 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / June 2006Adobe RAW Plugin V 3.4
I currently use Adobe RAW Plugin 3.3 - are there any changes in V 3.4 or is this an update to support new cameras? Current version works fine. Any advantage to downloading the newest version? Thanks, Alan > I currently use Adobe RAW Plugin 3.3 - are there any changes in V 3.4 > or is this an update to support new cameras? Current version works > fine. Any advantage to downloading the newest version? > > Thanks, > Alan Gee, didja ever think about reading their file on this? >> I currently use Adobe RAW Plugin 3.3 - are there any changes in V 3.4 >> or is this an update to support new cameras? Current version works [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Gee, didja ever think about reading their file on this? One thing their file won't tell you is that 3.4 has unintentionally lost compatability with older Athlon processors that don't support SSE instructions, so a number of users had problems on upgrading. The bug has been acknowledged by Adobe and will no doubt be fixed in 3.5. If you don't need the new camera support offered by 3.4 and/or you have an old Athlon it's probably best to keep 3.3 until 3.5 comes along.  SignatureJohn Bean [snip] >One thing their file won't tell you is that 3.4 has >unintentionally lost compatability with older Athlon >processors that don't support SSE instructions, so a number [snip] Even worse, AMD isn't mentioned at all in Adobe's "System requirements" page: http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/systemreqs.html SignatureKulvinder Singh Matharu Website : www.metalvortex.com Contact : www.metalvortex.com/contact/ >[snip] >>One thing their file won't tell you is that 3.4 has [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/systemreqs.html It never has been mentioned, ever. But many comments by Thomas Knoll in Adobe's forums indicate that AMD has in fact always been supported, and that this failure in ACR3.4 was unintentional. SignatureJohn Bean [snip] >It never has been mentioned, ever. But many comments by Why is that? Are Intel paying Adobe? That is a serious question, I'm not trolling. >Thomas Knoll in Adobe's forums indicate that AMD has in fact >always been supported, and that this failure in ACR3.4 was >unintentional. But I think that Adobe should officially elaborate more on CPU support, for various reasons! SignatureKulvinder Singh Matharu Website : www.metalvortex.com Contact : www.metalvortex.com/contact/ >[snip] >>It never has been mentioned, ever. But many comments by > >Why is that? Are Intel paying Adobe? That is a serious question, I'm >not trolling. Don't ask me, ask Adobe. I told you how it is, not why it is. SignatureJohn Bean [snip] >Don't ask me, ask Adobe. I told you how it is, not why it >is. LOL! The questions weren't directed to you as such. It was more of an open question (perhaps an accusation!) for anyone (inc Adobe). SignatureKulvinder Singh Matharu Website : www.metalvortex.com Contact : www.metalvortex.com/contact/ > Even worse, AMD isn't mentioned at all in Adobe's "System > requirements" page: > > http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/systemreqs.html Nor should AMD ever be mentioned when it comes to using professional programs like CS2. The reason behind this is most people associate AMD based boxes with gaming, overclocking, and MP3 servers. If you want to use a professional tool you need a professional toolbox to carry it in. This is why Intel is the only logical solution for running CS2. Anyone running CS2 on an AMD box is missing out on 85% of its capability and performance. Rita >> Even worse, AMD isn't mentioned at all in Adobe's "System >> requirements" page: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Rita It sounds like a commercal for Intel... ;-) A bad one... SignatureJørn Dahl-Stamnes http://www.dahl-stamnes.net/Foto/ >> Even worse, AMD isn't mentioned at all in Adobe's "System >> requirements" page: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >why Intel is the only logical solution for running CS2. Anyone running CS2 >on an AMD box is missing out on 85% of its capability and performance. You're funny, we need more humour here. SignatureJohn Bean Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote (in article <127mhb0qn99bq2d@news.supernews.com>): >> Even worse, AMD isn't mentioned at all in Adobe's "System >> requirements" page: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > why Intel is the only logical solution for running CS2. Anyone running CS2 > on an AMD box is missing out on 85% of its capability and performance. You are completely full of yourself here. What koolaid did you have to drink to come up with that troll? I'll wager that you couldn't even tell the difference between an Intel and an AMD system if running CS2 on them both without being told. Why on earth to you spew forth with these ridiculous claims periodically? You might want to take a look at the processor running in some of the highest performing PC-class servers on the planet. Guess what, it's not Intel, it's AMD Opteron. Intel is far less than the 85% performance number you pulled out of nowhere above in those spaces. Just because AMD processors are cheaper typically in the desktop space than Intel does not make them less capable. SignatureRandy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR) "The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw > Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote > (in article <127mhb0qn99bq2d@news.supernews.com>): [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Just because AMD processors are cheaper typically in the desktop > space than Intel does not make them less capable. Heh, lol, and here you are doing the same thing as Rita. :) Or is it a Canon thing? > > Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote > > (in article <127mhb0qn99bq2d@news.supernews.com>): [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Or is it a Canon thing? Canon images process 85% faster on Intel chips, but AMD take a similar lead when crunching Nikon files ;) I think I read somewhere that it has something to do with the polarisation of the Beyer pattern. >Canon images process 85% faster on Intel chips, but AMD take a similar lead >when crunching Nikon files ;) I think I read somewhere that it has something >to do with the polarisation of the Beyer pattern. What about Foveon? Where's George when you need him? SignatureJohn Bean >>Canon images process 85% faster on Intel chips, but AMD take a similar lead >>when crunching Nikon files ;) I think I read somewhere that it has something >>to do with the polarisation of the Beyer pattern. > > What about Foveon? Where's George when you need him? Foveon blows them all away on a mac! >>>Canon images process 85% faster on Intel chips, but AMD take a similar lead >>>when crunching Nikon files ;) I think I read somewhere that it has something [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Foveon blows them all away on a mac! And all this time I thought mac's were just some unhealthy food chain product. Signature"cheeseburgers in paradise" >Foveon blows them all away on a mac! A FOVEON-BASED SUPER-DIGITAL-CAMERA LIKE THE SIGMA SD9, WHEN TETHERED TO THE COMPUTER TRIPLES ITS SPEED AND MEMORY SPACE, FOR A TOTAL OF 9x THE EFFECTIVE POWER. THIS PUTS A 4GHZ PC ALMOST IN THE BALLPARK WITH A NEAR-INFINITELY POWERFUL COMMODORE AMIGA 500. > A FOVEON-BASED SUPER-DIGITAL-CAMERA LIKE THE SIGMA SD9, WHEN TETHERED > TO THE COMPUTER TRIPLES ITS SPEED AND MEMORY SPACE, FOR A TOTAL OF 9x > THE EFFECTIVE POWER. THIS PUTS A 4GHZ PC ALMOST IN THE BALLPARK WITH > A NEAR-INFINITELY POWERFUL COMMODORE AMIGA 500. LOL! You ought to try the new SMP Sinclair. Rita Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: >> A FOVEON-BASED SUPER-DIGITAL-CAMERA LIKE THE SIGMA SD9, WHEN TETHERED >> TO THE COMPUTER TRIPLES ITS SPEED AND MEMORY SPACE, FOR A TOTAL OF 9x >> THE EFFECTIVE POWER. THIS PUTS A 4GHZ PC ALMOST IN THE BALLPARK WITH >> A NEAR-INFINITELY POWERFUL COMMODORE AMIGA 500. >LOL! You ought to try the new SMP Sinclair. I did. My Sinclair doesn't work. It still ran CS2 faster than either Intel or AMD. ---- Paul J. Gans >Rita >Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >I did. My Sinclair doesn't work. It still ran CS2 >faster than either Intel or AMD. That's nothing. I haven't even got a computer but CS2 runs faster without one than it does on any Intel or AMD. SignatureJohn Bean [snip] > That's nothing. I haven't even got a computer but CS2 runs > faster without one than it does on any Intel or AMD. I run CS3 on a time machine rather than a computer. SignatureBarry Pearson http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/ >[snip] >> That's nothing. I haven't even got a computer but CS2 runs >> faster without one than it does on any Intel or AMD. > >I run CS3 on a time machine rather than a computer. You do write a load of morlocks sometimes Barry ;-) SignatureJohn Bean >>[snip] >>> That's nothing. I haven't even got a computer but CS2 runs >>> faster without one than it does on any Intel or AMD. >> >>I run CS3 on a time machine rather than a computer. >You do write a load of morlocks sometimes Barry ;-) Wells should have used a Tardis... ---- Paul J. Gans >>Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>I did. My Sinclair doesn't work. It still ran CS2 >>faster than either Intel or AMD. >That's nothing. I haven't even got a computer but CS2 runs >faster without one than it does on any Intel or AMD. Yeah, but does it run it faster than my broken Sinclair? --- Paul J. Gans >>>Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Yeah, but does it run it faster than my broken Sinclair? You can easily fix a broken Sinclair, all you need is a dodgy second-hand washing machine motor. Mind you it goes just as fast without it... Ah.. wrong Sinclair. Sorry. SignatureJohn Bean >>> Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote >>> (in article <127mhb0qn99bq2d@news.supernews.com>): [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > when crunching Nikon files ;) I think I read somewhere that it has something > to do with the polarisation of the Beyer pattern. Heh, makes perfect sense to me! lol RW+/- wrote (in article <77Keg.10198$lN5.3972@trnddc04>): >>> Nor should AMD ever be mentioned when it comes to using professional >>> programs like CS2. The reason behind this is most people associate AMD [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Heh, lol, and here you are doing the same thing as Rita. :) Actually, I am not. I spent about 5 years solid working on Opteron server platform development, performance optimization and benchmarking those platforms relative to Intel based servers. My numbers are actually conservative. > Or is it a Canon thing? What does canon have to do with it? (I shoot Nikon, FWIW). SignatureRandy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR) "The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw > RW+/- wrote > (in article <77Keg.10198$lN5.3972@trnddc04>): [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > and benchmarking those platforms relative to Intel based > servers. My numbers are actually conservative. Then you should include which OS and ver, plus what type of a server. Numbers abound aplenty, all optimized of course for a spec purpose. :) >> Or is it a Canon thing? > > What does canon have to do with it? (I shoot Nikon, FWIW). Heh, just a play on the Canon thing that seems to go on here, you know...There shall be no other camera's than Canon before thee. ') RW+/- wrote (in article <LQLeg.10922$U_2.9258@trnddc05>): >>> Heh, lol, and here you are doing the same thing as Rita. :) >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Then you should include which OS and ver, plus what type of a server. > Numbers abound aplenty, all optimized of course for a spec purpose. :) I wrote all those reports for my employer at the time, under NDA. However, it's no secret that the OS doesn't make hardly any difference at all. The performance numbers for raw processor and memory performance are almost indistinguishable whether you run Windows, Linux, or NetWare, especially on SMP systems. The basic answer that made the biggest difference on high-end workloads was memory bandwidth between the Intel FSB designs and Hypertransport on Opteron. It's not a big deal with single processor systems, but as you go to 2-way, 4-way and 8-way systems, it just gets progressively more embarrassing for Intel. For example, if you are talking DDR 2100 memory, The Intel box with 1 proc will get about 2100MB/s with a well-written test tool. So will the Opteron. With 2 processors, the Intel will get the same results, and the Opteron will be about 1.9 times faster. With 4-way, Intel will still be the same as single, and the Opteron will be about 3.6 times faster. Etc., etc. It's bloody awful for high-end applications that need a lot of memory bandwidth outside of cache. SignatureRandy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR) "The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw > You are completely full of yourself here. What koolaid did you > have to drink to come up with that troll? I'll wager that you > couldn't even tell the difference between an Intel and an AMD > system if running CS2 on them both without being told. Why on > earth to you spew forth with these ridiculous claims > periodically? Nonsense! I have an old dual Xeon 2.4 Ghz that will kick the crap out of the latest dual Opteron in a side-by-side. And this thing is so old that it uses RAMBUS. As for CS2, it simple doesn't run on an AMD. Well, the person *thinks* its running, but it's just dragging. > You might want to take a look at the processor running in some > of the highest performing PC-class servers on the planet. Guess > what, it's not Intel, it's AMD Opteron. Intel is far less than > the 85% performance number you pulled out of nowhere above in > those spaces. Yeah, I just had to strip three Opteron based servers because I couldn't find a home for them. I'm glad that I got them for next to nothing. AMD just simply doesn't have any resale value compared to Intel. > Just because AMD processors are cheaper typically in the desktop > space than Intel does not make them less capable. I'm not too sure about that. Good old Dell is scraping the bottom of the barrel and in their last gasp for air they are switching from Intel to AMD strictly for costs savings in this sector. My guess is Dell will be out of the desktop business within the next 3-5 years. On the other side of the coin, Apple is killing the market with their new Intel based machines and can't make them fast enough. Rita Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote (in article <127n54ejuhbcg6b@news.supernews.com>): >> You are completely full of yourself here. What koolaid did you >> have to drink to come up with that troll? I'll wager that you [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Nonsense! I have an old dual Xeon 2.4 Ghz that will kick the crap out of > the latest dual Opteron in a side-by-side. You should lay off the crack pipe over the