Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus Micro Four Thirds

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 28, 2014, 11:45 AM   #11
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

I dunno... Corel has been saying they're working on a new version (2.0) of AfterShot Pro for a while now. But, they're sure taking their time about it, and users don't like it. They've got a facebook page about it here with a post from March 12 about them still working on Version 2 on the left side of the page:

https://www.facebook.com/CorelAfterShotPro
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 28, 2014, 3:28 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
chiPersei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 931
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimC View Post

...one new card you may want to look at is the GTX 750 Ti (or lower priced GT 750).

Those are bus powered cards that will run from a PCIe slot without any extra power connections needed, and they're dramatically faster than the older card models using a Kepler Architecture with OpenCL (the GTX 750 and 750 Ti are the first cards in the Nvidia lineup using a newer Maxwell based Architecture, with far better performance/watt compared to competing models, with a huge improvement in performance with OpenCL, where Nivida cards have typically lagged behind AMD).

The 750 Ti uses less power, runs quiet, and has much improved OpenCL performance over older card models like the 650 Ti (which would not run from PCIe Slot Power, since it needs a separate connection from the PSU).
I'm a little bummed out. I installed a GXT 660 Ti not knowing about the coming Maxwell architecture. I don't need a PCIe powered card because I'm not using much of my PSUs 750 watts at this point but could always use the additional speed.
chiPersei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 28, 2014, 9:19 PM   #13
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Well.. the GTX 660 Ti is a much higher end card compared to the GTX 750 TI, and would "run circles" around a card like the GTX 750 Ti for most purposes. IOW, a gamer is going to want a card like your GTX 660 Ti.

The main place I'm seeing increased performance with the GTX 750 Ti is some (but not all) of the OpenCL benchmarks. For example, note some of the results on this page:

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/17...hreat-to-amd/3

But, a lot depends on what a specific application is doing, too. Without testing a specific app doing a specific function that's making use of OpenCL, it would be hard to tell what to expect when comparing a card like a GTX 660 Ti with a lower end GTX 750 Ti.

With most OpenCL accelerated features in Photoshop, it really doesn't make a lot of difference how fast your card is once you get up to around a GTX 650 (much slower card compared to your GTX 660 Ti); as you'll see rapidly dimensioning returns. IOW, you may buy a card that's two or three times as fast and only see a very tiny improvement in processing speed. See some of the tests of GPU Accelerated features in CS6 here for an example of that (rapidly dimensioning returns with faster cards):

http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/art...eleration-161/

The new Photoshop CC Smart Sharpen filter is an exception, as it seems to leverage the GPU a lot more than the other GPU Accelerated Features in Photoshop. But, just because a GTX 750 Ti is a lot faster than a GTX 650 Ti, doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be a lot faster than a GTX 660 Ti; as there's a big difference in the processing power those two cards have. You'd need to benchmark both cards with the same filters to find out.

Also, drivers can make a big difference. IOW, AMD has put more effort into OpenCL optimizations with their drivers compared to Nvidia so far with their Consumer Cards (for the Windows platform anyway).

But, that doesn't mean that Nvidia won't come out with new drivers that focus more on OpenCL performance used by mainstream image editing apps as time passes.

Now, I've a seen some posts from a user that upgraded to a faster card with DxO Optics Pro that made a big difference, where they posted before and after benchmarks for batch conversion of some raw files; so DxO Optics Pro does appear to leverage a GPU more than most of Adobe Photoshop's filters do with some system configs. The problem is that it's tough to find many benchmarks comparing different card models using it so you'd know if upgrading a specific card is worth it or not.

So far, the new Maxwell architecture does look very appealing, given some of the OpenCL benchmarks I've seen so far though; and even if you take OpenCL out of the equation, the GTX 750 Ti is still going to be the fastest PCIe bus powered card on the market for other uses like gaming.

Of course, if you have a higher wattage PSU, then AMD cards can be very attractive, depending on the exact application being used, as they've typically tested much faster than Nvidia cards on most OpenCL benchmarks for a given card price.

But, for a card that runs from PCIe Bus Power, I think the GTX 750 Ti and less expensive GTX 750 are going to be a huge hit; as most off-the-shelf computers come with PSUs that won't handle a card drawing more power than those unless you move into one of the "Performance" category desktops available form Dell, HP, etc. with a bit more power available from their PSUs.

