PDA

View Full Version : Computer, OS and Scanner Survey



EdC
13-Apr-2017, 10:56
As I work further towards getting things back up and running, I was giving some thought to what I had originally planned on doing in regards to making prints from my negatives. Especially for 4x5, I had planned on scanning them in and then doing some editing on the results prior to printing. The idea was to use a reasonably powerful desktop for the editing after scanning and then to print. I was setting things up under Linux and was going to use Vuescan and Lightzone or GIMP. I'm starting to question a couple of these ideas and wanted to see if there were any other Linux users out there doing this sort of thing.

Thanks,

Ed

Equipment is an i7 equipped Dell with 12 gigabytes of Ram, Epson 4990 and Nikon Coolscan 9000.

DrTang
13-Apr-2017, 12:45
dell or something, w10, like 8 gigs, v750

domaz
13-Apr-2017, 12:52
Personally if you are spending the money for a modern i7 Desktop why not get a subscription to Photoshop? There are quite a few advantages to using actual Photoshop. One is that all the tutorials people write for things like general editing and digital negatives (if you ever get into that) are written for photoshop. The other is you can experiment with scanning in other formats. I have recently been scanning Vuescan negatives with no adjustments and then outputting as raw DNG files (make sure to check "Raw save film" so they are inverted). Now Photoshop can do the raw scan conversion. This seems to result in a better file. You can't do that workflow with GIMP. In fact I don't even think GIMP supports compressed TIFFs generated from Vuescan, so you are stuck generating huge files with GIMP.

morecfm
13-Apr-2017, 12:58
HP Z400 workstation, quad core Xeon, 16 GB RAM, Win 10, nice graphics card
Epson V4900 scanner with included Epson software

I get my professional workstation desktops off-lease. I find the right one can be a good value compared to a consumer grade computer in build quality and stability.

jp
13-Apr-2017, 12:59
Ed, your i7 dell would probably do well.

I love Linux and use it for web browsing, ordering, work, email, card playing, etc..
Gimp is slow compared to photoshop and so far they've made it not easy to deal with >24bit color.

For scanning/printing, I have a windows 10 desktop, v700 scanner, r3000 printer, $10/mo ps&lr. Windows PC is an older 8-core AMD fx8120 with 32GB ram and Dell 4k display.
I don't need all that memory except when making panoramas in LR which is very inefficient with memory in that task.

163781

EdC
13-Apr-2017, 14:20
Well, would probably help to add more info. I don't have Photoshop, and am not crazy about the new subscription service. Being self employed, I've never had the time to deal with the very steep learning curve, either. Since I don't use it all the time, some things don't become ingrained. That's one of the things that I like about Lightzone is that a number of processes are more user friendly. GIMP is now releasing a 16bit capable version, to the best of my knowledge. Last, I've used Macs at work since 1994.

ben_hutcherson
13-Apr-2017, 15:02
For scanning(V700, Coolscan 5, Sprintscan 35 for SuperSlides) I use a PowerMac G5 dual 2.7 running both OS X 10.5.8 and 10.4.11. Obviously, the Coolscan is my workhorse for 35mm while the V700 handles everything else up to 4x5. I have a very specific reason for using that computer-namely that it's the fastest Mac that can easily run SCSI peripherals(and it wasn't easy to find a card compatible with that particular computer). I use Vuescan primarily for scanning, but also use Epson Scan and Nikon Scan as appropriate.

I have CS4 and Lightroom 2 on the G5. I prefer CS6 and Lightroom 6 on my MacBook Pro(and sometimes do dust spotting and the like on it) but the nice dual 1920x1200 monitors on the G5 make up for some of the speed loss.

Jim Jones
13-Apr-2017, 18:22
. . . I get my professional workstation desktops off-lease. I find the right one can be a good value compared to a consumer grade computer in build quality and stability.

I agree. As for editing programs, Irfanview (a free download) is a useful addition to the much larger (and sometimes slower) programs for a few basic tasks.

Jim Andrada
13-Apr-2017, 18:33
In the end, I don't see any really good substitute for Photoshop. Too bad, but such is life! YMMV. I scan 4 x 5 to 8 x 10 with an IQsmart 2, which needs an old Mac, although I'm primarily a Windows (and occasional Linux) user. I use 2 x 30" Apple Cinema monitors, but one of these days I'll upgrade to NEC. Overclocked 4 core BOXX 24GB workstation and a similar 6 core custom workstation - I do a lot of video editing as well as running Realflow, Cinema 4D and Maxwell Render so could use a lot more core$ - 24 hour compute bound rendering across a total of 10 cores for a single image isn't unheard of:( Clearly, the systems are configured for the "heavy lifting" of the CG stuff, so don't even break out in a light sweat with Photoshop.

Two23
13-Apr-2017, 19:48
Computer: double quad core i7, 32gb ram, Radeon rx 480 video card with 4GB ram, Dell graphics monitor.
Scanners: Epson v700, Nikon Coolscan V
Software: Vuescan, Photoshop CC, DxO


Kent in SD

Nodda Duma
14-Apr-2017, 05:01
The computer I do lens designs on is a 32 Core 3.5 GHz based system. Doubling the number of cores cuts optimization time in half...Important when that time is measured in days and weeks.

GIMP and ImageJ are open-source alternatives to photoshop for image processing.

munz6869
14-Apr-2017, 05:58
Simple iMac (4GHz Intel Core i7) here with Epson V700 and the Epson software plus photoshop...

Marc!

ben_hutcherson
14-Apr-2017, 06:46
The computer I do lens designs on is a 32 Core 3.5 GHz based system. Doubling the number of cores cuts optimization time in half...Important when that time is measured in days and weeks.

GIMP and ImageJ are open-source alternatives to photoshop for image processing.

Time to complete an operation doesn't scale directly proportionally to the number of cores. More cores certainly speed it up, but you still have a bottleneck in distributing the operations across the cores and collecting the results.

I know this is a somewhat simplistic example, but a while back I upgraded my Mac Pro from 4 cores to 8 cores of the same processor family and clock speed(I've now swapped in higher clocked CPUs). This was about as even of a testing platform as you could ask for, as I only changed the CPUs. When I would run lens correction filters in CS6 on big scans, the same operations would take 3/4 to 2/3 the time with 8 cores as it took with 4. Of course, upping the clock speed(again, same processor family-I went from dual Xenon 5355s to dual 5365s) also decreased the time to do this, but again not dramatically.

Out of curiosity, what processor(s) are you using? I'm struggling a bit to come up with a combination of that will give that number of cores at that clock speed. Also, I'd think lens optimizations have enough vector operations that a good GPU would help you out a lot. What GPU are you using now?

Larry Gebhardt
14-Apr-2017, 09:33
Hackintosh (macOS running on PC hardware), i7 Skylake @4.5Ghz, 64GB RAM. Scanmate 5000 (on old XP box), Epson 4870 and DSLR based scanners. Using Photoshop and Lightroom.

koraks
14-Apr-2017, 10:02
My main scanning 'station' is a HP/Compaq laptop that must be nearly about a decade old now. Intel Core2 Duo @ 2GHz with 2GB of RAM and running Win7 and Photoshop CS5. It's as slow as can be, but I don't care. Don't do that much scanning anyway. The scanner is a 4990 that's even (significantly) older than the laptop.

I scan my 35mm stuff on a Minolta Scan Dual IV that's connected to my work laptop, an Asus i5 machine with 4GB of RAM and a 128GB SSD, running Win10 and Photoshop CS2.

I also have a lightweight desktop running Xubuntu on an Intel Atom; of course I have GIMP installed, which I use from time to time for basic tasks such as rescaling images. The hardware isn't quite powerful enough to deal with proper scans, but more importantly, even after a decade of using GIMP regularly, I just can't get used to its user interface. Compared with Photoshop, it just feels like going back to the stone age every time I launch it. It probably has a lot to do with the fact that I'm quite proficient in Photoshop and therefore used to its UI instead of GIMP's.

Kerosene Hat
15-Apr-2017, 09:07
I use a late 2015 iMac with 24G and 5K 27" display. I wet mount the film and scan with an Epson V800 into Silverfast SE (or whatever the paid version is). Spotting in Adobe Bridge and final prep / output to print in CC or onOne. I don't print at home by there's a great lab nearby and print prices are insanely low today.

Punker
15-Apr-2017, 09:47
Late 2008 MacBook Pro. 4gb RAM (way too little), took out the optical drive and replaced with a 1tb internal drive.

Pakon F135 (non-plus) for 35mm. Epson v700 for MF & LF.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

RSalles
15-Apr-2017, 11:54
I'm using Epson 4990 Perfection with Gimp 2.9 and XSane, with 16bits tiff image files at 3200 dpi.

Cheers,

Renato

Preston
15-Apr-2017, 13:01
Equipment is an i7 equipped Dell with 12 gigabytes of Ram, Epson 4990 and Nikon Coolscan 9000.

You machine and scanners should get the job done, but I do have some suggestions...

*Win 10 Pro 64 bit
*A 500 GB SSD for your primary drive (The Samsung 850 Pro gets excellent reviews.)
*NVidia GTX 1060 or 1070 video card.
*Increase RAM to 16 GB; 32 if you can afford it.
*Photoshop CC 2017 via the Adobe Photographers Plan

My reading of some articles at Puget Systems (https://www.pugetsystems.com/all_articles.php)indicate that Photo Shop is a single, or lightly threaded application that uses at most two cores, so any CPU with more than 4 cores will not buy you much. You current i7 is plenty good enough for photography.

Your best performance increase comes from using an SSD, rather than a standard platter drive for your OS, applications, and working files. Additionally, Photo Shop uses RAM and VRAM (Video RAM) extensively, so having more system RAM, and a decent video card will pay dividends.

I agree with Jim Andrada about using and learning Photo Shop. The Adobe Photographers Plan @ 9.99/month is a pretty good deal. You can download and install only the applications you need. The applications reside on your computer, and you can store your files on your machine. Basic editing is really quite straightforward, and you can learn new skills with it as you need them.

If you have enough disk space, you could have Linux on one partition, and Win 10 on another in a dual boot setup. There are some good references as to how to do this at How-To Geek (https://www.howtogeek.com/)
--P

Nodda Duma
15-Apr-2017, 15:54
Time to complete an operation doesn't scale directly proportionally to the number of cores. More cores certainly speed it up, but you still have a bottleneck in distributing the operations across the cores and collecting the results.

I know this is a somewhat simplistic example, but a while back I upgraded my Mac Pro from 4 cores to 8 cores of the same processor family and clock speed(I've now swapped in higher clocked CPUs). This was about as even of a testing platform as you could ask for, as I only changed the CPUs. When I would run lens correction filters in CS6 on big scans, the same operations would take 3/4 to 2/3 the time with 8 cores as it took with 4. Of course, upping the clock speed(again, same processor family-I went from dual Xenon 5355s to dual 5365s) also decreased the time to do this, but again not dramatically.

Out of curiosity, what processor(s) are you using? I'm struggling a bit to come up with a combination of that will give that number of cores at that clock speed. Also, I'd think lens optimizations have enough vector operations that a good GPU would help you out a lot. What GPU are you using now?

Sorry, 2.5 GHz. Typo.

Yes, there is overhead naturally, but performance testing (number of ray traces per second) that I did while justifying computer upgrades to management indicated close enough correlation that I can claim "double the speed with double the processor.

Lens design software does not currently take advantage of GPU's. Ray tracing is only a small part of optimization. Most of an optimization cycle involves adjusting defined parameter variables and determining the effect on the value of an RSS Merit Function. The merit function can consist of thousands of calculations of performance characteristics defined by the designer such as aberration correction, mass, overall length, focal length, wavefront error or spot size, etc, etc. It's a very complex and very large set of mathematically intensive calculations.

I have talked to folks at Zemax about using the GPU. They've said in the past they were looking into it, but nothing has ever come of it. An actual ray trace through the optical system is actually pretty simple and fast. My guess is the gain in speed is not worth the trouble involved in supporting all the different GPUs out there. But I'm not a software guy.

ben_hutcherson
15-Apr-2017, 17:14
Sorry, 2.5 GHz. Typo.

