Hi ho,
I'm working with a relatively large RGB image (4368 x 3384px / 2MB file
size / status bar says 199MB on load). Once I begin editing the image,
the memory usage quickly gets up around 600MB and up, and my system comes
to a crawl as it goes to the hard disk for memory space.
I'm wondering
Hi,
Eric Pierce [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm working with a relatively large RGB image (4368 x 3384px / 2MB file
size / status bar says 199MB on load). Once I begin editing the image,
the memory usage quickly gets up around 600MB and up, and my system comes
to a crawl as it goes to the
Problem:
I have a JPG image of a person and I want to change the color of their sweatshirt that
they are wearing from red to a light blue.
I use the Magic Wand to select the red sweat shirt area and copy and paste that
selection into a new layer. Just filling the selection with a color
On Thursday 22 April 2004 14:48, Trevor Nightingale wrote:
Problem:
I have a JPG image of a person and I want to change the color of their
sweatshirt that they are wearing from red to a light blue.
I use the Magic Wand to select the red sweat shirt area and copy and paste
that selection
Well, the right place to ask is [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- but a wild guess is that
it might help to run ldconfig, if you haven't done so.
Best,
-- Bill
__ __ __ __
Sent via the KillerWebMail system at primate.ucdavis.edu
Hi Trevor,
Trevor Nightingale wrote:
Question:
How do I change the color of the sweat shirt from red to blue while maintaining
texture and shading ?
Colormap rotation might be what you're looking for - it takes a
part of the hue circle and maps it onto another part of the hue
circle. In
On Thursday 22 April 2004 16:42, David Neary wrote:
Hi,
Sven Neumann wrote:
On PotatoShop (forced to used at gunpoint), there are no problems
editing this image or other large images.
Photoshop handles large images better than GIMP. That's a known fact
and it's not trivial to
Hi,
Sven Neumann wrote:
On PotatoShop (forced to used at gunpoint), there are no problems
editing this image or other large images.
Photoshop handles large images better than GIMP. That's a known fact
and it's not trivial to improve.
How, exactly? I've heard this too, but I have no clear
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2004-04-22 at 2142.26 +0200):
On PotatoShop (forced to used at gunpoint), there are no problems
editing this image or other large images.
Photoshop handles large images better than GIMP. That's a known fact
and it's not trivial to improve.
How, exactly? I've heard
Photoshop handles large images better than GIMP. That's a known fact
and it's not trivial to improve.
Ummm, well that known fact isn't completely true. In actual fact, Photoshop
will *not* handle many of the large images that we work with at all, whereas
the GIMP will do so with no problem.
Kevin Myers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Photoshop handles large images better than GIMP. That's a known fact
and it's not trivial to improve.
Ummm, well that known fact isn't completely true. In actual fact, Photoshop
will *not* handle many of the large images that we work with at all,
On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 07:11:21PM +0200, Sven Neumann wrote:
Photoshop handles large images better than GIMP. That's a known fact
and it's not trivial to improve.
it depends on what you count.
you can run TheGIMP on machines that you could not even dream of running
photoshop on.
i swear.
How huge is huge, Kevin?
Over the past two days, I have edited two TIFF images, 12500 x 7800
pixels, greyscale, using Photoshop 8. It was business as usual (meaning,
fast and stable as usual). Loading and saving took as long as I expected
for a file of this size (95MB).
Prompted by this
Kevin Myers wrote:
As mentioned in my previous message, Photoshop's limit is 32K maximum pixels
in either dimension. Your image did not exceed this limit in either
dimension. We typically work with images that are up to several hundred
thousand pixels in one dimension, by 2 or 3 thousand
Kevin Myers wrote:
As mentioned in my previous message, Photoshop's limit is 32K maximum
pixels
in either dimension. Your image did not exceed this limit in either
dimension. We typically work with images that are up to several hundred
thousand pixels in one dimension, by 2 or 3
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 11:23:32AM +1000, David Burren wrote:
Kevin Myers wrote:
Using Photoshop 7 on my wife's XP machine which is a 1.8GHz version
of my System A seems OK, but I haven't done a lot of work with it
as she keeps wanting to use it...
i am curious. do you think that if
Carol Spears wrote:
On Fri, Apr 23, 2004 at 11:23:32AM +1000, David Burren wrote:
Using Photoshop 7 on my wife's XP machine which is a 1.8GHz version
of my System A seems OK, but I haven't done a lot of work with it
as she keeps wanting to use it...
i am curious. do you think that if
Hi Kevin
Kevin Myers wrote:
As mentioned in my previous message, Photoshop's limit is 32K maximum pixels
in either dimension. Your image did not exceed this limit in either
dimension. We typically work with images that are up to several hundred
thousand pixels in one dimension, by 2 or 3
18 matches
Mail list logo
