On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:56:50 -0400, Ross wrote:

> Would it? Has research been done? Or is this just, as Colbert says,
> truthiness?
> 
> Even while computers continue to get faster and cheaper?
> 
> As a hypothetical example, what if media was ommited from 3.5 becaues it
> was too slow? Think of all the nice pictures we would have missed. Here
> we would be still using 3.1's implementation. Or we would be elsewhere
> using something else.
> 
> Yet people dealt with the slowness because it helped improve scenes.

Yes, as a user myself, speed isn't the only factor, quality is a huge 
factor as well, and there is a logical tradeoff between the two.

That doesn't mean faster algorithms that create the same quality are bad, 
of course - and doesn't mean the slowest algorithm to produce a given 
quality should be preferred (of course it shouldn't), but speed isn't my 
only criteria for selection of a tool.

Jim

Post a reply to this message