Article 363 of comp.sys.amiga.reviews: Path: news.csos.orst.edu!flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU!gaia.ucs.orst.edu!umn.edu!news-feed-2.peachnet.edu!gatech!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!menudo.uh.edu!usenet From: elc@shell.portal.com (Edward L Cole) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.reviews Subject: COMPARISON: Art Department Professional vs. ImageFX vs. ImageMaster Followup-To: comp.sys.amiga.graphics Date: 10 Sep 1993 02:57:19 GMT Organization: The Amiga Online Review Column - ed. Daniel Barrett Lines: 285 Sender: amiga-reviews@math.uh.edu (comp.sys.amiga.reviews moderator) Approved: barrett@math.uh.edu Distribution: world Message-ID: <26oqef$hv7@menudo.uh.edu> Reply-To: elc@shell.portal.com (Edward L Cole) NNTP-Posting-Host: karazm.math.uh.edu Keywords: graphics, image processing, morph, paint, 24-bit, commercial PRODUCT NAMES Art Department Professional version 2.3.0 ("ADPro") ImageFX version 1.50 ImageMaster version 9.51 BRIEF DESCRIPTION The Commodore Amiga has at this point three major packages for image processing. Each program has its good and bad points. This is an attempt to describe those points in order to guide a more informed purchase for Amiga owners. AUTHOR/COMPANY INFORMATION * Art Department Professional Name: ASDG Address: 925 Stewart Street Madison, WI 53713 USA Telephone: (608) 273-6585 * ImageFX Name: Great Valley Products Address: 657 Clark Avenue King Of Prussia, PA 19406 USA Telephone: (215) 354-9495 * ImageMaster Name: Black Belt Systems Address: 298 Johnson Rd. Glasgow, MT 59230 USA Telephone: (406) 367-5509 LIST PRICE ADPro: $240 (US). Retail price approximately $139. ImageFX: $399 (US). Retail price approximately $219. ImageMaster: $249.95 (US). Retail price approximately $145. SPECIAL HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS All three programs run on any Amiga within the limitations of memory and speed. I won't go into detail here as this issue will be discussed later. COPY PROTECTION ADPro is serialized (a serial number is embedded in the program). The other programs have no copy protection. MACHINE(S) USED FOR TESTING o A2000, ECS chipset, KS 2.04, WB 2.1, 7 megs RAM (one chip), 68010, 7.13 MHz o A2000, ECS chipset, KS 2.04, WB 2.1, 15 megs RAM (one chip), 68040, 33 MHz o A3000, ECS chipset, KS 2.04, WB 2.1, 14 megs RAM (two chip), 68030, 16 MHz o A4000, AGA chipset, KS 3.0, WB 3.0, 18 megs RAM (two chip), 68040, 25 MHz INTRODUCTION If I were a programmer (and I certainly am not) I would have combined elements of all three programs: ADPro's speed and certain results, ImageFX's printing features, and ImageMaster's ability to work on any area in an image. Here's a list of features I think are important to keep in mind when choosing which of these programs to buy. MEMORY If I were to judge these programs just on use of memory, ADPro would be the clear winner. In the program icon's tooltypes, you can set how much and what kind of memory the program should use. ImageFX offers the use of virtual memory which is very nice; however, without it the programs chokes on large images. I tend to work with scanned HAM or 24-bit images that range in size from 250K to 10MB. ADPro has never refused to load or display the image as long as the memory is available. ImageFX will not display the same size file without the use of virtual memory. Also, ImageFX also allows you to set the amount of real memory in its memory preferences; but even using all the memory available, it runs out before ADPro. ImageMaster handles memory just fine without the use of virtual memory and tooltype control. However, it too runs out of memory faster than ADPro, but not as quickly as ImageFX does. PRINTING If ImageMaster can print, I'd like someone to tell me what I'm doing wrong. I've tried three printers with this program: (1) color Postscript, (1) color Preferences printer, and (1) black-and-white Postscript. I got nothing from any of them with ImageMaster. My choice for printing is ImageFX. Its easy to use, the output is excellent, and it recovers from a print job in no time at all. It is not very sophisticated, but it's clean and reasonably fast. I've never used the Preference printer output of ImageFX as I only have a Postscript printer at this time. The ADPro Postscript driver is multifeatured, but overkill for a simple print job. It has several layers of preferences and is professional, but I rarely have a need for that much control. ADPro does offer a good Preference-printer interface as well. SCANNING If ASDG can do it, why can't the others? I don't know. All three programs support my scanners, an Epson ES-800C and a Sharp JX-100. But except for private masochistic reasons, I would never use any scanner drivers that were not from ASDG for