YOUR ACCOUNT

Login or Register to post new topics or replies
BLUEFROG

Posts: 89
Filters: 6
Is it just my overwhelming love for this program smile;) or is the final release (1.007) faster than the beta? I'm not saying twice as fast but it seems like the whole program has more pep.

Congrats again (and thanks for the gift - she's mine, all mine smile:D )

Cheers,
Jim Neumann
BLUEFROG
  Details E-Mail
Crapadilla
lvl 52 Filter Weaver and Official "Filter Forge Seer"

Posts: 4365
Filters: 65
Your personal timeframe just happens to be greatly accelerated because you are so much in love with FF. Hence the subjective speed gains. smile;) smile:D
--- Crapadilla says: "Damn you, stupid redundant feature requests!" ;)
  Details E-Mail
plugsnpixels
Plugs 'N Pixels

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
  Details E-Mail
Vladimir Golovin
Administrator
Posts: 3446
Filters: 55
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.
  Details E-Mail

Join Our Community!

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!

Create an Account

Online Users Last minute:

18 unregistered users.