Faster and better pictures in PS CS4
Focus
better looking, for example in 33% it looks pretty bad, but in 50 it's OK.
Go to:
Edit -> Prefs -> Performance
Click the box under GPU.
Restart.
If it's all OK you should now see in and out zooming in real time and all
levels sharp.
If it doesn't, get a better graphics card: it's worth it!
--
---
Focus
pupick
nospam
<fac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The way CS4 taps the GPU is underwhelming at best.
it's actually quite impressive. apparently you aren't aware of what it
can do.
Trev
"Focus" <do...@mail.me> wrote in message
news:bIGdnQnlbrd3UELU...@novis.pt...
then one that is not. If you have 4 pixel square and zoom to make it 16 its
going to look better then splitting them to get a 12 Pixel sq. Same works in
reverse.
Paint shop Pro used to have fixed step's of zoom but folks wanted it to be
like PS because That more expensive prog must be right to interpolarate
everything
k
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:100420092159575586%nos...@nospam.invalid...
is it 3D rendering?
Savageduck
nospam
<savag...@savage.net> wrote:
> > | > The way CS4 taps the GPU is underwhelming at best.
> > |
> > | it's actually quite impressive. apparently you aren't aware of what it
> > | can do.
> >
> > is it 3D rendering?
>
> Here take a look at this: http://tv.adobe.com/#vi+f15629v1001
that doesn't mention pixel bender which is where the real fun is.
Savageduck
k
"Savageduck" <savag...@savage.net> wrote in message
news:2009041310402443658-savageduck@savagenet...
thanks, yes - 3D rendering.
not impressed.
Interpolating images for viewing *while I'm editing* is the silliest idea
ever. and moves the software along with the modern video cards further away
from being graphics editing cards than ever before
There's a reason image editing programs other than Adobe zoomed by factors,
it was to avoid interpolating.
Savageduck
There are somethings I like about CS4 and some I have to still get
familiar with. I am using the Standard version,
I don't need or use the 3D or video stuff.
Overall It works pretty well for me. I am using it on a PowerBook Pro
17 2.93G with the dual switchable option NVIDIA GeForce 9400M and 9600M
GT.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
k
"Savageduck"
| > | Here take a look at this: http://tv.adobe.com/#vi+f15629v1001
| >
| >
| > thanks, yes - 3D rendering.
| >
| >
| > not impressed.
| >
| >
| > Interpolating images for viewing *while I'm editing* is the silliest
idea
| > ever. and moves the software along with the modern video cards further
away
| > from being graphics editing cards than ever before
| >
| >
| > There's a reason image editing programs other than Adobe zoomed by
factors,
| > it was to avoid interpolating.
|
| There are somethings I like about CS4 and some I have to still get
| familiar with. I am using the Standard version,
| I don't need or use the 3D or video stuff.
|
| Overall It works pretty well for me. I am using it on a PowerBook Pro
| 17 2.93G with the dual switchable option NVIDIA GeForce 9400M and 9600M
it sounds like something you can't avoid, unless you manually zoom by a
factor of 4, everything else is interpolated - as to whether the
interpolation extends further than this I don't know. Can it be turned
f? - the whole using the GPU aspect that is.
The powerbook uses a current MAc OS? Something i've been keen to find out
but have not yet got a definative answer on is, can the Quartz engine be
turned off? that too uses 3D rendering to render 2D, again hiding image
faults like jaggies, banding, moire and the like..
For a 2D imaging program the last thing I'd want is the OS or the graphics
program trying to make my inages look better than they are. I would need to
see every fault, every glaw so I could fix them..
A scenario: I had some serious banding and moire issues in an image sent to
me which the creator assured me was perfect. he was not seeing the moire or
banding in his browser or in any other program he used on his mac. Didnt
matter how bad the pic was, he was sure the fault lay at my end..
not a problem I figure, if he wants to tell the rest of the world his image
is fine when it's clearly not, good luck to him. I just felt it a shame he
was blindly adopting 'pro' tools without being logical or critical in his
choice.
Personally I think MS, Apple and Adobe have abandoned those striving for
image quality and instead trying to make everything they handle look better
to the user in the hope they'll enjoy the *experience* more
..kinda like, make it easy for everyone to get rooly good images then
they'll buy our software..
but then again, how many folks are running real 2D cards like Matrox's
anymore?
Bob Larter
Any zoom factor, integer or otherwise, uses interpolation. It's just
that simple interpolation looks a lot better at integer zoom factors.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Larter
> but then again, how many folks are running real 2D cards like Matrox's
> anymore?
