![]() When a shoot mixes camera formats, you'll end up with a variety of color spaces, Log types, HDR formats, and LUTs. The end result? A high quality proxy that's easy to edit with, with all the flexibility a non-RAW format carries. EditReady uses each vendor's specific RAW decoder, using the vendor preferred Log format to reflect the original shooting intent. Use metadata to automatically rename files, or burn data into overlays. Review and edit metadataĮditReady lets you view and edit all of the metadata associated with your file, including location data, camera settings, and diagnostic information. Every codec gets transcoded as its makers intended it to. No unofficial frameworks, and zero hacks. To view photos and videos at full 5K resolution is one thing, probably a great experience, to edit at full 5K resolution is a different matter and likely to require significant computer power (for calculating and rendering).Using each manufacturers' original SDK wherever possible to ensure the best quality transcodes. I do make some adjustments at 1:1 but only on my primary display which has a much smaller working area. If you have a smaller sensor, about 16 megapixels, taking 4272 x 2848 photos, on a 5K you are making edits to your photos at 1:1 resolution (100% zoom) with the whole image visible on the screen each time you make a global adjustment LR has to recalculate and the render the whole photo, every single pixel, and this could also apply to local adjustments. Now on a 5K screen (5120X2880) you need just over 1 screen width and 1.4 screen heights to see the photograph 1:1 (100% zoom). Let's do some maths, I have a camera with a 24 megapixel sensor (and a little bit), it generates 6014 by 4016 images, on 2560 by 1440 I would need approximately 2.4 screen widths and almost 2.8 screen heights to see a photograph 1:1 (100% zoom). I think Rob is absolutely right, a 2560x1440 working area or even smaller needs to be reproduced. If LR has to generate one for a photo you wanna edit from a RAW that's a big slowdown. That should speed things up, but since I use that by default I can't say. So why ditch it unless you're going to say 4k on a nMP or something?Īlso, I wonder if you use 1:1 previews when importing. You can just lean in on the riMac to see detail, so you really don't lose anything by using LR on an riMac over a regular iMac. In short, you can duplicate the 2560x1440 display on the retina, and probably improve performance when editing, but you can't go the other way, and produce the riMac performance on the regular iMac, unless you're willing to sit 32" back to view your photos. ![]() And from 32" on the iMac it's the same resolution as 16" on the riMac. I'm looking at doubled up pixels on both. ![]() My RAWs at 1:2 overflow the working area in LR on my iMac 2560x1440 display at that same 1:2 on my riMac they are well within the area. ![]() Took me a while to realize that scaling, especially integer scaling, looks great on the retina, unlike my previous Mac.Īnd consider the comparison with a regular iMac. Since the retina is so sharp, unlike previous monitors, you don't lose much by doing that. And leave the Display prefs at "best for display." The image redraw is where the power is required at 2:1 you are getting 4 pixels for each pixel in your image. I'm not sure which window you speak of, but try scaling the image itself, say 1:2. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |