Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: Photoshop and Computing Power

  1. #1
    Ted Harris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,465

    Photoshop and Computing Power

    As my scanner capabilities grow sodo the sixe of the files I am creating and hence the the need for more and more computing power. I am now regularly scanning 4x5 and 5x7 chromes @ 2400 - 3200 ppi resulting in files from 500 Mb to 1 Gb. My current Dual Processor 867 Mhz G4 with 1.75 Gb of RAM is gasping. Opening a file can take 4-6 minutes and most Photoshopoerpations take as long or nearly as long, this even with dedicting 75% of available memory to Photoshop and plenty of storage space for scratch disks. So the question.

    Working with such large files requires a new configuration but what is the best expenditure? I am leaning toward a G5 dual processor 2 Ghz machine (to which I will add 2 Gb RAM immediately to the installed 512) because of the RAM capabilities and configuration available, OTOH srue is a lot of $$. Anybody else been in this fix recently and solved it and wht sort of speed increases do you see when working with your large image files on the new machine?

    Thanks ....

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    9,487

    Photoshop and Computing Power

    I think the biggest bang for your buck is the lower processor speed 1.8 mhz dual G5, and spend the savings to get 3-4 gb or RAM rather than just 2 gb,(which is too little IMHO). RAM makes the biggest difference in actual production, even back in the day when 64 mb cost me $2000!

    I'd also get the biggest hard drive and a second matching drive for backups, or if you are geeky, a RAID.

    Next, I'd get the biggest, best monitor I could afford to put on my desk. Studies have shown that graphic artists are more productive with 21-inch monitors on slow machines compared to 17-inch monitors on fast machines. Scrolling and zooming not only take time, but they slow you down because you have to reorientate yourself each time you move.

    Only after than would I spend money on a faster processor (and the video card upgrade would be last of all...)

    I used to run employees and buy on this basis, and did a lot of comparisions. Not much has changed - RAM is still the bottleneck.

    It also helps to buy in the early to middle of the product cycle, after the early bugs are squashed but there is no replacement model on the horizon for six months or so. The big Mac intros are quarterly, so you can sort of gauge the next cycle.

    Smalldog.com sells a lot of refurbs - I've had excellent luck, although I always reformat and resinstall everything whenever I get a new Mac - never just use them out of the box (unless you are my Mom.)

    Of course, I would love a dual 30-inch LCD system with 8 gb of RAM!

  3. #3
    Resident Heretic Bruce Watson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    USA, North Carolina
    Posts
    3,362

    Photoshop and Computing Power

    I've got a similar problem on a PC. The basis of the problem is, Adobe developes for micro$oft first, and windoze is going to remain 32 bit for the foreseable future. Thus, so will photoshop. It can only handle 2GB internally (not the 4GB you'd think), so with files the size you and I use, it's going to be paging to disk a lot.

    I suspect that the biggest bang for your buck is going to be SCSI disks. Still the fastest things around, and if you are working on a 1GB file, you are going to be disk limited because the paging is unavoidable. That's why when you make an adjustment and everything freezes, you hear the disk drive and the light stays solidly lit.

    So, I'm sort of with Frank. Slower processors, max out memory, and multiple fast SCSI drives.

    Bruce Watson

  4. #4
    Ted Harris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,465

    Photoshop and Computing Power

    Frank,

    One additional point ..... there is a logic board and RAM configuration difference between the 1.8 and 2.0 machines and that is why I have not been considering the 1.8 machine. The 1.8 will only accept 4 GB of RAM and it comes with 2 128 MB chips installed in two slots leaving only two slots available (the RAM must be installed in pairs. So you either install 2 GB or 4 GB throwing away the installed 256. The 2 Ghz machine is capable of handling 8 GB of RAM and comes with 512 installed and six slots still available for expansion.

    BTW I totally agree on Small Dog, a great company but unfortunately they don;t have any refurbs that seem to fill the bill for me right now. I have purchased several machines and a lot of other stuff there in the past. You can also see our dogs there ... look for Ted and Amy ...

    Thanks

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    9,487

    Photoshop and Computing Power

    You're right. I haven't been in the market and keeping up on the specs, but the faster bus of the 2.0 over the 1.8 might make a worthwhile difference (but not sure where the payoff is...)

    Even with the 2gb limit on 32-bit, can't you use more RAM for the OS and other apps?

    One thing I do is partion the disc to leave a couple gigs as a scratch disc. Always empty, never fragmented. Seems to work well. I also keep my apps in one partition and my work in another - keeps things tidy and I think it hunts less, in theory if not by proven evidence.

    I only scan to 120mb files, but they pile up quickly with all the layers and whatnot. I'd hate to think of lots of layers on a 500mb base... but you could do what we used to do back in the 68000 days... do a small file, work out your corrections, save the adjustments and notes, and then apply them to the larger file (and grab a cup of coffee, listen to Depeche Mode, and watch Sienfeld (get into the era...)).

  6. #6

    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    1,330

    Photoshop and Computing Power

    Hi Ted

    I will also go for the 2x 2 Giga Mac in the next 2-3 months or if mainwhile the 2.5 comes much cheaper then I take it.
    But I also prefer the 2 Giga with filled fully up with Ram then the 2.5 with not so much Ram.
    Good luck.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Massachusetts USA
    Posts
    8,476

    Photoshop and Computing Power

    Photoshop allows you to specify where the swap file(s) are located; which drive(s). If you have a second or third physical drive on your machine, then you can perform read/write operations in parallel. Power users know that the swap disk should be completely empty. PS uses it for temporary storage only, so it never really gets "written to". So in addition to RAM, a second or several physical drives, separate from the drive on which your file is located, will speed things up. I'm not talking about logical drives, but physical drives, each with their own disk and head.

