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 in Aperture.
Since Aperture only works with flattened or single-layer PSD images, then whether your file is 300 MB or 20 MB is irrelevant. If both images are, say, 4000 pixels by 6000 pixels, then Aperture will treat each one just as fast as the other.
That's the whole point. An image file IS a bitmap. Even a RAW image is a bitmap. A 4,000 x 6,000 24 bit bitmap is 72MB's in size. A 20MB file is a much smaller image than is a 300MB one. Even if the 300MB image is 48 bits.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean therefore.
A 20MB file is a much smaller image than is a 300MB one.
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 the same speed as a 10 MB PSD file if they're both the same number of pixels. A JPEG is compressed only when written to disk; applications like Aperture and Photoshop don't work with the images in memory as compressed images.
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.
I doubt that. You are going to be using these "Previews" to do colour correction work, it is going to be the equivilant of having the file open.
Since Aperture only works with flattened or single-layer PSD images, then whether your file is 300 MB or 20 MB is irrelevant. If both images are, say, 4000 pixels by 6000 pixels, then Aperture will treat each one just as fast as the other.
There are other considerations too though. a 4000x6000 8bit image is considerable smaller in size than a 24bit image of the same size, so the load time a processing involved in the 8bit image is going to be a lot less than on the 24bit image. As far as I know JPEG is 16bit, while RAW files can have up to 48 ?
There are other considerations too though. a 4000x6000 8bit image is considerable smaller in size than a 24bit image of the same size, so the load time a processing involved in the 8bit image is going to be a lot less than on the 24bit image. As far as I know JPEG is 16bit, while RAW files can have up to 48 ?
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 might be huge only because of multiple layers. In that case, Aperture will work on it at the exact same speed as any other file of the same bit depth and pixel dimensions, regardless of file size. So don't let people with huge, multilayered Photoshop files fool you into thinking Aperture will be much slower with these files; it won't.
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 the same speed as a 10 MB PSD file if they're both the same number of pixels. A JPEG is compressed only when written to disk; applications like Aperture and Photoshop don't work with the images in memory as compressed images.
You're making a mistake here. This has nothing to do with layers at this point in time. We're just talking about the size of the file. I already said what that means.
A 1MB JPG file has to be opened before it can be worked on. Depending upon the compression, that file can be anywhere between 4.5MB to 20MB, or even more, if the image quality doesn't matter very much. Even Aperture can't work with a compressed file. It has to decompress it first. so far so good. I hope we at least agree there.
A RAW file isn't really compressed, it just lacks any information as to what it should be. That saves room, so RAW files are smaller than TIFFS or PSD's. But they can still be enormous if the image is large.
The Canon 1D Mark 11 N has a 8.3Mpixel image. The RAW file is 7.9 MB.
The Canon 1Ds Mark 11 has a 16.7 Mpixel image. The RAW file is 14.6 MB.
The Phase One P 45 (med format) has a 39Mpixel image. The RAW file is 32.9MP if it is outputting a 24 bit file. If it is outputting the prefered 48 bit file then the RAW file size is almost 66MB.
If the program has to run a TIFF or PSD, then these files can be multiplied by 3.4 to get to TIFF size or about 3.1 to get to a PSD.
These are the pure image files. No layers, no corrections. No duplications.
The bit depth of each image determines the number of steps (discreet levels) that create an image contrast and latitude from black to white. There is a sample rate for each color (RGB) all three combined create white light.
8 bit = 256 (16 million colors)
10 bit = 1,024 (1 billion colors)
16 bit = 65,536 (280 trillion colors)
Once we are dealing with uncompressed data we are able to record each seprate color. The highest at this point is 16 bit which combined is 48 bit (280 trillion colors) plus an alpha channel becomes 64 bit.
As we move from SD to HD to uncompressed data. Or 8 bit - 10 bit - 16 bit.
The data processing and storage increase exponentially. For example the data load increases by four times between 2K and 4K.
Also the color space of each format and each bit rate are entirely different and require chroma look up tables that decipher the different color containers between them.
There are significant hardware differences between SD and HD, and an entirely different world for 2K or 4K.
I would think digital photography would work in much the same fashion. There should be significantly different hardware requirements between processing and storing a JPEG file and a RAW file.
I'm not sure what you're saying. What are you disagreeing with?
I disagree that the file size doesn't help determine the speed of Aperture. I just find it hard to believe it won't perform better if you are using 3 mb jpg's from a point and shoot rather than 300 mb tifs from a digital back (converted). Even if Aperture is creating / caching it's own previews.
You're making a mistake here. This has nothing to do with layers at this point in time. We're just talking about the size of the file. I already said what that means.
A 1MB JPG file has to be opened before it can be worked on. Depending upon the compression, that file can be anywhere between 4.5MB to 20MB, or even more, if the image quality doesn't matter very much. Even Aperture can't work with a compressed file. It has to decompress it first. so far so good. I hope we at least agree there.
A RAW file isn't really compressed, it just lacks any information as to what it should be. That saves room, so RAW files are smaller than TIFFS or PSD's. But they can still be enormous if the image is large.
The Canon 1D Mark 11 N has a 8.3Mpixel image. The RAW file is 7.9 MB.
The Canon 1Ds Mark 11 has a 16.7 Mpixel image. The RAW file is 14.6 MB.
The Phase One P 45 (med format) has a 39Mpixel image. The RAW file is 32.9MP if it is outputting a 24 bit file. If it is outputting the prefered 48 bit file then the RAW file size is almost 66MB.
If the program has to run a TIFF or PSD, then these files can be multiplied by 3.4 to get to TIFF size or about 3.1 to get to a PSD.
These are the pure image files. No layers, no corrections. No duplications.
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?
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.
Doesn't an 8bit file have 8bits to define each color pixel, while a 24bit file has 24bits ? That's what I though anyways, so if the file is 24bit it is much larger (3x) (filesize) than the same image converted to 8bit (filesize). I didn't mean resolution when I said size, but the number of bytes used to store file on disk (or in ram)
I disagree that the file size doesn't help determine the speed of Aperture. I just find it hard to believe it won't perform better if you are using 3 mb jpg's from a point and shoot rather than 300 mb tifs from a digital back (converted). Even if Aperture is creating / caching it's own previews.
I agree here. My reasoning being:
its MUCH faster to read a 3MB JPEG from disk into memory and then convert that 3MB into some form of bitmap in ram, making it 30MB than it is to read in 30MB from disk and store it in RAM. It does depend on how taxing the JPEG-Bitmap conversion is, but I seriously doubt its very taxing for JPEGs shot by most digital cameras, including dSLRs.
Depending on how Aperture works, having it work on JPEGs should make it faster than having it work on RAW's, as shifting large chunks of information from disk to memory would be one of the biggest bottlenecks IMO.
I would think digital photography would work in much the same fashion. There should be significantly different hardware requirements between processing and storing a JPEG file and a RAW file.
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 pixel x 3000 pixel JPEG is half the size (in memory) as an identical raw file, *regardless* of the file size on disk (even if the JPEG is 1 MB and the raw file is 10 MB).
As I said earlier, there will be a difference in load time (the JPEG has to be decompressed as it's read in, but the raw file has to be de-mosaicized and such as it's read in), but not a lot of difference afterwards (scrolling, applying settings, etc.).
Doesn't an 8bit file have 8bits to define each color pixel, while a 24bit file has 24bits ? That's what I though anyways, so if the file is 24bit it is much larger (3x) (filesize) than the same image converted to 8bit (filesize). I didn't mean resolution when I said size, but the number of bytes used to store file on disk (or in ram)
Yeah, it's confusing at first!
"8 bits" is 8 bits per channel. Since there are 3 channels (R, G, , 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.
What happened to your 300 MB files that you get several times a month? They have no layers?
I didn't change my "story" as you you so graciously put it. I was just showing some RAW file sizes of cameras that are used by pro's in response to statements about file sizes of RAW and JPEG'd photos.
Those large files came from companies who put advertising on the side of buildings here in NYC. One of my clients was Bombay Sapphire. Their billboards are sometimes 100 feet high, applied to buildings, with openings for windows.
Yes, those files were just the original image.
I had one photographer who uses a view camera with a scanning digital back. His files are 8,000 x 12000 x 48 bits. You can figure it out.
its MUCH faster to read a 3MB JPEG from disk into memory and then convert that 3MB into some form of bitmap in ram, making it 30MB than it is to read in 30MB from disk and store it in RAM. It does depend on how taxing the JPEG-Bitmap conversion is, but I seriously doubt its very taxing for JPEGs shot by most digital cameras, including dSLRs.
Depending on how Aperture works, having it work on JPEGs should make it faster than having it work on RAW's, as shifting large chunks of information from disk to memory would be one of the biggest bottlenecks IMO.
Yes, I'm not disagreeing with you. My original quote was:
Quote:
posted 11-02-2005 04:50 PM \t
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).
I didn't change my "story" as you you so graciously put it. I was just showing some RAW file sizes of cameras that are used by pro's in response to statements about file sizes of RAW and JPEG'd photos.
Those large files came from companies who put advertising on the side of buildings here in NYC. One of my clients was Bombay Sapphire. Their billboards are sometimes 100 feet high, applied to buildings, with openings for windows.
Yes, those files were just the original image.
I had one photographer who uses a view camera with a scanning digital back. His files are 8,000 x 12000 x 48 bits. You can figure it out.
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 depth.
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 pixel x 3000 pixel JPEG is half the size (in memory) as an identical raw file, *regardless* of the file size on disk (even if the JPEG is 1 MB and the raw file is 10 MB).
As I said earlier, there will be a difference in load time (the JPEG has to be decompressed as it's read in, but the raw file has to be de-mosaicized and such as it's read in), but not a lot of difference afterwards (scrolling, applying settings, etc.).
Well yes, JPEG's are usually 8 bits. But they can be 10, 12, 14, 16, or even more bits per channel. But, usually not.
The same thing is true of RAW. Most cameras, except for the medium format backs recently, don't take 16 bit RAW images. They usually range from 10 to 14 bits. Some cameras will output a 16 bit file from that, but it's rare. There's no point in having the camera convert a lower bit file to a higher one. It's better to do that in PS if you need do do critical work.
Comments
Originally posted by bikertwin
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 in Aperture.
Since Aperture only works with flattened or single-layer PSD images, then whether your file is 300 MB or 20 MB is irrelevant. If both images are, say, 4000 pixels by 6000 pixels, then Aperture will treat each one just as fast as the other.
That's the whole point. An image file IS a bitmap. Even a RAW image is a bitmap. A 4,000 x 6,000 24 bit bitmap is 72MB's in size. A 20MB file is a much smaller image than is a 300MB one. Even if the 300MB image is 48 bits.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean therefore.
Originally posted by melgross
A 20MB file is a much smaller image than is a 300MB one.
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 the same speed as a 10 MB PSD file if they're both the same number of pixels. A JPEG is compressed only when written to disk; applications like Aperture and Photoshop don't work with the images in memory as compressed images.
Originally posted by bikertwin
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.
I doubt that. You are going to be using these "Previews" to do colour correction work, it is going to be the equivilant of having the file open.
Originally posted by the cool gut
I doubt that. You are going to be using these "Previews" to do colour correction work, it is going to be the equivilant of having the file open.
I'm not sure what you're saying. What are you disagreeing with?
Originally posted by bikertwin
Since Aperture only works with flattened or single-layer PSD images, then whether your file is 300 MB or 20 MB is irrelevant. If both images are, say, 4000 pixels by 6000 pixels, then Aperture will treat each one just as fast as the other.
There are other considerations too though. a 4000x6000 8bit image is considerable smaller in size than a 24bit image of the same size, so the load time a processing involved in the 8bit image is going to be a lot less than on the 24bit image. As far as I know JPEG is 16bit, while RAW files can have up to 48 ?
Originally posted by BoeManE
There are other considerations too though. a 4000x6000 8bit image is considerable smaller in size than a 24bit image of the same size, so the load time a processing involved in the 8bit image is going to be a lot less than on the 24bit image. As far as I know JPEG is 16bit, while RAW files can have up to 48 ?
Whoa, Dude!
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 might be huge only because of multiple layers. In that case, Aperture will work on it at the exact same speed as any other file of the same bit depth and pixel dimensions, regardless of file size. So don't let people with huge, multilayered Photoshop files fool you into thinking Aperture will be much slower with these files; it won't.
Originally posted by bikertwin
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 the same speed as a 10 MB PSD file if they're both the same number of pixels. A JPEG is compressed only when written to disk; applications like Aperture and Photoshop don't work with the images in memory as compressed images.
You're making a mistake here. This has nothing to do with layers at this point in time. We're just talking about the size of the file. I already said what that means.
A 1MB JPG file has to be opened before it can be worked on. Depending upon the compression, that file can be anywhere between 4.5MB to 20MB, or even more, if the image quality doesn't matter very much. Even Aperture can't work with a compressed file. It has to decompress it first. so far so good. I hope we at least agree there.
