Invisible wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
> 
>> I'll agree, Windows 3.x sucked. :)
> 
> I was always astounded that "66 MHz" PCs would crawl along unbearably 
> slowly while my little "14 MHz" Amiga 1200 ran rings around them. It 
> wasn't until I started doing seriously compute-bounded work that I 
> actually *believed* that the numbers weren't lying. The Amiga just 
> seemed dramatically faster in every respect.
> 
> (On the other hand... You know how Linux is supposed to be "fast"? I 
> tried running Debian on my Amiga 1200. Waiting for Gnome to start up 
> is... well let me put it this way. It makes a 486 SX look like greased 
> lightning. From typing "startx" to having a usable desktop takes about 
> 20 *minutes*!! Not kidding!!)
> 
>>> (Bearing in mind, my first ray-traced scene - a mesh torus with a 
>>> procedural wood texture and one light source - took well over 2 
>>> *hours* to render at 320x200 pixels. What can I say? No FPU...)
>>
>> POV-Ray was why I sought to by a math-coprocessor. Remarkable speed up 
>> of that app. ;)
> 
> Oh hell yeah. I can remember adding a 20 MHz FPU to my Amiga and 
> watching Fractuallity suddenly get an order of magnitude faster. ;-) 
> "Wow, it's so fast!" I cried.
> 
> Watching it yesterday, with FPU and all, there didn't seem to be much 
> "fast" about it!
> 
>>> In fact, it seems that only high-end, professional audio and video 
>>> tools actually cost money any more. (I'm thinking... Cubase, 
>>> Cakewalk, Photoshop, Renderman, and so forth.)
>>
>> If you've ever really used Photoshop, some things that are trivial to 
>> do in that program all the sudden become very difficult in other 
>> programs.
> 
> I'm sure. (E.g., colour seperations...)
> 
>> Remember that video you posted on the making of that webcomic. That 
>> was PS.
> 
> I own Photoshop Elements now. It's not very impressive.
> 

PS Elememts is ... meh .. It lacks some key features, such as Masking. 
Hell... lacking that alone is grounds for death IMO. You're better of 
with GIMP. ;)

>> I've taken old faded pictures (some with missing pieces, where the 
>> emulsion was scratched or torn away) and brought them back to their 
>> original color, replaced the missing pieces, and got rid of the texture. 
> 
> I have no idea how that's even theoretically possible.
> 

Depends. Small tears and missing chunks are really easy using clone and 
heal tools. Larger tears and missing chunks require a more "creative" 
approach. See the attached images.

>> There are advantages to the expensive packages ;)
> 
> I won't deny that. ;-)
> 
>>> Today, anybody with sufficient technical bent can easily sit down 
>>> with a computer and cut CDs of their music, or burn DVDs of their 
>>> graphics and animations. It's not even expensive any more.
>>
>> Heck. You can do this for free, too ;)
> 
> Not really. You still have to buy the PC. :-P
> 

Well, assuming you already have the PC... If you don't you can still 
accomplish your goal for under $1000.

I've seen someone actually make a pretty impressive short film using 
Windows Movie Maker and a $50 pocket camera.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download '003banda.jpg' (144 KB) Download 'banda7.jpg' (145 KB)

Preview of image '003banda.jpg'

Preview of image 'banda7.jpg'