Yes, there is overhead naturally, but performance testing (number of ray traces per second) that I did while justifying computer upgrades to management indicated close enough correlation that I can claim "double the speed with double the processor.

Lens design software does not currently take advantage of GPU's. Ray tracing is only a small part of optimization. Most of an optimization cycle involves adjusting defined parameter variables and determining the effect on the value of an RSS Merit Function. The merit function can consist of thousands of calculations of performance characteristics defined by the designer such as aberration correction, mass, overall length, focal length, wavefront error or spot size, etc, etc. It's a very complex and very large set of mathematically intensive calculations.

I have talked to folks at Zemax about using the GPU. They've said in the past they were looking into it, but nothing has ever come of it. An actual ray trace through the optical system is actually pretty simple and fast. My guess is the gain in speed is not worth the trouble involved in supporting all the different GPUs out there. But I'm not a software guy.

Thanks for the additional information, but I'm still really curious about what sounds like a really nice set-up.

I'm guessing you're running dual processors, but Intel doesn't even make a 16 core at 2.5gz. Are you by chance counting virtual cores in your 32? 2x8 core Xeons(w/HT) at 2.5ghz is much easier combo to find :)

Also, I'm REALLY surprised that they haven't jumped on using the GPU for calculations. Many of the calculations you describe would be right at home on a GPU and it could cut computation times dramatically. You don't necessarily HAVE to write code for every GPU, but none the less they could optimize for a specific GPU family and just specify that. I suspect that anyone who's buying a 32 core workstation wouldn't mind dropping another $1K on a GPU if it meant cutting the times to do the calculations in half(or better).

Past about 4 CPU cores or so, you can really get into diminishing returns on how much each additional core helps speed things up.

dpn
15-Apr-2017, 21:56
MacBook Pro (late 2013), Epson V700

Works great, has for years, and probably will keep doing so for a few more.

Robert Brazile
16-Apr-2017, 05:43
Early 2008 Mac Pro (upgraded with lots of memory, an SSD, and a better graphics card than the stock one it had originally) running El Capitan, Epson V700.

The Pro is still cranking along, albeit finally left behind in the constant march of OS, uh, progress. There are tricks for upgrading the 3,1 to Sierra, but I can't really be bothered; it's time to finally replace it, once Apple gets around to telling us what they're doing about new Pros. I can hang on until then -- although for a while I was starting to wonder if I could.

Robert

ben_hutcherson
16-Apr-2017, 08:20
Early 2008 Mac Pro (upgraded with lots of memory, an SSD, and a better graphics card than the stock one it had originally) running El Capitan, Epson V700.

The Pro is still cranking along, albeit finally left behind in the constant march of OS, uh, progress. There are tricks for upgrading the 3,1 to Sierra, but I can't really be bothered; it's time to finally replace it, once Apple gets around to telling us what they're doing about new Pros. I can hang on until then -- although for a while I was starting to wonder if I could.

Robert

Apple actually had an uncharacteristically frank and open discussion last week about the future of the MP line. They basically acknowledged how badly they messed things up with the traschcan, and are promising a ground up re-design that actually allows for user expansion sometime in 2018. It remains to be what form it will take, but I have high hopes that it will be better than the current Cube 2.0.

My MP 1,1(now fully upgraded to 2,1 specs) hit a brick wall with Sierra since the CPUs don't support the instruction set needed(SSE4). The 3,1 are a bit of a "soft" block, although they it's not as simple as just bypassing system requirement checks like installing Leopard on many unsupported G4s. Fortunately, given Apples historic trends, El Capitan should be receive security updates into the fall of 2018, by which point hopefully the new MP should be out.

Willem
17-Apr-2017, 17:49
Mac Tower 1999 (G4), Mac Cinema HD screen, Screen Cezanne scanner. I move files via a Firewire disk that is itself over 10 years old.
My main computer these days is a MacBook Air with another Mac Cinema HD Screen, and several external Hds.