FF Inc. did not know that FF was slow ? Let´s see what others think.

About Filter Forge 3.0 offer of 60% discount

http://forums.luxology.com/discussion...x?id=61056

Quote
Mark The Indolent wrote in the last post It's very, very slow to calculate with anything of moderate complexity Somehow I doubt that I'll be taking the offer.

_____________________________________________________________________
In this Review of Filter Forge 2.0

http://blog.echoenduring.com/2011/01/...lterforge/

Quote

Matt Ward on Jan 18, 2011 Still, even when working on a 500 x 500 pixel image, some filters could take several minutes to render. I can only imagine how long it would take to work on larger, print-ready files. Ultimately, while it can be a bit slow in processing and has a fairly steep learning curve if you want to actually create your own filters, I think that the vast array of possibilities afforded to users through both the available library and the number of options included with so many of the filters makes FilterForge an incredibly powerful tool for anyone who is using Photoshop.

Quote
Morgantao wrote: Yeah, saying they didn't know anyone had any speed issues with FF is like saying they didn't know anyone had cholesterol issues with morbid obesity...

YES, you are right I think the same and agree.

Quote
Morgantao wrote: I'm not saying FF is dead slow and can't be used for anything, I'm just saying people have talked about speed issues on the forums for as long as there are forums.

Is true that in the FF forums there are lots of speed rendering issues and threads about this topic since 2006, and it seems that FF made an optimization speed to the engine from FF 1.0 to 2.0 but then in 3.0 has kept the same render engine, so I am asking for a new optimization for 4.0

I also agree with you, FF is NOT dead slow, and is NOT unusable at all, because this would not be true AND I have put in the thread from the first link above the following:

Quote

SpaceRay wrote: I want to let KNOW that Filter Forge is NOT ALWAYS SLOW, is not a bad software at all, is just that the rendering engine and core parts that process the FF filters could be optimized and updated to the new technologies and be able to get benefit from the 2012 computer power. Independently of the computer power, the render and preview speed depends and is tied to WHAT FILTER you are going to use and WHAT RESOLUTION you want to have the result of the filter, on small ones will be faster than on higher resolutions that would be slower. There are MANY FILTERS that are very usable and FAST to use even on high resolutions, and also there are MANY FILTERS that are slow or very slow, and also many in between of both.

Quote
Morgantao wrote: So speed is a very relative thing. Even on the same computer.

YES, I agree, and as you can see in the quote above, I say that using the same computer, it is relative to the filter you want to use AND the resolution that you want the result to be, as is NOT at all the same to render a 600 x 600 than a 2400 x 2400 (which is 16 times bigger)