My *istD conversions come out at 144 meg, 26-bit, but I do most of the work in the RAW converter where they are much smaller. After conversion I generally do very little other than rotation and crop.
> Working on a Mac may have something to do with it, but it just occurred to > me that file size may play a big part in the equation. Many of the files > I'm working with are 120mb (4000ppi, 16bit color). When working with > smaller file sizes (40mb B&W for example, 11mb TIFFs from the Sony camera) > things do move along pretty well.. > > Was working with a 450mb TIF this morning ... sheesh! Talk about slow <LOL> > Do not want to think about what it would be like if that had to load and > save with a few layers <ROTF!> > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: 10/14/2004 9:51:24 AM > > Subject: RE: *ist D image quality-_Was -Stupid Question #999 > > > > I have yet to experience any kind of annoying slowdown running PSCS. All > operations seem virtually instantaneous. Scratch disk allocation is a big > part of the equation. I have a 200 gig firewire drive that is almost empty > as my first scratch disk. I have 1.5 gig of ram with 70% of it allocated to > PS. However, I'm working on a Mac, which may change the routine in some way. > > Paul > > > > > > > Hi Don, > > > > > > I'm not sure you'll see much, if any, difference in the end result, but > I'm > > > just now starting to explore the possibilities and pitfalls of > converting > > > RAW files, so it's very possible I'm talking through my hat ... > > > > > > If I were you, I'd not pay for the upgrade to PS CS until you're sure > > > you'll need it (unless you can get it very inexpensively). If you've a > > > fast enough connection, download the trial edition from Adobe and see > how > > > it works for you. Apart from the various new features and frills that > CS > > > offers, it's also quite memory intensive, and if your machine isn't up > to > > > it, you may find the program slow and cumbersome to use. I'm using a > very > > > current WinXP machine with 2gigs of fast memory, a fast CPU, two very > fast > > > and large hard drives + an external drive, and have plenty of room for > > > scratch disks, and still I get frustrated when running certain > routines. > > > > > > The trial software is complete in every way as far as I can tell, so it > > > should give you a good sense of whether it'll do the job you want done. > > > > > > Shel > > > > > > > > > > From: Don Sanderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > I am using the Pentax software and PS 7.01 plug-in to convert the > > > > RAW files, perhaps that is a big part of my problem. > > > > I'll pick up the CS upgrade today and see how it goes. > > > > I've seen some excellent examples of images from the D taken by > > > > you folks and was really wondering why mine were so inferior. > > > > Is it simply the algorithms used in the CS convertor that > > > > result in a superior end result? > > > > > > > >