use with ADPro. The runner-up is ImageMaster. The ADPro drivers cost extra money and must be bought separately. If the extra money bothers you, go with ImageMaster. ImageFX is a very pitiful third. The ImageFX scanner driver is slow and very hard to figure out even with the documentation. ADPro's scanner drivers tell you how much memory it takes to scan the image you've selected at the DPI you've selected. As you adjust the DPI the memory counter changes to let you know the new memory amounts. If you have selected a DPI that is too high, the counter turns a red color and the driver will abort if you attempt to scan. Neither of the other two programs has a similar feature. If you're using ImageFX's virtual memory and scan the image at 800 DPI, you could produce a 150 megabyte file without knowing it! Also keep in mind that the parallel port scanners use special cables, and all three programs support different cables. ASDG makes a cable that all three support. If you use any two of these programs, you have to use the ASDG cable. FILE FORMATS All three programs can handle a wide array of image file formats. Most of them I don't use. ILBM, GIF, and JPEG are the most common formats for me and are directly supported by all three programs. ImageMaster makes loading certain formats more difficult by having the loader as a macro. These macros are not easy to get at. Unless you have a need for a an obscure format, I don't think it matters which program you use. ImageMaster can save a VistaPro binary file which I find useful, and ImageFX can write an icon file. These are the only two unique features that I use in any of the program's save features. FEATURES The heart of the matter. :-) Of the three programs, sadly, ADPro has the least number of image processing tools. While ADPro does everything well, it lacks some of the nicer features of the other two programs. For example, both ImageFX and ImageMaster offer limited paint programs and the ability to render complicated gradient fills. ADPro also has a very limited undo buffer which I find very annoying. ImageFX offers a selectable number of undo levels. ImageMaster uses only a single undo, but it's on all the time unless you select otherwise. With ADPro you must save the image you're working on with a "TEMP" saver and the use "Temp" loader to get it back. Each program uses "WYSIWYG" but ADPro's is only grayscale. One of the best features in ImageMaster is ability to work on any area of an image with the processing tools. You can select boxes, circles, ellipses, and non linear areas for applying an effect. Nice. All three programs have excellent palette control, and I like ImageFX's the best. It has many levels of control. ImageMaster's palette control is very difficult to use and figure out, even with the excellent documentation. ADPro's is somewhere between the other two. This is a feature that I don't use much in any of them. One serious defect in ImageMaster is its support of AGA screen modes. I simply cannot get a display in Super72 (my favorite mode). Also, ImageMaster requires serious dithering to get a decent WYSIWYG render. ADPro has the best rendering. One of the nicer features of both ImageMaster and ImageFX is that morphing software is included. ImageMaster has morphing built in, while ImageFX comes coupled with CineMorph. ASDG sells its morphing software separately at yet another extravagant price (and its not substantially different from ADPro). All three programs offer compositing. Of the three, ImageMaster's is the most sophisticated and has the greatest number of variations. On the other hand, ADPro's is the easiest to use. ImageFX's is very nice and, coupled with the better display, is on par with ImageMaster's. All three programs have weak user interfaces. None of them follow Commodore's Style Guide. ADPro's is notoriously ugly. ImageMaster has row after row of buttons. No pull down menus in these babies. All three programs, have extensive ARexx support, so it's possible to customize them a lot. At any rate, I'm sure there are things I'm leaving out, but this is a mini-review not a song and dance number. :-) SPEED ADPro is the fastest. ImageMaster is the slowest. On the unaccelerated A2000, some of the effects took as long as 45 minutes. ImageFX's speed is closer to ADPro's and reasonable. I would not use ImageMaster on a slower Amiga unless I *had* to. DOCUMENTATION ADPro: looseleaf style notebook. Nearly 400 pages. ImageFX: looseleaf style notebook. Original docs about 400 pages and the 1.5 upgrade about 125 more pages. ImageMaster: wirebound, 200 pages, and extra documentation on disk. I have no complaints about any of the documentation. BUGS No program bugs (other than the ones mentioned). Each has some annoying features but they were intended. ImageMaster