4x5: which design of desktop the most suitable ?

[40moses]

Scanning mostly in the order of 500 MB (could be 1 GB) for 5 x 7 LF and having no great market knowlegde I would be very gratefull for advices;

I must buy a new PC system, because my laptop Samsung (Intel Core Duo 1,8 Ghz, 32bit, 1,8 GB RAM) is incapable to work with such 500 MB images. I would loose hours only for opening of some DVD in order to work and view the DVD's.

What specification would be good after your experiences?
I must work with XP prof (scanner not accepting Vista).
I must buy minimal 8 GB RAM, but more would be better (24 GB).
Hence necessarly a 64bit PC.

a) would the freq. be important ?
Or is 1,5-2 Ghz sufficient ?

b) for storage I would buy external hard disks (1-4 TeraB).
Any hints with respect to PC choice ?

c) or other advice for the objective of efficient working for such great data files ?

[Ken Lee]

Scanning is probably not the main concern. It's the photo editing tool which requires abundant computing and storage resources.

You might want to have a look here and on the web for articles that tell you how to optimize your computer for Photoshop (if that's the tool you intend to use). As you suspected, abundant RAM is the most important consideration, and having a separate physical drive for use as a swap drive by Photoshop is the next most important consideration.

However, we don't have to purchase a supercomputer just to do our work - and we don't require a server farm to store our files. You will certainly find it helpful (and economical) to view this brief video from West Coast Imaging on what they call the Guide File Workflow (http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/info/photoshoptip/podcast_guidefile.html).

In a nutshell, you don't need to perform all your image corrections on the (large) original file. You can apply them to a small copy, a "guide file", as layers. When you're done, you can apply them as layers to a copy of original file, at whatever size you need to print.

I have used that method to work on my 5x7 scans, on my 5-year-old laptop with only 2 GB of RAM.

[40moses]

I thank you very much Mr ken Lee

This advice seems very good for the next step (working on the file, PS etc).


Now I must solve the first step -which is for my aims the most important:
only for viewing the pictures (without touching), I work only with TIFF 8 or 16 bit:

a) for loading only one DVD the Samsung needs some 20 minutes;
after I open one picture I wait some 60sec for enlarging ! Then 30sec for shfting parts of the monitor (cropped part).
b) for chanching to next picture also I wait 60-100sec.
Hence I need hours only to see one DVD (with eg 50 pic à 150 MB) !

My life is not so long, hence I must instantly buy canother solution for this problem (seeing scanned pic on monitors).

[nathanm]

You should first copy the files from DVD to hard disk before opening them in Photoshop. Opening files directly from removable media is generally sluggish.

[Paul Kierstead]

What specification would be good after your experiences?
I must work with XP prof (scanner not accepting Vista).
I must buy minimal 8 GB RAM, but more would be better (24 GB).
Hence necessarly a 64bit PC.


XP-Pro is NOT 64-bit and will not use more the 3 GB of ram. There is a 64-bit version of XP call XP-64, but it is not actually XP at all and XP drivers do not work on it (it is more or less Server 2003).

If you wish to use more then 3 GB or RAM for editing, and also use XP Pro for scanning, you will need 2 machines (*), one for scanning (XP Pro) and one for editing (Vista-64 or Windows 7-64).

PK

(*) If you are familiar with the technology, you could probably use a virtual machine on the "big" machine, but if you are not familiar with the technology, it tends to be a rat hole, and a secondary machine might be the better option. You can use a KVM to share monitors and keyboards.

[40moses]

Thank you much Mr. Kierstad
very important

Solution is now:
For scanning I have no problem: with an old machine XP Pro it works since weeks very good. So I scan with old some 100 pict, than I make copy definitely to external hard disc (more than 1 TeraB)
.
After this I must buy some new PC with Vista (64bit). Also 8 GB RAM or 24 GB.
With the new Vista (or 7) I have no problem than to view with great rapidity (for loading next picture of some 1000) a serie and also to enlarge instantly on the monitors ?
Correct ?

[Bill_1856]

Starting with 5x7, why don't you just print traditionally and forget about the digital stuff? 5x7 is a LOVELY size, even for contacts.

[40moses]

Yes, ths is true with contact prints.
I make contact prints with 8 x10.

But I have very much pictures (also MF files and 6x12 roll) with 250 MB.
I could not pay all printing for some 10.000 -30.000 pictures:
So only solution to revisit on Monitors; with enlarging it is very interesting for me.
So no other solution possible.

It is for me a great passion:
BECAUSE I DETECT always the original mentality when I was on location.
Morever I detect with cropping/enlarging beautifull things (more than on location).
So it is absolutly necessary.

