rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* White House using stitched photos? - 7 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ad87701241b66ca4?hl=en
* photo organising SW - 15 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/bef72d4e7bd83942?hl=en
* High pixel density ruining P&S higher ISO capability - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/bce51e1bd41d9c7b?hl=en
* France - Belgium May 2009 Travel Pictures Country next to Country - 1
messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c32099aae6ba9cab?hl=en
* Canon's tips for semi-pros - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/83dd5dc1e72232a9?hl=en
* Is my monitor not coping with the number of pixels in my shots - 1 messages,
1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/60f3dd9082d09c83?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: White House using stitched photos?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ad87701241b66ca4?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Apr 30 2009 11:59 pm
From: Twibil
On Apr 30, 10:58 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > And poorly done at that. Is this change we can believe in?
>
> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3484868454
>
> Perhaps, but it sure is change we are paying for.......
Can you name one government, any time, anywhere, that has operated
without cost?
Taxes have been a reality of life ever since Og figured out that since
he was the biggest guy in the cave community he could collect a
healthy percentage of his neighbor's property by simply threatening to
crush the skull of anyone who objected.
The main difference between then and now is that we get F-22s -and
some other stuff- for our money instead of watching Og take our
property *and* our women with no recompense whatsoever
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, May 1 2009 12:15 am
From: Twibil
On Apr 30, 10:11 pm, "Paul Bartram" <paul.bartram AT OR NEAR
lizzy.com.au> wrote:
>
> Actually, I haven't yet found a view that includes a putting green - they
> all just show one neatly-mown lawn, although the WH has had a putting green
> since the Johnson days.
Google Earth shows one clearly, and located right where the picture
was taken too. However, it also shows a tree bordering/overhanging the
golf green that is apparently no longer there.
This should be no great surprise, as the Google Earth pics of *my*
house were apparently taken clear back in 2006 and there's no reasion
to suspect that the White House pics were taken any more recently.
~Pete
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, May 1 2009 12:28 am
From: Twibil
On Apr 30, 10:57 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1{REMOVESP...@me.com>
wrote:
>
> Google Earth shows it as 2009 imagery, but who knows?
I do. And 2009 is the copyright date. But if you look down about
halfway to the right on the lower edge of the Google Earth screen you
will find the photo's titular date: 2002.
This is not surprising, as a lot of Google Earth's shots are several
years out of date (the pic featuring my house is dated 2003) and there
may well be security reasons for not keeping everything right up to
date on the White House photos anyway.
Matter of fact, I'd be a little surprised if a few of the White
House's less-publicised security features have not been either erased
or carefully distorted to mislead potential troublemakers.
~Pete
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, May 1 2009 12:34 am
From: tnom@mucks.net
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:58:52 -0700 (PDT), Annika1980
<annika1980@aol.com> wrote:
>This pic from the official White House photographer is obviously
>stitched.
>And poorly done at that. Is this change we can believe in?
>
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3484868454
And if you look long enough you'll also see a UFO and Damien staring
out the window.
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, May 1 2009 12:41 am
From: "Paul Bartram"
> "Twibil" <nowayjose6@gmail.com> wrote
> Google Earth shows one clearly, and located right where the picture
was taken too. However, it also shows a tree bordering/overhanging the
golf green that is apparently no longer there.
Ah, now I see it. (I didn't use GE at first, it takes forever to load on
dialup!) The green is further away from the building than I thought, the
picture we're talking about makes it look a lot closer.
Paul
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, May 1 2009 1:57 am
From: Bob Larter
Paul Bartram wrote:
> "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote
>
>> Look at it closely, it's obviously the shadow of a branch.
>
> Can't see a tree there on any aerial views of the White house I've found so
> far. More likely it is the shadow of a Secret Service guy *disguised* as a
> tree!
Of course! *cough*
> Actually, I haven't yet found a view that includes a putting green - they
> all just show one neatly-mown lawn, although the WH has had a putting green
> since the Johnson days. Maybe they didn't maintain it as one until Obama
> took over? Unlikely they ever let Bush loose with a dangerous weapon like a
> golf club...
Indeed.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, May 1 2009 3:35 am
From: Bob Larter
tnom@mucks.net wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:58:52 -0700 (PDT), Annika1980
> <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> This pic from the official White House photographer is obviously
>> stitched.
>> And poorly done at that. Is this change we can believe in?
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/3484868454
>
> And if you look long enough you'll also see a UFO and Damien staring
> out the window.
Well, I'm sure that Brett can see them. ;^)
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
==============================================================================
TOPIC: photo organising SW
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/bef72d4e7bd83942?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, May 1 2009 12:16 am
From: nospam
In article <EG5nHfXIyh+JFAPk@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H
<chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
> Does anyone have any recommendations for SW to organise photos. This is
> for a MAC
>
> I have looked at iPhoto but that is not what I want as it imports all of
> the photos. I am looking for something that will not move all the
> pictures out of the directories they are in.
>
> Looking to add multiple keywords. Maybe some text etc. Does not have
> to be free but not looking to spend 100's
adobe lightroom or apple aperture. both have free 30 day trials.
== 2 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, May 1 2009 12:17 am
From: nospam
In article <75uusgF19e51sU8@mid.individual.net>, ray <ray@zianet.com>
wrote:
> > Looking to add multiple keywords. Maybe some text etc. Does not have
> > to be free but not looking to spend 100's
>
> Suggest you make use of your hierarchical directory structure. A
> directory for photos, subdirectories for years - subdir inside that for
> months - subdir inside that for days or shoots or whatever. No software
> involved and it's all nicely organized.
that is about the worst possible way to organize photos, beyond just a
few of them. it also doesn't do what he asked.
== 3 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, May 1 2009 12:19 am
From: nospam
In article <U7SdnbvSlLUT1mfUnZ2dnUVZ_gpi4p2d@giganews.com>, Ron Hunter
<rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
> Are you sure that iPhoto moves things around? Most such software just
> stores a list of paths, and leaves the images in their original directories.
> Photoshop Elements has an organizer, and I know it doesn't move them
> around, but rather uses a catalog.
it's a user preference whether iphoto copies the photos and manages
them, or if it leaves them where they are and tracks them by reference.
== 4 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, May 1 2009 12:48 am
From: "David J Taylor"
nospam wrote:
> In article <75uusgF19e51sU8@mid.individual.net>, ray
> wrote:
>> Suggest you make use of your hierarchical directory structure. A
>> directory for photos, subdirectories for years - subdir inside that
>> for months - subdir inside that for days or shoots or whatever. No
>> software involved and it's all nicely organized.
>
> that is about the worst possible way to organize photos, beyond just a
> few of them. it also doesn't do what he asked.
That's the way I've been using for ten years, and it suits /my/ needs very
well. About 38,000 images so far.
David
== 5 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, May 1 2009 1:16 am
From: nospam
In article <KPxKl.22257$OO7.7906@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid>
wrote:
> >> Suggest you make use of your hierarchical directory structure. A
> >> directory for photos, subdirectories for years - subdir inside that
> >> for months - subdir inside that for days or shoots or whatever. No
> >> software involved and it's all nicely organized.
> >
> > that is about the worst possible way to organize photos, beyond just a
> > few of them. it also doesn't do what he asked.
>
> That's the way I've been using for ten years, and it suits /my/ needs very
> well. About 38,000 images so far.
how can you keep track of them all?
i can't imagine not being able to pull up pics based on keywords,
location where it was taken or some attribute in the exif data, such as
a particular lens.
also, the latest iphoto can do face recognition, where if you tag a few
pics of a person with their name, it can then find every other photo of
that person.
== 6 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, May 1 2009 1:14 am
From: Chris H
In message <010520090017231000%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> writes
>In article <75uusgF19e51sU8@mid.individual.net>, ray <ray@zianet.com>
>wrote:
>
>> > Looking to add multiple keywords. Maybe some text etc. Does not have
>> > to be free but not looking to spend 100's
>>
>> Suggest you make use of your hierarchical directory structure. A
>> directory for photos, subdirectories for years - subdir inside that for
>> months - subdir inside that for days or shoots or whatever. No software
>> involved and it's all nicely organized.
>
>that is about the worst possible way to organize photos, beyond just a
>few of them. it also doesn't do what he asked.
