Robert Harshman wrote:
>
> ...snip...
> But, something that I can't assume now is a 4:3 aspect ratio for the
> viewers of my site. Now, a growing number have wide screens. ...
> .....snip.....
> What do you do to deal with wide format displays? Anything?
> ....snip.....
> Does anyone have a script or sprite that adjust the FOV limits and
> opening position based on a viewer's screen aspect ratio?
>
> Regards,
>
> Robert
>
>

I hate the distortion that is produced by showing a pano in a letterbox
format unless the FOV is drastically reduced.
Fiero Deval has written a script to control the aspect ratio and max size at
which a pano will be displayed.
It is called detectVR.js
It first checks the available plugins and then serves up the pano as
Devalvr, QT, Flash or Java.
You can set full screen *with* a size limit (for viewers with a >19" screen)
AND it will set a limit to the aspect ratio of the pano. Very Cool!
You can check this out on my website www.sphericalpanoramas.com, where most
thumbnails already call the correct devalvr.js to limit the aspect ratio.
You can check this even on a non-widescreen monitor by just squeezing the
full sized pano window to a letterbox.

The Javascript can be downloaded from Fiero's website:
http://www.devalvr.com/

Carel Struycken

--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/FOV-and-Aspect-Ratio-tf3495412.html#a9763360
Sent from the PanoToolsNG mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

I second that.
Compared to a crop camera you have to deal with significant
vignetting on a full frame. I hardly can process any stitch without
correction from my 5D. But once you've found the settings for your
lens it can easily be done in your RAW onverter.

Good luck
Jürgen

Great shot BTW.


--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Erik Krause" <erik.krause@...>
wrote:
>
> On Friday, March 30, 2007 at 21:59, jinglylenny wrote:
>
> > Having issues with banding on a pano,
>
> So, I finally found out where the image is located:
> http://tech.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/PanoToolsNG/photos/view/
7fb2?b=1
>
> Even the large version is far too small to see banding. If you mean
> the regular pattern in the sky getting a bit darker to the image
> seams and a bit brighter to the single image middle, this is no
> banding, it is caused by vignetting - edge light fall off of your
> lens. Try to remove it in your raw converter, then use a recent
> blending tool like Sacha suggested. If you use enblend specify -l
20
> at the command line...
>
> best regards
> --
> Copyright (c) 2007 Erik Krause
> Verbatim copying and distribution strictly forbidden
> except those allowed in wiki.panotools.org/User_Guidelines
>

Hello All,

Recently, I have been having trouble finding the
optimum position for a Canon 5D with it's Sigma 8mm on
a Manfrotto 303SPH. Despite the wiki page on 'Pupil
Entrance Points' stating that the ideal measurement
for the Sigma 8mm f4, taking 6 pictures is at 47,5mm,
another page, 'Special_issues_with_fisheye_lenses'
goes on to say that 'Fisheye lenses and adapters do
not have a fixed entrance pupil'.

It then adds that theoretically, 'it is impossible to
get a perfectly stitched panorama from a fisheye
lens.' The proof of this is that PTGui comes up with
the 'there may well be misalignments etc' ... when
using a 14mm, it is more or less a perfect match.

To find the best point, I have nudged the camera and
the mounting plates back and forth, tweaked this,
tweaked that and taken a multitude of test images.
However, I've found that if I start by mounting the
Canon 5D on the 303SPH, lens downwards, looking
through the viewfinder and lining up the centre of the
lens with the central point of the tripod, the end
results are acceptable.

Does anyone have a different sequence which they
believe is successful?

Regards and thanks,

Stuart



___________________________________________________________
Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Yahoo! Mail.
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html

Hello All,

Recently, I have been having trouble finding the
optimum position for a Canon 5D with it's Sigma 8mm on
a Manfrotto 303SPH. Despite the wiki page on 'Pupil
Entrance Points' stating that the ideal measurement
for the Sigma 8mm f4, taking 6 pictures is at 47,5mm,
another page, 'Special_issues_with_fisheye_lenses'
goes on to say that 'Fisheye lenses and adapters do
not have a fixed entrance pupil'.