[Brian Ellis]

You haven't said what kind of scanner you're using but have you checked with the manufacturer to see if they have an update to the software that would allow it to work with Vista? When I switched from XP to Vista 64 bit (a very nice change, Vista has gotten a bad rap IMHO from early users I think) every piece of hardware required updated software but all the manufacturers had the updates and installing them was simple.

[40moses]

Yes true.
The scanner is Precision III and t is not possible to go with Vista, becaus the last update for SCSI is XP. With Vista incompatibel !

So the only way woud be to buy a new scanner (for 4x5 better 5x7).
Ths is very costly. I would not work with drum scanner (too much time for working). So I know no other solution for good scanner under 4000 $.
Thank you

[Donald Miller]

I dealt with the same issue about a year and half ago. I ended building my own machine based upon Vista 64 bit OS. I am running dual quad core processors (2.33 Ghz Intel) on a server motherboard and 12 GB of the good ram. A good video card is also important...or at least it was for me. Performance is adequate.

For storage I have 1 TB on board in two drives and 1.5 TB external in two additional drives.

Cost was slightly above what you quoted for a good scanner.

[m332720]

There is a version of XP Pro that is 64 bit. I use it and am very happy with it.

[Paul Kierstead]

There is a version of XP Pro that is 64 bit. I use it and am very happy with it.

It will not use regular XP drivers, which is the OP's problem.

[40moses]

Thank you much for the hints (with drivers)
Now I have found on other places same strong warning.

So it is necessary to buy hopefully Windows 7 -64bit (or Vista -64bit when Vista is good for colours and calibration ?)

[Joanna Carter]

Of course, you could always get a Mac, then you won't have driver problems, as the OS is 64bit but supports legacy drivers. :)

[Flea77]

Thank you much Mr. Kierstad
very important

Solution is now:
For scanning I have no problem: with an old machine XP Pro it works since weeks very good. So I scan with old some 100 pict, than I make copy definitely to external hard disc (more than 1 TeraB)
.
After this I must buy some new PC with Vista (64bit). Also 8 GB RAM or 24 GB.
With the new Vista (or 7) I have no problem than to view with great rapidity (for loading next picture of some 1000) a serie and also to enlarge instantly on the monitors ?
Correct ?

I am assuming that by "view with great rapidity" you mean load images on the screen extremely quickly. There are four things that factor in to that:

1) Processor. You need enough to handle all your background tasks from Windows, anti-virus, etc and the program in question. For this I would suggest a Q9550.

2) Memory. Not just quantity, but speed. Right now for budget to midrange systems I have had great luck with Kingston HyperX, as much as you can stuff in the motherboard, it will not go to waste.

3) Hard drive. The images have to be loaded from your hard drive into memory, the faster the better. I use Velociraptors.

4) Video card. At least a 9600GT or better, especially if using dual monitors. Throwing up all those thumbnails at once can be a job.

These are in the order you should probably approach them. Hope this helps!

Allan

[40moses]

The aim is not to enter in the region of one second (or fractions) but the problem is that with common PC for consumers you wait minutes for 1 GB.
So this is two orders longer (100-1000 fold !) and in analogy you must have methusalem's privlege: to live 10 000 years to save consistency or give up monitoring your 5 x 7 or 8x 10.

Hence:
Multimonitors are without any interest: they are breaking the picture with borders in inner parts very disturbing.
Velociraptors I guess without practical advantage. (They are also too small for storage, some TeraB is better).

In contrast 1 and 2 are important to solve the case.
Also I think it is the question if Vista is no good solution (Colour calibrations problems ?) So Windows 7
I would thank you.

[D. Bryant]

Gates realized the importance of this feature.

Gates isn't involved any longer. Point the finger at Balmer for the Vista train crash.

Don Bryant

[Flea77]

The aim is not to enter in the region of one second (or fractions) but the problem is that with common PC for consumers you wait minutes for 1 GB.
So this is two orders longer (100-1000 fold !) and in analogy you must have methusalem's privlege: to live 10 000 years to save consistency or give up monitoring your 5 x 7 or 8x 10.

Hence:
Multimonitors are without any interest: they are breaking the picture with borders in inner parts very disturbing.
Velociraptors I guess without practical advantage. (They are also too small for storage, some TeraB is better).

In contrast 1 and 2 are important to solve the case.
Also I think it is the question if Vista is no good solution (Colour calibrations problems ?) So Windows 7
I would thank you.

Just a couple points... First, entering the realm of seconds can be important if you are talking about say 1/2 second faster to load previews in Lightroom, per image. 1000 images, 1/2 second faster each, 500 seconds faster!

