How long does it take to convert a raw camera file to "default" JPG?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Forget Dpreview's B.S., "diplomatic language" NEX 16mm lensis not good
Next: How long does it take to convert a raw camera file to "default"JPG?
From: nospam on 15 Jun 2010 12:10 In article <4c177f20$2$5503$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, Peter <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: > If I only used the machine for graphics and Internet BSing, I would probably > have a Mac. But, I also need a machine for business. From a usability > standpoint I have compared my HP with a Mac. At least for Photoshop I see no > significant difference. photoshop is the same on both platforms, and you can run any windows specific software in vmware alongside the mac software (or dual boot but that's a pain), and that's assuming there isn't an equivalent. > Though on a Mac I have right click issues. what issues are those? macs have supported secondary clicks for years. apple has shipped a multibutton mouse for years, or use any standard usb or bluetooth mouse you prefer.
From: Robert Spanjaard on 15 Jun 2010 12:25 On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 13:20:26 -0800, Floyd L. Davidson wrote: > In fact though, I cheat. I use Linux and have a script that determines > how many CPU's the system has and then feeds a loop that keeps all of > the CPU's busy. One box that I use has 4 CPU's, and another has 8. The > script works them to the max. The 4 CPU box processes images at 6 > seconds per image. (If ufraw-batch is invoked normally, and uses just 1 > CPU serially, it takes 21 seconds per image on that particular system.) Which version do you use? UFRaw has had OpenMP support since version 0.15, so you shouldn't need to handle the multihtreading manually. -- Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
From: Floyd L. Davidson on 15 Jun 2010 16:16 Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap(a)arumes.com> wrote: >On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 13:20:26 -0800, Floyd L. Davidson wrote: > >> In fact though, I cheat. I use Linux and have a script that determines >> how many CPU's the system has and then feeds a loop that keeps all of >> the CPU's busy. One box that I use has 4 CPU's, and another has 8. The >> script works them to the max. The 4 CPU box processes images at 6 >> seconds per image. (If ufraw-batch is invoked normally, and uses just 1 >> CPU serially, it takes 21 seconds per image on that particular system.) > >Which version do you use? UFRaw has had OpenMP support since version >0.15, so you shouldn't need to handle the multihtreading manually. I download a CVS snapshot of the development thread about once a month. OpenMP support doesn't hold a candle to processing one image per CPU with a script. Note the time difference quoted above, it's just over 3 times faster. -- Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com
From: Robert Spanjaard on 15 Jun 2010 16:31 On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:16:47 -0800, Floyd L. Davidson wrote: >>> In fact though, I cheat. I use Linux and have a script that >>> determines how many CPU's the system has and then feeds a loop that >>> keeps all of the CPU's busy. One box that I use has 4 CPU's, and >>> another has 8. The script works them to the max. The 4 CPU box >>> processes images at 6 seconds per image. (If ufraw-batch is invoked >>> normally, and uses just 1 CPU serially, it takes 21 seconds per image >>> on that particular system.) >> >>Which version do you use? UFRaw has had OpenMP support since version >>0.15, so you shouldn't need to handle the multihtreading manually. > > I download a CVS snapshot of the development thread about once a month. > > OpenMP support doesn't hold a candle to processing one image per CPU > with a script. Note the time difference quoted above, it's just over 3 > times faster. I noticed that. I also noticed the "uses just 1 CPU serially" in the same quote. -- Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
From: Peter on 15 Jun 2010 13:35
"nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:150620101210418392%nospam(a)nospam.invalid... > In article <4c177f20$2$5503$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, Peter > <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: > >> If I only used the machine for graphics and Internet BSing, I would >> probably >> have a Mac. But, I also need a machine for business. From a usability >> standpoint I have compared my HP with a Mac. At least for Photoshop I see >> no >> significant difference. > > photoshop is the same on both platforms, and you can run any windows > specific software in vmware alongside the mac software (or dual boot > but that's a pain), and that's assuming there isn't an equivalent. > >> Though on a Mac I have right click issues. > > what issues are those? macs have supported secondary clicks for years. > apple has shipped a multibutton mouse for years, or use any standard > usb or bluetooth mouse you prefer. there was no right button on the mouse, However, as I said before, what I have is working for me. -- Peter |