--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, pixel fairy wrote:
> Hmm, you can adjust contrast, colour curves and
> levels in more or less
> realtime?  Can you tell me what hardware you have? 

celeron with ati rage fury (32MB), only for its
support of hardware gamma. my ancient PCI mellenium
(not melleium II) with 8 megs ran faster in 1600x1200
than this thing does at 1280x1024. 640 megs / big
cheap IDE drive, which i have not tweaked with hdparm
yet, but your better off putting your gimp swap (and
photoshop swap) on a fast scsi drive anyway.

at 4k x 3k for most things you do see the line comming
down. its slow for hue/sat/lightness adjustments, and
fastest for curves. i may try this on windows, but i
think some of the others on this list have already
beaten that horse enough.

> Also how do you get
> 32bpp images into gimp in the first place?

32bpp is not the 10 bits per color channel that your
talking about, its RGBA (8bits per channel, A is for
alpha, which for gimp is opacity) of course, i now
realize that this was usually only RGB.
> It was set to 8, or 10, or 15, I've tried them all,
> 8 seemed to be faster
> as that stopped Gimp having to swap to VM or push
> other apps out to disc.

8,10,15? where do you get these numbers? your tile
cache should be alot more than that.
> Cheers for that, I'll try it, I'm running XFree4 at
> the moment.  It seems
> to get the DPI-rating right for my monitor which is
> a good start.

i was half joking (even though i use this method
myself), its not a good idea to screw up your
calibration unless you can get it back easily.
> I am seriously considering this, one of the reasons
> I'm still using a PPro
> 200 with 64 megs is because it's fine for my usual
> linux needs, I don't
> want to upgrade it for photo work until I know
> whether I want to use linux
> or whether I jump to using a Mac with all the
> benefits that brings (on the
> photo editing side).

go with the mac.
from what ive gathered linux runs fine on most macs
and theres always mac on linux, which probably runs
photoshop, meaning you can easily have both. if you
try this, please tell me (and/or the group) how it
64megs is a small amount of ram for images that heavy.
im surprised your getting decent performance from

ive found that as images get bigger, there are things
that photoshop does faster, but then as they get
really big (with respect to available resources) the
gimp will be able to deal with images photoshop cant.
but this is a moot point with you, since you like
having the extra head room (color depth) while
tweaking/fixing etc.

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints!

Reply via email to