Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Amiga Kit Amiga Store Iridium Banner AMIStore App Store A1200/A600 4xIDE Interface

AuthorTopic: ADPro vs. ImageFX  (Read 6432 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline matthey

Re: ADPro vs. ImageFX
« Reply #30 on: March 15, 2010, 07:11:19 AM »
@Pyromania
I couldn't agree more. No disrespect intended.
 

Offline Ral-Clan

Re: ADPro vs. ImageFX
« Reply #31 on: March 15, 2010, 01:05:08 PM »
Quote from: pkivolowitz;547532
At this point? I'm sorry but I had to laugh till I fell out of my chair. I was so amused by these words that I had to join the forum so I could reply.
 
You do realize that ADPro has not been modified or maintained for more than 15 years? What are you still doing playing with it? Or ImageFX?
 
I'm still laughing.

I had to bite my tongue here to prevent me from not using forum-banning language, but you could try a little more tact.  I'm sure you didn't mean to come across in an abrasive way, though, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I've used ImageFX in the past few years to produce graphics for commercially sold products (CD covers, videogame covers) and graphics for professional archaeological reports.  I actually took the graphics home and did them with ImageFX because the photo editing software they had at work was too cumbersome.

It has never hindered me, and it has been just as flexible and faster (in my case) than doing the equivalent in Adobe Photoshop.

Maybe I wouldn't win an Academy Award for Scientific and Technical Achievement, but the people I produced these graphics for (whether they be customers, clients or projects partners) have never even suspected I was using 15 year old software.  That's because the end result looks good, and that's all that matters.  Instead they've said "Wow!  Great job!" and sometimes asked if they could get that software for their Windows/Mac computer.

Some of the most beautiful furniture ever produced, far surpassing what is commonly done today (in the Palace at Versailles, etc.) was produced only using hand tools.  Just because they didn't use power tools doesn't make the end product any less impressive.  So you see, it's not the tool, it's what you can do with the tool.  Some people produce amazing art with old software they are familiar with and know how to use intimately, while others have the latest and the greatest software, but produce shitty animated gifs for websites.

You know, there are some artists out there that even use (gasp!) --- paint and canvas!  Wasn't that developed in, like, the 15th century!
« Last Edit: March 15, 2010, 03:28:08 PM by ral-clan »
Music I've made using Amigas and other retro-instruments: http://theovoids.bandcamp.com
 

Offline pkivolowitz

Re: ADPro vs. ImageFX
« Reply #32 on: March 15, 2010, 02:53:49 PM »
You make excellent points.

I was surprised to see the same arguments going on now as were going on almost two decades ago. When I saw the language to the effect of "by now, such and such is true" when one of the items being compared hadn't changed in all that time, I found it very humorous.

Clearly, ADPro and ImageFX are irrelevant to me, but not to you and not to some others. My blanket statement of irrelevance was not sensitive to that.

Just don't expect any updates to ADPro any time soon. :)
 

Offline save2600

Re: ADPro vs. ImageFX
« Reply #33 on: March 15, 2010, 04:28:59 PM »
Speaking of relevancy and after all these years, I think it's great (entertaining at the least) to actually use or read about others using "old" software. I'm with a a few here when I say it doesn't matter how old something is. If that were the case, most of us may as well have been put out to pasture after so many cycles. lol

Joking aside, I'm about to delve a little deeper into the ImageFX program, just for the fun of it. Will it or my 060 equipped A2500 handle a 25mb RAW file from my DSLR? My 2.1ghz G5 even chokes and gags a little with 'em! I'm not even going to try to edit a photo that large on an Amiga. lol  BUT... whether or not someone uses their Amiga's for commercial gain or entertainment purposes - it's all the same. We need to remember that the computer is just a machine and there's no reason to scoff at how old it or its software is. If it still works - use it!

Same could be said about hi-fi gear, furniture, appliances - whatever. Personally, I've gotten into this pattern of reading an AmigaWorld or Amazing Computing issue right before bed (pretty much own both subscriptions in their entirety) and am sort of "re-living" the days of the Amiga through reading. It's been a lot of fun and I'm learning new things about my computers every day. Amiga is compelling that way at least. Can't imagine ever picking up an old MacWorld or Byte magazine ('cept the one that featured the A3000) and getting all nostalgic over either of those platforms  ;)

BTW: Finally got the right adapter so I can use my IBM Model M keyboard with my Mac....  :P  
She's old, heavy and loud. Best damn keyboard I've ever used, but if she were a woman, I'd have ditched her long ago.  lmao
« Last Edit: March 15, 2010, 04:38:11 PM by save2600 »
 

Offline motrucker

Re: ADPro vs. ImageFX
« Reply #34 on: March 15, 2010, 04:52:35 PM »
Quote from: pkivolowitz;547635
I think I said:   "I laugh because it hasn't been modified for around 18 years  - yeah - it  is more than 15 years. Probably 1993?"
I'm sorry if it wasn't clear enough that the "it" I was referring to is ADPro. I do not believe Mr. Woodall needs to argue with a point which wasn't made.

As for being "out of it" I am not sure what you mean.

If you mean the graphics and image processing business, I can assure you that I continue to be a contributor and a partner in a post-production industry -------
 change. I am trying not to get that same impression from the tone of your message.

Rather than a developer of new technology for the Amiga I am far more likely to be merely a source of interesting stories. The fact is with respect to the Amiga ecosystem I am just a historical relic. Be my guest if you'd like to take pot shots at me. Lot a good it will do you.

Sorry if the tone upset you. It wasn't meant to be nasty, just point out I believe you were wrong.  It was meant more tongue in cheek than anything. Guess I missed the mark.
A2000 GVP 40MHz \'030, 21Mb RAM SD/FF, 2 floppies, internal CD-ROM drive, micromys v3 w/laser mouse
A1000 Microbotics Starboard II w/2Mb 1080, & external floppy (AIRdrive)
C-128 w/1571, 1750, & Final Cartridge III+
 

Offline T3000

Re: ADPro vs. ImageFX
« Reply #35 on: March 15, 2010, 04:58:44 PM »
Quote from: save2600;547686
Joking aside, I'm about to delve a little deeper into the ImageFX program, just for the fun of it. Will it or my 060 equipped A2500 handle a 25mb RAW file from my DSLR? My 2.1ghz G5 even chokes and gags a little with 'em! I'm not even going to try to edit a photo that large on an Amiga.  
....If it still works - use it!


Providing of course you don't expect it to perform beyond the capabilities of the machine and software. Typical graphic image file resolutions were around 1meg in size at the time.
Is there a RAW file loader for Ifx?
The 25mg file size might be pushing things especially if the G5 chokes. GigaMem might help Think that's what it's called, uses the HD for memory. Would be interesting to try...

Offline motrucker

Re: ADPro vs. ImageFX
« Reply #36 on: March 15, 2010, 05:06:47 PM »
Quote from: save2600;547686
Joking aside, I'm about to delve a little deeper into the ImageFX program, just for the fun of it. Will it or my 060 equipped A2500 handle a 25mb RAW file from my DSLR? My 2.1ghz G5 even chokes and gags a little

This is where UAE on a really powerful windows machine would come in handy. I am about to do just that, just for the bigger files that my digital camera produces....
IFX would truly fly in this environment.
A2000 GVP 40MHz \'030, 21Mb RAM SD/FF, 2 floppies, internal CD-ROM drive, micromys v3 w/laser mouse
A1000 Microbotics Starboard II w/2Mb 1080, & external floppy (AIRdrive)
C-128 w/1571, 1750, & Final Cartridge III+
 

Offline save2600

Re: ADPro vs. ImageFX
« Reply #37 on: March 15, 2010, 05:12:05 PM »
Quote from: T3000;547690
Providing of course you don't expect it to perform beyond the capabilities of the machine and software. Typical graphic image file resolutions were around 1meg in size at the time.
Is there a RAW file loader for Ifx?
The 25mg file size might be pushing things especially if the G5 chokes. GigaMem might help Think that's what it's called, uses the HD for memory. Would be interesting to try...


I'm not positive yet if ImageFX does RAW... but I did just read in a mid 90's mag that one of those programs did. I discovered that 'RAW' isn't exactly a true "standard" anyway. I use Pentax equipment and had to wait for iPhoto to include a special RAW plug-in for my camera about 5 years ago.

But yeah, for messing around on the Miggy, I'll be uploading 1.3-4mp images to her. No worries there. lol
 

Offline Ral-Clan

Re: ADPro vs. ImageFX
« Reply #38 on: March 15, 2010, 05:37:05 PM »
Quote from: motrucker;547693
This is where UAE on a really powerful windows machine would come in handy. I am about to do just that, just for the bigger files that my digital camera produces....
IFX would truly fly in this environment.

I use ImageFX under WinUAE and have successfully loaded a much larger image into it (about 60 megabytes and approximately 60,000 x 60,000 pixels I believe).

It was relatively speedy too!  Bearable at least.  Not much slower than IrfanView on the PC side with an image of this size.

I am sure that ImageFX when running on my real 68040 A2000 with 32MB RAM would have had a lot of trouble handling an image of this size.  It *might* have been able to handle your 25MB RAW images.  

I think ImageFX does have a loader for RAW images.  Oh, and it also does have it's own virtual memory built in (you need to turn it on in the preferences).
Music I've made using Amigas and other retro-instruments: http://theovoids.bandcamp.com
 

Offline kinshi

Re: ADPro vs. ImageFX
« Reply #39 on: March 30, 2010, 06:32:36 AM »
Quote from: Pyromania;547637
@matthey

It's great to have the founder of ASDG as a member of Amiga.org, please try and not upset him.

Perry is a pretty smart, savvy dude, and the truth be told, myself and many other ASDG'ers would have had early appointments with Unemployment office if not for the decisions that were made. I tend to think he tends to know what he is talking about..never known the man to make an uninformed opinion, and when he does make a opinion known, you can count on it having enough information behind it to fill an entire forum.

I have to agree it is more than ironic that some of these arguments are still out there after this much time has passed :)

We really never gave ImageFX much thought tbh and AdPro's strength was in its ease of automation , and the sheer range of actions that could be automated. That app had everything but the kitchen sink stuffed in. (something I was well familiar with since I did most of the AREXX scripting support for end users)..plus TREXX support, and FRED of course

Toaster + TREXX +AdPro was quite the sweet combination once you got your scripting down pat. Very low profile app too, something you could kick off a batch processing job with and come back in a cpl days and be assured there was no GURU waiting for you instead of a completed project.

Plus I think the Emmy recognition AdPro got is proof enough of its past superiority ;) I think AdPro found its way into far more big name post studios than the other guys :) (if they made it in at all).
 

Offline mathman

Re: ADPro vs. ImageFX
« Reply #40 on: May 07, 2010, 11:34:10 AM »
Quote from: Crom00;545136
ImageFX and ADPRO run great on a USB drive and WinUAE on a Mcbook Pro. Much faster than any amiga I ever had.


Hello, new guy here.   I recently gave away my a500 but kept my 1200. I've used the mac amiga emulators over time but none worked very well really.  Are you using Parallels desktop to run WinUAE or bootcamp?  I was  thinking of going the WinUAE route using Parallels desktop and was wondering how well it would work.

Thanks.
 

Offline Varthall

Re: ADPro vs. ImageFX
« Reply #41 on: May 07, 2010, 12:31:21 PM »
Quote from: T3000;547690
Providing of course you don't expect it to perform beyond the capabilities of the machine and software. Typical graphic image file resolutions were around 1meg in size at the time.
Is there a RAW file loader for Ifx?
The 25mg file size might be pushing things especially if the G5 chokes. GigaMem might help Think that's what it's called, uses the HD for memory. Would be interesting to try...

No RAW loader AFAIK, but there's a CLI RAW converter on Aminet:

http://aminet.net/package/gfx/conv/ami-dcraw_V8_70

Varthall
AmigaOne XE - AmigaOS 4.1 - Freescale 7457 1GHz - 1GB ram
MPlayer for OS4: https://sourceforge.net/projects/mplayer-amigaos/
 

Offline Ral-Clan

Re: ADPro vs. ImageFX
« Reply #42 on: May 07, 2010, 12:44:23 PM »
Quote from: Varthall;557013
No RAW loader AFAIK, but there's a CLI RAW converter on Aminet:

http://aminet.net/package/gfx/conv/ami-dcraw_V8_70

Varthall


Didn't someone just mention that there is a RAW datatype in the thread where someone was asking what digital camera or camcorder to buy?
Music I've made using Amigas and other retro-instruments: http://theovoids.bandcamp.com