The DAM Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 23, 2014, 08:56:10 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
28021 Posts in 5141 Topics by 2910 Members
Latest Member: kbroch
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  The DAM Forum
|-+  Software Discussions
| |-+  idImager
| | |-+  Comparison of IDimager v4 to EM2
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 Print
Author Topic: Comparison of IDimager v4 to EM2  (Read 21681 times)
billseymour
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 308


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: August 29, 2009, 05:26:28 AM »

And a further question, related to Dierk's (and hopefully Hert can comment on this, as well):

How well does Idimager run on Macs (and Apple computers generally) when using Boot Camp or Parallels? If the answer is "it runs fine", then isn't the cross-platform issue largely solved? I refer to the following (I know Peter, Dan, Dierk, etc know this, just including the reference for anyone unfamiliar with what I am talking about):
---------
If you need to use a particular Windows-only application, you have a few options: Boot Camp comes with every new Mac, and it lets you run Windows natively — as if your Mac were a PC. If you want to run Mac OS X and Windows side by side, you can purchase Parallels Desktop for Mac or VMware Fusion. Install one of these applications, along with the Windows Installation CDs, and you can run the occasional Windows program right next to your Mac applications, without having to restart.

http://www.apple.com/getamac/faq/
--------

Now, something I don't know is: the above refers to running on a Mac- does Apple still make any non-Mac computers, and if so, does the same solution work for them? (I know, I am an Apple-techno-peasant, but hey, whaddayagonnado?)

--Bill
Logged
peterkrogh
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5682


View Profile Email
« Reply #31 on: August 29, 2009, 11:42:59 AM »

Bill,
I, too, am interested in how well idImager runs in a virtualized environment.
Per another thread in the Lightroom section, any management program must make use of system-level resources, and this might be one of those app types where this becomes problematic.

Peter
Logged
danaltick
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1616

evaa-xdtb@spamex.com danaltick
View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #32 on: August 29, 2009, 12:46:01 PM »

Ran a performance test on Web Gallery creation with IDimager and EM using a collection of 238 DNG's.  In each case I made the web gallery images 480 pixels max.  The thumbs were close in size.  Here are the results:

IDimager with the option "Allow stored catalog previews to be used when available" turned on w/ 900px previews in database: 195 secs.

IDimager with the option "Allow stored catalog previews to be used when available" turned off: 220 seconds (using DNG previews here)

EM using DNG previews: 390 seconds

Makes me wonder now why EM is taking so long.

Dan

« Last Edit: August 30, 2009, 01:29:40 PM by danaltick » Logged

WindowsXP, ImageIngester Pro, RapidFixer, IVMP 3, ACR4, Photoshop CS4, Controlled Keyword Catalog, Canon EOS50D
havezet
Full Member
***
Posts: 180



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #33 on: August 30, 2009, 08:27:34 AM »

Peter,

I know of some IDI users who later on switched to Mac and who run IDI succesfully in virtual box; though I don't know if they're using VMware or Parallels or other virtualization software. There should be postings about this on the IDimager forum.

I'm also interested in an answer from you to Dierk's question.

Hert
Logged

Author of IDimager
http://www.idimager.com
peterkrogh
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5682


View Profile Email
« Reply #34 on: August 30, 2009, 09:10:57 AM »

Hert,
When you refer to Dierk's question, what are you asking?  Is it:

"Mac and PC are not the whole universe of OS.  What about Linux?"
If that's the question, then, sure, for those trying to brave Linux as an imaging platform, I see the issue of being left out.

If the issue is
"Why does being Mac-compatible matter so much?", then I'd say it does not, for those who are PC only, like Dan. For those who use Mac, or, like me who have dual platform environments, it means everything. My time for testing is limited, and it's hard to justify putting a program at the heart of the operation that cuts out more than half of the audience. (To the extent that the program itself is at the heart.  Much of my work is not program-specific. It's about best practices that transcend any particular piece of software.)

If platform was not an issue, it would be pretty easy to say that IdImager offers the most complete feature set by a considerable margin. I know lots of Mac users who would be very enthusiastic to have access to the features you've created. Perhaps virtualization will make this a reality.

Or maybe you will just make a Mac version...
;-)
Peter
Logged
danaltick
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1616

evaa-xdtb@spamex.com danaltick
View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #35 on: August 30, 2009, 09:38:24 AM »

We are truly in an age of virtualization with the newer processors supporting it at the core level, and each new generation of processors literally trumps the generation before it.  Most all servers today run in virtual environments supporting all the major O/S's.  Performance is not a real issue anymore.  I think this would be the avenue I would be investigating.  I see this as a way for the small developer to compete with the big guys.