failed to install properly on my A2000 with only 7 megs RAM. When I went to 15 megs the installation went smoothing. Not a very clever install routing. If you have only a little memory you may have to do the install manually. VENDOR SUPPORT ASDG and GVP both include phone numbers with the docs and are easy to reach. What about BlackBelt? Well, good luck. :-) WARRANTY Not applicable. CONCLUSION After all is said and done, I find I use Art Department Professional the most often. Its fast and easy to use. After that I use ImageFX, and ImageMaster very rarely. COPYRIGHT NOTICE Copyright 1993 Edward Cole. All rights reserved. You can contact me at: elc@cup.portal.com elc@well.sf.ca.us --- Daniel Barrett, Moderator, comp.sys.amiga.reviews Send reviews to: amiga-reviews-submissions@math.uh.edu Request information: amiga-reviews-requests@math.uh.edu Moderator mail: amiga-reviews@math.uh.edu Anonymous ftp site: math.uh.edu, in /pub/Amiga/comp.sys.amiga.reviews Article 380 of comp.sys.amiga.reviews: Path: news.csos.orst.edu!flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU!ogicse!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!menudo.uh.edu!usenet From: kermit@cup.portal.com (Kermit Woodall) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.reviews Subject: Re: COMPARISON: Art Department Professional vs. ImageFX vs. ImageMaster Keywords: graphics, image processing, morph, paint, 24-bit, commercial, followup Message-ID: <29eb7o$ep4@menudo.uh.edu> Date: 12 Oct 93 13:25:12 GMT Article-I.D.: menudo.29eb7o$ep4 Sender: amiga-reviews@math.uh.edu (comp.sys.amiga.reviews moderator) Reply-To: kermit@cup.portal.com (Kermit Woodall) Followup-To: comp.sys.amiga.graphics Distribution: world Organization: The Amiga Online Review Column - ed. Daniel Barrett Lines: 67 Approved: barrett@math.uh.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: karazm.math.uh.edu [MODERATOR'S NOTE: This is a response to Edward L. Cole's comparison review of Art Department Professional, ImageFX, and ImageMaster, posted here in comp.sys.amiga.reviews on September 10, 1993. The author of this response is employed by Nova Design, Inc., creators of ImageFX. I have edited this response so it conforms to the comp.sys.amiga.reviews policy on vendor responses, posted every month in the "Introduction to c.s.a.reviews" article. - Dan] We enjoyed the article comparing ImageFX and its competitors on the Amiga that was recently posted in comp.sys.amiga.reviews. We communicated with the author via e-mail, but did not get replies to the corrections we sent him after his initial post, so we chose to post these corrections ourselves. We fully support the author's right to his opinions, and would simply like to correct the very few mistakes made in his review regarding ImageFX. > Telephone: (215) 354-9495 Actually, the regular phone line is (215) 337-8770. The number listed above is a technical support line for registered users only. > ImageFX offers the use of virtual memory which is very >nice; however, without it the programs chokes on large images. We have not seen this reported elsewhere, and we cannot reproduce this problem. Perhaps the author forgot to allow for the presence of the UNDO buffer, or an alternate image, in RAM. >Also, ImageFX also allows you to set the amount of real >memory in its memory preferences; but even using all the memory >available, it runs out ... It's possible the author did not see the README documentation on virtual memory here and set it up wrong. There is no control for "real memory": just for virtual memory. ImageFX acquires real memory, or RAM, for images only as it is needed. The RAM for virtual memory, if it is to be used, must be preset, and ImageFX will grab that entire chunk immediately. The README indicates you should never grab more than half your RAM, however. Set up in the manner the author used, this would have also accounted for his first problem above. >The ImageFX scanner driver is slow... We did not get a reply from the author to explain how he benchmarked this, but other independent benchmarks show in some cases our driver is slower, and on some other cases, specifically on accelerated Amigas, ImageFX's scanner drive is faster. The author's comments regarding additional features for our driver were excellent and will be incorporated in a future release. We appreciate the trouble and time the author spent in creating his review, and hope our efforts to clarify a few issues are helpful. Kermit Woodall Nova Design, Inc. / Creators of ImageFX --- Daniel Barrett, Moderator, comp.sys.amiga.reviews Send reviews to: amiga-reviews-submissions@math.uh.edu Request information: amiga-reviews-requests@math.uh.edu Moderator mail: amiga-reviews@math.uh.edu Anonymous ftp site: math.uh.edu, in /pub/Amiga/comp.sys.amiga.reviews