Next, I understand what you mean about multimonitors, but have you seen Lightroom on multiple monitors? I use it that way and LR stays on my left screen with thumbnails and info while any image I click on appears full screen on my right monitor. I find it extremely useful for both screens to be there without switching back and forth.

Lastly, just for the record, I am using Vista.

Allan

[40moses]

Velocity of thumbnails Loading.

This is an aspect of the whole problem which I could not have seen just;
it must be incorporated necessarly also.
I thank you very much for the hint.

But I think in practice by other causes, a folder with more than 1000 pic is rarely used (you take subfolders in general).
Hence 1000 pic is a good number to consider as a certain limit.

Hence I understand now your hint as follows:
without velociraptors an image with number 999 can only be opened after (say) 10 minutes (1000 x 1/2 sec) loading time ?
In any case you can not see completly the thumbnails before 500 secs ?

I have heard that velociraptors take only 300 GigaB. (So only 300 pic with 1 GigaB). I must than just use several one for one trip documentation. This would be very disturbing. An order of 3-5TeraB would be desirable.

[Larry Gebhardt]

I have an older Raptor (160GB) and tested it against a new 1TB drive I bought for backup. Across the whole platter the 1TB bargain drive was faster than the Raptor in transfer speeds, which for photo loading is what you need. So see if you can get ahold of some real test results before sinking big bucks in Velociraptors. I bet a 2TB single platter drive will give you better bang for the buck.

I am very happy with my new quad core Mac Pro for editing 4x5 images (usually drum scanned at 4000dpi). Sadly the Mac version of Photoshop will only use 3GB of RAM, but so far this hasn't been much of an issue for me.

[40moses]

ASPECT OF THE QUESTION remaining :
Video Card

Any suggestions ?
------------------------------

with regard that the main aspect of 4 x 5 and 8 x 10 should be the perpetuating of quality of the original world in a common plastic second world

question: exist certain pitfalls in the choice of video cards for the ambition to install best possible monitors ? eg Quato 26" monitors or others.
(resolution, colour rendition power, gray rendition)
Remember: What I can not see on Monitor as quality is lost (with risk of alteration by further steps).

[oris642]

I'm in a similar situation, looking for a machine to Photoshop 4x5's and also the 6x17's out of my Gaoersi. I've just spent the weekend building a Mac Pro "clone" made possible by this device that fools PC hardware into thinking it's a Mac:

www.efi-x.com

I bought the motherboard and and EFIX chip from www.expresshd.com

For $1,600 I built a machine optimized for Photoshop as per this article: www.macperformanceguide.com

Intel Quad-core Xeon running at 3.4 GHZ
8 GB RAM (can go to 16 GB for $400 more)
6 hard drives:
1- 640GB for storing applications only (Adobe CS4, Aperture)
4- 500GB in a RAID 0 array for speed
1- 1 TB for Time Machine backup
a 3-bay hard drive hot-swap array
Blu-Ray burner - make backups or copies up to 50 GB!
Card reader
nVidia 9800GT graphics card for dual monitors

A comparable Mac Pro (adding after-market Blu-Ray burner and additional 3 hard drives to make the comparison fair) = $3789

If I had to do it again I could do it all in 4-6 hours instead of three days, but

1) I had no teenaged son to show me how,
2) I have never built a computer before,
3) I had to learn a few new swear words to expedite the process. : )

I haven't run benchmarks yet but will do do this week.

[40moses]

I'm in a similar situation, looking for a machine to Photoshop 4x5's and also the 6x17's out of my Gaoersi. I've just spent the weekend building a Mac Pro "clone" made possible by this device that fools PC hardware into thinking it's a Mac:

www.efi-x.com

I bought the motherboard and and EFIX chip from www.expresshd.com

For $1,600 I built a machine optimized for Photoshop as per this article: www.macperformanceguide.com

Intel Quad-core Xeon running at 3.4 GHZ
8 GB RAM (can go to 16 GB for $400 more)
6 hard drives:
1- 640GB for storing applications only (Adobe CS4, Aperture)
4- 500GB in a RAID 0 array for speed
1- 1 TB for Time Machine backup
a 3-bay hard drive hot-swap array
Blu-Ray burner - make backups or copies up to 50 GB!
Card reader
nVidia 9800GT graphics card for dual monitors

A comparable Mac Pro (adding after-market Blu-Ray burner and additional 3 hard drives to make the comparison fair) = $3789

If I had to do it again I could do it all in 4-6 hours instead of three days, but

1) I had no teenaged son to show me how,
2) I have never built a computer before,
3) I had to learn a few new swear words to expedite the process. : )

I haven't run benchmarks yet but will do do this week.

******************

Thank you very much Mr oris 642

This is of great interest for me to analyze further.

Any hints are of great interest