And the alternative of sending code through the browser to operate on the image makes no sense whatsoever. Why would I want to do that rather than storing the code locally, so I can use it anytime I like, without delays?


Or in the unlikely event of a power outage (on the server host) or a US terrorist attack where the entire world is checking the news bringing the bandwidth providers to a screetching halt.


Thanks,
_Shawn
Posted on 2004-06-18 17:36:34 by _Shawn
Hehe, I only give all that (I bother), because you say no way that photoshop run in that way, if I understand correctly you accept that can run, but is not a good idea ;).

I also think that is not a good idea, only because the size of the data handled, how many time take you open that image locally?, also how many time take do a manipulation over this image?. Send the image is not necesary, if you follow this aproach, there is no reason that you have the image locally, and let the image to the server, if is posible, and only send you what is necesary for for let you fill that you have direct control over the image. Also that will require more work at the server side, for be hable to descrive the image to the clients.


Anyway, is not the actual case, but some applications can fet well in that model, others not.


Haev a nice day or night.
Posted on 2004-06-18 21:18:09 by rea



A friend of mine is a photographer, and she swears by her dual G5 Mac :)
I suppose Mac is the home ground for PhotoShop. I'll ask her what the size and resolution of the images are that she generally works with.
She also told me that she would use slide film rather than regular film, because it has a finer coating of chemicals, or whatever you call it. It gives a more 'high resolution' image, so the pictures are still sharp when blown up to huge advertisements and such. I wonder how big those images are when stored digitally.


i do photography as a hobby. i wouldn't swear by my PowerBook G4, but it find it so much more... uncomputer like. i was reading the API war article and having a hard time remembering what Windows used to be like (i still have it on my desktop at home and use it on VirtualPC to do web page testing). My desktop @ 2.2 GHz (OC'ed) is sometimes faster than my 1.25 GHz PowerBook, though usually not - albeit my PB has twice as much RAM.

Anyhoo, i don't take slides (usually), but rather, i use regular film that produces a negative. i have an old school D'image Scan Dual II from Minolta that produces 70MB TIFFs in 8bits/channel colour. The successor of my scanner has about 15% higher res and more colour depth. The Nikon Coolscan 9000 has more than 40% higher res and a comparable colour depth to the Dimage IV. MiniDV video is 3.6MB/s with a new, higher resolution and bit-rate format coming out at twice the bit-rate. All that i can say is... Hurrah for DVD burning!
Posted on 2004-06-19 01:53:56 by jademtech
because you say no way that photoshop run in that way, if I understand correctly you accept that can run, but is not a good idea


When I say 'run', I mean that it will work about as well as what we are used to. Many things are possible in theory, but make no sense whatsoever, because they aren't practical. It's useless to discuss that, so I consider that 'not running'. PhotoShop wouldn't run webbased, it would crawl.
Posted on 2004-06-19 03:10:56 by Scali