# ? System resource use - Flash created Vs Photoshop created?

**URL:** <https://forum.kirupa.com/t/system-resource-use-flash-created-vs-photoshop-created/284065>\
**Category:** Uncategorized\
**Created:** [March 14, 2009, 3:14pm UTC](https://forum.kirupa.com/t/system-resource-use-flash-created-vs-photoshop-created/284065 "2009-03-14T15:14:56Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Shaedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e19b73/32.png) [@Shaedo](https://forum.kirupa.com/u/Shaedo)\
**Post date:** [March 14, 2009, 3:14pm UTC](https://forum.kirupa.com/t/system-resource-use-flash-created-vs-photoshop-created/284065/1 "2009-03-14T15:14:56Z")

</div>

I have only one question but phrased it 3 ways:

1. Is it better to pre=render things say in photoshop or have flash render them?

2. if I have a field of stars that drift along; is it better to create that Star Field in photoshop as a single picture (say a .png) or to create a star in my library and add it to a movie clip and then have that drift along?

Lets say I have a blur effect on my stars and have an equivalent on the photoshop.

1. I have heard (and experienced) adding effects like blur takes a fair amount of CPU and memory so was wondering if I created the effect in photoshop and then imported the ‘blurred’ object into my flash if I could cut down on system resources?

Thanks in for taking the time to consider my question.