How much computer power for scanning?

[Frank Petronio]

You didn't mention which platform, but if you are coming from a 1997 era PC you owe it to yourself to at least consider getting a Mac. The prices/value/software are very good, especially for digital imaging applications. A 17-inch eMac (education model) with a G4 processor is in the $7-800 range - add a gig of RAM to it and you will have a bullet-proof computer that will perform well for another 4-5 years. The monitors on the eMac/iMac line are very good, far better than the discount/less expensive PC monitors. True you can get a functioning PC for less $ but you do get what you pay for... and the Mac is easier to use, out of the box, with less hassles.

Also, the difference between Windows 98 and XP is significant enough that you might just as well go to a modern operating system like Mac OSX.

[Brian Kennedy]

I use an older computer with a 3200, too. To update my computer to handle the 4x5 scans, I had to:

1 - Get a USB2/Firewire card. These are inexpensive, and well worth it for the gigantic increase in speed. My computer only came with a USB1 port.

2 - Get more RAM. Find out how much RAM your computer can take, and max out. My computer doesn't accept more than 768MB of RAM, so that's what I have. This is a huge limitation for PS with 4x5 scans, but if you scan at 1000 DPI to 1600 DPI (which is more than enough resolution), you'll be fine. Eventually I'll get a computer with 2GB or more RAM.

One important thing to keep in mind -- when you buy RAM, buy it all at once. In other words, if you have 256MB of RAM and are moving to 768MB, don't just buy 512MB and add it to what you have. Instead, buy all 768MB and remove the 256MB you have. You'll save yourself tons of headaches and strange crashes that way.

IMO, a 40GB hard drive is enough if you don't want to spend any more $$$. Archive your files on CD-RW or DVD-RW.

[Ted Harris]

Ben,



Let me follow on with the Mac discussion for a bit.



First, the new eMac may be one of the biggest bargains in hardware available today, an acceptable choice for graphics work. The new iMac is better and, IMHO the new G5 CPU is absolutely the best box on the market today for graphics works. If price is not the primary consideration then I strongly recommend going with a G5 box and as much RAM as you can afford; if you are going this route get at least 10gigs of RAM. The G5 running OSX 10.3 is the ONLY option in the microprocessor world available now that allows you to break through the 4 gig RAM barrier.



You haven’t mentioned software and monitors but they are both important. If you are going to be running Windows you really should not think of a system other than XP and the ONLY software package that makes sense is Photoshop 7 or Photoshop CS. If you decide to go with a Mac then Photoshop is still the easiest and a totally satisfactory solution. If you are a bit software handy you can also run a variety of Unix based software (such as The Gimp Leonard mentioned) since OSX runs on a Unix kernel. If you are not at all familiar with the vagaries of Unix, however, then stick with Photoshop.



What do you gain with all this RAM? Speed, in terms of how fast Photoshop opens files and how fast it performs some of the complex manipulations and adjustments you will be making to your images once they have been scanned (both even more important than the time gained in actually completing and transferring the scanned image to your puter. As an example, I run a 1.25 Ghz dual processor Mac G4 with 2 gigs of RAM and it still takes a noticeable amount of time (yeah yeah yeah probably only a few seconds but I still notice) to open a 50 mb tiff file. The faster your processor and the more RAM you have the more you will cut down on this time.



To me the most important consideration is the monitor which I don’t believe you mentioned in your initial post. IMHO 17” diagonal is the absolute minimum you want to mess with for image processing and the bigger the better. DO NOT repeat DO NOT get sucked into buying a lower priced large LCD monitor. You will find that they just aren’t there yet in terms of how they handle color. In fact, (my opinion again based on a lot of knowledge in this area) unless you are prepared to spend really big bucks don’t even think of an LCD for image editing. If you really think you can get by with a 15” screen then maybe the 15” from Apple or one o fthe other top-of-the-line 15’s will be ok but, again, that is awfully small for image editing. The limiting factor, if you go with a CRT screen, will be the size of your desk/table from front to back. My personal preference in a manageable size reasonably priced monitor is the LaCie 19” Electron Blue. Their 22” is even better but it starts to get into the monster size and eats and enormous amount of real estate. Fagain, my opinion but if you get any new CPU and plug it into your old monitor you will be wasting your money.



Good luck and have fun on your new adventure …

[Michael Chmilar]

<UL>
<LI>Get a computer that can hold at least 1.5 GB of RAM. If it can hold more, that is even better. Don't bother getting a machine that maxes out at 512K or 1G, or you will be buying again really soon! Memory is pretty cheap, these days, and getting cheaper. Even if you don't install the maximum RAM at first, make sure you have the option to grow. As mentioned, your RAM size should be five times the size of your scanned files.
<LI>The "sweet spot" for hard drives, in terms of price/capacity, is probably in the 80GB to 120GB range, at the moment. 7200rpm drive speeds are common and affordable, and are preferred over the older 5400rpm ones. Of course, you can always add or swap drives, later.
</UL>



Photoshop uses the hard drive as a "second-level" image cache when runs out of RAM to hold your image date + adjustment layers + working space. Insufficient RAM and a slow drive is a recipe for sloooowwwwnesssss.

[Ken Lee]

As wonderful as it is, scanning is not the "cheap" solution. Make sure you factor in all the costs or you will get annoyed.

For scanning proper, you don't need a powerful or fast machine...but since 4x5 files are large, you will need a large hard drive, and/or the ability to burn your files to CD or DVD.