Dan 
« Last Edit: August 30, 2009, 09:40:44 AM by danaltick » Logged

WindowsXP, ImageIngester Pro, RapidFixer, IVMP 3, ACR4, Photoshop CS4, Controlled Keyword Catalog, Canon EOS50D
Dierk
Full Member
***
Posts: 212


149167100 Dierk54@Hotmail.com Evo2Me dhslowhand
View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #36 on: August 30, 2009, 10:48:13 AM »

Peter, your answer is what I wanted us all to see, both parts, the Linux one as well as the dual-environment one. It is absolutely necessary to put a perspective on any recommendation, especially universal ones. I, for one, am not on Mac and never will be if I can forego it*.

There's a lot to consider for the future of any application. For instance, Mac and Linux have a lot in common as they are both based on UNIX, both will probably never be more than minor niche - it might even be that Windows will go the way of the dodo. Currently I see a lot of work in bringing apps onto the Internet to be used through Web browsers or rather smallish starter/browser UIs based upon browsers. Google surely goes this way; contrary to MS a few years ago, the big G knows what they are doing. But Google with their PIM and office apps are not the only ones, Invelos [and its predecessor] have been offering partial Web connection for years. Lately Collectorz.com started to port their programs to the Web [for the time being desktop, iPhone, and Web will coexist].

In another thread we discuss the lukewarm statement from MS about the future of xMedia, and some users are now in a state of frustrated content, waiting only for the most glaring problems to be fixed [coming down to database size]. I am not to sure MS isn't in the same state ... While the UI is still superior to everything else with only one tweak really needed [panels movable and visible at the same time], the program as a whole is just ... old. MS and the users need a killer feature, say, database handling locally and on the Web. We need much better gallery creation possibilities, especially on the Flash front; actually the gallery API needs an overhaul so what can be done by third-party companies with Lightroom and more could be done with xMedia.

How come I have to create Helper application entries to get my files correctly handed over to their associated program? Is a better integration for other programs called possible, making xMedia a hub for all things photo? What about a Picasa/flikr-like photo community hosted by MS, directly accessible via xMedia [optional, not mandatory, in both directions]? How about an optional rights-free repository of audio and video material open to use in slideshows created via xMedia?

Let's be clear, nothing of this is new, most of it already done one way or another by other companies, Adobe comes to mind, who are obviously not just contemplating all of this. ATM Adobe is the big sausage when it comes to all things photo, with no contender. Adobe is creation-oriented, Lightroom uses a database but that is not its selling point, ease of image processing is. MS has nothing to offer on that front [please, buy a good RAW processor-cum-image-processor like Lightzone and add it to xMedia] but has a very good media management app - and the know-how to work it. Why don't they?

This will sutely incite the wrath of Khan ... sorry, don't even like Star Trek ... the wrath of Appl users, which sizable with xMedia: For now, MS, concentrate on developing xMedia on Windows and towards Web; the Mac market is a niche and one that knows how to run Windows programs on their designer machines. A Mac app on Windows, never heard of that.




*Sometimes I have to work with them, for years in the past, before and after Mac went essentially Unix.
Logged

Dierk

IDimager on Windows XP/SP2; 3.2 GHz, 2 GB RAM, loads of storage space.
Other: Nikon D2x, Nikon D200, Capture NX 2, Adobe Creative Suite 3
danaltick
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1616

evaa-xdtb@spamex.com danaltick
View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #37 on: August 30, 2009, 11:36:27 AM »

The Mac is a niche market, but not for photographers.  It's where Photoshop was born.  It might be interesting to take a poll on the forum, Mac or Windows.

Dan
Logged

WindowsXP, ImageIngester Pro, RapidFixer, IVMP 3, ACR4, Photoshop CS4, Controlled Keyword Catalog, Canon EOS50D
danaltick
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1616

evaa-xdtb@spamex.com danaltick
View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #38 on: August 30, 2009, 02:00:16 PM »

Just ran an ingestion test between IDimager and EM using the same 238 DNG's mentioned above in the web gallery test:

EM: 125 secs

IDimager with no previews: 325 secs

IDimager with 900 px previews: 500 secs

This is the only area I've come across so far where IDimager is lagging significantly in performance.  I would hope to see some improvements in this area when version 5 is released later this fall.

Dan
Logged

WindowsXP, ImageIngester Pro, RapidFixer, IVMP 3, ACR4, Photoshop CS4, Controlled Keyword Catalog, Canon EOS50D
peterkrogh
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5682


View Profile Email
« Reply #39 on: August 30, 2009, 03:25:06 PM »

Dierk,
I think you are on target with much of your commentary (without directing any of my comments to the issue of future EM releases).

Your interest in web integration is one I see everywhere, surely at places like Microsoft, Adobe, and Apple. Almost all of these, however, are assuming that it's going to be someone else's job to actually preserve the entire collection. They are all fighting about being the sexy front-end application, not the robust, reliable, and forward-compatible back-end application. Hert is one of the few that seems to be putting a lot of development thought into this area, outside of the very expensive enterprise-level DAMs.

My own personal belief is that there is a huge opportunity for the company that can create a great back-end application that can have extensible stuff bolted onto the front. Let me sort my images on my machine, and let my wife sort on heres, and let us trade the work back and forth. Then, let me hook a web app onto the database and share. In the database world, this kind of arrangement has been a solved problem for something like 20 years.  Why has it taken so long to move into the imaging space?

As to Dan's comments on the virtualization, that's true for lots of computing, but robust manipulation of the filesystem tools is integral to DAM functionality, and I think that raises some very fundamental problems. It's one thing to boot a Mac in Windows, quite another to run Windows in a Mac environment and have the software access the Mac APIs when many of them are very different from the Windows APIs. (This takes me to the edge of my knowledge about this subject - I know this is a potential issue - I don't happen to know how solvable it is.)  I'm concerned that the only real way to make this work is to have two parallel applications.

Maybe Hert can weigh in on this...

Peter
Logged
danaltick
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1616

evaa-xdtb@spamex.com danaltick
View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #40 on: August 30, 2009, 03:50:10 PM »

Peter,

I really don't think it should be a problem running Windows in a Mac environment.  I worked in a real-time sumulation environment for a few months last year where we were compiling, linking, and running our simulation (comprised of thousand of files) in a Linux environment running completely virtual under WindowsXP as separate windows.  This simulation also accessed the file system in real-time, and this was on older dual-core Conroe processors; nothing compared to today's quad-core hyperthreaded Core i7's.  If this works in a real-time sumlation environment, I don't think DAM would be a problem.

Dan
« Last Edit: August 30, 2009, 03:54:39 PM by danaltick » Logged

WindowsXP, ImageIngester Pro, RapidFixer, IVMP 3, ACR4, Photoshop CS4, Controlled Keyword Catalog, Canon EOS50D
Dierk
Full Member
***
Posts: 212


149167100 Dierk54@Hotmail.com Evo2Me dhslowhand
View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #41 on: August 30, 2009, 11:25:05 PM »

Peter, I don't see 'robust manipulation of the filesystem tools' in xMedia, except on the Mac ...

That's another troubling point about the program since MS took over - let me remind you that I am anything but an MS basher, and that I was all in favour of the take-over when it happened - very annoying bugs stand seemingly forever. Like not being able to d'n'd folders within xMedia; we have to create a new folder, d'n'd all images over, then delete the old folder. I am also missing an indicator that a folder is not empty though all my Importer files are out [i.e. no BMPs, JPEGs, NEFs, DNGs, TIFFs anymore but XMPs or video files or text files]; thus I have to go through Windows Explorer to see if I can savely delete the folder. Not robust.

Another one is that f**** unbelievable explode bug for keywords:



There shouldn't be any doubles in the keyword file. And in past versions it worked quite well, enter a line of comma-separated keywords, hit <Enter>, the terms are applied individually, the line is taken over into the keyword file. It is also exploded into fragments, which can be good, though I don't want that [make it optional!]. All right thus far, but now, whenever I enter keywords as described they get added individually no matter if they are already in there. That's a mjor setback for me to get CVK translated into German with additional keywords added.
Logged

Dierk

IDimager on Windows XP/SP2; 3.2 GHz, 2 GB RAM, loads of storage space.
Other: Nikon D2x, Nikon D200, Capture NX 2, Adobe Creative Suite 3
peterkrogh
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5682


View Profile Email
« Reply #42 on: August 31, 2009, 12:48:48 PM »

Dierk,
I was unaware of the "exploded keywords" bug (nice mental image).

A best I can tell, what you are describing is that when entering a keyowrd hierarchy, all nodes are added as separate keywords, even if an identical item is already there.  Is that it? 

Also, not sure what d'n'd means.

Peter
Logged
Chris Bishop
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 472


View Profile
« Reply #43 on: August 31, 2009, 01:09:58 PM »

Spare your blushes Peter, hide behind the green bottle, probably the best green bottle in the world? Do you have the same adverts?
Drag n Drop ?
Chris
Logged
peterkrogh
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5682


View Profile Email
« Reply #44 on: August 31, 2009, 05:40:12 PM »

I thought it was dungeons and dragons...
Peter
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!