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 10 Jun 2010 08:29 In article <87k4q7ayxa.fld(a)apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson <floyd(a)apaflo.com> wrote: > So you can't show times to support your claims? i did. > > it's invalid if you don't have timings from other raw converters. > > Which I had already provided, so what's your problem? where are the timings for the other raw converters, namely camera raw, so we can see how fast or slow it is on your system? so far, all you've posted is dcraw timings.
From: Floyd L. Davidson on 10 Jun 2010 09:02 nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >In article <87k4q7ayxa.fld(a)apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson ><floyd(a)apaflo.com> wrote: > >> So you can't show times to support your claims? > >i did. No you didn't. >> > it's invalid if you don't have timings from other raw converters. >> >> Which I had already provided, so what's your problem? > >where are the timings for the other raw converters, namely camera raw, >so we can see how fast or slow it is on your system? > >so far, all you've posted is dcraw timings. I posted several articles with a variety of times for UFRAW. I take it you do now also realize that the times that I gave *are* elapsed time, and were exactly the same elapsed time measurements that you posted? Whatever, this thread has run its length. Whether dcraw is actually faster or not is of very little significance, particularly when you seem to be comparing it to something you can't time, and therefore can't run individually or in a batch process without a GUI invoked. That pretty much negates any significance of speed in the terms the OP was asking about. If you have nothing more useful to discuss, I'm not likely to respond further. -- Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com
From: nospam on 10 Jun 2010 13:43 In article <87fx0vavmg.fld(a)apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson <floyd(a)apaflo.com> wrote: > >> So you can't show times to support your claims? > > > >i did. > > No you didn't. yes i most certainly did. > > >> > it's invalid if you don't have timings from other raw converters. > >> > >> Which I had already provided, so what's your problem? > > > >where are the timings for the other raw converters, namely camera raw, > >so we can see how fast or slow it is on your system? > > > >so far, all you've posted is dcraw timings. > > I posted several articles with a variety of times for > UFRAW. that uses dcraw! what kind of comparison is that? compare it to something *else*, like camera raw, nikon's software (which is slow), bibble, capture one, raw therapee, etc. as i said, camera raw is *much* faster than dcraw, and subsequently, anything that uses it. > I take it you do now also realize that the times that I > gave *are* elapsed time, and were exactly the same > elapsed time measurements that you posted? your version of time outputs it differently than mine, and the man page on my system makes no mention of the word 'real,' however, i googled a linux version of it and it looks like that man page is *very* different and does use the word real for elapsed. nevertheless, i find 0.131 seconds to be unusually slow and suspicious, but that isn't even the issue. > Whatever, this thread has run its length. Whether dcraw > is actually faster or not is of very little > significance, particularly when you seem to be comparing > it to something you can't time, i can and i did. i used the equivalent of a stopwatch. it's not as accurate but it's no more than 1 second off at the most, and even so, it's still much faster. i don't even need a stopwatch, because i can *see* the image appear in a couple of seconds versus significantly longer for dcraw. > and therefore can't run > individually or in a batch process without a GUI > invoked. i can do a batch process via the gui simply by opening multiple images. > That pretty much negates any significance of > speed in the terms the OP was asking about. he said he was using photoshop cs3, not anything that used dcraw. > If you have nothing more useful to discuss, I'm not likely > to respond further. good.
From: Ray Fischer on 10 Jun 2010 13:53 Floyd L. Davidson <floyd(a)apaflo.com> wrote: >nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >>furthermore, the -h option outputs a half-size image, which the man >>page says is twice as fast as the high-speed low-quality option. in >>other words, it's bogus and not a real world representation of a >>typical workflow, as if about 1/8th of a second was even believable. > >Not bogus, just optimized for speed. That actually is >very reasonable for someone (such as the OP) who merely >wants a 'default' image for comparison. For production >purposes it might be used for previewing, for example. > >Clearly the speed of dcraw just blows you mind away! Clearly you have little more than bullshit and bluster. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Alfred Molon on 10 Jun 2010 15:02
In article <grpv061jjnkl35tuhtguvc3ouptplvur60(a)4ax.com>, Mark F says... > My machine is pretty old (Pentium 4, 2.40GHZ) > > It takes a minute or two of CPU time to convert a Fujifilm FinePix > S100fs RAF file to JPG taking "default" conversion parameters. How about buying a new computer, very cheap these days? -- Alfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site |