I presume you’re referring to the Radial Blur filter (the only one I know of that has such a setting)?
Draft is faster, but lower quality.
Best is slower, but better quality.
The choice depends on the effect you are looking for and how long you are willing to wait.
Good guess Chris. I was not sure it was the only filter with the option, hence the generic title.
Ok, now:
better quality, in what respect?
I mean it seems like a lame question to ask, but I would like the technical specifics here as best is so dang slow. In other words, you do draft and it look pretty nice on the monitor — what is the precise payoff? — to cancel it out and redoing it with the very slow best mode? thanks.
It would be interesting to know how Photoshop handles the two settings differently. In the meantime, you can open an image, dupe the background layer twice, and run the filter on both the new layers, one with draft and one with best quality. Compare the two; if the draft gives acceptable quality to your eyes, than you’re good to go.
I can’t really tell the difference either; it’s like how my co-worker swears that there’s a HUGE difference between old analog vinyl records and MP3’s (I think it’s all in his head ;)).
good point Glen.
are you there Chris, you concur with this?
Best Quality uses more samples, and gives better quality results. Draft uses fewer samples, and gives quick but not-as great a result.
thanks Chris, but to wrap this up, how do you define better quality?
There is a huge difference between vinyl and digital. And it’s all in everyone’s head. That’s where the data gets interpreted. No head, no sound, no pictures, not even color.
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder".
So is quality: if it is good enough for what you need, then it is good enough.
Hmmm, try (as a variation on what has been suggested)
1 – dup background and run quality setting
2 – run draft setting on background
3 – change layer blend on dup layer to difference
After doing the comparison (Histogram may help)
4 – change dup by Image > mode > Invert to obtain quite a pleasant effect
<
http://imageshack.us>
I’m going with that Josh, but be curious is any technos like Chris could provide the techno geek answer of why its better quality. not urgent.
