NetNews Offline 2/NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso/news/comp/sys/amiga/graphics/1651

Internet Message Format | 1996-08-05 | 1.6 KB

Path: newshub.cts.com!usenet
From: [e-mail] (Phil Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.graphics
Subject: Re: Opinion on Photogenics?
Date: 1 Mar 1996 18:39:00 GMT
Organization: CTS Network Services
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4h6171$[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gargoyle.cts.com
X-Newsreader: THOR 2.22 (Amiga;TCP/IP)

On 01-Mar-96 10:16:16, Michael Zerbo was reported to have said:
>I was thinking of purchasing Photogenics and was curious if anyone
>out there had any opinions on it. I have a stock A1200 (2mb's HD),
>so I would like to know if it would run decently on my machine.

It runs adequately on my A3000 w/040, 16MB fast mem and PicassoII.  It
would be painfully slow on a 2MB A1200.  Photogenics is a 24bit paint
package.  The best you have is 256 color or HAM8 display.  Run up any other
package in 256 color on your machine and notice how slow it is.  Now
imagine it being even slower as there is 3 times as much data to manipulate
with 24bit images.

I find it is "useable" on our stock A4000 under AGA display modes.  You
might want to look at PersonalPaint for use on a stock A1200.

>How does Photogenics compare to ImageFX or Photoshop?

Photogenics is more a paint package with very nice image processing
functions and ImageFX is a powerful image processing package with okay
paint functions.

I have them both and often use them both when working with the same image.

Dunno about Photoshop.

But don't get me wrong, I really like Photogenics now and I believe it will
get even better.

  Phil

[e-mail]