Prev: iPhone/podcast problem
Next: Glass replacment: new 21.5" aluminium cased iMAC
From: Elliott Roper on 10 Feb 2010 13:29
In article <1jdpigk.15cuz0198qax6N%thewildrover(a)me.com>, Andy Hewitt
<thewildrover(a)me.com> wrote:

> Elliott Roper <nospam(a)yrl.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > In article <1jdpbrn.tcsxtpk2o47mN%thewildrover(a)me.com>, Andy Hewitt
> > <thewildrover(a)me.com> wrote:
> [..]
> > > Otherwise, the speed is fine on my MacBook 2.2, although there is a
> > > small delay between moving an adjuster and seeing the result. It used to
> > > be just a slight blurriness as the Preview was remade, but now it's a
> > > full blown pixelation.
> > >
> > > I'll play some more before I decide whether it's worth spending �79 on.
> >
> > Mine's shipped. I chickened out of the free trial. I have been bitten
> > before turning free trials into paid-fors.
> > I'm looking forward particularly to the import automation presets and
> > the ability to run different libraries and merge them later. Mine is
> > getting far too big. (fnarr?)
> > I can foresee an overnight cruncher to update my library to v3. I
> > wonder if it can read v2 vaults?
> >
> > I saw somewhere in all the cascade of gotchas that only some RAWs for
> > some cameras have improved noise reduction. Mine's on the list, so I
> > await that with interest. I was pretty happy with the lack of noise
> > already.
>
> Well, some things aren't so good on speed. As a rule most adusters are
> OK, but some are a bit poor - and I make a lot of use of the
> highlight/shadow overlay tool, which is definitely not as good as the
> one in V2.
>
> Faces is a real resource hog though, 1.5GB of RAM used when just running
> that, and it slows the rest of the system down too.
>
> The auto enhance tool is too aggressive for my liking, and really does
> clip the shadows far too much.
>
> NR is something I really need for the compact camera photos, which are
> JPGs. These are the ones that tend to have noise in low light shots. My
> E510 Raws are mostly just fine. I have Elements and NoiseWare Pro for
> those anyway, but it'd be nice not to have to work off a 60MB PSD or
> TIFF version.
>
> Apart from those, I do like it, and I might well upgrade at some point,
> maybe at 3.1, but nothing that's really compelling for me at the moment
> - all my photos are organised and adjusted right now, and I don't feel
> inclined to skim over them all to see if I can improve them.

Thanks for that. Innaresting observations. I'll try to return the
favour when mine arrives.

--
To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248
From: Andy Hewitt on 12 Feb 2010 07:35
Elliott Roper <nospam(a)yrl.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <1jdpigk.15cuz0198qax6N%thewildrover(a)me.com>, Andy Hewitt
> <thewildrover(a)me.com> wrote:
[..]
> > Apart from those, I do like it, and I might well upgrade at some point,
> > maybe at 3.1, but nothing that's really compelling for me at the moment
> > - all my photos are organised and adjusted right now, and I don't feel
> > inclined to skim over them all to see if I can improve them.
>
> Thanks for that. Innaresting observations. I'll try to return the
> favour when mine arrives.

Well, I've now removed the Trial version for now. I've done a few more
edits to test it, and still can't see any reason to part with �79. It's
not going to improve my collection as it is right now, and some of the
tools are not as good as V2 on my system.

For one is the silly delay it now has as it redraws the Preview as you
apply an adjustment. The image pixelates badly, and then resharpens, but
it means you don't see a real-time adjustment - you have to adjust a
bit, and then wait to see if it's OK. It's not slow, as such, just not
helpful.

That and the fact that it's a real resource hog - 1,5GB of RAM without
doing anything, bungs up the processors for anything, and 25GB of space
used for a text library, all added up to me abandoning it, for now.

--
Andy Hewitt
<http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
From: Elliott Roper on 12 Feb 2010 15:19
In article <1jdsw1d.vzp2rryp3txqN%thewildrover(a)me.com>, Andy Hewitt
<thewildrover(a)me.com> wrote:

> Elliott Roper <nospam(a)yrl.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > In article <1jdpigk.15cuz0198qax6N%thewildrover(a)me.com>, Andy Hewitt
> > <thewildrover(a)me.com> wrote:
> [..]
> > > Apart from those, I do like it, and I might well upgrade at some point,
> > > maybe at 3.1, but nothing that's really compelling for me at the moment
> > > - all my photos are organised and adjusted right now, and I don't feel
> > > inclined to skim over them all to see if I can improve them.
> >
> > Thanks for that. Innaresting observations. I'll try to return the
> > favour when mine arrives.
>
> Well, I've now removed the Trial version for now. I've done a few more
> edits to test it, and still can't see any reason to part with �79. It's
> not going to improve my collection as it is right now, and some of the
> tools are not as good as V2 on my system.
>
> For one is the silly delay it now has as it redraws the Preview as you
> apply an adjustment. The image pixelates badly, and then resharpens, but
> it means you don't see a real-time adjustment - you have to adjust a
> bit, and then wait to see if it's OK. It's not slow, as such, just not
> helpful.
>
> That and the fact that it's a real resource hog - 1,5GB of RAM without
> doing anything, bungs up the processors for anything, and 25GB of space
> used for a text library, all added up to me abandoning it, for now.

I've got mine now. You are right. It is the most amazing resource hog.
For the first time in its life, my 8GB Pro is getting pageouts. It is
sitting there guzzling near enough 300-400%% CPU with nothing much to
show for it. Loading images is no quicker, but a lot more predictable
(v2 would sometimes sit on "Loading" for a minute or more.) It's using
3GB of real memory. I *hope* it is cunningly thinking ahead dragging
all the neighbouring masters into memory ahead of time, but I don't see
much evidence of that /yet/. It has enough threads to give you the idea
that it has monkeys working on a Shakespeare re-write.

I'm not seeing the delay in adjustments that you report. Mebbe its the
different GPU in here (4870)

I might be imagining it, but the default noise is wa-aay better. Images
at ISO 25000 that looked like they had been faxed in, are now simply
terrible. But ISO 3200 stuff in very poor light has come back most
impressively.

The UI has lost the V1 of Final Cut Pro appearance, and the RGB histos
are working properly, and the curves and brushes alone are worth every
penny. I have a few RAW's from a mate's Hassy in my library. In v2,
they were underwhelming, but now they are just awesome.

I'm off to do a little more tweaking (writing this while the slideshow
update downloads)

I /think/ it's a keeper.

--
To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248
From: zoara on 12 Feb 2010 17:02
R <me32(a)privacy.net> wrote:
> Jon B <black.hole(a)jonbradbury.com> wrote:
>
> > Actually it's a good point that, somebody says 'the stores down' and
> > half the world who up to that moment had no interest in the store,
> > find
> > themselves hitting refresh till it's back up.
>
> My mum would give up. Then she'd forget whatever it was she
> was thinking of buying. Then she'd buy herself a cake instead.
>
> Now, if Apple sold cakes...

Not cakes. Pies.

-z-

--
email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: iPhone/podcast problem
Next: Glass replacment: new 21.5" aluminium cased iMAC