  8. #8

    Photoshop and Computing Power

    You could create a 4GB ram disk for swap if you had an 8GB machine. I bet that would be fast!

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    9,487

    Photoshop and Computing Power

    There is this guru guy - Jeff Schewe - who makes more money from consulting than from being a photographer anymore - he writes and talks all over - and he always has the top of the line, ultimate system with beta copies of the next version of Photoshop. He had the quad processor 604 Daystar with accelerators, RAIDs, and gigs of Ram - with two 21-inch Pressviews - back in 1996 or so. He did 300mb Live Picture files in real time "back in the day" when most of us were still using floppies.

    Granted, he still did corny stuff like little people standing next to giant pigs, but he did it really well.

    If you track him down online (or that Andrew Rodney guy, I think they are partners in a consulting business), he would be a good benchmark for just how hopped up you can get. But after awhile, it does kind of seem like bragging rights, doesn't it?

  10. #10

    Photoshop and Computing Power

    I'll bump the devoted scratch drive concept and add the Layer Tranfer Technique for increased efficiency. I'm only running a 400 mhz G-4 with 1.5 gbs of RAM, though like yourself, I am starting to feel the ache to move up to a new system since I've been scanning files that end up 500mb to 1GB.

    I watched my friend work on his G5 with full-size 16 bit images as quickly as my machine operates with 8 bit. I simply wouldn't be able to work with these monster files if I didn't use the Layer Transfer Technique. Since most of the heavy lifting Photoshop does is with all the calculations with layers, etc. this techique advocates downsampling the original scan to a smaller discreet working file (base 50 mb) in which you add all your layers, and when things look right, upsampling the layers file, pasting the high res data into the file. Photoshop correspondingly upsamples the all the layers with the resize (which are mostly generalizations anyway). It is only in the final steps, upsampling, copying and pasting the data, that things slow down.

    If you're not familiar, this is my variation of the process as passed along by Rich Sieling of West Coast Imaging. They use the process in their workflow:

    A. Clean up your scan:
    1. Spot, crop and save your scan give it a name something like "ABCD_spotted_scan.psd". (Rich spots and crops after he does the Layer Transfer process, but I do it first, preferring not to have a dirty image to look at, and figuring I will at least crop to working dimensions that eliminate extraneous data).

    B. Prepare the LT File:

    1. Open the spotted file, downsample to 8x10 at 360 dpi (check constrain proportions and change dpi to 360, and the long side to 10 and let the computer calculate the short side)

    2. Save as a discreet file called something like "ABCD_8x10_LT_UF.psd"

    3. Start adding your layers and adjustments to that file. Once you've got the file looking the way you like it, SAVE IT! in unflatted form.

    C. Prepping for the "Layer Transfer":

    1. Open "ABCD_spotted_scan" and resize it roughly to your target output size --again with proportions constrained--set the dpi to the intended output resolution. (I use 360 since I run an Epson 9600) and the long side to your intended dimensions (say 20 inches) and let the computer calculate the short side. For the sake of this example, for film with an aspect ratio of 4x5 you'd end up with dimensions of 7200 pixels (20 inches) on the long side by something in the neighborhood of 5850 pixels (16 inches) on the short side.

    2. Make note of what the exact size of the second dimension is in pixels (write it down because you'll need it in a moment).

    3. Select all and EDIT>COPY

    D. Upsample the "ABCD_8x10_LT_UF.psd" file:

    1. Activate the "ABCD_8x10_LT_UF.psd" file and under IMAGE>IMAGE SIZE--with proportions constrained--enter the same size as you made the spotted file, matching the dpi and long side. Let the computer calculate the short side. If you're lucky, it will end up calculating the same number as step C-1 example (5850). Sometimes it is a couple of pixels off due to rounding errors.

    2. If the dimensions match exactly, proceed to step 4. If they don't , go to step 3.

    3. Uncheck constrain proportions, physically enter the proper short side dimension from step C-1 and press enter to finalize the resize.

    4. Select the background layer and EDIT>PASTE the copied information from the spotted file into your upsampled LT file.

    5. Zoom in to actual pixel level and either click the eyeball on and off (or adust the opacity up and down) for this new layer to inspect and make sure the data from the high res spotted file lines up exactly with the low res data from the LT file.

    6. If everything has worked properly, the data lines up and you can discard the background layer and you have an unflattened high resolution file that you can either save as "ABCD 16x20 MASTER UF", or flatten and sharpen for output, depending on your preferences.

    Prior to output, the data gets converted to 8 bit, but the advantage of this apporach is that you've been able to work quickly but retain the integrity of the original high-resolution file throughout the process. Think about how much faster it would be with a new machine!

Similar Threads

  1. Power Ratio Plugs
    By Neal Shields in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 24-Aug-2005, 09:37
  2. computing exposure
    By Kat_4663 in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 16-Sep-2004, 19:05
  3. How much computer power for scanning?
    By Ben Calwell in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 3-Dec-2003, 08:20
  4. Power supply for LPL 4500
    By dileep prakash in forum Darkroom: Equipment
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-Oct-2001, 13:14
  5. Places of Power
    By Jeff White in forum On Photography
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 15-Jan-2001, 23:10

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •