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]

Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows



Hi Dana,
            I never bother to compress TIFF's, apparently there is not much
space saving anyway and I believe the less an image is mucked about with the
better, even if people say that LZW compression is lossless.

Geoff


----- Original Message -----
From: "Dana Trout" <dana@troutcom.com>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 5:49 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows


> I find that little of the time spent is due to the disk drive, which is
> the reason for my comment that a 7200 rpm drive, even though it is 33%
> faster than a 5400 rpm drive, will not necessarily reduce load times by
> a like percentage.
>
> As for my times being slow, you're right: I was quoting the performace
> of my "junker" computer which is used only for scanning -- it's a 466
> Celeron with 512MB RAM but Intel's woefully undersized L2 cache.
> However, the times you quote make me wonder if you are loading
> LZW-compressed TIFFs. If so, it is *definitely* time for me to upgrade
> the scanner computer!
>
> Thanks for your comments,
>   --Dana
> ----------
> From: geoff murray <geoffmurray@primus.com.au>
> To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
> Date: Saturday, July 28, 2001 6:15 AM
>
> Hi Dana,
>             Gee your times seem very slow. I tried loading a 56mb file
> from
> my scratch disk and it took 3.6 seconds. A 169mb file took 17 seconds.
> This
> on a Win 98SE machine with a 1Ghz Athlon and 512mb of PC133 ram and two
> 7200rpm hard drives. Scratch partition is not on the hard drive which
> has
> PS6. 7200 rpm drives made a significant difference to overall speed.
>
> Geoff Murray
> www.geoffmurray.com
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dana Trout" <dana@troutcom.com>
> To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
> Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 7:40 AM
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
>
>
> > A 25% faster drive won't necessarily get you 25% faster load/store
> > times. PhotoShop seems to be inordinately slow in dealing with
> > compressed TIFFs -- I got curious so I set up a cache large enough to
> > hold the whole file (53MB). The first time I loaded it into PhotoShop
> > it took 61 seconds (reading from the disk). I then closed the file
> and
> > reloaded it into PhotoShop (this time from the cache -- the disk
> light
> > never even blinked) and it took 55 seconds. And I'm reasonably sure
> > that a RAM cache is *much* faster than a 7200 rpm drive!
> >
> > BTW, Ed's VueScan takes less than 30 seconds to read the same file.
> >   --Dana
> > ----------
> > From: Rob Geraghty <harper@wordweb.com>
> > To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> > Subject: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits
> in
> > Windows
> > Date: Friday, July 27, 2001 12:22 AM
> >
> > < snip >
> >
> > On the other hand I'm reasonably sure the main
> > bottleneck in my PC when dealing with large scans is the 5400RPM IDE
> > drive.
> >  A 7200RPM drive would speed up loading and saving files by at least
> > 25%.
> >  Two 7200rpm drives in a RAID array should be significantly better
> > still.
> >  Loading and saving files is the no.1 timewaster for me when working
> > with
> > film scans on my PC.
> >
> > Rob
> >
> >
> > Rob Geraghty harper@wordweb.com
> > http://wordweb.com
> >
> >
> >
>




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.