or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by bikertwin

While I wasn't trying to equate demosaicing with decompression (I just mentioned that they both happen when loading the file), I wasn't thinking about the constant re-demosaicing (is that a word?!) after each step. As you say, that would make a big difference in processing time. That extra step would be evident whenever modifying the file (changing contrast, brightness, etc.), but presumably wouldn't affect things like the Loupe or Lightbox, where--hopefully!--Aperture...
Dude, I said we agreed way back on the bottom of page 36. 8) The only time I quoted you on page 37 was in reply to BoeManE. Not sure what you're getting so animated about.
Not every post of mine was in reply to you. Is that what you were thinking? I also replied to BoeManE, Teno Bell, and the cool gut. The topic has ranged from JPEGs and compression to large files in Photoshop--which could be raw, JPEG, TIFF, or PSDs. Some might have layers.
If you look back a page or two, you'll see that my original response was to this:And my response was--and still is--that the file size or file type itself is not the determiner of processing speed in Aperture. Melgross was saying here that it all depends on file size. And I'm saying, no, file size is determined by: 1. pixels 2. color depth 3. compression 4. layers 3 and 4 affect the file size, but they do *NOT* affect processing time in Aperture. (3 doesn't affect...
Here's a simple test, even in Photoshop. Create a new, blank file of large dimensions (say 6000 x 6000 pixels). Save it as a PSD. Save a copy as a JPEG. The PSD will be 60+ MB, the JPEG will be 2 MB or less. Now apply a rendering filter in Photoshop (say, Clouds) to each image. Which takes longer? Surprise! They take the same amount of time.
So then you agree with me that it's not the file size, but the number of pixels and bit depth? Good, I'm glad we agree on something. Because the only thing that would make a file bigger--other than pixels or bit depth--is layers. So, to repeat, a huge, 200 MB multilayered Photoshop file from a 3000 pixel x 5000 pixel image will take no longer to process after loading (saturation, contrast, etc.) in Aperture than will a 1 MB JPEG file of the same dimensions and bit...
Yes, I'm not disagreeing with you. My original quote was:
Yeah, it's confusing at first! "8 bits" is 8 bits per channel. Since there are 3 channels (R, G, B), an 8-bit-per-channel file is actually 24 bits per pixel. Likewise, a 16-bit-per-channel file has a total of 48 bits per pixels.
You're confusing *storage* size and *memory* size. A JPEG is only small when it's on a disk. When in it's in memory it is full size--uncompressed. Yes, totally uncompressed. Image editors can't work on compressed images in memory. Think about a program like Stuff-It or WinZip--you have to open the file (i.e., decompress it) before you can change it (add or remove files). The only difference between a JPEG and a raw file is (usually) the bit depth (8 vs. 16). So a 2000...
There you go changing your story again. What happened to your 300 MB files that you get several times a month? They have no layers?
New Posts  All Forums: