I've noticed PS is slow too. Worse still it doesn't compress well either -
try opening a file from Vuescan and then saving it with PS and it comes out
significantly larger.
I often don't bother with the compression anymore until I save to CD-R.
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dana Trout" <dana@troutcom.com>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2001 10:40 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in Windows
> A 25% faster drive won't necessarily get you 25% faster load/store
> times. PhotoShop seems to be inordinately slow in dealing with
> compressed TIFFs -- I got curious so I set up a cache large enough to
> hold the whole file (53MB). The first time I loaded it into PhotoShop
> it took 61 seconds (reading from the disk). I then closed the file and
> reloaded it into PhotoShop (this time from the cache -- the disk light
> never even blinked) and it took 55 seconds. And I'm reasonably sure
> that a RAM cache is *much* faster than a 7200 rpm drive!
>
> BTW, Ed's VueScan takes less than 30 seconds to read the same file.
> --Dana
> ----------
> From: Rob Geraghty <harper@wordweb.com>
> To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> Subject: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: Scanning and memory limits in
> Windows
> Date: Friday, July 27, 2001 12:22 AM
>
> < snip >
>
> On the other hand I'm reasonably sure the main
> bottleneck in my PC when dealing with large scans is the 5400RPM IDE
> drive.
> A 7200RPM drive would speed up loading and saving files by at least
> 25%.
> Two 7200rpm drives in a RAID array should be significantly better
> still.
> Loading and saving files is the no.1 timewaster for me when working
> with
> film scans on my PC.
>
> Rob
>
>
> Rob Geraghty harper@wordweb.com
>
>
>
>
