or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by bikertwin

Whoa, Dude! You're confusing some things here. An 8 bit file is actually the same thing as a 24 bit file, and a 16 bit file is the same thing as a 48 bit file. Just different nomenclature. Whether Aperture treats an 8 bit and 16 bit file differently is unknown at this point. Who knows--it might convert all files to 16 bit interally while it's processing them. So that might make a difference, it might not. The point I was trying to make was that a huge photoshop file...
I'm not sure what you're saying. What are you disagreeing with?
No, not necessarily. That's my point. In Photoshop, adding 5 layers might make your 20 MB file a 100 MB file if each layer is a background duplicated and modified. And yet Aperture would handle that 100 MB file just as fast as the original 20 MB file, because they're both the same number of pixels. File sizes are irrelevant. It's the number of pixels and the number of modifications in Aperture that matter. By the same token, a 1 MB JPEG file will probably be processed at...
It's unlikely that file type or file size have anything to do with speed in Aperture (other than maybe initially opening/converting it and having Aperture cache it in memory). Aperture probably opens the file (whether it's raw or JPEG or PSD or whatever) and creates a bitmap in memory of the image. If that's the case, then the only thing that affects speed from that point on is (1) the pixel dimensions of the file and (2) the number of fixes/transitions you've applied...
15 years ago WordPerfect, Lotus, and Borland seemed invincible, too. In any case, it just seems that's where things are heading at the current moment. It could change. Adobe might come out with OS CS and beat MS & Apple at their own game.
Both MS and Apple want Adobe dead. It will be too expensive for Adobe to use MS imaging technologies on Vista and Core Image on OS X. Adobe will be at a competitive disadvantage to both MS and Apple, since MS and Apple can leverage their built-in technologies much faster than Adobe can create its own. Adobe's the last major 3rd party developer. Well, OK, maybe Intuit. Within 5 years you will own either an Intel box with Windows and (almost) all Microsoft software, or you...
Well, care to tell us which filters you're alluding to, that don't work on layers? And the fact that sharpening is done last is irrelevant (you're good at changing the subject). The fact is (as a previous poster mentioned), sharpening--like all filters in Photoshop--is totally destructive, irreversible, and cannot be modified at a later date--unlike sharpening in Aperture, which has none of those drawbacks. You can somewhat get around that in Photoshop by duplicating a...
Filters don't apply to layers?! Are you sure you're talking about Photoshop? You know, from Adobe? ;-)Um, Unsharp Mask? Pretty basic. Sorry, I'm not going to get dragged into another tit-for-tat exchange here, but I just had to reply to your post, since you show an utter lack of knowledge about the most basic Photoshop theory.
You're exactly right, JLL. Unfortunately for this discussion, melgross doesn't understand the difference between a filter and an adjustment layer in Photoshop.
Rendering is only part of FCP and DVD SP. Most of your time, though, is spent in the Preview window. What happens in the Preview window in FCP or DVD SP when you run with slower hardware? [edit] I'll answer my own question because I'm about to check-out of this conversation. What happens is that the programs automatically scale down the resolution of the preview to 1/2x or 1/4x so that your hardware can catch up. You still see a preview but, at 1/2x or 1/4x the resolution,...
New Posts  All Forums: