Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: High Resolution Scans  (Read 14738 times)
Dennis Vogel
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


« Reply #20 on: July 20, 2008, 04:19:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
No, not sloppy at all.  I've been using PSP6 for 11+ years, without a glitch, which is *much* better than I can say for other software users (read the posts here).  I don't try loading 500 mb scans, however.  BTW, I write software for a living, and have done pioneering work in PC software, and I believe PSP is an outstanding program.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209389\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm not questioning your work nor the quality of PSP.  I am a retired software developer and I'm simply trying to understand why PSP would need 10 gigs of swap for a 1/2 gig file.  If it isn't sloppy memory management it is certainly an unusual memory management scheme.  20x the memory is simply excessive, in my opinion.  Maybe someone can convince me that it isn't but so far I haven't heard any explanation--good or otherwise--for why so much memory is needed.

Dennis
Logged
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #21 on: July 21, 2008, 06:54:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm not questioning your work nor the quality of PSP.  I am a retired software developer and I'm simply trying to understand why PSP would need 10 gigs of swap for a 1/2 gig file.  If it isn't sloppy memory management it is certainly an unusual memory management scheme.  20x the memory is simply excessive, in my opinion.  Maybe someone can convince me that it isn't but so far I haven't heard any explanation--good or otherwise--for why so much memory is needed.
Dennis
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=209613\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No, as I said before, the "ratio" is only ~20 at very small image sizes.  To load a 500 mb image may require as little as 1 gb of "free" memory.  Exactly how much is required is unknown, and exactly how much is really "free" is also unknown.  My experience with Windows suggests that it uses as much RAM as it can for cache, and how that works with that mix I can't guess.  I have loaded scanned image files that are around 100 mb in size, but 500 mb is more than unusual IMO.  Tracking down the actual problem is not a simple matter of calculating ratios.
Logged
Plekto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 551


« Reply #22 on: July 21, 2008, 04:01:53 PM »
ReplyReply

I just suggested that number as I've seen 2-4 gigs not be enough in some cases for it to work well.   Since it's just using hard drive space as slow temporary memory, it's easy to set it to something large and forget about it until the project is over.
Logged
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #23 on: July 21, 2008, 06:46:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Hard drive swap space, sometimes referred to as Virtual Memory, may work OK for some tasks, but not others.  I've found it useless for rotations, since to rotate a 4000x3000 pixel image in a reasonable RAM space may take only a few seconds, but could take 15 minutes when swapped to disk.  Once a person gets good at image editing, they may be able to do 10 or more edits in 15 minutes, but with disk swapping, that could stretch to several hours.
Logged
Plekto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 551


« Reply #24 on: July 22, 2008, 07:54:33 PM »
ReplyReply

True - I did mention it was very slow...    

But versus not opening them at all... I suspect he really is just archiving the stuff.

Of course, if he's archiving the photos, perhaps a better piece of software would work better?  Something that might still be useable in say, 5-10 years?
Logged
Dennis Vogel
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


« Reply #25 on: July 23, 2008, 08:54:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Of course, if he's archiving the photos, perhaps a better piece of software would work better?  Something that might still be useable in say, 5-10 years?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210052\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, I'm archiving photos and slides.  Do you have any particular software in mind that might still be useable in 5-10 years?

Dennis
Logged
Plekto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 551


« Reply #26 on: July 24, 2008, 03:43:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, almost everything is being saved for long term storage as TIFFs.  But these are huge.  

6X7 Scan at 3000dpi  ~6721x5020  ~193 MB
But you'll not lose any data this way.  Dual-layer DVDs are thankfully fairly cheap now. Figure $2 for 45 or so 6X7s(and lots more of other formats, obviously).

I don't know what software to use for this, though, as I'm out of the loop on scanning film and archiving.
Logged
Dennis Vogel
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


« Reply #27 on: July 24, 2008, 04:59:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well, almost everything is being saved for long term storage as TIFFs.  But these are huge. 

6X7 Scan at 3000dpi  ~6721x5020  ~193 MB
But you'll not lose any data this way.  Dual-layer DVDs are thankfully fairly cheap now. Figure $2 for 45 or so 6X7s(and lots more of other formats, obviously).

I don't know what software to use for this, though, as I'm out of the loop on scanning film and archiving.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=210492\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
OK, now we're going in circles.  That's how I started this thread.  I scanned some photos as TIFFs but got files too large for PSP to open.  I thought you were talking about an application that would be around in 5 years not an image format.

Dennis
Logged
Plekto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 551


« Reply #28 on: July 24, 2008, 06:30:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Ah - sorry about that.  Then you need a different piece of software other than PSP.  I don't know what to recommend, though.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad