IPhoto 09 Gives Better Results than Aperture 2.0 on RAW

I wanted to compare the results of Aperture 2.0 to iPhoto '09 on a RAW photo. To my chagrin, iPhoto had done a better job on the photo just by using the instant fix wizard and then one click on the color saturation effect.
With Aperture, I imported the iPhoto library and made sure I was working on the "Original" RAW photo from that library. My workflow started with autoexposure, then the two auto levels (Luminance & RGB) by the histogram. I maxed the Sharpening in the RAW fine tuning.
I tried tweaking the contrast, saturation, exposure and recovery. Nothing I can seem to do in Aperture can get the photo to look have the details as sharp and the colors as vibrant. iPhoto's automatic algorithms appear to be far superior to Aperture's auto exposure and auto levels of Luminance and RGB. Plus, it appears to do a better job than all the other controls will allow me to do manually.
Has anyone else compared the two products side by side on the same photo and experienced the same?
Thanks,
Don

Hmmmm,
This is a meaningless comparison - If you cannot get the results you want in Ap then just use iPhoto and it's auto everything button and be happy. There is nothing magic going on in iPhoto, it uses the same CoreImage subroutines as Aperture for RAW interpretation prior to applying any of it's adjustments. One thing that the iPhoto auto functions will do is it will sacrifice more highlights and shadows detail than the Aperture auto levels will, you can set that in prefs if you like more contrast.
RB
Ps. the raw fine tuning sharpen slider will make virtually no visual difference, it is NOT for final output sharpening.

Similar Messages

Why does the Fireworks save for web function give better results than in Photoshop?

Having used the trial version of Fireworks, I have noticed that the save for web function gives greater compression and image quality than saving for web in Photoshop. Why is this?
As Adobe are not continuing in developing Fireworks, does anyone know if will they will improve the save for web function in Photoshop to match the Fireworks version?
Are there any third party companies who anyone can recommend who will process large volumes of images for web?
Thanks

One of my favourite topics ;-P
First, the save for web function in Photoshop has not seen any real updates in a long time. In Fireworks PNG export allows for fully transparent optimized files with indexed 256 or less colours, which is impossible in the save for web function in Photohop. It is unsupported.
This is one of the reasons why Fireworks does a much better job than Photoshop. Another reason is that Photoshop adds meta junk in its exported files, and this also increases the file size (and should be removed, because there are also a number of fields which include information about your setup).
One other caveat is that Photoshop's save for web functions neither allows for a choice in chroma subsampling, and instead decides automatically below a certain quality threshold to degrade the colour sharpness quality. The user has no control over this. (Fireworks also limits the user this way.)
One thing to be careful of: FW's jpg quality setting, and PS's quality settings are very different - a 50 in Photoshop is not the same 50 setting in Fireworks.
For jpg optimization I generally use RIOT (free): http://luci.criosweb.ro/riot/
(When you install, be careful NOT to install the extra junkware!)
Fireworks cannot change the chroma subsampling to 4:2:0, which does degrade the quality a bit compared to RIOT and Photoshop in my experience. Photoshop adds useless meta information, even if the user tells it not to do that. RIOT allows you to remove that information, saving 6k. RIOT also offers an automatic mode that optimizes existing jpg images without degrading the quality further, and often saves 10k or more, depending on the images.
Interestingly enough, in my tests exported Fireworks jpg images are always reduced in file size by RIOT, due to FW's jpg export limitations, without any image degradation.
In my tests FW's jpg quality versus file size turns out to be the worst of all three. RIOT generally wins, or is at least on par with Photoshop.
As for PNG export, Photoshop's save for web function is quite abysmal. No 256 colour full transparency export is possible, while Fireworks does support this.
Having said that, there is a free alternative that leaves both Photoshop AND Fireworks in the dust: Color Quantizer. http://x128.ho.ua/color-quantizer.html
CQ is an amazing little tool: with it anyone can create PNG files with full transparency and reduced to ANY number of colours! It means that a 512 colour PNG with full transparency is now very easy to do. On top of that, for more difficult images a simple quality mask brush tool allows the user to control and retain even small colour details in a PNG, while reducing the file size to an absolute minimum.
CQ is one of the best kept secrets of a Web Developer's toolkit. And it is free!
Both RIOT and Color Quantizer have a built-in batch mode. Both are available for WIndows. Not for Mac. If you are on a Mac, try imageOptim. Not nearly as good as RIOT and CQ, but quite passable.
PS to be fair, the newest versions of Photoshop do allow for export of 8bit PNGs with full transparency through the use of its Generator functionality. But again, it cannot compete with CQ. And as far as I am aware, Generator cannot be used in Photoshop's batch processing (which, btw, is very slow! For simpler daily image processing tasks I have to do in batches, I prefer IrfanView, which is lightning fast! IrfanView).

