rikardr
Posts: 59 |
I am looking at using a filter for a bunch of images. Unfortunately, it takes 20 minutes to run on each image! That means 3 images an hour and I've got about 100 to do. I'm attaching the filter. Could someone with a lot of FF knowledge (i.e., Capadilla, Ubervez, Chris, Craig, Steve, jffe, etc.) take a look and see if there are any ways to speed it up? That would be really appreciated. Thanks.
rikard |
|||
Posted: December 15, 2007 1:21 pm | ||||
Sphinx.
![]() |
where is the filter?
|
|||
Posted: December 15, 2007 1:28 pm | ||||
rikardr
Posts: 59 |
||||
Posted: December 15, 2007 1:30 pm | ||||
rikardr
Posts: 59 |
The images I'm processing are approx. 8.5" x 11" at 300ppi.
rikard |
|||
Posted: December 15, 2007 1:34 pm | ||||
Sphinx.
![]() |
hmm.. is that the right one? Its Mike Blackney's "Gouache" filter.. seems to run quite fast here?
|
|||
Posted: December 15, 2007 1:36 pm | ||||
rikardr
Posts: 59 |
Yes, that's the right one. When I open it in ff and just run it on the life saver, it takes 17 seconds. But when I run it on my image, it takes 20 to 23 minutes.
rikard |
|||
Posted: December 15, 2007 1:38 pm | ||||
Sphinx.
![]() |
what pixel measure is that? |
|||
Posted: December 15, 2007 1:38 pm | ||||
rikardr
Posts: 59 |
3000px wide by 2550px tall.
rikard |
|||
Posted: December 15, 2007 1:41 pm | ||||
rikardr
Posts: 59 |
Just did it running external to Photoshop (i.e., with filter forge as a stand alone) and it took 28 minutes. So that wasn't any faster. Really hurting for this so any help would be appreciated.
rikard |
|||
Posted: December 15, 2007 3:48 pm | ||||
Sphinx.
![]() |
I have an optimized version.. I will post it here tomorrow
|
|||
Posted: December 15, 2007 4:12 pm | ||||
rikardr
Posts: 59 |
Any way you could post it now?....please
![]() rikard |
|||
Posted: December 15, 2007 4:13 pm | ||||
Sphinx.
![]() |
no, I'm not at home right now, but IIRC my thoughts were these when I looked at the graph:
1. Replace all the channelsplitting stuff in the bottom with one Extract HSB (B channel.. it should resemble something like the final result of all that channel mangling) 2. Adjust all noise modules so that details = roughness, and IIRC there was a high pass controlling a roughness.. high pass results mostly lay around 50 (127,5), so set that given noise modules details to 50 3. Enable all worley noises' (any noise that is not a perlin) "flat" option.. it is different, but can you tell? |
|||
Posted: December 15, 2007 6:37 pm | ||||
rikardr
Posts: 59 |
Thanks a lot! Did those changes and it's running twice as fast. Took about 12 minutes. Still a bit long, but I also found that by reducing the image size by about 75% I still get a similar look at about twice the speed. With both these things, I should be able to get these down to a reasonable render time.
So, thanks again. rikard |
|||
Posted: December 15, 2007 7:57 pm | ||||
Sphinx.
![]() |
Dunno if its too late.. here's an optimized version - had to make a few compromises, so its not a pixelperfect match to the original, but it should run a great deal faster. One change that could pose a problem regarding the "look" of the filter, is the new high pass alternative (it now creates a highpass map via the already in use blur).. if it doesn't work for you, simply set back the high pass to where brightness contrast now goes (I left the high pass just above that component).
I added a new control, "Expensive Details", which controls some of the noise detail parameters.. set that as low as you can (but too low settings will change the look drastically). I also disabled the antialias settings for the presets so it process faster, and I actually think it looks better (more crispy). Gouache - Sphinxmorphed.ffxml |
|||
Posted: December 16, 2007 7:06 am |
Filter Forge has a thriving, vibrant, knowledgeable user community. Feel free to join us and have fun!
33,712 Registered Users
+18 new in 30 days!
153,537 Posts
+6 new in 7 days!
15,348 Topics
+72 new in year!
24 unregistered users.