Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Fujifilm

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 5, 2003, 6:05 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,162
Default

I think I started at the home level, but then went up a notch after using and liking the stand alone version, because as a Photoshop plug-in you can integrate noise reduction in the workflow with other fixes using Actions. As NeatImage can be pretty processor intensive and time consuming for high Mpix, I now find batch processing and a cup of tea a must have! VOX
voxmagna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2003, 2:03 AM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 29
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by voxmagna
As NeatImage can be pretty processor intensive and time consuming for high Mpix, I now find batch processing and a cup of tea a must have! VOX
Voxmagna: Have you noticed any differencies in prosessing speed between the stand alone and the plug-in version. Is the plug-in version slower than the stand alone as I would assume?
bassino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2003, 7:44 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,162
Default

Bassino, they feel and look about the same. However, since I've been using Actions a bit in PS, I have found an illusion effect. Edit moves seem much faster under Actions, but actually you probably normally waste a lot of time with mouse clicks and dropdown menu selection. So shortening the work cycle gives an impression of speed. Running NI as an Action gives you batch mode functionality with unsharpening and the other stuff - which is why I got the higher level version. I have to say though, that because of the time it takes with 6Mpix, I only use it seriously on higher ISO shots.

I'm using a 1.2Ghz Athlon with 512 Mb Ram under W98. I know there's enough resource to run the PS background task and NI. I close everything non critical. The thing about NI is it seems very resource hungry. When it came out, 2Mpix was a big file (don't forget NI is working on the equivalent uncompressed image size, and bit by bit in memory). Now with bigger Mpix it's looking a bit slow, in my case it's about 18Mbyte per image in memory. But, I think careful consideration of the PC it's CPU, memory type speed, bussing and OS (XP?) might make it go much faster. VOX
voxmagna is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:32 AM.