: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
Date: Sunday, July 29, 2001 6:34 PM
Hi Dana,
I have just scanned an image and saved it as compressed and
non-compressed files. This particular image surprised me in that it
compressed to a remarkable degree, from 55.3mb to 16.5mb
On Sun, 29 Jul 2001 01:10:13 +0100 Steve Greenbank
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I have not checked but I suspect lossless is actually very nearly
lossless.
i.e. there are some rounding errors from the compression algorithms.
Shouldn't be, in the ZIP/LZW type compression found in compressed
On Sun, 29 Jul 2001 01:09:57 +1000 Rob Geraghty ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Obscanning - I wonder how many of those using Windows with filmscanners
are
running NT or Win2K?
I even bought NT4, but never installed it as the W98 machine I use for PS
is unbelievably stable, probably because
Do not assume that all reconstituted images are created equal.
Short cuts are sometimes taken in translating the file back into an
uncompressed image which might speed up decompression, but not represent
the full nature of the image.
Art
Rob Geraghty wrote:
Dana Trout [EMAIL PROTECTED]
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jawed Ashraf
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 4:38 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
If you have Win95 or Win 98 there is a little utility called SYSMON. It has
a fantastic range of graphs it can show you
]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
At 11:27 28-07-01 +0100, Tony Sleep wrote:
On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 16:09:14 -0500 Laurie Solomon ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Fine; but what do you suggest as a way to determine if and how the
additional RAM is being taken into account
. This is just a
caution and some additional information for you in your evaluations.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Julian Robinson
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 8:13 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits
regarding
the Ram over 512 MB being utilized in my system and setup under Win 98.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 9:38 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Pat Perez
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 11:34 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
Strictly speaking, what Win 3.x through Me consider 'system resources' are a
fixed amount
: Saturday, July 28, 2001 5:27 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 16:09:14 -0500 Laurie Solomon ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Fine; but what do you suggest as a way to determine if and how the
additional RAM is being taken
other
than an exact match -- if there is a difference there is something
definitely wrong with the computer!
Ta for now,
--Dana
--
From: geoff murray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
Date: Saturday, July 28, 2001 7:21 PM
]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
Now that I see you are stating load times for uncompressed files I see
our times are much more similar. LZW compression is very CPU-intensive
and there is no comparison between load times for non-compressed and
compressed files
]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 8:29 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
Now that I see you are stating load times for uncompressed files I see
our times are much more similar. LZW compression is very CPU-intensive
and there is no comparison between
On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 16:09:14 -0500 Laurie Solomon ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Fine; but what do you suggest as a way to determine if and how the
additional RAM is being taken into account and used?
Dunno, especially as I think PS does some of its own memory management
instead of the OS. But
At 09:57 AM 7/28/01 +0100, Steve wrote:
I've noticed PS is slow too. Worse still it doesn't compress well either -
try opening a file from Vuescan and then saving it with PS and it comes out
significantly larger.
Sorry, this doesn't sound right. For a given image,
a given file format, and
OK thanks Rob and Rafe for luring me to check the price of memory. I
nearly fell off my chair - $68(australian) for 256MB so I bought two, and a
40G HDD as well what the hell I was trying to work out what to do to save
my over-full disks anyway.
I have just installed same, now have double
I'm running NT4 SP6a, dual 850MHz PIII, 512MB. Reliability: it gets used
for about 3 hours a day, five days a week on average and I think I've
had about 2 blue screens in the last year. Oh, Minolta Scan Speed by the
way.
Mark
Obscanning - I wonder how many of those using Windows with
!
Thanks for your comments,
--Dana
--
From: geoff murray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
Date: Saturday, July 28, 2001 6:15 AM
Hi Dana,
Gee your times seem very slow. I tried loading a 56mb file
from
my
Obscanning - I wonder how many of those using Windows with filmscanners are
running NT or Win2K?
My Microtek Scanmaker 35t Plus is connected to my NT4.0 box. My new Epson
1640SU is connected to my laptop (via USB) running W2K Pro. I was going to
get a SCSI cable and connect it to my NT box
just that little bit sweeter.
