Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Vista Problems

Expand Messages
  • Michael Pilkington
    Alan, I took some time off from packing a ran 20 or so stacks. Doing Do Stack, followed by Wieghted Average, followed by Weighted Average Correction, or
    Message 1 of 16 , Mar 22, 2007
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Alan,

      I took some time off from packing a ran 20 or so stacks.  Doing Do Stack, followed by Wieghted Average, followed by Weighted Average Correction, or Average and Filter on each stack.  CombineZ ran faultlessly.  The only difference I noticed was the occaisional star shaped artefact (twice) in the striped margin.  I don't remember seeing it before, but then I might simply not have been looking hard enough for problems.

      It seems very stable, and was able to run in in triplicate without it's hanging up more than once or twice.  Better than XP.  And, if my rather primative untilisation meter is telling the truth it's using the processor at nearly 100%, and using from 60 to 95% of 8gig of ram, depending upon how many times I have it running at once.  It's very fast.

      I'm usually able to run CS2 and Bridge at the same time, though running it in triplicate sometimes does inhibit certain operations.

      In fact it goes amazingly well.

      Thanks again,

      Michael
    • Michael Pilkington
      Alan. I ve posted the stars in my album at 200%. One set from the edge and one from a very large featureless area. They re not a problem, more of a
      Message 2 of 16 , Mar 22, 2007
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Alan.

        I've posted the stars in my album at 200%.  One set from the edge and one from a very large featureless area.  They're not a problem, more of a curiosity, really.  Perhaps I just never noticed them before.

        Michael
      • Alan Hadley
        Hello Michael and All, sorry this post is a bit long. I have given what you reported some thought, and here are some ideas. I do not know if they answer your
        Message 3 of 16 , Mar 23, 2007
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello Michael and All, sorry this post is a bit long.

          I have given what you reported some thought, and here are some
          ideas. I do not know if they answer your problems completely but
          might give an insight into some possible pitfalls.

          If you hold a Shift key down and press a function key F1 etc. you
          will start a macro, this also applies if you have Shift Lock on so
          that may have been the cause of that problem. Let me know if F3
          still won't work under Vista and I will have a rethink.

          Frames marked with an '*' are only not used by some functions, i.e.
          those that refer to frames directly. Functions that just process
          frame numbers may produce numbers which refer to frames that are
          marked as Unused. The two major culprits for this behaviour are
          Fill Gaps and Filter Depthmap. Both of these peocess numbers in the
          depthmap and may produce numbers that lie between two others. This
          might not be that clear so here's two little thought experements.

          1. Suppose the top frame (10) is Used the next frame down the stack
          (9) is Unused and all of the frames in the stack below (9) are
          Used. Now do Find Detail, suppose some detail is found on frame
          (10) then there is a gap and some more detail is found on frame
          (8). Now do Fill Gaps and the space between (8) and (10) is filled
          with some (8)s some (9)s and some (10)s. So while frame (9) was not
          examined directly some pixels from it were included indirectly.

          2. Suppose pixels from frame (8) in the above were next to pixels
          from frame (10) after Do Stack and Fill Gaps. What would happen if
          you smoothed this step? You would get some (9)s at the junction and
          hence on interpreting the depthmap to redraw the picture you would
          get pixels from the Unused frame (9) in the result.

          If this is the problem the moral is do not mix Used and Unused frames
          at the top of the stack, or bottom for that matter. A continuous
          run of Unused frames at either end of the stack is OK but put a Used
          frame amongst them and you have problems. I could programme around
          this problem but there would be speed penalties when redrawing the
          picture etc.

          It is possible for this behaviour to produce stars also. If the top
          frame is Used then there are some Unused frames below it. Suppose
          Find Detail finds a dot on the top frame then you will get a sort of
          pyramid of number values going down through the Unused frames, these
          will produce symmetrical patterns, and Interpolated Output will
          modify their appearance even further.