Exactly. I use that method now but it is difficult to add keywords.
Especially when things fall into more than one category
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 7 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, May 1 2009 1:13 am
From: Chris H
In message <010520090019519925%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> writes
>In article <U7SdnbvSlLUT1mfUnZ2dnUVZ_gpi4p2d@giganews.com>, Ron Hunter
><rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> Are you sure that iPhoto moves things around? Most such software just
>> stores a list of paths, and leaves the images in their original directories.
>> Photoshop Elements has an organizer, and I know it doesn't move them
>> around, but rather uses a catalog.
>
>it's a user preference whether iphoto copies the photos and manages
>them, or if it leaves them where they are and tracks them by reference.
Thanks I should RTFM better :-)
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 8 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, May 1 2009 1:24 am
From: Chris H
In message <srhi-3004D7.00544101052009@host81-136-209-74.in-
addr.btopenworld.com>, Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast.net> writes
>In article <EG5nHfXIyh+JFAPk@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>,
> Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>
>> Does anyone have any recommendations for SW to organise photos. This is
>> for a MAC
>>
>> I have looked at iPhoto but that is not what I want as it imports all of
>> the photos. I am looking for something that will not move all the
>> pictures out of the directories they are in.
>>
>> Looking to add multiple keywords. Maybe some text etc. Does not have
>> to be free but not looking to spend 100's
>
>Extensis Portfolio.
Thanks. I am sure I had that on a PC years ago... could not remember
the name.
The other one that got suggested was Microsoft Expression Media
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 9 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, May 1 2009 1:33 am
From: Chris H
In message <010520090116384338%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> writes
>In article <KPxKl.22257$OO7.7906@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
>Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>> >> Suggest you make use of your hierarchical directory structure. A
>> >> directory for photos, subdirectories for years - subdir inside that
>> >> for months - subdir inside that for days or shoots or whatever. No
>> >> software involved and it's all nicely organized.
>> >
>> > that is about the worst possible way to organize photos, beyond just a
>> > few of them. it also doesn't do what he asked.
>>
>> That's the way I've been using for ten years, and it suits /my/ needs very
>> well. About 38,000 images so far.
>
>how can you keep track of them all?
>
>i can't imagine not being able to pull up pics based on keywords,
>location where it was taken or some attribute in the exif data, such as
>a particular lens.
What do you use for this?
>
>also, the latest iphoto can do face recognition, where if you tag a few
>pics of a person with their name, it can then find every other photo of
>that person.
thanks
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 10 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, May 1 2009 1:58 am
From: "David J Taylor"
nospam wrote:
> In article <KPxKl.22257$OO7.7906@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
[]
>> That's the way I've been using for ten years, and it suits /my/
>> needs very well. About 38,000 images so far.
>
> how can you keep track of them all?
Events by date.
> i can't imagine not being able to pull up pics based on keywords,
> location where it was taken or some attribute in the exif data, such
> as a particular lens.
Apart from near home, I rarely visit places more than once, so Melbourne
is 2008, Antarctica 2009 etc. I can never recall wanting to find all
those pictures taken by a particular lens.
> also, the latest iphoto can do face recognition, where if you tag a
> few pics of a person with their name, it can then find every other
> photo of that person.
Not a need I have.
The last thing I want is anything interfering with the directory structure
I have, or altering the images behind my back. I wouldn't trust it. Were
I to use an organiser, working with image references rather than the
actual images would be a must.
As I said, what I have suits /my/ needs, it might well not suit others.
Cheers,
David
== 11 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, May 1 2009 2:51 am
From: Justin C
In article <EG5nHfXIyh+JFAPk@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H wrote:
>
> Does anyone have any recommendations for SW to organise photos. This is
> for a MAC
>
> I have looked at iPhoto but that is not what I want as it imports all of
> the photos. I am looking for something that will not move all the
> pictures out of the directories they are in.
I've started to notice limitations in iPhoto too. For example, when I
delete the shots that just didn't work they're only deleted from the
library, they're still on the HD... but where, and how do I find them
all to get rid of them?!
iPhoto does allow the adding of keywords, and, AIUI, more recent
versions actually export those keywords so spotlight can see them.
Another method would be to use, as someone else has suggested, directory
structure photos->year->month->day, and then use something like
Quicksilver to do your keyword tagging. Then spotlight can be used for
searches for specific tags.
There are probably many, many ways to achieve what you want, but I think
you might find none are perfect. I'm about to embark on a similar
exercise myself, let me know how you get on!
Justin.
--
Justin C, by the sea.
== 12 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, May 1 2009 3:28 am
From: Bob Larter
nospam wrote:
> In article <75uusgF19e51sU8@mid.individual.net>, ray <ray@zianet.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Looking to add multiple keywords. Maybe some text etc. Does not have
>>> to be free but not looking to spend 100's
>> Suggest you make use of your hierarchical directory structure. A
>> directory for photos, subdirectories for years - subdir inside that for
>> months - subdir inside that for days or shoots or whatever. No software
>> involved and it's all nicely organized.
>
> that is about the worst possible way to organize photos, beyond just a
> few of them.
Why's that?
> it also doesn't do what he asked.
That's a whole different issue.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
== 13 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, May 1 2009 3:37 am
From: Bob Larter
David J Taylor wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>> In article <75uusgF19e51sU8@mid.individual.net>, ray
>> wrote:
>>> Suggest you make use of your hierarchical directory structure. A
>>> directory for photos, subdirectories for years - subdir inside that
>>> for months - subdir inside that for days or shoots or whatever. No
>>> software involved and it's all nicely organized.
>>
>> that is about the worst possible way to organize photos, beyond just a
>> few of them. it also doesn't do what he asked.
>
> That's the way I've been using for ten years, and it suits /my/ needs
> very well. About 38,000 images so far.
Ditto. I create \photography\year-month-day\shoot\ & throw all my photos
in there. Every week or so, I burn them to DVD-R. It's probably not the
best backup scheme on earth, but it's worked okay for me so far.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
== 14 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, May 1 2009 3:39 am
From: Bob Larter
David J Taylor wrote:
> Apart from near home, I rarely visit places more than once, so Melbourne
> is 2008,
You visited Melbourne in 2008? What parts of Melbourne did you see?
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
== 15 of 15 ==
Date: Fri, May 1 2009 4:00 am
From: "whisky-dave"
"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:EG5nHfXIyh+JFAPk@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>
> Does anyone have any recommendations for SW to organise photos. This is
> for a MAC
>
> I have looked at iPhoto but that is not what I want as it imports all of
> the photos.
You don;t have to import all photos.
I have loads of photos in my pictures folder which also contains my iPhoto
library .
You can also have separate iPhot libraries if you wish.
by holding down the option key (between the command and ctrl)
you can create a new library, say if you want one dedicated to cats.
It's beena while sisnce I started using iPhoto so there my be the option
to import all your photos in if iPhoto has a empty library, in a similar way
iTunes does.
I currently have 42GB library.
>I am looking for something that will not move all the
> pictures out of the directories they are in.
They are in Folders on a Mac not directories ! ;-)
>
> Looking to add multiple keywords.
>Maybe some text etc. Does not have
> to be free but not looking to spend 100's
yes you can do that, in the descriptions or titles.
I've heard lightroom is pretty good and is better for editing photos
than iPhoto
==============================================================================
TOPIC: High pixel density ruining P&S higher ISO capability
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/bce51e1bd41d9c7b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, May 1 2009 1:37 am
From: Hughes
On May 1, 10:43 am, Me <u...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> Rich wrote:
> >http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmf200exr/page16.asp
>
> The fuzziness in that shot is at least partly (and possibly mainly)
> diffraction.
I'm analyzing this site.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=353350&page=2
Maybe it has something to do with your theory too.
The reviewer said his Canon Telephoto lens are much
clearer than the Rubinar Telephoto (1000mm F/10
which I also got). The Canon have range
of 2.8 to 5.6 focal ratio which would put its airy
disc 1/2 that of the Rubinar F/10. Now because
the pixel scale of the Rubinar can image finer
than the Canon. Then the pixels of pictures taken
with Rubinar would be full of diffraction images.
I'm looking in the web site for the exact aperture sizes
of the Canon 300, 400 series telephotos lens. I wonder if
you know it's exact front lens size as well as other data
because I want to know its resolving power to its if
the airy disc is enclosed in one pixel using the Canon
digicam and their telephotos which can explain why
image is clear even at pixel zoom because they are
not seeing diffraction disks unlike that of Rubinar images.
Hughes
> F12 on the F200 camera will be well and truly diffraction limited with a
> 6mp output file. Comparing the result to another model set at F5.6 is crazy.
> Do DPR think that the pixel layout / binning gets rid of the fact that
> the camera is still completely diffraction limited at 6mp output, 1 1/6
> sensor size, and f11?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: France - Belgium May 2009 Travel Pictures Country next to Country
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c32099aae6ba9cab?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, May 1 2009 2:42 am
From: BoBi <1kdg@scarlet.be>
Dear,
This website France-Belgium displays several pages each one containing
two comparative (similar, contrastive, ...) photos. Let your thoughts
flow freely and enjoy:
http://www.dongo.org/france-belgium/list_7_en/a_french_house_1_and_a_belgian_house_1.html
Click the "-->"-button on the page opened for the following pictures.
Best regards, BoBi
Annex: overview of the photos:
a French House and the Belgian Cooremetershuys:
http://www.dongo.org/france-belgium/list_7_en/a_french_house_1_and_a_belgian_house_1.html
a French House and the Belgian unfree skipper Guildhall:
http://www.dongo.org/france-belgium/list_7_en/a_french_house_2_and_a_belgian_house_2.html
French Housing blocks and Belgian housing blocks Ter Kimme:
http://www.dongo.org/france-belgium/list_7_en/french_housing_blocks_and_belgian_housing_blocks.html
a French City tree and a Belgian Gnome tree:
http://www.dongo.org/france-belgium/list_7_en/a_french_city_tree_and_a_belgian_gnome_tree.html
The french ruins of a medieval castle and the Belgian ruins of a
castle:
http://www.dongo.org/france-belgium/list_8_en/the_french_ruins_of_a_castle_and_the_belgian_ruins_of_a_castle.html
a French Woodland and a Belgian Woodland:
http://www.dongo.org/france-belgium/list_8_en/a_french_woodland_and_a_belgian_woodland.html
a French Toilet and a Belgian Toilet:
http://www.dongo.org/france-belgium/list_8_en/a_french_toilet_and_a_belgian_toilet.html
French bank notes and coins - euro and Belgian bank notes and coins -
euro:
http://www.dongo.org/france-belgium/list_8_en/french_money_and_belgian_money.html
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Canon's tips for semi-pros
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/83dd5dc1e72232a9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, May 1 2009 3:23 am
From: "whisky-dave"
"Rich" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:A7idnbHiOP2gAWrUnZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "Avoid problems with equipment in the field, buy Nikon?"
I tend to 'stop down' to get a better depth in my field :)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Is my monitor not coping with the number of pixels in my shots
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/60f3dd9082d09c83?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, May 1 2009 3:45 am
From: "whisky-dave"
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:290420090914239964%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <gt9i96$lbn$1@qmul>, whisky-dave
> <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
>
>> I was editing a movie using iMovie09 on a iMac G5, which has a video ram
>> problem.
>> After exporting the movie and uploading to youtube, I found my movie had
>> the
>> same video
>> problems. So I went back to my previous version of iMovie HD, which
>> didn't
>> produce
>> the same video errors that my 'screen' has.
>> My conclusion is/was that the later iMovie09 uses the GPU RAM and that
>> iMovieHD(06,07)
>> didn't.
>
> your conclusion is incorrect. imovie '09 is not an updated version of
> imovie hd, but an entirely new application, both of which use the gpu.
I';ve been using imovie for a number of years now since the first iMacs
(CRT)
in the late 90s.
iMovie has been constantly updated from then to now, iMovieHD was
superseded by iMovie08 which I really didn't like also quite a few features
were missing.
iMovie09 is an improvement and usable but works in a different way from both
the users perspective and 'under the bonnet'
Please read again I said the GPU RAM not just the gpu.
Or perhaps you know the reason why the two movie applications behave
differently
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.photo.digital"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.photo.digital+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
0 comments:
Post a Comment