Me, for one. A Matrox APVe.
Savageduck
>
> "Savageduck"
>
>
> | > | Here take a look at this: http://tv.adobe.com/#vi+f15629v1001
> | >
> | >
> | > thanks, yes - 3D rendering.
> | >
> | >
> | > not impressed.
> | >
> | >
> | > Interpolating images for viewing *while I'm editing* is the silliest
> idea
> | > ever. and moves the software along with the modern video cards further
> away
> | > from being graphics editing cards than ever before
> | >
> | >
> | > There's a reason image editing programs other than Adobe zoomed by
> factors,
> | > it was to avoid interpolating.
> |
> | There are somethings I like about CS4 and some I have to still get
> | familiar with. I am using the Standard version,
> | I don't need or use the 3D or video stuff.
> |
> | Overall It works pretty well for me. I am using it on a PowerBook Pro
> | 17 2.93G with the dual switchable option NVIDIA GeForce 9400M and 9600M
>
>
> it sounds like something you can't avoid, unless you manually zoom by a
> factor of 4, everything else is interpolated - as to whether the
> interpolation extends further than this I don't know. Can it be turned
> f? - the whole using the GPU aspect that is.
Here is the CS4 Prefs window for Mac showing OpenGL Enabled; Advanced
Settings window open;
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/CS4-Prefs_01.jpg
>
>
> The powerbook uses a current MAc OS?
Current OS Mac OS X 10.5.6
> Something i've been keen to find out
> but have not yet got a definative answer on is, can the Quartz engine be
> turned off? that too uses 3D rendering to render 2D, again hiding image
> faults like jaggies, banding, moire and the like..
The Quartz engine appears to be derigeur. All adjustments are made via
ColorSync Utility
>
> For a 2D imaging program the last thing I'd want is the OS or the graphics
> program trying to make my inages look better than they are. I would need to
> see every fault, every glaw so I could fix them..
Currently GeForce 9600M GT is active;
http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/System-Info_02.jpg
>
> A scenario: I had some serious banding and moire issues in an image sent to
> me which the creator assured me was perfect. he was not seeing the moire or
> banding in his browser or in any other program he used on his mac. Didnt
> matter how bad the pic was, he was sure the fault lay at my end..
I cannot speak for the creator of the image you had to deal with, but I
have been able to detect moire on this and older G4 Macs I have.
>
> not a problem I figure, if he wants to tell the rest of the world his image
> is fine when it's clearly not, good luck to him. I just felt it a shame he
> was blindly adopting 'pro' tools without being logical or critical in his
> choice.
>
> Personally I think MS, Apple and Adobe have abandoned those striving for
> image quality and instead trying to make everything they handle look better
> to the user in the hope they'll enjoy the *experience* more
>
> ..kinda like, make it easy for everyone to get rooly good images then
> they'll buy our software..
>
>
>
> but then again, how many folks are running real 2D cards like Matrox's
> anymore?
My needs are probably less demanding as I certainly don't use my
photography or printing at anything that could be described as a
professional level. Regardless it is all very interesting and
informative.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Bob Larter
> On 2009-04-16 21:15:12 -0700, "k" <fell...@PING.com> said:
>> For a 2D imaging program the last thing I'd want is the OS or the
>> graphics
>> program trying to make my inages look better than they are. I would
>> need to
>> see every fault, every glaw so I could fix them..
>
> Currently GeForce 9600M GT is active;
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/System-Info_02.jpg
The PC version of PS (CS3) has a similar dialog, but with fewer options.
PS: And a big "Hello" to Lynne Lyons, AKA "Goofy",
who's watching this from Google ALerts!
nospam
<bobby...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Currently GeForce 9600M GT is active;
> > http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/System-Info_02.jpg
>
> The PC version of PS (CS3) has a similar dialog, but with fewer options.
cs3 only used the gpu for 3d acceleration. cs4 uses the gpu for quite
a bit more, including pixel bender which few people seem to know
exists.
nospam
> > Currently GeForce 9600M GT is active;
> > http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/System-Info_02.jpg
>
> The PC version of PS (CS3) has a similar dialog, but with fewer options.
cs3 only used the gpu for 3d acceleration. cs4 uses the gpu for quite
k
"Bob Larter" <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:49e807c9$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
| k wrote:
| > but then again, how many folks are running real 2D cards like Matrox's
| > anymore?
|
| Me, for one. A Matrox APVe.
:)
got the parhelia and G450 duals myself :)