BLUEFROG
![]() |
Is it just my overwhelming love for this program
![]() Congrats again (and thanks for the gift - she's mine, all mine ![]() Cheers, Jim Neumann BLUEFROG |
|
Posted: March 6, 2007 4:15 pm | ||
Crapadilla
![]() |
Your personal timeframe just happens to be greatly accelerated because you are so much in love with FF. Hence the subjective speed gains.
![]() ![]() --- Crapadilla says: "Damn you, stupid redundant feature requests!" ;) |
|
Posted: March 6, 2007 6:14 pm | ||
plugsnpixels
![]()
Posts: 53 |
I'm using the release version of FF on a MacBook (1.8, 2 gigs RAM). I just learned that JPEGs render much quicker than TIFFs! This is usually obvious, but in this case (using a 4mp digital camera image, less than 2 megs), the TIFF output took maybe an hour. The JPEG only a minute or so.
The resulting TIFF was twice as large as the JPEG (5.6 vs. 11.1 megs), but this alone can't account for the speed difference. I continue to experiment! Digital imaging blog & software discounts
http://www.plugsandpixels.com/blog |
|
Posted: March 7, 2007 9:55 pm | ||
Vladimir Golovin
Administrator |
Maybe this is caused by the fact that Filter Forge reuses rendered preview blocks. For example, if you have the entire preview area rendered, the saving/applying will be instant.
|
|
Posted: March 9, 2007 7:18 am |
Filter Forge has a thriving, vibrant, knowledgeable user community. Feel free to join us and have fun!
33,712 Registered Users
+18 new in 30 days!
153,537 Posts
+6 new in 7 days!
15,348 Topics
+72 new in year!
18 unregistered users.