          As I say this may not be the problem, I have read that Vista handles
          some graphics in different ways. Also running several instances of
          CZ together may cause clashes with values in the Windows Registery
          because there is only one set of CZM values stored. I don't think
          this is a problem, but I have not looked at it very closely.

          Alan
        • Michael Pilkington
          Alan, F3 works fine, I must have had the shift key on, since I had the same problem with F2. I think I understand the problem of intermediate frames, but the
          Message 4 of 16 , Mar 23, 2007
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Alan,

            F3 works fine, I must have had the shift key on, since I had the same problem with F2.

            I think I understand the problem of intermediate frames, but the problems arose when I used the Use frames above/below to divide the stack into two portions.  It was accessing the already processed frames, and producing all sort of strange artefacts: bubbles with edge striations, bubbles with posterised (multiple stepped) edges etc..  Maybe it looped around and somehow included the excluded frames.

            The good new is I very rarely use the technique, and the problem disapears if I do Save Work/ *Resume Work after Balance and Align. Setting an undo point doesn't seem to do it, though.

            I think I was a bit paranoid that CombineZ wouldn't work after I'd upgraded my machine (much time, much expense), and I overreacted to what were either minor or imaginary problems.  Sorry.

            I've put a before/after pair of pictures in my album so that anyone running into the same problem can use the same technique.

            Thanks for the detailed explanations, and all the support.

            Michael

            --- In combinez@yahoogroups.com, "Alan Hadley" <alan@...> wrote:
            >
            > Hello Michael and All, sorry this post is a bit long.
            >
            > I have given what you reported some thought, and here are some
            > ideas. I do not know if they answer your problems completely but
            > might give an insight into some possible pitfalls.
            >
            > If you hold a Shift key down and press a function key F1 etc. you
            > will start a macro, this also applies if you have Shift Lock on so
            > that may have been the cause of that problem. Let me know if F3
            > still won't work under Vista and I will have a rethink.
            >
            > Frames marked with an '*' are only not used by some functions, i.e.
            > those that refer to frames directly. Functions that just process
            > frame numbers may produce numbers which refer to frames that are
            > marked as Unused. The two major culprits for this behaviour are
            > Fill Gaps and Filter Depthmap. Both of these peocess numbers in the
            > depthmap and may produce numbers that lie between two others. This
            > might not be that clear so here's two little thought experements.
            >
            > 1. Suppose the top frame (10) is Used the next frame down the stack
            > (9) is Unused and all of the frames in the stack below (9) are
            > Used. Now do Find Detail, suppose some detail is found on frame
            > (10) then there is a gap and some more detail is found on frame
            > (8). Now do Fill Gaps and the space between (8) and (10) is filled
            > with some (8)s some (9)s and some (10)s. So while frame (9) was not
            > examined directly some pixels from it were included indirectly.
            >
            > 2. Suppose pixels from frame (8) in the above were next to pixels
            > from frame (10) after Do Stack and Fill Gaps. What would happen if
            > you smoothed this step? You would get some (9)s at the junction and
            > hence on interpreting the depthmap to redraw the picture you would
            > get pixels from the Unused frame (9) in the result.
            >
            > If this is the problem the moral is do not mix Used and Unused frames
            > at the top of the stack, or bottom for that matter. A continuous
            > run of Unused frames at either end of the stack is OK but put a Used
            > frame amongst them and you have problems. I could programme around
            > this problem but there would be speed penalties when redrawing the
            > picture etc.
            >
            > It is possible for this behaviour to produce stars also. If the top
            > frame is Used then there are some Unused frames below it. Suppose
            > Find Detail finds a dot on the top frame then you will get a sort of
            > pyramid of number values going down through the Unused frames, these
            > will produce symmetrical patterns, and Interpolated Output will
            > modify their appearance even further.
            >
            > As I say this may not be the problem, I have read that Vista handles
            > some graphics in different ways. Also running several instances of
            > CZ together may cause clashes with values in the Windows Registery
            > because there is only one set of CZM values stored. I don't think
            > this is a problem, but I have not looked at it very closely.
            >
            > Alan
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.