    user might also want to launch it in 32 bit mode to use older 32 bit
    plug-ins, or to benchmark it for stupid discussions such as this.
     
    nospam, Jun 1, 2011
    #65
  6. bob

    John Turco Guest

    Whisky-dave wrote:
    >
    > > On May 27, 12:19 am, John Turco <> wrote:
    > > > Savageduck wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > On 2011-05-15 18:41:39 -0700, nospam <> said:

    > >
    > > > BTW: Your clock, or your server's clock seems to be several hours
    > > > out of whack again.

    > >
    > > It's his damned, unreliable Macintosh machine...Apple can't even
    > > make an accurate computer clock, apparently.

    >
    > Neither can PCs, you don;t need so called accurate clocks fro telling
    > the time that's what time servers are for. Clocks in computers have
    > never needed to be accurate.


    I was simply kidding, man.

    > > Also, have you ever noticed that "nospam" >never< uses uppercase
    > > letters? It's another indication of faulty hardware (i.e., "Shift"
    > > and/or "Caps Lock" keys), I fear.

    >
    > Or just doesn't see the need for them.


    Once again -- a little joke of mine.

    > > Seriously, though: In your retirement, you have lots of free time,
    > > to build your own PC(s). It's fun, and I should get around to my
    > > 4th assembly, after delaying it for some three years.

    >
    > It can be fun if you have the time and patience.


    Both are in my possession.

    > There's genuine advantages for some but for others it's just a pain.
    > Friends have done it, if you're a gamer it's the best option but for
    > most casual users it's a waste of time.


    Nope, I've never been a PC gamer. (Does chess qualify?)

    > Few people have the skills to compare all the available products and
    > decide which is right for them and why. It can be difficult enough
    > deciding which Mac to buy and there's only relatively few 6 or less
    > compare that to the number of PCs to choose from ....


    It's not for everybody, but, then...>what< is? "Savageduck" seems to
    have plenty of time and the necessary skills, though.

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Jun 30, 2011
    #66
  7. bob

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <2011070314211151816-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com says...
    >
    > On 2011-07-03 09:19:38 -0700, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    > <> said:
    >
    > > John Turco <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> As with the Explorer, I'd accidentally dropped the 500 on the floor,
    > >> several times. Happily, no damage (functional or cosmetic) has ever
    > >> befallen, either one...which is a true testament to MS hardware's
    > >> ruggedness.

    > >
    > > There are tons of things one can drop without damage from the
    > > table to the floor. And my papermaker really makes rugged paper,
    > > you can drop it from a skyscraper ... and these ballons, fill them
    > > with helium and 'drop' them from a plane --- really really rugged.
    > >
    > >
    > > Rugged is when you can wack someone with a keyboard to death and
    > > then continue typing without problems. (Though you might want to
    > > clean out the blood before flies are attracted to your keyboard.)
    > >
    > > -Wolfgang

    >
    > Naah!
    > Rugged is a MacBookPro which just keeps on working.
    > < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/IMG_0382Bw.jpg >
    > < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/IMG_0384Bw.jpg >


    Try <http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/23/toughbook-tiger-elephant-
    technology-personal-test.html?partner=yahoobuzz> with your crapbook.
     
    J. Clarke, Jul 3, 2011
    #67
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. David Dyer-Bennet

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

    David Dyer-Bennet, May 10, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    252
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    May 21, 2011
  2. David Dyer-Bennet

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

    David Dyer-Bennet, May 10, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    228
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    May 21, 2011
  3. David Dyer-Bennet

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

    David Dyer-Bennet, May 10, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    636
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Jun 8, 2011
  4. nospam
    Replies:
    180
    Views:
    2,752
    John Turco
    Jul 15, 2011
  5. Wolfgang Weisselberg

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

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 16, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    676
    John Turco
    May 27, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page