holidays. > Yeah, I just had to strip three Opteron based servers because I couldn't > find a home for them. I'm glad that I got them for next to nothing. AMD > just simply doesn't have any resale value compared to Intel. So you own Intel stock and will stop at nothing... fine. > I'm not too sure about that. Good old Dell is scraping the bottom of the > barrel and in their last gasp for air they are switching from Intel to AMD > strictly for costs savings in this sector. My guess is Dell will be out of > the desktop business within the next 3-5 years. Except you don't know what you are talking about. Dell is going to AMD on the server side, not desktops. > On the other side of the > coin, Apple is killing the market with their new Intel based machines and > can't make them fast enough. That's primarily because PPC was a dead end due to power problems, especially for small form factor and notebooks. SignatureRandy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR) "The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw > Except you don't know what you are talking about. Dell is going > to AMD on the server side, not desktops. LOL! AMD doesn't even make a processor that is worthy of using in desktops let alone servers. Just because they *claim* they have processors that support SMP that doesn't mean they actually work. Like I said, an old Xeon outperforms them hands down. I don't even want to say what the Itanium2 will do to the Opteron. Dell is dooming themselves and their demise will be brought on quicker when they try to pass these abominations off as servers.. >> On the other side of the >> coin, Apple is killing the market with their new Intel based >> machines and can't make them fast enough. > > That's primarily because PPC was a dead end due to power > problems, especially for small form factor and notebooks. And if AMD is so cutting edge and better they would have been selected over Intel. Oh, wait; AMD doesn't make a chip worthy of going into a Mac, which is beyond sad. Rita Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote (in article <127n9ielj1ruo63@news.supernews.com>): >> Except you don't know what you are talking about. Dell is going >> to AMD on the server side, not desktops. > > LOL! AMD doesn't even make a processor that is worthy of using in desktops > let alone servers. If your aim here was to prove you know nothing about computers, consider it 'mission accomplished'. SignatureRandy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR) "The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw > Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote > (in article <127n9ielj1ruo63@news.supernews.com>): [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > If your aim here was to prove you know nothing about computers, > consider it 'mission accomplished'. QW5kIE1hYyB1c2VycyBhcmUgbm90b3Jpb3VzbHkga25vd2xlZGdlYWJsZSBhYm91 dCBjb21wdXRlcnMODQoNCldoYXQgYSBmcmlnZ2VuIGpva2Uh > If your aim here was to prove you know nothing about computers, > consider it 'mission accomplished'. LOL! It would seem that AMD doesn't know much about computers either. Hell, they can't even design and make a chip that Apple would want. Then again, I expect quality from Apple and I'm assured they wouldn't ruin their name or screw their customers by adopting and adapting substandard processors. Rita >> If your aim here was to prove you know nothing about computers, >> consider it 'mission accomplished'. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > name or screw their customers by adopting and adapting substandard > processors. I have an old Athlon 64 3400+ which blows my P4 2.4 gig mobile away running CS2 It also runs Avid Xpress Pro HD beautifully. Toby >>> If your aim here was to prove you know nothing about computers, >>> consider it 'mission accomplished'. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I have an old Athlon 64 3400+ which blows my P4 2.4 gig mobile away running > CS2 Hate to tell you this, but 99.9$ of all mobiles are crippled badly, but I think you know this already. :) > It also runs Avid Xpress Pro HD beautifully. > > Toby >>>> If your aim here was to prove you know nothing about computers, >>>> consider it 'mission accomplished'. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >> It also runs Avid Xpress Pro HD beautifully. It's a Dell mobile workstation, specifically supported by Avid for use in video editing. It may well be that a comparable P4 runs Photoshop a few percent faster than an Athlon, but that's hardly what Rita is saying. Toby Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote (in article <127o5atbr2551e8@news.supernews.com>): >> If your aim here was to prove you know nothing about computers, >> consider it 'mission accomplished'. > > LOL! It would seem that AMD doesn't know much about computers either. You're beyond hope. SignatureRandy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR) "The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw >> You are completely full of yourself here. What koolaid did you >> have to