Photo editing software requires a hefty machine: tons of memory and a fast CPU. Photoshop allows you to create layers and undo steps, so it stores multiple copies of your image, as it were... in RAM. On a 4x5 image, that runs into gigabytes real fast.

Once Photoshop runs out of real RAM, it uses swap disk space, so having a second disk drive just for the swap files makes an improvement, since you are no longer reading the program code, the Operating System code, and the image itself from the same disk. If you are gutting your old machine,perhaps you can its hard disk installed on your new machine as a 2nd hard drive. Don't use it for any other purpose, so it won't get fragmented.

I just got a machine with 2GB of memory, and when I edit my 4x5 images, Photoshop uses all of the memory.

Make sure you know all about monitor calibration and printer/ink profiling, and allocate the money for it. Otherwise, it's like working in a darkroom without a thermometer, and without a method of measuring the volume of your chemicals: some people might have good luck with it, but for the rest of us, it's hit or miss.

[N Gray]

Ben,

Many posters have already answered your question in strict terms of computer requirements to do scanning. My two cents on this are: 80 GB hard drive and 512 MB of RAM and a CD or DVD burner for a scanning machine. The more you're intending to 'edit' these images on this machine (as opposed to just scanning and burning them) the more you'll want to add RAM, disk space and processing power.

Further to some of the discussions raised in the thread, one of the first questions I would have for you is, what is your intended use of your new system? What have you been doing with your current equipment? Will you being doing the same things on the new system or are you shifting gears and looking to expand the computer’s use? If the use remains the same than any computer on the market now will seem very very fast in comparison to a system from 1997. If you’re on a tight budget, as you mention, than that is a comforting thought to keep in mind.

I’m a fan of the iMac or the eMac, mentioned by a few posters, for a budget system; but frankly if you have reasons to be in a PC world that works fine as well. The reason this is true for a photographer is because Photoshop, the photographer’s digital workhorse, is cross platform (and in my experience incredibly seamless across platforms). If your uses are more demanding in terms of colour accuracy than the Macintosh machine would gain some advantage from its implementation of ColorSync technology. There are a number of other platform issues that may be relevant depending upon your use, preference, clients, etc.

Once again, what you do with a machine is critical to the purchasing decision (and defining the budget required).

A quick note on the G5s. The entry level G5 allows a maximum of 4 GB of RAM and the DPs (dual processors) allow a maximum of 8 GB (see G5 specs). But, Ben, if I read your post correctly you’re looking for a much more modest system than that.

Happy shopping.

[Jonathan Lee]

Ben,

Like a few of the posters, I believe that an eMac is an absolute bargain as an imaging work station. Whether you buy a Mac or a PC, you are far better off spending your money on RAM (get at least a gig) than on raw processing power since Photoshop speed depends heavily on free RAM. That being said, a Mac computer, even one with a low speed processor can make life better for you since a Mac multitasks far better than a PC. For me, using a G4 or an eMac with 1 Gig RAM, it is possible to scan a 200Mb image in Vuescan, print out another 200Mb image in Photoshop and surf the web simultaneously with no crashes.

[Georges Pelpel]

I would also recommend an eMac or a G4 iMac, both have a G4 processor running at least at 700Mhz. Beside the processor (G4 versus G3) memory is the most critical element. I use 512MB and find it barely adequate when working with 4x5 scans (I am using an Epson 2450 scanner at 48bit resulting in 650MB files for each 4x5 slide). I would surely recommend 1GB of RAM. Hard disk size is not critical, 30 to 40GB is plenty enough but spend the money on either a CD-RW drive or, better, a DVD-RW drive.

[neil poulsen]

Is the issue how well your computer will work with a scanner, or how well it will work with Photoshop? I would suspect the latter.

I would also consider things like what graphics chip set you want, whether it can handle two monitors, whether you have a dedicated drive for the Photoshop scratch file, as well as the other memory considerations mentioned above.

If your machine can handle Photoshop, it can probably also handle the 3200.

[Frank Petronio]

As you are getting many different opinions and I think some people are aiming over your head and budget. If you get an Epson 3200 with a full version of Photoshop, that alone is over $1000. And you absolutely need a modern $700 to $1000+++ Intel/AMD PC or Mac to begin to run it. With RAM being the cheapest upgrade you can get, having a gigabyte or more of RAM is a starting point. Macs have Firewire already built in, plus other advantages in terms of color profiling and ease of use out of the box. But if your "help network" (friends that help with your PC) are Windows based, it may make sense to follow their lead, as they are the people you will call in the middle of the night when you don't understand something. A well set up Windows machine will run Photoshop as well as a Mac (notice my qualification.) If you are working at the level of using a 3200/Photoshop/large format film, then you also need to have a decent quality 17 to 19 inch monitor and a decent inkjet printer. An eMac comes as a single unit with a good cathode ray monitor incorporated; the iMacs use flat panel LCDs of good quality, the older G4 and newer G5 towers allow any PC monitor to work. If you buy a separate monitor, Sony and LaCie make good ones for under $500. A good letter sized inkjet is only $100, but the popular Epson 2200 (prints 13x19) is $700 plus expensive consumables. You didn't mention your final output requirements, but if you are happy with making nice 8x10 and occassional larger prints, a basic system described above will work fine. The fellas talking about dual monitors, 8 gb of RAM, and 600 mb files are talking about their own desires - many people are able to do the highest quality work (just at a more modest scale) with a basic system of a gig of RAM and a modest set-up, working with 20 to 150 mb files. Finally, www.smalldog.com has good service and deals on refurbished Mac and Epson stuff. Good luck distilling the BS.