--- gimp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, pixel fairy wrote: > > Hmm, you can adjust contrast, colour curves and > levels in more or less > realtime? Can you tell me what hardware you have? celeron with ati rage fury (32MB), only for its support of hardware gamma. my ancient PCI mellenium (not melleium II) with 8 megs ran faster in 1600x1200 than this thing does at 1280x1024. 640 megs / big cheap IDE drive, which i have not tweaked with hdparm yet, but your better off putting your gimp swap (and photoshop swap) on a fast scsi drive anyway. at 4k x 3k for most things you do see the line comming down. its slow for hue/sat/lightness adjustments, and fastest for curves. i may try this on windows, but i think some of the others on this list have already beaten that horse enough. > Also how do you get > 32bpp images into gimp in the first place? 32bpp is not the 10 bits per color channel that your talking about, its RGBA (8bits per channel, A is for alpha, which for gimp is opacity) of course, i now realize that this was usually only RGB. > It was set to 8, or 10, or 15, I've tried them all, > 8 seemed to be faster > as that stopped Gimp having to swap to VM or push > other apps out to disc. 8,10,15? where do you get these numbers? your tile cache should be alot more than that. > Cheers for that, I'll try it, I'm running XFree4 at > the moment. It seems > to get the DPI-rating right for my monitor which is > a good start. i was half joking (even though i use this method myself), its not a good idea to screw up your calibration unless you can get it back easily. > I am seriously considering this, one of the reasons > I'm still using a PPro > 200 with 64 megs is because it's fine for my usual > linux needs, I don't > want to upgrade it for photo work until I know > whether I want to use linux > or whether I jump to using a Mac with all the > benefits that brings (on the > photo editing side). go with the mac. from what ive gathered linux runs fine on most macs and theres always mac on linux, which probably runs photoshop, meaning you can easily have both. if you try this, please tell me (and/or the group) how it works. 64megs is a small amount of ram for images that heavy. im surprised your getting decent performance from photoshop. ive found that as images get bigger, there are things that photoshop does faster, but then as they get really big (with respect to available resources) the gimp will be able to deal with images photoshop cant. but this is a moot point with you, since you like having the extra head room (color depth) while tweaking/fixing etc. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com