It then adds that theoretically, 'it is impossible to
get a perfectly stitched panorama from a fisheye
lens.' The proof of this is that PTGui comes up with
the 'there may well be misalignments etc' ... when
using a 14mm, it is more or less a perfect match.

To find the best point, I have nudged the camera and
the mounting plates back and forth, tweaked this,
tweaked that and taken a multitude of test images.
However, I've found that if I start by mounting the
Canon 5D on the 303SPH, lens downwards, looking
through the viewfinder and lining up the centre of the
lens with the central point of the tripod, the end
results are acceptable.

Does anyone have a different sequence which they
believe is successful?

Regards and thanks,

Stuart



___________________________________________________________
Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Yahoo! Mail.
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, stuart mcalister
<strtmcalister@...> wrote:
> It then adds that theoretically, 'it is impossible to
> get a perfectly stitched panorama from a fisheye
> lens.' The proof of this is that PTGui comes up with
> the 'there may well be misalignments etc'

Stuart, A poorly positioned camera on the pano head may well result in
stitching problems, but stitching problems do not necessarily mean you
have a poorly positioned camera!  To check the camera and head setup,
you need to test specifically for parallax errors.  Once you have
confirmation that parallax has been eliminated, you can address any
stitching errors that you may then get in PTGui and look for other
causes.  See:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/j.houghton/epcalib.htm

John

On 30 Mar 2007 at 14:14, Rick Drew wrote:

> http://www.panomaps.com/ng/
>
> Looks interesting - but it works in Firefox, not IE (usually it's the
> opposite) - plus, how do you submit a pano to them?

Yes, that's really an unusual one ;)
Works in Opera too, but I can find no way to add anything, and no way to log in
or
anything. Maybe it would show more panographers if it was possible to submit?

--
Bjørn K Nilssen - http://www.bknilssen.no - panoramas and 3D

Dear John,

Many thanks for getting back to me on this subject. I
seem to have sorted out the problem but will certainly
give your theory a good work-out.

The one remaining problem I have is that in order to
level the 303 on the tripod, I have a heavy Gitzo ball
joint. To keep an eye on the entire level, I have a
small 2-way spirit level which I place on the side
mounting plate - I watch this carefully but although
the 303 is level, as it passes through 180 degrees,
the entire kaboodle goes very slightly off tilt. I'm
sure it's just a case of leveling for every shot or
the Gitzo ball has a problem. I would have thought
that if the Gitzo was level, as was the 303, then any
spin would result in a level spin ...

It seems to show up more when using the 8mm in
confined spaces as there's more 'give' in a wider
photographic area. Is there a chapter anywhere on
'confined spaces'?

Many thanks again for your time and suggestion ...

Regards,

Stuart


--- John Houghton <j.houghton@...> wrote:

> --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, stuart mcalister
>
> <strtmcalister@...> wrote:
> > It then adds that theoretically, 'it is impossible
> to
> > get a perfectly stitched panorama from a fisheye
> > lens.' The proof of this is that PTGui comes up
> with
> > the 'there may well be misalignments etc'
>
> Stuart, A poorly positioned camera on the pano head
> may well result in
> stitching problems, but stitching problems do not
> necessarily mean you
> have a poorly positioned camera!  To check the
> camera and head setup,
> you need to test specifically for parallax errors.
> Once you have
> confirmation that parallax has been eliminated, you
> can address any
> stitching errors that you may then get in PTGui and
> look for other
> causes.  See:
>
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/j.houghton/epcalib.htm
>
> John
>
>




___________________________________________________________
The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your
Internet provider. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html

On 29 Mar 2007 at 4:59, Milko Amorth wrote:

> Hi Bjorn,
>
> > Is there a way to add an object movie (or rather animation?) inside a
> > pano, with full
> > alpha channel transparency?
>
> Check this out:
>
> http://www.vrhotwires.com/hockeyguy.mov
>
> Done with VRhotwires.com Quicktime post production tool.
>
> SpiV animation:
> http://fieldofview.com/spv-gallery#chitchat

Thanks for all the tips.
I've been looking through docs and feature lists, but none of them specifically
say that
they support 8bit alpha. All the examples I've seen looks more like they could
have been
done with clip maps (GIF-style, with transparency either on or off).?
It looks like PurePlayer can handle mask/alpha only for image, and not for anim,
where it
only supports gif?

--
Bjørn K Nilssen - http://www.bknilssen.no - panoramas and 3D

I can only warn everybody to treat aluminum with brute force (a hammer
or other sudden impact) and still use that part in situations where your
or another persons life might be in danger if that part collapses.

There is a reason that a freeclimber will exchange that part of his/her
gear (made from aluminum) ASAP if dropped. Aluminum will get very fine
cracks (fissures) and break some time later without a warning.

I had such a situation with my bike's handle bar. It collapsed almost a
year after I had a little accident where the bell seemed to be the only
"victim". Instead the impact from the other object on the bell resulted
in above mentioned fissures. And nearly in a second accident.

Remember that not only your valuable camera / lens might be damaged but
you or other persons might get hurt severely.

Carl

Posted by: "Roger Berry"
>
> Take a heavy piece aluminum, a large
> hammer and use a vice to bend the aluminum.

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, stuart mcalister
<strtmcalister@...> wrote:
>
> I'm sure it's just a case of leveling for every shot or
> the Gitzo ball has a problem. I would have thought
> that if the Gitzo was level, as was the 303, then any
> spin would result in a level spin ...

Stuart, If you have set up the head so that the entrance pupil is
aligned with the axis of rotation of the head to eliminate parallax,
then you should have no problems stitching a panorama shot in a
confined area. The levelling of the head will have no bearing on the
stitching quality.  If the axis of rotation is not precisely vertical,
it is usually a very simple task to accurately level the panorama using
t1 points on vertical edges in PTGui: no more than two minutes work at
most.

John

> It then adds that theoretically, 'it is impossible to
> get a perfectly stitched panorama from a fisheye
> lens.' The proof of this is that PTGui comes up with
> the 'there may well be misalignments etc' ... when
> using a 14mm, it is more or less a perfect match.

It's true that with a fisheye the NPP depends of the angle at which light
enters the lens surface. I wrote a page about that:
http://pano.maandag.com/index.php?id=57

But it shouldn't give you unstitchable results if you are a few mm off the
NPP.
Be sure to optimize horizontal and vertical shift though. That usually
makes a lot of difference.

And as for the moving NPP: it moves forward and backward. So if you shoot
in a confined space, it might help to optimize individual FoV for each
image. Be sure to have lots of control points, though.

Serge.

Serge,

Many thanks ... I'll give your paper a read.

Regards,

Stuart
--- "Serge Maandag (yahoo)" <yahoo@...> wrote:

> > It then adds that theoretically, 'it is impossible
> to
> > get a perfectly stitched panorama from a fisheye
> > lens.' The proof of this is that PTGui comes up
> with
> > the 'there may well be misalignments etc' ... when
> > using a 14mm, it is more or less a perfect match.
>
> It's true that with a fisheye the NPP depends of the
> angle at which light
> enters the lens surface. I wrote a page about that:
> http://pano.maandag.com/index.php?id=57
>
> But it shouldn't give you unstitchable results if
> you are a few mm off the
> NPP.
> Be sure to optimize horizontal and vertical shift
> though. That usually
> makes a lot of difference.
>
> And as for the moving NPP: it moves forward and
> backward. So if you shoot
> in a confined space, it might help to optimize
> individual FoV for each
> image. Be sure to have lots of control points,
> though.
>
> Serge.
>




___________________________________________________________
The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your
Internet provider. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html

Hello again,

Now that I've been ably assisted throught sorting out
mounting postions and the finite guide to parallax
etc, I've come across a little something regarding
stitching and 'Fine Tuning'.

According to PTMac's tutorial, they say that "the fine
tuning options are not recommended for fisheye
images".

However, I am using PTGui and wonder if any users of
this know if PTGui has the option to turn OFF the fine
tuning option? I've searched everywhere within
Preferences and in Advanced Mode and no such button
exists. Is it just the lucky users of PTMac (and maybe
others) who have this option?

Regards and thanks,

Stuart



___________________________________________________________
Copy addresses and emails from any email account to Yahoo! Mail - quick, easy
and free. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/trueswitch2.html

On Saturday, March 31, 2007 at 13:41, Serge Maandag (yahoo) wrote:

> It's true that with a fisheye the NPP depends of the angle at which light
> enters the lens surface. I wrote a page about that:
> http://pano.maandag.com/index.php?id=57
>
> But it shouldn't give you unstitchable results if you are a few mm off the
> NPP. Be sure to optimize horizontal and vertical shift though. That usually
> makes a lot of difference.

Usually (as a beginner) one pays far too much attention to the NPP
and less or none to other causes of stitching errors. The NPP plays a
role *only* if there are subjects at different distances in the
overlap region, and they probably are evident only if the distance
between near and far subjects is relatively large.

The usual causes of stitching errors are:
- not allowed to optimze all necessary parameters for a task.
- wrongly or not calibrated lens
- too few control points for the amount of parameters to optimize
   (see: http://wiki.panotools.org/Perspective_correction )
- sideways or up-down displacement of the rotation axis.


best regards

--
Copyright (c) 2007 Erik Krause
Verbatim copying and distribution strictly forbidden
except those allowed in wiki.panotools.org/User_Guidelines

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, stuart mcalister
<strtmcalister@...> wrote:
>
> However, I am using PTGui and wonder if any users of
> this know if PTGui has the option to turn OFF the fine
> tuning option?

There is no fine tuning option to turn on or off.  There is an auto-add
option to place the second point of a pair on the matching feature
automatically.  You can fine tune the position of a point manually
using the arrow keys, or with the mouse while holding down ctrl & alt.

John

David Sykes wrote:
> As it happens I have just made a microcontroller-based rotary table
> similar to the one shown on their website, though at a fraction of the
> cost.

Hi David -

I wonder if you got my off-list reply to this post, or if your mailbox
is set to accept only mails from mailing lists?

What motor are you using?

Yuv

Dear John,

Noted. Thanks again.

Regards,

Stuart
--- John Houghton <j.houghton@...> wrote:

> --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, stuart mcalister
>
> <strtmcalister@...> wrote:
> >
> > However, I am using PTGui and wonder if any users
> of
> > this know if PTGui has the option to turn OFF the
> fine
> > tuning option?
>
> There is no fine tuning option to turn on or off.
> There is an auto-add
> option to place the second point of a pair on the
> matching feature
> automatically.  You can fine tune the position of a
> point manually
> using the arrow keys, or with the mouse while
> holding down ctrl & alt.
>
> John
>
>






___________________________________________________________
New Yahoo! Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more at
the Yahoo! Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes.
http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://mail.yahoo.net/uk

On Saturday, March 31, 2007 at 12:52, stuart mcalister wrote:

> According to PTMac's tutorial, they say that "the fine
> tuning options are not recommended for fisheye
> images".
>
> However, I am using PTGui and wonder if any users of
> this know if PTGui has the option to turn OFF the fine
> tuning option? I've searched everywhere within
> Preferences and in Advanced Mode and no such button
> exists. Is it just the lucky users of PTMac (and maybe
> others) who have this option?

PTGui doesn't seem to have this limitation. Automatic control point
creations works pretty good, both for rectilinear and fisheye images.

PTGui apparently remaps images for control point fine tuning, since
the CP generator does not work for other projections than rectilinear
or fisheye - especially not for equirectangular. Hence you can't use
it to stitch an additional image into a ready stitched panorama.

best regards
--
Copyright (c) 2007 Erik Krause
Verbatim copying and distribution strictly forbidden
except those allowed in wiki.panotools.org/User_Guidelines

In the vice jaws I put some scrap pieces of aluminum on each side to
protect the piece that I'm working on and instead of a sharp bend I
give it more of a roll. Also some pieces of aluminum will bend
better than others.
I also use ¼ inch aluminum flat bar and after bending it I think it
could be run over by a car without hurting it.
Here is a slideshow of the first one that I made. It did have some
small cracks at the bend but the bracket is so thick there was no
worry about it breaking.
http://www.camelphotos.com/pano_head.html

Roger Berry
http://360VRphotos.com


--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Carl von Einem <einem@...> wrote:
>
> I can only warn everybody to treat aluminum with brute force (a
hammer
> or other sudden impact) and still use that part in situations
where your
> or another persons life might be in danger if that part collapses.
>
> There is a reason that a freeclimber will exchange that part of
his/her
> gear (made from aluminum) ASAP if dropped. Aluminum will get very
fine
> cracks (fissures) and break some time later without a warning.