That's probably why Nvidia released the GTX 750 and 750 Ti models first to demonstrate the new Maxwell architecture, as they should be big hits for users of typical desktop models from Dell, HP, Lenovo etc. using 300 or 350 Watt PSUs that want to upgrade to a faster card; as they have much better performance per watt compared to other available cards that would run from a lower wattage PSUs like most lower priced consumers desktops ship with anymore.

They also announced some new Mobile Chipsets using Maxwell. That's another area Nvidia should shine in with the new design, as that would give consumers a more powerful graphics chipset in a laptop with more acceptable battery life.

But, for now, the choices using Maxwell are very limited (only the GT 750 and 750 Ti so far in the desktop lineup). We'll have to wait to see what other cards Nvidia ends up releasing over time using Maxwell.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 2014, 10:56 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
chiPersei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 931
Default

Wow! I'm glad someone is keeping this all straight. Remember when the higher the number the better? Intel 386 was better than 286 and 486 was better than 386? Those were simpler times. Nowadays the GTX 660 just might be better than the 750. The E-M1 is a higher-end camera than the E-M5. What comes next; the E-M0.5??? Not sure what marketing is doing but it's not helpful.

I just wanted a decent card for photo editing and and graphics work and didn't care to spend multi-thousands for the recommended workstation cards. I'm pretty happy with the i7 coupled with a 660 Ti at this point. I like to play with the Persistence of Vision ray tracer and Terragen 3. What used to take hours to render is done in 15 minutes. So too with Fractals. I'm glad the days of waiting till bedtime to initiate a rendering are over.
chiPersei is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2014, 10:46 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

Well, what it looks like is happening is, DXO is actually using more of the E-M1 pixels than even Olympus. In using Olympus Viewer 3, I thought logically, in order to use the distortion correction in the raw converter option to create images like the in-camera jpegs, one had to check the "Activate" box to turn it on, but it turns out you just check the circular "Auto" option for the program to apply distortion corrections similar to those applied in-camera, so Adobe is, in fact, following the correction protocals of Olympus. It's DXO that's not and their program creates jpegs that are wider than both the ACR-created jpeg's and the E-M1 in-camera jpeg.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2014, 12:20 PM   #16
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

From threads I found on the subject earlier, the camera already takes distortion correction, etc. under consideration.

So, when framing for taking photos, you should see the same thing in the EVF or LCD that you get with either the camera produced JPEG files, or the output you see when using products like ACR or Lightroom (or Olympus products) for RAW conversion.

When using DxO Optics Pro for raw conversion, you just see more pixels than you'd see in the EVF or LCD when framing for a shot (or from the camera produced JPEG files, images converted using Adobe Products, etc.)
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2014, 12:49 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

I did some shooting around yesterday, taking closer note of where exactly the borders were on both sides of the image when shooting at 12mm using the 12-40 M. Zuiko. Sure enough, files coming out of DXO were including "extra" room on both sides, where the ACR versions looked exactly like the in-camera jpegs and what was coming out of Olympus Viewer 3, so if anything, DXO is giving one something more like 11.5mm, or some other value, wider than 12mm.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2014, 9:34 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: oakville, on
Posts: 491
Default

Is the DXO software taking full advantage of the edge pixels that Oly does not -- 16.8 million total pixels versus the effective 16.3 million pixels? oh wait, I see that you have already deduced this. Never mind.

Last edited by KulaCube; Mar 31, 2014 at 9:37 PM. Reason: did not make full use of the page scroll. d'oh
KulaCube is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2014, 12:12 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,483
Default

Still pondering whether it's actually a "good" thing. One aspect of what DXO is doing....it renders the electronic viewfinder as showing less than 100% of the actual image captured. It's probably still at least 96-98% but you definitely see "stuff" infringing from the sides you do not see when framing the subject at the time of capture. I could see that as being a bit annoying at times.
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2014, 3:12 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
chiPersei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 931
Default

Having the extra pixels can be handy. I recall times when cropping an image I could have used the extra room to better place a subject. Not to mention my Mom would love it. She's always cutting the tops off people's heads. :-)
chiPersei 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 5:39 PM.