Jawed
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dana Trout
Sent: 28 July 2001 20:49
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
I find that little of the time spent
I've noticed PS is slow too. Worse still it doesn't compress well
either -
try opening a file from Vuescan and then saving it with PS and it comes
out
significantly larger.
Sorry, this doesn't sound right. For a given image,
a given file format, and compression method, the
file size
]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 5:49 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
I find that little of the time spent is due to the disk drive, which is
the reason for my comment that a 7200 rpm drive, even though it is 33%
faster than a 5400 rpm drive
on 7/28/01 11:09 AM, Rob Geraghty at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Steve Greenbank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Further, in my experience of Win NT 4.0 the claimed reliability of desktop
PC's is a fallacy. At work I have used around a dozen PC's and all have
been
much less reliable than my home PCs
Julian wrote:
I understood and would like someone to confirm that
the Windows resource meter had nothing to do with
how much RAM you had, it was only a measure of
usage of some stack or similar.
You may be thinking of the GDI, USER and SYSTEM resources. I think in Win98
each of these is a
disk after a lot of history states.
Bill
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Raphael Bustin
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 7:47 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
At 11:42 AM 7/27/01 +1000
: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 13:03:17 -0500 Laurie Solomon ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
I noticed in both systems that since
the addition of the RAM the Windows resources meter shows proportionately
less system resources being used than previously (ie
the same file.
--Dana
--
From: Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in
Windows
Date: Friday, July 27, 2001 12:22 AM
snip
On the other hand I'm reasonably sure the main
bottleneck in my PC when dealing
Dana Trout [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A 25% faster drive won't necessarily get you 25% faster load/store
times. PhotoShop seems to be inordinately slow in dealing with
compressed TIFFs
Paintshop Pro is the same. Opening a film scan in PSP takes *far* longer
than in Irfanview.
BTW, Ed's
: Thursday, July 26, 2001 10:57 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
As I have already said in earlier posts, my experience with ram greater
than
512MB on two different Win 98 systems have been different in that I have
been less likely to run out of system resources
feeling really lucky you may
wish to look at my post just above this one.
Steve
- Original Message -
From: LAURIE SOLOMON [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 7:18 AM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
Funny, I have two systems
Rob wrote:
If all I was doing was scanning and editing pictures, I
would already be running Win2K.
From what I've read here and in various computer mags, maybe you should wait
for the next New and Improved Windows version, if only for saving the cost
of one upgrade. Some reporters are
Lynn Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
of one upgrade. Some reporters are already giving Windows X glowing
reviews...but then, some give glowing reviews to everything just to keep
the
free stuff flowing.
XP aka Whistler looks OK, but Win2K is here and now and stable.
Rob
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 01:18:23 -0500 LAURIE SOLOMON ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
One of my systems has 758MB of RAM and
the other has 640MB of RAM. Maybe I am just lucky. :-)
Or maybe the extra RAM beyond 512Mb doesn't add any benefit, which is what
I have been told to expect.
Regards
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 15:11:40 +1000 =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rob=20Geraghty?=
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Reduce the amount of memory that is installed in your computer to 512 MB
or less.
Daft though this sounds, AIUI there really isn't any point to trying to use
512Mb RAM in a W98 machine. It just
: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 01:18:23 -0500 LAURIE SOLOMON ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
One of my systems has 758MB of RAM and
the other has 640MB of RAM. Maybe I am just lucky. :-)
Or maybe the extra RAM beyond 512Mb doesn't add any benefit
Two of the suggestions amount to not installing your new memory - pretty
dumb suggestions.
So I'd definitely use:
Use the MaxFileCache setting in the System.ini file to reduce the maximum
amount of memory that Vcache uses to 512 megabytes (524,288 KB) or less.
Further I would suggest the
Hi Rob,
You can also overcome this problem by using a little memory
management program called Cacheman. It is an excellent program. Go to
http://www.outertech.com/ to take a look at it.
Regards
Geoff Murray
www.geoffmurray.com
http://www.ozimages.com.au/portfolio/gmurray.asp
-
37 matches
Mail list logo