A RAW file isn't really compressed, it just lacks any information as to what it should be. That saves room, so RAW files are smaller than TIFFS or PSD's. But they can still be enormous if the image is large.
The Canon 1D Mark 11 N has a 8.3Mpixel image. The RAW file is 7.9 MB.
The Canon 1Ds Mark 11 has a 16.7 Mpixel image. The RAW file is 14.6 MB.
The Phase One P 45 (med format) has a 39Mpixel image. The RAW file is 32.9MP if it is outputting a 24 bit file. If it is outputting the prefered 48 bit file then the RAW file size is almost 66MB.
If the program has to run a TIFF or PSD, then these files can be multiplied by 3.4 to get to TIFF size or about 3.1 to get to a PSD.
These are the pure image files. No layers, no corrections. No duplications.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
I think this thread belongs to Melgross. When you hit 51% posts, you can claim the thread.
If we didn't have so many disagreements back and forth, then I wouldn't have had the need to reply.
The standard image resolutions.
Standard Definiton 640 X 480
High Definiton 1920 X 1080
Uncompressed Data:
2K (2,048 X 1,556)
4K (4,096 X 3,112)
The bit depth of each image determines the number of steps (discreet levels) that create an image contrast and latitude from black to white. There is a sample rate for each color (RGB) all three combined create white light.
8 bit = 256 (16 million colors)
10 bit = 1,024 (1 billion colors)
16 bit = 65,536 (280 trillion colors)
Once we are dealing with uncompressed data we are able to record each seprate color. The highest at this point is 16 bit which combined is 48 bit (280 trillion colors) plus an alpha channel becomes 64 bit.
As we move from SD to HD to uncompressed data. Or 8 bit - 10 bit - 16 bit.
The data processing and storage increase exponentially. For example the data load increases by four times between 2K and 4K.
Also the color space of each format and each bit rate are entirely different and require chroma look up tables that decipher the different color containers between them.
There are significant hardware differences between SD and HD, and an entirely different world for 2K or 4K.
I would think digital photography would work in much the same fashion. There should be significantly different hardware requirements between processing and storing a JPEG file and a RAW file.
Originally posted by bikertwin
I'm not sure what you're saying. What are you disagreeing with?
I disagree that the file size doesn't help determine the speed of Aperture. I just find it hard to believe it won't perform better if you are using 3 mb jpg's from a point and shoot rather than 300 mb tifs from a digital back (converted). Even if Aperture is creating / caching it's own previews.
Originally posted by melgross
You're making a mistake here. This has nothing to do with layers at this point in time. We're just talking about the size of the file. I already said what that means.
A 1MB JPG file has to be opened before it can be worked on. Depending upon the compression, that file can be anywhere between 4.5MB to 20MB, or even more, if the image quality doesn't matter very much. Even Aperture can't work with a compressed file. It has to decompress it first. so far so good. I hope we at least agree there.
A RAW file isn't really compressed, it just lacks any information as to what it should be. That saves room, so RAW files are smaller than TIFFS or PSD's. But they can still be enormous if the image is large.
The Canon 1D Mark 11 N has a 8.3Mpixel image. The RAW file is 7.9 MB.
The Canon 1Ds Mark 11 has a 16.7 Mpixel image. The RAW file is 14.6 MB.
The Phase One P 45 (med format) has a 39Mpixel image. The RAW file is 32.9MP if it is outputting a 24 bit file. If it is outputting the prefered 48 bit file then the RAW file size is almost 66MB.
If the program has to run a TIFF or PSD, then these files can be multiplied by 3.4 to get to TIFF size or about 3.1 to get to a PSD.
These are the pure image files. No layers, no corrections. No duplications.
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?
Originally posted by bikertwin
Whoa, Dude!
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.
Doesn't an 8bit file have 8bits to define each color pixel, while a 24bit file has 24bits ? That's what I though anyways, so if the file is 24bit it is much larger (3x) (filesize) than the same image converted to 8bit (filesize). I didn't mean resolution when I said size, but the number of bytes used to store file on disk (or in ram)
Originally posted by the cool gut
I disagree that the file size doesn't help determine the speed of Aperture. I just find it hard to believe it won't perform better if you are using 3 mb jpg's from a point and shoot rather than 300 mb tifs from a digital back (converted). Even if Aperture is creating / caching it's own previews.
