Imagine that its 1993 and you have a Quadra 960 with a whopping 256MB of RAM. In those days that was almost $50k.
In 1988 Apple RAM was $999 per mb.
How much was 4x5 Tri-X?
I ran an HTTP server as two 22mhz Macs using DNS load balancing. On thicknet, then running over X25 to the Minnesota Super Computer center. Oh wow. BFD.
And today I'm still using 50's cameras, drive a '58 VW Bug, ride a '71 Motobecane bicycle, print on a 40's enlarger ...... and a college student called me an Elitist!
I ran a Mac IIci with a 4-16 mb chips and 4-1 mb chips and for 1992 I was the fastest was the fastest kid on the block. Of course it cost more than a car at the time. Working on 75mb tabloid sized files allowed me to watch a lot of TV because filters and moves would take 5 to 20 minutes each.
Some of the old school Photoshop tricks still apply - work out your moves on a low-res file, save actions and take notes so you can repeat yourself on the high-res. Flatten files whenever you can, empty the cut and paste cycle, and hit "Purge" often. Adjustment layers and masks are great, but when memory counts - and you are confident - working the moves directly on the files saves a lot of memory and time.
I don't see the point of working on 1 gb files in the first place but to each his own. Maybe you could resurect a copy of "Live Picture" ;-) Have fun.
"Paulr - 800 meg edited or 800 meg before editing? "
800 megs with all the layers going ... 100 or 200 megs when i'm done. luckily it's only 4x5 black and white.
i'm not actually suggesting you limp along with a machine like mine ... just making fun of myself for working the way i do.
it's amazing that the little bugger can actually do it, though. and allow me to write emails and surf the web in the foreground.
if one of the grants i'm writing comes through, i might finally treat myself to a shiny, almost new computer.
JJ,
The point is that PS has always been a RAM hog. For me the GIMP works more efficiently.
I'm sorry if something that I said rubbed you the wrong way.
No Paul... this not a matter of "bourgeois"... this is a matter of using of available material if one can afford it....Would you use 35mm film and blow it it up if you know that LF format is out there for you to use...?
Mike--
Stay away from Windows. There is only one problem in the world for which Windows is the solution -- interchanging files with other Windows users. If that is not your problem, then Windows is not your solution.
I know this will sound like sacrilege, but have you considered a workflow that doesn't use layers? I work with files as big as 1.5 GB, and with them you just can't use layers. What you do instead is work only on the background layer, and save to disk after every major operation (I label my files *_v1, *_v2, etc.). Save all the files to DVD for archiving. If you change your mind about an operation, you can pull the file you saved before it and work from there. It's clean, simple, and it works.
I don't like doing it this way, but until micro$oft and apple get their 64 bit acts together, and Adobe follows suit and gets its large image act together (and gives up its own very flawed memory management game), that's all I've found that works when using very big files.
Clearly, YMMV.
Bruce Watson
Mike,
The last time I used the Gimp, it was slow as all getout with large files in both Windows & Linux setups. What kills it for me though, (aside from the mouse pointer being backwards from EVERY other software package) & maybe a new version has corrected this, is the lack of 16 bit files support. Without that, the Gimp as a true photographic tool is pretty much useless.
Can someone lay out a road map of where we are now, and what is the future game plan of the industry (as best known) as it relates to using large files in PS. I am on Windows XP, CS2, 5 gig RAM, dual AMD processors and just dread the large 8x10 scan.
What are the limits now?
What is the next breakthrough that will help us work with big files?
I beleive CS2 recognizes dual processors, but windows is bottlenecking the use of more RAM? But now we can see 2gig of RAM per processor, right? Any help would be appreciated.
As I understand it, and I'm no computer expert, there is a bus problem with the processor used in the G4 that slows things down. As I understand it, Motorola refused, or could not fix the bus speed, leading Apple to switch to the IBM processor for the G5.
At work we had both G4 Macs and 2-gig Pentium Windows machines. The Macs were dual processor, dual hard drive with whatever maximum RAM was at the time running whatever the then current version of OSX was. The Windows machines were noticably faster.
Then we got dual processor G5s, and those were noticably faster than the 2-gig Intel window machines.
Based on that experience, I would say you are making a mistake to judge the possible performance of the newer machines by your experience with the G4. If I were you, used to using Macs, I would look at the new Apples.
That said, in my experience, Photoshop is Photoshop - I don't seen any real difference in using the program on Macs or Windows.
And John, the price of Tri-X in 1988 was $44.57 for 100 sheets in 1988 - at least at Wolf Camera on 14th Street in Atlanta.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks