Quote - Hi Mindy,

it's NOT true 64's are twice as fast as 32's, there are some advantages to 64 bit above 32 bit, but definately not the double speed, 64's are able to address more memory and some applications might run a little faster, but that's all to it, not to mention the fact that a lot of manufacturers still haven't written decent 64 bit drivers, I guess most of them are waiting for the next generation of MS Windows, named Vista. If you're planning to buy a faster PC, I'd advice you to wait a few months (and wear a wig or something to keep you from pulling your hair lol) and go for the next generation of the Pentium processors named Conroe. I've read sensational reports about that one, like dual core (which is more likely to make your applications run a LOT faster), 64 bit, lower heat dissipation,  uses less power, and according to the first tests they've done with it, speedwise it runs circles around everything available at the moment, and not in the last place (hey, I'm dutch :) they're going to be really cheap... The same goes for you Rick, wait for the Conroe, as far as I know UF is capable of using both processor cores, as does Photoshop, but whatever you do, apart from the fact dual core Celeron's don't exist AFAIK, leave the Celeron's alone, they're definately NOT what you want!

Pieter

Hi Pieter,

Nice to meet you.

Thank you for the information regarding Conroe. Will this be available very soon in the States? And it is a Windows-based system? Is the pricing along the same lines? My husband agrees with you about the 64s, he said it would be the smart thing to wait until they work the inevitable bugs out. Anything else you can tell me about Conroe would be helpful, I absolutely never heard of it---which in itself means nothing, 'cuz I am not a techie type person. Just your ordinary flakey artist. ;)

Mind

You're probably right. It's like living within your means, and then getting a lot more money. Do you keep living the way you did? Of course not. You raise your standard of living and spend more money, and then what you have is once again not enough. :)

I so agree with you about the Flood filter. I like it too, but unless used wisely/sparingly, it's a cliche. The vision of a misty Julia rising from the depths of many watery surfaces will make me click off pretty fast. It should be part of an image, not the reason for being.

Thanks, Damien. You're pretty coherent to me. :)

Yes, it comes down to personal preferences. Like I said, UF is not my software of choice, so I am not a UF expert....even though I wholly appreciate the sophistication of the program.

Do you find that when you render huge images (whether in PS or UF) your computer gasps and splutters and cries for relief? I can't imagine I am the only one who goes through this when wanting to generate large sizes for printing purposes. I am now doing ceramic and glass tile murals for customers, and man, I need humongo sizes to do that. I have found that Genuine Fractal is a life saver to make older images that weren't rendered that large into images that are truly printable. But once again, that program, too, makes my computer groan, grunt, gasp, wheeze and it takes forever.

I am praying that the 64 bits are my answer. I simply can't continue to work like this, it's making me pop Valium.

Thanks again, Damien. :)

M

Hi Rick,

I do appreciate what you're saying about working with layers and it being clunky as far as rotating, etc. I didn't even think of rotating, that would be a nightmare in PS, for sure.

I still think that the coloring controls in PS are extremely powerful--it's why it takes decades to learn Photoshop and continues to remain the most sophisticated imaging program on the market. The things you mentioned like isolating the tiniest areas of a layer or dealing with color density issues are easily (to me, anyway! g) achieved in PS. And you're right about the Flood filter, which is one of many hundreds of amazing filters you can use in Photoshop which are not compatible with UF.

Hey, however you do it, the end result is fabulous. :) You da best.

Hugs,

M

Hi Damien,

Thank you so much for taking the time to explain this to me. I appreciate it very much.

I understand what you are saying. What you have written makes sense to me, it's like you are adding an extra step. It makes nothing but logical sense.

The one thing I would disagree with you about is color control. I have seen UF's color controls and GUI, and I have never seen the capability of Photoshop in that arena. (if I am incorrect, then UF has changed so dramatically in the past couple of months with Version Four that my head would spin. ;)) I do not see these controls in UF:

1. Selecting color (two different ways to select color, with a selection tool and by specific color and tolerance) and the ability to save color selections for bands of similar color that one can control with specific tolerance, and being able to reload these same selections later

2. Curves- enhance monocromatic contrast, enhance per channel contrast, find dark/light colors  (with the option of saving the selection to reload later)

3. Color Balance (with the option of saving the selection to reload later)

4. Channel Mixing  (with the option of saving the selection to reload later)

5. Equalizing  (with the option of saving the selection to reload later)

6. Not to mention the ninety-four Photoshop native filters, along with the third party plugins that are practically endless in scope and artistic effect.

I, too, would want to do everything I could in one place, and generate as large as possible for printing purposes (it's my printing of my work that has created this problem for me, after all), but I don't believe I can sign off on your contention about UF's control control. :)

Warmly,

Mindy

Howdy Rick :)

Thanks for sticking your head in :)

Here's what you may consider  a dumb question, but please keep in mind that, even though I have used UF and am pretty comfortable with it, I am far from a UF expert. It's not my software of choice. So keep that in mind when I say the following.

 I still don't understand the reason why one can't use Photoshop for your layering instead. Certainly you can do much more with the color, saturation and blending end than you can with UF. In other words, why not export your image layers and then work with them in Photoshop? What can you do via layering in UF (besides generating the fractal) that you can't do in Photoshop? Or are you changing all layers at once as far as rendering a new mask/fractal/formula?

Yes, UF is the most sophisticated fractal software out there, but when it comes to graphics and color, overall control,  nothing can touch Photoshop.

As far as the other technical stuff re Pentium, duhhhh............I am totally ignorant. :)

Yes I have heard some people are doing that, and some programs are not built to handle the power of 64. You probably need every bit of power you can get your hands on with those animations :)

Until I get a new computer, I see much suffering (not to mention Hearts games) in my future :)

64 bit as opposed to what we all have now, 32 bit. Supposed to be more than doubly fast and very very powerful. :) It's the new generation of PCs.

Hi Jock,

I would have gotten more RAM but my computer guy said he wasn't sure if my compy could take it. But the 64's are coming out VERY soon, and I am going to grab one. I pray that this solves my problem.

I really enjoyed those animations. They must be really time consuming to create, but so worth it. :)

Hi Jock:

Those animations are super. Really cool. Makes me want to smoke a joint, which I haven't done since '78. ;)

What filters? Oh gawd, tons and tons and tons. It could be native Photoshop filters or other ones such as the KTP filter packages, Eye Candy, Flaming Pear........etc. I have a LOAD of filters that I use.

Memory Load: 77%
Total Physical Memory: 536,330,240 bytes (511.48 MB)
In-Use Physical Memory: 414,715,904 bytes (395.50 MB)
Available Physical Memory: 121,614,336 bytes (115.98 MB)
Total Page File Size: 1,318,436,864 bytes (1.23 GB)
In-Use Page File Size: 454,012,928 bytes (432.98 MB)
Available Page File Size: 864,423,936 bytes (824.38 MB)
Total Virtual Memory: 2,147,352,576 bytes (2.00 GB)
In-Use Virtual Memory: 50,257,920 bytes (47.93 MB)
Available Virtual Memory: 2,097,094,656 bytes (1.95 GB)

Processor Architecture: Intel
CPU Manufacturer: GenuineIntel
Processor Level: Pentium III or higher (15)
Processor Revision: Model 2 Stepping 4
Approximate CPU Clock Rate: 2004 MHz
Number Of Processors: 1
Page Size: 4,096 bytes (4.00 KB)
Allocation Unit: 65,536 bytes (64.00 KB)
Minimum Application Address: 65,536
Maximum Application Address: 2,147,418,111
Slow Machine: No

Hi Harmen........I am a PC girl. :) Maybe one day I'll get a Mac when I have money to burn, but right now I am Mr. Gates' slave, unfortunately, through force of habit. :)

Gee, color choices are incredibly individual. I am frankly surprised to see such a post from one who would consider themselves an artist. Wild :)

Photoshop, as Kallikru, will do the job and you can transfer it to CMYK.

However, this is important to remember: CMYK will wash your colors out, so you may have to compensate and add some saturation. I find that if I saturate about nine percent, I'll get as close as possible to the RGB version. You never really do have the same result with CMYK, because it never looks as vibrant and luminescent as RGB does. Cyan in particular looks flat, and reds tend to go orangey, so you might want to slide your reds over to the blue a little to compensate. It is one of my pet peeves about large scale printing, I think CMYK is mud next to RGB, and I cannot fathom why they don't standardize printing to RGB.

Best of luck to you :)

Hi Yvonne,

Thank you so much. It's funny you posted, I was going to PM you because your newest pieces are just scrumptuous. I really enjoyed them.

Thank you kindly for the kind words about Color Bakery. The mugs are definitely our best sellers right now, people just love mugs. Artists do very well with them. I think fractal art in particular lends itself very well to ceramic printing.

Warmly,

Mindy

I just wanted to add my url after having some PM's about where folks can view my site.

www.colorbakery.com