I agree here. My reasoning being:
its MUCH faster to read a 3MB JPEG from disk into memory and then convert that 3MB into some form of bitmap in ram, making it 30MB than it is to read in 30MB from disk and store it in RAM. It does depend on how taxing the JPEG-Bitmap conversion is, but I seriously doubt its very taxing for JPEGs shot by most digital cameras, including dSLRs.
Depending on how Aperture works, having it work on JPEGs should make it faster than having it work on RAW's, as shifting large chunks of information from disk to memory would be one of the biggest bottlenecks IMO.
Originally posted by TenoBell
I would think digital photography would work in much the same fashion. There should be significantly different hardware requirements between processing and storing a JPEG file and a RAW file.
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 pixel x 3000 pixel JPEG is half the size (in memory) as an identical raw file, *regardless* of the file size on disk (even if the JPEG is 1 MB and the raw file is 10 MB).
As I said earlier, there will be a difference in load time (the JPEG has to be decompressed as it's read in, but the raw file has to be de-mosaicized and such as it's read in), but not a lot of difference afterwards (scrolling, applying settings, etc.).
Originally posted by BoeManE
Doesn't an 8bit file have 8bits to define each color pixel, while a 24bit file has 24bits ? That's what I though anyways, so if the file is 24bit it is much larger (3x) (filesize) than the same image converted to 8bit (filesize). I didn't mean resolution when I said size, but the number of bytes used to store file on disk (or in ram)
Yeah, it's confusing at first!
"8 bits" is 8 bits per channel. Since there are 3 channels (R, G,
Likewise, a 16-bit-per-channel file has a total of 48 bits per pixels.
Originally posted by bikertwin
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?
I didn't change my "story" as you you so graciously put it. I was just showing some RAW file sizes of cameras that are used by pro's in response to statements about file sizes of RAW and JPEG'd photos.
Those large files came from companies who put advertising on the side of buildings here in NYC. One of my clients was Bombay Sapphire. Their billboards are sometimes 100 feet high, applied to buildings, with openings for windows.
Yes, those files were just the original image.
I had one photographer who uses a view camera with a scanning digital back. His files are 8,000 x 12000 x 48 bits. You can figure it out.
Originally posted by BoeManE
I agree here. My reasoning being:
its MUCH faster to read a 3MB JPEG from disk into memory and then convert that 3MB into some form of bitmap in ram, making it 30MB than it is to read in 30MB from disk and store it in RAM. It does depend on how taxing the JPEG-Bitmap conversion is, but I seriously doubt its very taxing for JPEGs shot by most digital cameras, including dSLRs.
Depending on how Aperture works, having it work on JPEGs should make it faster than having it work on RAW's, as shifting large chunks of information from disk to memory would be one of the biggest bottlenecks IMO.
Yes, I'm not disagreeing with you. My original quote was:
posted 11-02-2005 04:50 PM \t
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).
Originally posted by melgross
I didn't change my "story" as you you so graciously put it. I was just showing some RAW file sizes of cameras that are used by pro's in response to statements about file sizes of RAW and JPEG'd photos.
Those large files came from companies who put advertising on the side of buildings here in NYC. One of my clients was Bombay Sapphire. Their billboards are sometimes 100 feet high, applied to buildings, with openings for windows.
Yes, those files were just the original image.
I had one photographer who uses a view camera with a scanning digital back. His files are 8,000 x 12000 x 48 bits. You can figure it out.
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 depth.
Again, it's not file size that matters.
Originally posted by bikertwin
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 pixel x 3000 pixel JPEG is half the size (in memory) as an identical raw file, *regardless* of the file size on disk (even if the JPEG is 1 MB and the raw file is 10 MB).
As I said earlier, there will be a difference in load time (the JPEG has to be decompressed as it's read in, but the raw file has to be de-mosaicized and such as it's read in), but not a lot of difference afterwards (scrolling, applying settings, etc.).
Well yes, JPEG's are usually 8 bits. But they can be 10, 12, 14, 16, or even more bits per channel. But, usually not.
The same thing is true of RAW. Most cameras, except for the medium format backs recently, don't take 16 bit RAW images. They usually range from 10 to 14 bits. Some cameras will output a 16 bit file from that, but it's rare. There's no point in having the camera convert a lower bit file to a higher one. It's better to do that in PS if you need do do critical work.