drink to come up with that troll? I'll wager that you [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > coin, Apple is killing the market with their new Intel based machines and > can't make them fast enough. I'll have some of what you're smoking Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: >> Even worse, AMD isn't mentioned at all in Adobe's "System >> requirements" page: >> >> http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/systemreqs.html >Nor should AMD ever be mentioned when it comes to using professional >programs like CS2. The reason behind this is most people associate AMD >based boxes with gaming, overclocking, and MP3 servers. If you want to use >a professional tool you need a professional toolbox to carry it in. This is >why Intel is the only logical solution for running CS2. Anyone running CS2 >on an AMD box is missing out on 85% of its capability and performance. Wow! What uninformed nonsense. ---- Paul J. Gans Paul J Gans wrote (in article <e5gbi7$s54$7@reader1.panix.com>): > Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > What uninformed nonsense. Bingo. We have a winner. SignatureRandy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR) "The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw > > Even worse, AMD isn't mentioned at all in Adobe's "System > > requirements" page: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > why Intel is the only logical solution for running CS2. Anyone running CS2 > on an AMD box is missing out on 85% of its capability and performance. You're funnier than ever. Not only a Windows shill but an Intel shill to boot. Greg If you are serious then you talk from your arse... If not then TeeHee :-) Guy >> Even worse, AMD isn't mentioned at all in Adobe's "System >> requirements" page: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Rita >> Even worse, AMD isn't mentioned at all in Adobe's "System >> requirements" page: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > CS2 > on an AMD box is missing out on 85% of its capability and performance. total bollocks! > I currently use Adobe RAW Plugin 3.3 - are there any changes in V 3.4 > or is this an update to support new cameras? Current version works > fine. Any advantage to downloading the newest version? Typically, new versions at least clear some minor bugs. These may not matter to you, of course. Take note of what John Bean says. Bugs occasionally occur: http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/dng/safety.htm#bugs Here is a test that I perform before using new versions for real work: http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/dng/safety.htm#software SignatureBarry Pearson http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/ >> I currently use Adobe RAW Plugin 3.3 - are there any changes in V 3.4 >> or is this an update to support new cameras? Current version works >> fine. Any advantage to downloading the newest version? >Typically, new versions at least clear some minor bugs. These may not >matter to you, of course. >Take note of what John Bean says. Bugs occasionally occur: >http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/dng/safety.htm#bugs >Here is a test that I perform before using new versions for real work: >http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/dng/safety.htm#software Not to argue your content, but some of this is silly. When you go to install the new version, take the old version and put it in a directory right below the current directory. I call it "crypt". Then if you do not like the new version, reversion is simply a matter of removing the new one and putting the old one in its place. And of course, you can keep the new one in "crypt" in case you change your mind again. Only takes a minute to change them. --- Paul J. Gans >>>I currently use Adobe RAW Plugin 3.3 - are there any changes in V 3.4 >>>or is this an update to support new cameras? Current version works [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Only takes a minute to change them. Once you convert to DNG and delete the original RAW files, there may be some software unable to use them. > >>>I currently use Adobe RAW Plugin 3.3 - are there any changes in V 3.4 > >>>or is this an update to support new cameras? Current version works [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Once you convert to DNG and delete the original RAW files, there may be > some software unable to use them. I think he was referring to keeping an older version of the converter handy. v3.4 produces the same DNG version as 3.3 - although there was a significant change from v3.2 onwards. >> I currently use Adobe RAW Plugin 3.3 - are there any changes in V 3.4 >> or is this an update to support new cameras? Current version works [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Here is a test that I perform before using new versions for real work: > http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/dng/safety.htm#software bloody hell an on topic post ! ;) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.