* Derek Mortimer m...@aaa.co.uk [03-20-12 07:55]:
Although I'm just a newbie, your question intrigued me.
Looking at the image you referred to, Firefox tells me that it is
7,360px × 4,912px (scaled to 864px × 577px). If what I have been told
is correct, that 1 pixel = 1 byte ( or
Hi everybody,
I'm new on this list.
It would be a great thing to measure the performance with and without GEGL,
so with an older version of GIMP, and with the new one. But I don't really
know what things have been changed, so I'm not sure it would give a proper
answer.
Semmu
2012. március 20.
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 4:14 PM, László Boros iamse...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi everybody,
I'm new on this list.
It would be a great thing to measure the performance with and without GEGL,
so with an older version of GIMP, and with the new one. But I don't really
know what things have been
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Patrick Shanahan ptilopt...@gmail.com wrote:
* Kevin Cozens ke...@ve3syb.ca [03-20-12 11:41]:
On 12-03-19 09:46 PM, Partha Bagchi wrote:
Test Machine: HP Pavilion dv8 Notebook PC (19 display Nvidia 1G
dedicated video RAM), intel Core i7 Q720 @1.60GHz, 8GB RAM,
Yes, I did mention D800 at the end of the post. The D800 produced 36MP
images. The raw image is 70 megabytes. The image I processed was a
JPEG which is 23 Megabytes in size.
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 7:44 AM, Derek Mortimer m...@aaa.co.uk wrote:
Hi All,
Although I'm just a newbie, your question
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 11:44 +, Derek Mortimer wrote:
Looking at the image you referred to, Firefox tells me that it is
7,360px × 4,912px (scaled to 864px × 577px). If what I have been told
is correct, that 1 pixel = 1 byte ( or thereabouts), that is a 36mb
file, which to my mind is
