In article ,
Lawrence Glickman wrote:
On 4 Dec 2004 20:15:09 -0500, (DoN. Nichols)
wrote:
[ ... ]
If you do image processing, you will need the big RAM, or a bit
swap file. The image processing programs like to have the *whole* image
in RAM -- even if it has to use swap space to do it. :-)
Is why I stopped using Photoshop.
I have no need for high-resolution photographic illustrations for
magazine covers and full-page advertisements.
I process hundreds of personal digital images at a time, and with the
programs I use, the work is done completely without my involvement in
a few minutes. Of course, I had to initially set up the programming
to do what I wanted it to do, but now it is automated. Good enough to
better for 99.88% of my photos.
Understood. I've got a (unix) shell script which takes a
directory full of images, and makes a skeleton web page around them,
producing both thumbnails and reduced size images (4X for the Nikon D70
at medium resolution, 2x for the Nikon CoolPix 950) for what you get if
you click on the thumbnail.
Then -- all I need to do is add descriptive text -- or forget it
depending on what the subject matter is. A bunch of shots of the 4th of
July fireworks doesn't need much in the way of text, but details of a
project may need quite a bit more.
[ ... ]
307 digits, which makes your 3.2574E+306 pretty close, but it is
missing a lot of digits for true precision.
Do you have a way to do it in multi-precision integer math?
Not at this time, no.
Otoh, if I needed to do that for a good reason, I would get hold of
the necessary programming.
O.K. For unix, the tool of choice is "dc" (desktop calculator)
which takes RPN commands, and handles multiple precision as needed.
I've only tried up to 500!, and that worked well. If finally got to
where I could see the time that it took. (0.50 seconds combined -- and
it took longer to print the results on the screen -- all seventeen
lines of digits. :-)
For rendering analog video into digital video, as TM suggested, I
haven't explored that yet. Not sure I have enough interest in doing
so to justify the investment in time and money.
Maybe DVD is more permanent than tape, but it isn't forever.
Delamination is a problem, along with the growth of anaerobic
organisms that attack the media. I think you will be lucky to get 5
years out of DVD even if it is stored in a controlled environment.
The stuff isn't as archival as people would lead you to believe.
Agreed -- but it is quicker access than a 5GB+ 8mm tape. It is
useful for short-term backups, and save the tapes for more serious
backups. (Perhaps time to move to an Exabyte "Mammoth" tape drive, to
get 18GB+, as my disk partitions keep getting bigger. :-)
And -- if they would just come out with an affordable DVD writer
with a SCSI interface, I could go into that world, too. :-)
Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. |
http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---