I don't get this..

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
Quote from Ken Mingis' Computerworld Test on new 2.7GHz MP G5 Powermac, currently being used as marketing material by Apple eNews:



"while applying the watercolor filter to a 46MB Photoshop file in Photoshop CS took 6 seconds longer, clocking in at 3:06"



Article: http://computerworld.com/printthis/2...101495,00.html



I just ran the same test on my G4 867Mhz MP PowerMac on Photoshop CS with the same file size and the filter applied in 51 SECONDS! ..and he had 2GB of RAM and 10k RPM Drives - I have 1.25GB and standard 7.2k RPM Drives..



Can someone please expain what is going on here? \

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 6
    without reading the article ...



    was it perhaps "3 point 61 seconds" ? (rather than 3 min 06 seconds) ??



    that would certainly be believable for a DUAL 2.7 G5 if a single G4 at 867 can do it in 51 secs.
  • Reply 2 of 6
    wrong robotwrong robot Posts: 3,907member
    Maybe your 46 MB file was a lot less complicated pixelwise?



    it definitely wasn't 3.6 seconds since he mentions the test before and quotes "5.5 seconds" so unless you made a serious stylistic augmentation mid paragraph, he meant 3 minutes and 6 seconds \
  • Reply 3 of 6
    telekontelekon Posts: 54member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by KingOfSomewhereHot

    without reading the article ...



    was it perhaps "3 point 61 seconds" ? (rather than 3 min 06 seconds) ??



    that would certainly be believable for a DUAL 2.7 G5 if a single G4 at 867 can do it in 51 secs.




    No, he clearly states that it took 6 seconds less than his previous PowerMac..
  • Reply 4 of 6
    telekontelekon Posts: 54member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Wrong Robot

    Maybe your 46 MB file was a lot less complicated pixelwise?



    it definitely wasn't 3.6 seconds since he mentions the test before and quotes "5.5 seconds" so unless you made a serious stylistic augmentation mid paragraph, he meant 3 minutes and 6 seconds \




    I used a relatively complex image - very minimal flat colours - as I well understand that the less complex an image, the less time a filter takes to apply..
  • Reply 5 of 6
    Quote:

    Originally posted by telekon

    I used a relatively complex image - very minimal flat colours - as I well understand that the less complex an image, the less time a filter takes to apply..



    It is not true that a filter always takes longer when applied to a "more complicated" image. There are many common filters (Gaussian blur, most sharpening filters, edge enhancers, noise removal, and many more) that pay no attention to the structure of the image and simply apply themselves blindly to the pixels. The resolution of the image is much more of a factor in these cases, since it dictates how many pixels the filter must apply itself to.



    I have no idea how the watercolor filters works...it may in fact be affected by the complexity of the image...but I just wanted to clarify that it's not always the case.
  • Reply 6 of 6
    telekontelekon Posts: 54member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by admanimal

    It is not true that a filter always takes longer when applied to a "more complicated" image. There are many common filters (Gaussian blur, most sharpening filters, edge enhancers, noise removal, and many more) that pay no attention to the structure of the image and simply apply themselves blindly to the pixels. The resolution of the image is much more of a factor in these cases, since it dictates how many pixels the filter must apply itself to.



    I have no idea how the watercolor filters works...it may in fact be affected by the complexity of the image...but I just wanted to clarify that it's not always the case.




    My apologies - I was referring specifically to "Artistic" filters as opposed to Gaussian Blur etc.
Sign In or Register to comment.