Faster and better pictures in PS CS4

[Focus]

Depending on your graphics card, your pictures in PS can be much faster and
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!

[pupick]

The way CS4 taps the GPU is underwhelming at best.

[nospam]

Post by pupick
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.

[k]

"nospam" <***@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:100420092159575586%***@nospam.invalid...
| In article <xFQDl.28873$***@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com>, pupick
| <***@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.


is it 3D rendering?

[Savageduck]

Post by k
|
| > 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

[nospam]

Post by Savageduck

Post by k
| > 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]

Post by nospam

Post by Savageduck

Post by k
| > 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.

No. These do: http://tv.adobe.com/#se+Pixel%20bender

[k]

"Savageduck" <***@savage.net> wrote in message news:2009041310402443658-***@savagenet...
| On 2009-04-13 09:38:26 -0700, "k" <***@PING.com> said:
|
| >
| > "nospam" <***@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
| > news:100420092159575586%***@nospam.invalid...
| > | In article <xFQDl.28873$***@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com>, pupick
| > | <***@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.
| >
| >
| > is it 3D rendering?
|
| 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.

[Savageduck]

Post by k
|
| >
| > |
| > | > 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
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
GT.

[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]

Post by k
but then again, how many folks are running real 2D cards like Matrox's
anymore?

Me, for one. A Matrox APVe.

[k]

"Bob Larter" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:49e807c9$***@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 :)

[Savageduck]

Post by 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.

Here is the CS4 Prefs window for Mac showing OpenGL Enabled; Advanced
Settings window open;
Loading Image...

Post by k
The powerbook uses a current MAc OS?

Current OS Mac OS X 10.5.6

Post by k
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

Post by k
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;
Loading Image...

Post by k
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.

Post by k
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.

[Bob Larter]

[...]

Post by Savageduck

Post by k
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]

Post by Bob Larter

Post by Savageduck
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]

Post by Bob Larter

Post by Savageduck
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.

[Bob Larter]

Post by k
|
| >
| > |
| > | > 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
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.

Any zoom factor, integer or otherwise, uses interpolation. It's just
that simple interpolation looks a lot better at integer zoom factors.

[Trev]

Post by Focus
Depending on your graphics card, your pictures in PS can be much faster
and better looking, for example in 33% it looks pretty bad, but in 50 it's
OK.
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

If the zoom is a Multiple of the image size the it will always look better
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