Jump to content

A Questsion about Video Cards/Chipsets and their Impact


Recommended Posts

This is simply a question of curiosity than anything necessarily specific to PDN. I am curious about a video's cards "impact" on working with images.

Now as I understand it, as an example, if you're using a lower-end video card on your system and you download for instance some HD picture and you simply display that picture, that because of the card's "limitations" then it just simply doesn't display the extra amount in terms of resolution beyond what it is designed for.

My question though has more to do with if you do something to an image and re-save it. Aside from whichever file format you save it to and the specific change to the image, but just for the sake of argument, let's assume it's .png format. When you re-save the image, is the resolution further dropped down to match the card's capabilities? Or does it save it still with all that info that the original had but just isn't able to be displayed to that level on that same machine?

Edited by jim100361
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would assume that the graphics card would have a big influence on the final result, It would not be noticed as such on the same pc that you edited the image on, but print quality may show a difference. Side by side I think the printed images would have a noticable difference.

It would be like (for example) Editing a very high quality WAV file in Audacity using a store bought pc and it's default soundcard, the quality would deminish because of the cards capability, but would be hardly un noticable once coverted to mp3 and played through earphones.

 

ZXCBOoZ.png

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The graphics card just displays data. It does not alter the data unless you do something else and then resave over the file with new data.

The ability of your graphics card in combination with your display may impact what you think is in the data, but it doesn't alter the data by iteslf.

HUMOR: This is where we could get into a lot of physics jokes about the observer effect I suppose ... Are we altering the data stored in a JPG merely by observing the image? Does the JPG even exisst before someone opens it up? >> Or perhaps just even go with something like Schrödinger's JPG for a little twist ... "If I put a JPG on a flash drive for week, is it still a JPG or has it become a PNG?" ... :mrgreen:

***

Gallery at PDN-Fans

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HUMOR: This is where we could get into a lot of physics jokes about the observer effect I suppose ... Are we altering the data stored in a JPG merely by observing the image? Does the JPG even exisst before someone opens it up? >> Or perhaps just even go with something like Schrödinger's JPG for a little twist ... "If I put a JPG on a flash drive for week, is it still a JPG or has it become a PNG?" ... :mrgreen:

A little bit philosophical here delpart :lol:

 

ZXCBOoZ.png

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now as I understand it, as an example, if you're using a lower-end video card on your system and you download for instance some HD picture and you simply display that picture, that because of the card's "limitations" then it just simply doesn't display the extra amount in terms of resolution beyond what it is designed for.

My question though has more to do with if you do something to an image and re-save it. Aside from whichever file format you save it to and the specific change to the image, but just for the sake of argument, let's assume it's .png format. When you re-save the image, is the resolution further dropped down to match the card's capabilities? Or does it save it still with all that info that the original had but just isn't able to be displayed to that level on that same machine?

This doesn't make any sense at all.

The limitation of the size of a loaded image comes from your RAM, not your graphics card, as the image is stored in RAM. If you try to load an image that's too big to fit in your RAM, it simply won't load at all. There is no "extra amount" that is not displayed, it's all or nothing.

Saving a file as PNG is lossless. It is going to be exactly the same image on every computer in the world. Opening a file, regardless of filetype, should also be the same across every computer. GPU has nothing to do with it.

The only difference a GPU makes in a graphics editing program is speed. If certain filters are designed specifically for the GPU, it can run faster than the equivalent filter running on the CPU. If the layer composition (the process of "putting all the layers together") is GPU optimized, that will be faster. In Paint.NET 3.5, layer composition runs on the CPU. In 4.0, I think it's handled by the GPU.

The only times your graphics card makes any noticeable difference in your computing experience (within and outside of Paint.NET) are

-working with very large images with many layers

-using slow filters like Gaussian blur that can be optimized for GPU (I don't think the one in Paint.NET is)

-3D graphics in games or modeling or rendering

-watching HD video

-other things I'm forgetting

xZYt6wl.png

ambigram signature by Kemaru

[i write plugins and stuff]

If you like a post, upvote it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This doesn't make any sense at all.

The limitation of the size of a loaded image comes from your RAM, not your graphics card, as the image is stored in RAM. If you try to load an image that's too big to fit in your RAM, it simply won't load at all. There is no "extra amount" that is not displayed, it's all or nothing.

Saving a file as PNG is lossless. It is going to be exactly the same image on every computer in the world. Opening a file, regardless of filetype, should also be the same across every computer. GPU has nothing to do with it.

The only difference a GPU makes in a graphics editing program is speed. If certain filters are designed specifically for the GPU, it can run faster than the equivalent filter running on the CPU. If the layer composition (the process of "putting all the layers together") is GPU optimized, that will be faster. In Paint.NET 3.5, layer composition runs on the CPU. In 4.0, I think it's handled by the GPU.

The only times your graphics card makes any noticeable difference in your computing experience (within and outside of Paint.NET) are

-working with very large images with many layers

-using slow filters like Gaussian blur that can be optimized for GPU (I don't think the one in Paint.NET is)

-3D graphics in games or modeling or rendering

-watching HD video

-other things I'm forgetting

I'm not referring to memory. The question is about resolution. So, what you're saying is that if I download an image that has higher resolution than what my card is capable of, it won't load it? It won't render at lower resolution to match my card?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not referring to memory. The question is about resolution. So, what you're saying is that if I download an image that has higher resolution than what my card is capable of, it won't load it? It won't render at lower resolution to match my card?

If you load a very large image into PdN, any effects you run on it will take longer to render for sure, your card is capable of viewing any image, but slower.

 

ZXCBOoZ.png

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not referring to memory. The question is about resolution. So, what you're saying is that if I download an image that has higher resolution than what my card is capable of, it won't load it? It won't render at lower resolution to match my card?

Your graphics card does not have a "maximum resolution" in that sense at all. Your monitor has a maimum resolution, but if the image is larger, Paint.NET defaults to a zoomed out view and you can still zoom in and use the scroll bars or pan tool to pan around the image.

Again, the maximum resolution is determined by the amount of available RAM.

xZYt6wl.png

ambigram signature by Kemaru

[i write plugins and stuff]

If you like a post, upvote it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your graphics card does not have a "maximum resolution" in that sense at all.

Actually it does, but it's much more likely that the resolution he can view is being limited by his monitor, rather than his graphics card or ram. The monitor can also have a noticeable effect on color accuracy and range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that's not what he meant. He was thinking the graphics card could only load images up to a certain resolution, and if saved afterward, even in a lossless format, the image would be degraded. Of course, the graphics card is not what's loading the image at all.

You are thinking of the maximum resolution a GPU can display, which will affect what can be seen but not what can be loaded. And even then, it would only affect things if the GPU's max resolution was lower than the monitor's resolution, which I find difficult to imagine happening with any GPU from the past 10 years, unless trying to drive one of those massive Apple monitors, or several monitors.

xZYt6wl.png

ambigram signature by Kemaru

[i write plugins and stuff]

If you like a post, upvote it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...