Better results than you could achieve in a real-time onlining suite?

Another for Zeb and anyone else who cares about color. HD for Indies (http://www.hdforindies.com/) reviews The DV Rebel's Guide by Stu Maschwitz. In a section, "Why so AE centric when such a pain - why not do in FCP?", Mike Curtis pseudo-interviews Stu, who says "When onlining, the rule is the polar opposite: no amount of render time is too much to endure in the name of increased image quality. I detail some techniques for extracting every last bit of luminance range from your video source, removing color subsampling artifacts (without plug-ins), and a complete pipeline for multiple digital masters. If you follow these guidelines you can actually achieve better results than you could in an expensive real-time onlining suite."
He is talking about the poor boy with a three year old laptop for whom long render times don't cost too much. Sounds like me.
Comment?

I have a valid example data file attached to this thread.
If you open BEXTEST.bin in a hex-editor of your choice, you'll see the BEXUS as 42 45 58 55 53 and then the time as 00 28 09 etc.
I couldn't get Joe Guo's VI to work. It doesn't count packages correctly, and the time is not displayed correctly either.
The file was saved using a straight save to file VI.
The data is from actual launching area tests performed a few mintues ago. The time displayed is "On time" e.g. how long the gondola has been powered up.
I have a spare T-junction, so I can hook into the balloon real-time data as we fly, in case anyone care to see if they can figure out why the latest version of Joe Guo's program is not displaying correctly.
I will monitor this
thread during and after flight to see if anyone can make it in time!
Thanks for the great effort!!
Attachments:
bextest.bin ‏53 KB

Will upscaling or using clone stamp/healing brush to upsize give better resolution?

I'm designing a 5.25" square CD cover using a rectangular image and the resolution needs to be min. 300ppi to print . The artist sent me the art image (painting) from her camera as a jpeg and it goes to photoshop as a large (approx 20" X 24") file at 72 ppi. To change the ppi to 300 without resampling (I've been told this is best), the image becomes too narrow (4 1/2") and too high (5.9").
I don't want to crop because I don't want to lose content. I want the image to completely cover the CD cover And I want to keep the same proportions for certain parts of the image. So I believe my two best options are as follows:
1. Bring the image to 300ppi with the measurements above, protect certain parts of the image on an alpha channel, content aware scale the rest of the image wider to make it square and then resize down a bit for the CD cover or
2. Bring the image to 300ppi and then use the clone stamp and healing brush tool or content aware fill (doesn't work so well on this image) to duplicate and extend the sides of the image to widen and square it and then resize down a bit for the CD cover.
Does anyone know which of these options will give the best resolution? Is upscaling more likely to cause pixelization than the other option? Is there a better way? Should I do options 1 and 2 to the large 72 resolution image instead of bringing it to 300ppi first and then upscale or clone stamp--would that give better results?
Thanks, any help is greatly appreciated!

You've said that you don't want to crop, and you want to cover the entire CD cover. That leaves you with two choices. Extend the short side(s) via cloning, content aware fill, etc. or stretch the image in one direction, either with the standard free-transform or with content aware transform. See what looks best. Your resolution will be fine. You can res up if you need to. The amount you're short will not matter here. Leave room for bleed - usually 1/8".

IPhoto 08 has more Photo Info than Aperture 2.1

When I examine the information in the Metadata Inspector of Aperture 2.1, it is missing information found in iPhoto 08: Exposure. iPhoto tells me that my picture was taken with Aperture priority in the Exposure section of the Photo Info window. Aperture tells me that the Exposure Mode was 0 and that Exposure bias was 0ev. In this case, iPhoto tells me more information about my pictures than Aperture. Can someone please explain why? My camera is a Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT.

I have tested the Exposure Program metadata with my Canon Rebel XT camera and this is what I have found out.
_Exposure Mode on Camera : Exposure Program Number in Aperture 2.1_
A-DEP : 0 - not defined
M - Manual : 1
Av - Aperture priority : 3
Tv - Shutter priority : 4
P - Program : 2
Auto : 2
Portrait : 7
Landscape : 8
Macro : 0 - not defined
Sports : 6
Night : 0 - not defined
No Flash : 0 - not defined
There are 3 modes that are not defined by Aperture. You can see the mode the picture was shot by reviewing the pictures on the camera, but it doesn't fully transfer to Aperture 2.1. Does anyone have an explanation for this.

I want to transfer my iPhoto from my old MacBook Pro to my new MacBook Pro. I have a firewire or I could also do it from my TimeCapsule. Would one be a better method than the other?

I want to transfer my iPhoto from my old MacBook Pro to my new MacBook Pro. I have a firewire or I could also do it from my TimeCapsule. Would one be a better method than the other?

Hi brotherbrown,
A direct FireWire transfer (especially if it's 800 to 800) is going to be the fastest method. TimeCapsule would work, if you connect to it via Ethernet, via wireless it would be quite slow (especially if you have a large library).

Radeon 4870 better match for Aperture 3 than GF 9600GT?

Hello,
I got an GeForce 9600 GT in my mac pro. After installing Aperture 3 I got unpleasant surprise how slow the brushing is. Everything else works fine but brushing is really a pain, it freezes for moments as I start to brush plus gui effects are slow and on the way constantly. My brother is tossing out his Radeon 4870 for better gaming card from his pc. I was wondering if I would get better performance in aperture 3 with that radeon? Can you guys please confirm that you got no problems with aperture 3 and radeon 4870 with brushing and general? I am a semipro photographer and current slow performance of aperture is driving me insane.

The brushing itself is fast, but can pause afterwards while the CPU figures out the solution to the brush stroke. Some brushes are always very quick while other are more CPU taxing.
Then I noticed something I do out of habit. Having the awesome Logitech MX Revolution mouse, and having Exposé functions mapped to the thumb wheel, when Aperture pizza-wheels, I habitually hit my mouse button for Exposé's Dashboard, and Aperture resumes near immediately. A hack, but it often works. This is not limited to Aperture, but something I do anytime OS X pizza-wheels, and works the vast majority of the time.
Also looked at the atMonitor while just doing a quick test. My VRAM never went more than 40% used in Aperture, and was normally around 25% VRAM used. X1900XT video card has 512MB VRAM and driving 1920x1200 pixels (23" Cinema display).
HTH.

What is the iPhoto levels tool doing that the Aperture tool isn't?

I just bought a copy of Aperture, and I love it, except for one thing. I am used to performing quick and dirty improvements of my outdoor photos using the levels tool in iPhoto - I find it gives excellent results with minimal effort.
However, I am not having the same luck with the levels tool in Aperture. Look at the following picture.
http://avalys.net/ap/original.jpg
http://avalys.net/ap/iphoto.jpg
http://avalys.net/ap/aperture.jpg
http://avalys.net/ap/iphoto-final.jpg
The first photo is the original. The second photo has had the black point set using the levels tool in iPhoto (the left slider), and no other modification. The third photo has had the same thing done in Aperture. Notice that Aperture introduces a blueish color cast to the shadow on the rocks, and produces an odd effect (I don't know what to call it) on the bushes.
What am I doing wrong here? What is different about iPhoto's level tool, vs. Aperture's?
The fourth image is the full version of the original with just that single adjustment in iPhoto applied (dragging the left level slider over a bit). Try as I might, I can't reproduce the same modifications to the original in Aperture, even with a multitude of adjustments.
MacBook Pro 2.4 15" Mac OS X (10.4.10)

I have never worked with the levels tool in iPhoto, so I do not know how it works exactly but I know why you get that blueish tint in shadows and how you can avoid it.
If you select RGB (or in your example even better the individual channels) instead of luminance in the levels tool in Aperture, you will see that the left side of the histogram ends at a slightly different position for all three colors. When you move the left slider in the luminance (or RGB) view you often cut off different amounts from the three colors, that plus the resulting re-adjustment of the rest of the histogram can cause color casts.
One way to avoid these color casts is to set the 'blackpoint' separately for the three channels. A bit cumbersome and it can be tricky to get it right. Fortunately, Aperture has a build-in tool that can shift the blackpoint and largely avoid any unwelcome color casts.
It is called the 'Auto-level - separate', the right-most button just directly under the histogram at the top of the adjustment HUD. It does exactly what I described before, set the 'blackpoint' separately for the three colors. Make sure you check and possibly adjust its default threshold settings (via the button in top-right corner of the HUD). It also adjusts the 'whitepoint', so it might do a bit more than you want it to.
I have also found that the sliders in the Exposure section do a better job at maintaining natural colors than the levels slider (which is a bit of a pity, as the level controls offer you much more flexibility).

IPhoto vs. Lightroom vs. Aperture?

I'm pretty new to digital image editing. One of the reasons I actually bought a Mac in the first place was for the ease of getting digital images onto the Internet, with maybe a little bit of editing (cropping, some minor color adjustment mainly). I use the .Mac/MobileMe service for storage after I saw how easy it was to get photos off the camera with iPhoto, tweak them a bit, then upload them to the Internet with iPhoto's Share feature.
Now that I've been doing that for a while, I'm starting to get interested in maybe taking things a bit further. I'd like to be able to do a bit more with some photos than what it seems is possible with iPhoto, such as blemish removal, greater control over color adjustments, etc.
I have been using iWeb to give me better online photo albums than iPhoto's simple Gallery feature, but even iWeb seems very limited with how the templates can be customized.
So I've started to wonder what my other options are. Of course I know the grand-daddy of image editing is Adobe Photoshop, but I'm not ready for the price tag or learning curve, not yet, anyway.
From what I can tell, Adobe Lightroom is basically like iPhoto, being a photo management and minor editing, only with more features and more that it can do compared to iPhoto. Is that assessment correct? Additionally, it also has a publish to web feature, like iPhoto, only even more customizable than what I can do with iWeb, is that also correct?
And from what I also understand, Apple Aperture is basically Apple's version of Lightroom?
Can Lightroom publish photos and albums to the Internet as easily as iPhoto? Including to a .Mac/MobileMe account?
If I were to get Lightroom or Aperture, would I still need to use iPhoto for anything anymore, or would the new program be a complete replacement?
Message was edited by: Justin J. Rebbert

To get an idea of the benefits of Aperture and Lightroom you might visit the DAM (digital asset management) forum and see what they say about those applications over there.
The DAM Forum
TIP: For insurance against the iPhoto database corruption that many users have experienced I recommend making a backup copy of the Library6.iPhoto (iPhoto.Library for iPhoto 5 and earlier) database file and keep it current. If problems crop up where iPhoto suddenly can't see any photos or thinks there are no photos in the library, replacing the working Library6.iPhoto file with the backup will often get the library back. By keeping it current I mean backup after each import and/or any serious editing or work on books, slideshows, calendars, cards, etc. That insures that if a problem pops up and you do need to replace the database file, you'll retain all those efforts. It doesn't take long to make the backup and it's good insurance.
I've created an Automator workflow application (requires Tiger or later), iPhoto dB File Backup, that will copy the selected Library6.iPhoto file from your iPhoto Library folder to the Pictures folder, replacing any previous version of it. It's compatible with iPhoto 6 and 7 libraries and Tiger and Leopard. iPhoto does not have to be closed to run the application, just idle. You can download it at Toad's Cellar. Be sure to read the Read Me pdf file.
Note: There now an Automator backup application for iPhoto 5 that will work with Tiger or Leopard.

Exporting QT Conversion "Uncompressed 10-bit 4:2:2" Gives Better Quality?

A friend who does not believe that File>Export>QT Movie gives the best results has told me that she has experimented with "Uncompressed 8 and 10 bit", also H.264 and got better quality when viewed on her computer.
I don't think she has tried to view them on anything else as she is looking for ways to backup her material.
I can't believe it myself and feel that there may be something odd about the way she is viewing these on her computer.
Here is part of the email she sent me, so feel free to comment on any of the points:-
+While experimenting I've found that making uncompressed QT8 or QT10 bit files result in a much clearer image, fuller colour and better depth but also produce files that are 80Gb and100Gb respectively for an hour of film, much too large to store. Exporting a simple QTM file uses about 14Gb.+
+So I decided to export to tape and I'm happy with the quality on these. Then, for back-up, I thought I'd make QTM movies and also H264 (which is supposed to be the format with the longest life - viewed from this point in time) which are of course small files by comparison.+
+This I did and compared the quality using Quicktime playback. The H264 films were clearer and had better colour depth than the QTM films (not nearly as good at the 8 or 10bit ones though). But - the ratio is different! The H264 films appear narrower in the QuickTime Player window than the QTM files! A comparison of the file info shows the same dimensions - 720 x 576. (Original film is 720 x 576)+
I think her comment about the narrowness of the H.264 images will be connected with square and non-square pixels?

Your friend is talking about standard definition video. Yes, uncompressed will produce better results, but unless you have the hardware, like a very fast RAID, to support it, it pretty pointless, especially if you're going to recompress it.
H.264, while very good, will not produce better results. I have no idea where the view that this codec has the longest life has derived from. H.264 is a line of codecs that go back to H.262 and H.263. There is a successor to AVCHD called HEVC, which is H.265 I guess, and within a few years there may be an H.266.
H.264 may show better color for computer display, but the original format is DV PAL, which is designed, not for computer display at all, but specifically for television display.
Indeed the aperture needs to be adjusted on the images to make them match in aspect ratio.

How come in Finder, when I search "This Mac", there's fewer results than when searching somewhere more specific? Shouldn't it be the opposite?

I have my preferences set so that New Finder windows show Macintosh HD. So when I open a Finder window, five folders are shown: Applications, Library, System, User Information, and User. As an example of the subject of my question, I opened a Finder window and typed "hp" in the search field. Four results were displayed: HP ePrint.app, two other apps that open the printing queues of HP printers, and an HTML document of bookmarks with two bookmarks containing "hp" in their names. My goal of the search* was to find a folder named "hp", of which there are two that I know of on my computer. Their locations are: 'Macintosh HD/Library/Printers' and 'Macintosh HD/Library/Application Support'—neither folder was found when searched for in "This Mac" nor when searched for in "Macintosh HD". When I searched for "hp" in the Library folder, 36 results were displayed, including the two folders named "hp". Above those 36 items, it clearly indicated that my search was conducted in the Library folder, and that I was able to click "This Mac" to search my whole computer instead. Clicking "This Mac" resulted in the same four items that were found when I searched for "hp" immediately after opening the Finder window to be displayed again. In my mind, clicking "This Mac" should at least keep the 36 items found in my Library folder to remain displayed. My reason for thinking this is because the Library folder is contained in "This Mac", isn't it? The same logic applies to Macintosh HD also; why doesn't searching there return at least the same 36 results? This phenomenon of the contained location returning more search results than the location which contains it frustrates me. When I search for something, I have to guess if it's in Library or System (if it's in one of the other folders, I'm always certain of which to search). I know that doesn't seem like a big deal, it just doesn't make sense to me why I can't find things by searching in "This Mac" or Macintosh HD. Until I got this MacBook (15" Pro Retina mid 2012, 2.6/16/256) , I was a lifelong Windows user. I love my MacBook, but this search idiosyncrasy is the only thing about it that seems inferior to its Windows counterpart. Searching for something in Windows is easier to me because locations behave hierarchically. I still like my MBP way better than any other computer that I've ever owned before, I just wish Apple would change this one attribute. If anyone knows how to make the Finder search behave completely hierarchically (when the containing location returns at least the same search results as the location it contains), please let me know. Thank you.
*The "hp" folder search that I conducted was done only as an example of the issue that I discussed here. I knew where the folders were, thus, it was easier for me to explain the problem that was posed in my question.

Start with http://www.pinkmutant.com/articles/Leopard/leospot.html and http://www.thexlab.com/faqs/stopspotlightindex.html, then my mod to Finder's Find at http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20080229204517495 for what you can change so you can find stuff excluded by the default structure.

Is a PowerMac G5 2.4 Dual Chip (used) a better option than an iMac?

Hi Guys
I'm still reasonably new to Macs, and I am really more of a music person than a computer person (which is frustrating at times!!).
I am looking at selling my iMac 2.4GHz (4GB RAM) and replacing it with a current iMac 2.66GHz, because the new iMacs can handle 8GB of RAM, which would really help me run BFD2 with less problems.
But I noticed this on eBay:
APPLE POWERMAC G5 2.3 GHZ DUAL CHIP-240gb HD-1.5 gb RAM (eBay item 230346540784) - would this be a better choice than going with a new iMac?
I don't even know if this one is Quad Core. My knowledge of Mac Pros is zero! But I do know a lot of people go for them over iMacs, and even suggest getting a second hand Mac Pro in preference to a new iMac if it's for music.
Could someone help out and tell me if the above machine is a better bet than going for a new iMac?
Thanks heaps,
Mike

i dont have any evidence to prove this, but i would think that your iMac would run circles around the much older power mac G5 system.
a mac pro would be a diff story. mac pros are the 'new' version of the power macs now running intel chips.
www.everymac.com can give you all the tech specs you need on macs.

Better client than sqlplus for bulk fetch testing .

Hi,
I'm doing some test with rows speed retriving via Net8 and need some better client than sqlplus itself .
There is araysize limit of 5000 in sqlplus and its not oriented for massive row fetching , although Im using set termout off .
Test are in 10.2.0.3 environment and 100Mbit ethernet netowrk .
So is there any better client I can use ? Or I need to write it by myself :) ?
I've tried with pmdtm (informatica fetch utility) but it has got some problems with thread synchronization , basicaly strace profiling returns
% time     seconds usecs/call     calls    errors syscall
57.35    1.738975         161     10819      2145 futex
41.35    1.253799       32149        39           poll
1.21    0.036717           3     11869           read
0.08    0.002491           1      2163           write
0.00    0.000000           0        50           fcntl
0.00    0.000000           0        19           clock_gettime
100.00    3.031982                 24959      2145 totalso instead of reading it's latching :).
Regards
GregG

GregG wrote:
its not oriented for massive row fetching , although Im using set termout off .You can use SQL*Plus AUTOTRACE command to disable query result printing:
SQL> set autotrace traceonly;
SQL> select * from dba_objects;
18816 rows selected.
Execution Plan
Plan hash value: 1919983379
| Id | Operation                      | Name        | Rows | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time     |
|   0 | SELECT STATEMENT               |             | 16154 | 3265K|    75   (3)| 00:00:01 |
|   1 | VIEW                          | DBA_OBJECTS | 16154 | 3265K|    75   (3)| 00:00:01 |
|   2 |   UNION-ALL                    |             |       |       |            |          |
|* 3 |    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | SUM$        |     1 |    26 |     0   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 4 |     INDEX UNIQUE SCAN          | I_SUM$_1    |     1 |       |     0   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|   5 |    TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | OBJ$        |     1 |    25 |     3   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 6 |     INDEX RANGE SCAN           | I_OBJ1      |     1 |       |     2   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 7 |    FILTER                      |             |       |       |            |          |
|* 8 |     HASH JOIN                  |             | 19706 | 2290K|    72   (3)| 00:00:01 |
|   9 |      TABLE ACCESS FULL         | USER$       |    66 | 1122 |     3   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 10 |      HASH JOIN                 |             | 19706 | 1962K|    69   (3)| 00:00:01 |
| 11 |       INDEX FULL SCAN          | I_USER2     |    66 | 1452 |     1   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 12 |       TABLE ACCESS FULL        | OBJ$        | 19706 | 1539K|    67   (2)| 00:00:01 |
|* 13 |     TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| IND$        |     1 |     8 |     2   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 14 |      INDEX UNIQUE SCAN         | I_IND1      |     1 |       |     1   (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 15 |     NESTED LOOPS               |             |     1 |    30 |     2   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 16 |      INDEX SKIP SCAN           | I_USER2     |     1 |    20 |     1   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 17 |      INDEX RANGE SCAN          | I_OBJ4      |     1 |    10 |     1   (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 18 |    NESTED LOOPS                |             |     1 |    43 |     3   (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 19 |     TABLE ACCESS FULL          | LINK$       |     1 |    26 |     2   (0)| 00:00:01 |
| 20 |     TABLE ACCESS CLUSTER       | USER$       |     1 |    17 |     1   (0)| 00:00:01 |
|* 21 |      INDEX UNIQUE SCAN         | I_USER#     |     1 |       |     0   (0)| 00:00:01 |
Predicate Information (identified by operation id):
   3 - filter(BITAND("S"."XPFLAGS",8388608)=8388608)
   4 - access("S"."OBJ#"=:B1)
   6 - access("EO"."OBJ#"=:B1)
   7 - filter(("O"."TYPE#"<>1 AND "O"."TYPE#"<>10 OR "O"."TYPE#"=1 AND (SELECT 1
              FROM "SYS"."IND$" "I" WHERE "I"."OBJ#"=:B1 AND ("I"."TYPE#"=1 OR "I"."TYPE#"=2 OR
              "I"."TYPE#"=3 OR "I"."TYPE#"=4 OR "I"."TYPE#"=6 OR "I"."TYPE#"=7 OR
              "I"."TYPE#"=9))=1) AND ("O"."TYPE#"<>4 AND "O"."TYPE#"<>5 AND "O"."TYPE#"<>7 AND
              "O"."TYPE#"<>8 AND "O"."TYPE#"<>9 AND "O"."TYPE#"<>10 AND "O"."TYPE#"<>11 AND
              "O"."TYPE#"<>12 AND "O"."TYPE#"<>13 AND "O"."TYPE#"<>14 AND "O"."TYPE#"<>22 AND
              "O"."TYPE#"<>87 AND "O"."TYPE#"<>88 OR BITAND("U"."SPARE1",16)=0 OR ("O"."TYPE#"=4 OR
              "O"."TYPE#"=5 OR "O"."TYPE#"=7 OR "O"."TYPE#"=8 OR "O"."TYPE#"=9 OR "O"."TYPE#"=10 OR
              "O"."TYPE#"=11 OR "O"."TYPE#"=12 OR "O"."TYPE#"=13 OR "O"."TYPE#"=14 OR
              "O"."TYPE#"=22 OR "O"."TYPE#"=87) AND ("U"."TYPE#"<>2 AND
              SYS_CONTEXT('userenv','current_edition_name')='ORA$BASE' OR "U"."TYPE#"=2 AND
              "U"."SPARE2"=TO_NUMBER(SYS_CONTEXT('userenv','current_edition_id')) OR EXISTS
              (SELECT 0 FROM SYS."USER$" "U2",SYS."OBJ$" "O2" WHERE "O2"."OWNER#"="U2"."USER#" AND
              "O2"."TYPE#"=88 AND "O2"."DATAOBJ#"=:B2 AND "U2"."TYPE#"=2 AND
              "U2"."SPARE2"=TO_NUMBER(SYS_CONTEXT('userenv','current_edition_id'))))))
   8 - access("O"."SPARE3"="U"."USER#")
10 - access("O"."OWNER#"="U"."USER#")
12 - filter("O"."NAME"<>'_NEXT_OBJECT' AND "O"."NAME"<>'_default_auditing_options_'
              AND BITAND("O"."FLAGS",128)=0 AND "O"."LINKNAME" IS NULL)
13 - filter("I"."TYPE#"=1 OR "I"."TYPE#"=2 OR "I"."TYPE#"=3 OR "I"."TYPE#"=4 OR
              "I"."TYPE#"=6 OR "I"."TYPE#"=7 OR "I"."TYPE#"=9)
14 - access("I"."OBJ#"=:B1)
16 - access("U2"."TYPE#"=2 AND "U2"."SPARE2"=TO_NUMBER(SYS_CONTEXT('userenv','curren
              t_edition_id')))
       filter("U2"."TYPE#"=2 AND "U2"."SPARE2"=TO_NUMBER(SYS_CONTEXT('userenv','curren
              t_edition_id')))
17 - access("O2"."DATAOBJ#"=:B1 AND "O2"."TYPE#"=88 AND "O2"."OWNER#"="U2"."USER#")
21 - access("L"."OWNER#"="U"."USER#")
Statistics
          0 recursive calls
          0 db block gets
       3397 consistent gets
         78 physical reads
          0 redo size
     908471 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
      14213 bytes received via SQL*Net from client
       1256 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
          0 sorts (memory)
          0 sorts (disk)
      18816 rows processed
SQL>

Same code gives different results in Matlab Script in Labview and Matlab

I am implemeting a Matlab code into a LabVIEW application using Matlab script. When I import the exactly same code to the Matlab Script in LabVIEW it gives a different result than it is in Matlab. This code is a simulation code including first kind bessel functions. Using LabVIEW 7.1 and Matlab R14 service pack 3.

Labview 8.5
Matlab R2009b
Attached are the graphs produced by matlab script in labview and in matlab.
The minimum of graph produced by matlab code is below 1 and that in labview is above 1.
Thanks a lot for your reply.
Sorry, I haven't quantified the "sometimes" yet.
Attachments:
matlabsResult.jpg ‏29 KB
LV.png ‏84 KB

Do IMAQ Cast Image or IMAQ Linear averages give different results when using different computers that are running under Windows XP ?

Hello
I'm currently developping an image processing algorithm using Labview 7.1 and the associated IMAQ Vision tools. After several tests, I found a weird result. Indeed, I put the labview algorithm - including the IMAQ VI on the library to get sure that I use all the time the same VI - on my memory stick and used it on two different computers. I tested the same picture (still in my memory stick) and had two very different results.
After several hours trying to understand why, I found that there were a difference between the results given by both computers at the very begining of the algorithm. Indeed, I used a JPEG file.
To open it, I first create an Image with IMAQ Create (U8). Then, I open it.
Then in my first sub-VI, I use IMAQ Cast Image to be sure that the picture is a U8 grayscale picture.
Right after that, I use the IMAQ Linear Averages. The results of this VI are different on the two computers.
I tried several time on the same picture : one computer always give me the same result but the two computers give me a different result. So there is no random variable on the results.
So my question is : Do IMAQ Cast Image or IMAQ Linear averages give different results when using different computers that are running under Windows XP ?
My bet is on IMAQ Cast Image but I'm not quite sure and I do not undestand why. The labview and IMAQ are the same on both computers.
The difference between the two computer are above :
Computer 1 :
Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.20GHz with a RAM of 1Go. The processor is an Intel(R).
The OS is windows XP Pro 2002
Computer 2 :
Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz with a RAM of 512Mo. The processor is an Intel(R).
The OS is windows XP Pro 2002.
If anybody can help me on this problem, it would be really helpful.
Regards
Florence P.

Hi,
Indeed it's a strange behaviour, could you send me your VI and your JPEG file, (or another file that reproduces) so that I could check this inthere ?
I'll then try to find out what's happening.
Regards
Richard Keromen
National Instruments France
#adMrkt{text-align: center;font-size:11px; font-weight: bold;} #adMrkt a {text-decoration: none;} #adMrkt a:hover{font-size: 9px;} #adMrkt a span{display: none;} #adMrkt a:hover span{display: block;}
>> Découvrez, en vidéo, les innovations technologiques réalisées en éco-conception

IPhoto 09 Gives Better Results than Aperture 2.0 on RAW

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for