On Saturday, March 31, 2007 at 10:51, Carl von Einem wrote:

> There is a reason that a freeclimber will exchange that part of his/her
> gear (made from aluminum) ASAP if dropped. Aluminum will get very fine
> cracks (fissures) and break some time later without a warning.

Sorry, but this is a myth that has been refuted by the "DAV
Sicherheitskreis" (german alpine club - safety section) several years
ago. According to Pit Schubert this applies to climbing gear, because
it constits of a special type of aluminium alloy. Cheap aluminium
profiles will probably behave differently...

However, stainless steel is far worse in this regard. Who ever
climbed the "Boulder Highway" (Grimsel, Switzerland) in the late
eighties knows what I'm talking about...

BTW.: The DAV magazine is named "Panorama" - only to get at least a
bit back on topic ;-)

best regards
--
Copyright (c) 2007 Erik Krause
Verbatim copying and distribution strictly forbidden
except those allowed in wiki.panotools.org/User_Guidelines

Yuval Levy  wrote:

> I wonder if you got my off-list reply to this post

Hi Yuv.

No, I will contact you directly so that you can 'Reply'.



David

With a setup like this going on a pole, I would be more worried about
the small ¼ inch threads on the knob that hold the camera and bracket
in place. A lot of them used in photography equipment are made out of
aluminum. The ones that I use are stainless steel.

Roger Berry
http://360VRphotos.com

On 31 Mar 2007, at 17:36, Roger Berry wrote:

> With a setup like this going on a pole, I would be more worried about
> the small ¼ inch threads on the knob that hold the camera and bracket
> in place. A lot of them used in photography equipment are made out of
> aluminum. The ones that I use are stainless steel.
>
> Roger Berry

Yes, I've never really trusted 1/4" alu screws. Stainless or brass
1/4", or for heavy stuff 3/8" brass for everything but table-tripods,
for me.

Ian

On 30 Mar 2007, at 11:42, Ian Wood wrote:

> By some strange coincidence, I uploaded some panning timelapse movies
> last night, as done with my LEGO-driven panohead...
> <http://ivrpa.org/blog/1833/aotpr_part_8_panning_timelapse>

As an experiment, I tried stitching some of the frames from the
panning timelapse, only to find the blending in PSCS3 is so good that
it doesn't come across as being shot over a long period...

<http://ivrpa.org/blog/1833/aotpr_part_8a_panning_timelapse>

Ian

The good old panotools can do it.  Look at the object samples included with
the full download.



Rick



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

This works quite well for me -
http://geekography.com/polepano/polepano-82mm.htm - although it is nearly
identical to those mentioned earlier - btw they've been powdercoated with a
black medium texture now.  I recently found that although, although designed
for spherical panos with the Canon 350D and the Peleng 8mm, it works really
well for single-row panos (i.e. non-spherical) with the Canon 50mm f1.8 lens
that everybody loves,  I haven't done much testing, but I was pleased with
my initial results.

On 3/31/07, Ian Wood <panolists@...> wrote:
>
>
> On 31 Mar 2007, at 17:36, Roger Berry wrote:
>
> > With a setup like this going on a pole, I would be more worried about
> > the small ¼ inch threads on the knob that hold the camera and bracket
> > in place. A lot of them used in photography equipment are made out of
> > aluminum. The ones that I use are stainless steel.
> >
> > Roger Berry
>
> Yes, I've never really trusted 1/4" alu screws. Stainless or brass
> 1/4", or for heavy stuff 3/8" brass for everything but table-tripods,
> for me.
>
> Ian
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Cheers guys, it makes sense thinking about it that its vignetting
I shot a few panos with the 5d but this is the only one that is
affected but the sky in the others ones was a lot darker so probably
did not show (as much).
  I normally shoot with a 20d so have never seen this b4
will try and get rid of it with the raw converter.
Appreciate the comments
lenny

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "dmgalpha" <dmgerman@...> wrote:
>
> --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "jinglylenny" <jinglylenny@>
wrote:
> >
> > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Sacha Griffin"
> > <sachagriffin@> wrote:
> > >
> > thanks for quick response If you hit the large button you can
see
> > the banding clearly.No processing was done on the 8bit files
apart
> > from raw conversion will redo at 16bit and see what happens.
> > cheers
> >
>
> the large button, which button? the image, which image? There were
no
> links in your original message.
>
>
> dmg
>

I am thinking of getting a new laptop. It will have to be able to showcase
panos in the smoothest possible way on a bright screen with a wide viewing
angle. I am a bit confused about all those duo core varieties out there.
They all emphasize multi-tasking, but what I am interested in is if the
number of cores makes a difference when just working in one program like
Photoshop. At the moment my fastest PC is a 3.4GHz Pentium 4. So how do I
figure out how much faster or slower a duo core of say 1.66GHz or 2 GHz is
and would a core 2 duo speed up a process in photoshop any more than a core
duo with in the same GHz range?

Carel Struycken
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/OT%3A-A-laptop-for-panos.-Intel-Core%2C-duo-core%2C-core-2\
-duo..----tf3499597.html#a9773624
Sent from the PanoToolsNG mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Hello Carel,

There is no answer that covers all your questions. I suggest, you're
reading a in-depth review like this one on Toms Hardware:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/03/26/the_gigahertz_battle/
In the end, all depends on the fact, if and how the software can use the
advanced instructions of the newer CPU generations and if the software
is multi-CPU capable (Photoshop is, BTW),

  From my personal point of view: I've recently bought a new Laptop and i
was pleased to see that the new Core _2_ Duo processors are recognizable
faster than than any older Intel/AMD version. Watching a panorama with
Fulvio's FSPViewer powered by an Athlon XP looked sluggish, while the
same on the Core 2 turned out to be blindingly fast.

Best regards
Bernhard

Carel wrote:
> I am thinking of getting a new laptop. It will have to be able to showcase
> panos in the smoothest possible way on a bright screen with a wide viewing
> angle. I am a bit confused about all those duo core varieties out there.
> They all emphasize multi-tasking, but what I am interested in is if the
> number of cores makes a difference when just working in one program like
> Photoshop. At the moment my fastest PC is a 3.4GHz Pentium 4. So how do I
> figure out how much faster or slower a duo core of say 1.66GHz or 2 GHz is
> and would a core 2 duo speed up a process in photoshop any more than a core
> duo with in the same GHz range?
>
> Carel Struycken
>

Hi, Carel.

If you want smooth panorama viewing I strongly suggest you to search for
notebooks/laptops with accelerated video cards, such as Nvidia's "Go"
series. With a hardware accelerated GPU you could take advatage of the
Spi-V viewer and get the smoothest viewing you could dream of. Do some
research on accelerated video cards for mobile computers and see what's
available there.

http://www.nvidia.com/page/mobile.html
http://ati.amd.com/products/mobile.html

I'm quite sure that even with a pretty modest accelerated card you would
get incredible frames per second rates, regardless of the main processor
speed or type.

Surely Aldo could put some more light over this matter..

Regards,

Fabio.


Carel wrote:
> I am thinking of getting a new laptop. It will have to be able to showcase
> panos in the smoothest possible way on a bright screen with a wide viewing
> angle. I am a bit confused about all those duo core varieties out there.
> They all emphasize multi-tasking, but what I am interested in is if the
> number of cores makes a difference when just working in one program like
> Photoshop. At the moment my fastest PC is a 3.4GHz Pentium 4. So how do I
> figure out how much faster or slower a duo core of say 1.66GHz or 2 GHz is
> and would a core 2 duo speed up a process in photoshop any more than a core
> duo with in the same GHz range?
>
> Carel Struycken
>