Adobe RAW Plugin V 3.4

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by AlanW, May 29, 2006.

  1. AlanW

    AlanW Guest

    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
     
    AlanW, May 29, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. AlanW

    RW+/- Guest

    Gee, didja ever think about reading their file on this?
     
    RW+/-, May 29, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. AlanW

    John Bean Guest

    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.
     
    John Bean, May 29, 2006
    #3
  4. 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
     
    Barry Pearson, May 29, 2006
    #4
  5. [snip]
    [snip]

    Even worse, AMD isn't mentioned at all in Adobe's "System
    requirements" page:

    http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/systemreqs.html
     
    Kulvinder Singh Matharu, May 29, 2006
    #5
  6. AlanW

    John Bean Guest

    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.
     
    John Bean, May 29, 2006
    #6
  7. 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
     
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, May 29, 2006
    #7
  8. It sounds like a commercal for Intel... ;-) A bad one...
     
    Jørn Dahl-Stamnes, May 29, 2006
    #8
  9. AlanW

    John Bean Guest

    You're funny, we need more humour here.
     
    John Bean, May 29, 2006
    #9
  10. AlanW

    Randy Howard Guest

    Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote
    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.
     
    Randy Howard, May 29, 2006
    #10
  11. AlanW

    RW+/- Guest

    Heh, lol, and here you are doing the same thing as Rita. :)

    Or is it a Canon thing?
     
    RW+/-, May 29, 2006
    #11
  12. AlanW

    C J Southern Guest

    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.
     
    C J Southern, May 29, 2006
    #12
  13. AlanW

    John Bean Guest

    What about Foveon? Where's George when you need him?
     
    John Bean, May 29, 2006
    #13
  14. AlanW

    Paul Furman Guest

    Foveon blows them all away on a mac!
     
    Paul Furman, May 30, 2006
    #14
  15. AlanW

    Randy Howard Guest

    RW+/- wrote
    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.
    What does canon have to do with it? (I shoot Nikon, FWIW).
     
    Randy Howard, May 30, 2006
    #15
  16. AlanW

    RW+/- Guest

    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. :)
    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+/-, May 30, 2006
    #16
  17. AlanW

    RW+/- Guest

    Heh, makes perfect sense to me! lol
     
    RW+/-, May 30, 2006
    #17
  18. AlanW

    RW+/- Guest

    And all this time I thought mac's were just some unhealthy food chain
    product.
     
    RW+/-, May 30, 2006
    #18
  19. AlanW

    Randy Howard Guest

    RW+/- wrote
    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.
     
    Randy Howard, May 30, 2006
    #19
  20. 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.
    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.
    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, May 30, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.