1 person found this helpful
Nope. In fact, you don't even need to use the Organizer at all if you don't want to.
Although it does have a couple of nice tools under its Create and Share tabs.
thanks. usually things like organzer create a database which can be quite large in size when you have a lot of files, which I do. I want to avoid that. Do you know what kind of disk resources organizer uses?
Do you mean how much space on your hard drive does it take up or do you mean how much power does it divert from your processor?
It actually takes up very little of either. (Most of its auto-analyzing it does when you're not working.) Particularly in version 10, in which Adobe has done a nice job of streamlining how the program works.
I was concerned with hard disk space. I'm using version 8 at the moment.
I have big databases from both Picasa and Cumulus so I don't want to take up more HD space with a 3rd organizing database.
I'm not concerned with processor load.
It's a pittance, compared to the amount of space digital video editing takes up, Huck. So if you've got the couple hundred gigabytes of free space required to work with video, you won't even miss the few hundred kilobytes the Organizer catalog takes up.
Would it really be measured in KB?
I have about 45,000 images and videos cataloged by Cumulus and that takes about 325MB.
Picasa, for roughly the same items takes about 1.6GB
Anything measured in KB would certainly be a pittance. Unfortunately I now find my 500GB HD is too small. Seems like a large number of little things eats it up. I had to add a 1TB external drive to deal with the graphics & video files.
The Organizer catalog is only a database of information linking to your media files. It doesn't contain the media files themselves.
My catalog files are only about 10-15 kb in size.
Thanks again. That is remarkable.
Cumulus and Picasa keep thumbnails of the files they catalog, not the files themselves. They also keep some other information: tags to mention one. They make a record for each file cataloged and each record has a minimum size depending in part on what size thumbnail is stored. As a consequence the databaase is fairly big.
You're probably right, Neale. I may have been looking at the wrong catalog file.