Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] RE: PS & JPEG2000



> From: Henk de Jong
>
> That depends on the system and its overall speed.
> I do not use PS, only PSP in combination with ViewScan. Therefore I am not
> able to do a compare.

I think an absolute measurement could still be useful, e.g., how many
seconds does it take to load or save a file of so many megapixels and so
many megabytes, and what clock rate does your machine run at? That's enough
to get a crude estimate of comparable speed. Obviously, it's not a really
accurate comparison, but when it comes to writing JPEG2000, there is a 10:1
speed difference between the Adobe and LuraWave plugins. I'm just wondering
if PSP's implementation is reasonably quick, like LuraWave, or a real dog
like Adobe. A quick test on one large sample image would be sufficient.

I did my test with 10:1 lossy compression, on a 5 megapixel 16bpc image
(that is, converting a 30MB TIFF down to a 3MB JP2), running on a 1.7GHz
Pentium 4, and got 11 seconds for LuraWave, and 2 minutes for Adobe. How
does PSP stack up to that?

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@ix.netcom.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.