View Full Version : Computer system for processing & storing 8x10 scans?
What computer system specs are required to process 8x10 16bit 2400dpi colour and neg scan files. The files themselves could have anywhere up to 50 layers in Photoshop.
Additionally, what is the best storage system once the files have been scanned and processed?
Please outline a mac and a PC option if you can along with approx price.
Thank you.
Rory_5244
11-Dec-2013, 22:04
I used to use a Mac Pro but I switched to a Dell Precision Mobile workstation for my 8x10 scans. Price varies with configuration but averages about $2-3K. You wouldn't need the top Quadro cards for photography. I have 32GB RAM installed and Photoshop handles the files just fine (which routinely go over 2GB in size).
I have 5 backups which rotate on various HDDs. One of those backups exists abroad, rotating every 6 months.
Preston
11-Dec-2013, 22:07
If you have an idea as to how large the files in GB are, talk to Puget Systems (http://www.pugetsystems.com/). These guys know their stuff about building high performance custom machines (PC's). Also, their customer service is the best I've seen for a computer vendor. If you tell them what you are planning to do with the computer and what level of performance you expect, they will guide you to a solution without trying to up-sell you on a bunch of stuff you don't need.
I have two of their computers: An Obsidian desktop and one of their Traverse 15" laptops. Both are great machines. I can open a 2 GB 16-bit PSD file in about 7 seconds.
I suggest that you go with an SSD for your OS drive, and regular HD's for storage and back up. You can put your OS, programs and working files on the SSD with all other stuff being stored on regular drives.
I have no affiliation with the company, other than being a very satisfied customer. Tell them I sent you.
--P
Rory_5244
12-Dec-2013, 02:36
Oh, only Dell and HP provide onsite technician visits worldwide in the warranty for business machines if that's important to you. W/ Lenovo and Fujitsu it's country dependent.
You can build a top-notch system for around $1k (monitor not included). i7 processor, good motherboard with plenty of SATA ports, 16GB RAM, SSD for Windows/programs, and all the accouterments, and you're ready to roll.
It's really not that hard. I built my first custom rig when I was 15.
MisterPrinter
12-Dec-2013, 11:00
You can build a top-notch system for around $1k (monitor not included). i7 processor, good motherboard with plenty of SATA ports, 16GB RAM, SSD for Windows/programs, and all the accouterments, and you're ready to roll.
It's really not that hard. I built my first custom rig when I was 15.
It's true that you can buy good spec components cheaply, but remember that they haven't been tested together. a big name pc will have been thoroughly tested to ensure that air flow to critical components is correct, that heat sinks are correctly specced etc. etc. This does make a difference.
Except they've recently started to really standardize the parts and their designations. You can buy, say, an "X-15" (just made that up fyi) motherboard, which will have the same basic specs from Asus, Intel, or any of the component manufacturers.
A quick Google search will give you a synopsis on what others' experiences are with XYZ company's version of "X-15" and how it interacted with ABC company's RAM, or video card, or whatever.
With a couple hours of deciding on parts and then Googling any compatibility issues, you are pretty safe from problems. It's a lot easier to do this for such a simple computer like one needed for editing scans - compared to computers that need to run dedicated hardware like for audio/video systems and the like, which I have a lot of experience with as well.
In fact, you can just Google up entire system configurations that work perfectly together and have been tested by hundreds of builders, and then just order those parts. Slap them together like Lego and you are ready to roll. Even if you are totally unprepared to do that, there are probably dozens of experienced system builders in any city or town that would be happy to build the system for a modest fee. I've built dozens of custom rigs for local folks, both for simply doing office work all the way up to complex audio workstation systems. I've never had a serious incompatibility problem between two components.
This does make a difference.
,,, in the price, but not in performance.
I've been building personal computers since 1973, ten years before the IBM PC was introduced, for
both "personal" and "business" uses, including some very large computer-controlled systems.
There are only two critical factors:
1) Buy only name brand products with a proven track record for reliability and customer service, and
2) Install every fan that the housing can hold, both front and back. High temperature will kill any PC.
Run all fans at full speed, disabling any "speed control" in the PC BIOS or system configuration.
If at all possible, arrange high-volume airflow directly over the hard drives. Those dudes generate a
lot of heat. They're much happier if you help to get rid of it.
- Leigh
In a perfect world you'd want photoshop to have around 5X the memory of your largest typical file size. This will vary depending on your editing habits and prefered settings (cache size, memory states, etc.)
If you're really going to be working with that many layers on files at that resolution, no system is going to be fast. 32GB ram is where most systems top out, and it's not enough. You will do a lot of waiting.
I don't think you have to worry so much about storage, considering the typical workflow volumes with 8x10. And considering that there aren't enough hours in a year to work on huge numbers of files of that size and complexity. Storage speed is not as big an issue as you might think. When opening and saving layered PSD files (or compressed TIFs), the compression routines are all single-threaded. So the processor, not the drive, is the bottleneck. Annoying as hell, but I've been assured by engineers at Adobe that there's nothing to be done about it. You could, of course, save your files as uncompressed TIFs, but that would be trading gluttony for one kind fo punishment for another.
You don't have to worry at all about video cards. Photoshop currently does very little image processing in the GPU. Just a couple of odd filters, and some display acceleration.
I'd suggest keeping an archive copy of your raw scan and doing the work on a somewhat lower resolution copy. At 2400 dpi you are greatly oversampling the finest detail likely to be found in an 8x10 neg. People don't like to hear that, but I can almost guarantee it. Unless you're working with selective focus at fairly wide apertures and can nail the focus with that camera (and don't have issues with film sagging, etc..) either diffraction or slop will act as powerful, money- and memory-saving low-pass filters.
MisterPrinter
13-Dec-2013, 09:13
,,, in the price, but not in performance.
I've been building personal computers since 1973, ten years before the IBM PC was introduced, for
both "personal" and "business" uses, including some very large computer-controlled systems.
There are only two critical factors:
1) Buy only name brand products with a proven track record for reliability and customer service, and
2) Install every fan that the housing can hold, both front and back. High temperature will kill any PC.
Run all fans at full speed, disabling any "speed control" in the PC BIOS or system configuration.
If at all possible, arrange high-volume airflow directly over the hard drives. Those dudes generate a
lot of heat. They're much happier if you help to get rid of it.
- Leigh
You pays your money, and takes your chance. I co owned and ran a computer maintenance company catering to the UKs biggest newspapers for 18 years, I saw a lot of failed machines in that time.
Nathan Potter
13-Dec-2013, 10:23
A lot of talk about building a computer, but it sounds like the OP is not in that mode. Contacting someone like Puget Systems who is expert in design and construction would be wise (and there are others).
My feeling is that I'd be much happier out doing photography and inside doing darkroom or PS work than building a computer.
Nate Potter, Austin TX.
My argument would be that he should be in that mode.
Building a computer takes 2-3 hours of research/investigation tops to see what parts to get, 30 minutes to order them, and maybe an hour or two to assemble at most. That's 5-10 hours at most, or one work day.
Comparatively, the same system built by some specialist company will likely be 3-4x the price. In my estimation that would probably amount to $1500-2000 saved for 10 hours of work at most. That's a lot of film and chemicals you could buy with the savings.
I'd be much happier out shooting rather than working my 9-5, but that doesn't mean I can afford to do that. I guess if you have expendable income for a custom computer system that's great, but for a lot of people, choosing to roll their own is an important financial decision.
MisterPrinter
13-Dec-2013, 11:42
My argument would be that he should be in that mode.
Building a computer takes 2-3 hours of research/investigation tops to see what parts to get, 30 minutes to order them, and maybe an hour or two to assemble at most. That's 5-10 hours at most, or one work day.
Comparatively, the same system built by some specialist company will likely be 3-4x the price. In my estimation that would probably amount to $1500-2000 saved for 10 hours of work at most. That's a lot of film and chemicals you could buy with the savings.
I'd be much happier out shooting rather than working my 9-5, but that doesn't mean I can afford to do that. I guess if you have expendable income for a custom computer system that's great, but for a lot of people, choosing to roll their own is an important financial decision.
Nobody is making margins like that now. It was difficult enough to make that money 10 years ago.
I've seen some prices on custom audio rigs that were about that, so that's what I was figuring off of. Myself, to prove a point once, I spec'd out my system against a Mac Pro with the same basic components and the markup was even more.
Lenny Eiger
15-Dec-2013, 16:29
50 layers? I've actually done this. I had a client ask me to composite 60 8x10 scans (or parts of them) into a single image. Photoshop isn't up to the task. Their lack of ability to handle large files was a huge problem, and still is.
A lot of the folks here have suggested PC's and I have no wish to argue. They make very good points. On the Mac side, the new Mac Pro is about to ship - any day now. That's where I would put my money - and probably will. There are new super fast interfaces that are better than SATA and, of course, SSD rules the day for working and scratch drives.
It's always been my opinion that when you buy a computer you are buying a hedge against obsolescence. It stinks that you can't just swap out processors when there is a new one but it isn't how the world works. If you buy last year's model, you will need a new one in 2 years. If you buy this year's model, you won't need a new one for three years. (Give or take, depending on lots of things.) I always buy the latest and it has been good for me as I have always been able to upgrade when a new version of the OS comes out or a new version of Photoslop.
When it comes to storage, I would buy outside the main computer. A system to handle large files and lots of them will cost you in PC or Mac. Buying the latest computer costs a bit more but its generally worth it as you get another year of usefulness.
That's my 2 cents.
Lenny
You can just swap-out processors, if the sockets are the same. They use the same sockets for many years, but of course when something really new/better comes out the socket does usually change.
I would wager that whatever new wunder-computer Apple comes out with, no one on this forum is likely to even need that amount of horsepower for film scans. Frankly, compared to some other things, working on even high-rez 8x10 scans doesn't take all that much. I invite some of you to edit 24-tracks of audio with effects or worse, video. Regardless - I highly doubt anyone needs to replace their computer every couple of years, if you are taking care of it properly.
Shootar401
15-Dec-2013, 18:28
Personally I wouldn't trust a windows based system for any serious work. Go with Mac or Linux.
Ron McElroy
16-Dec-2013, 16:48
Personally I wouldn't trust a windows based system for any serious work. Go with Mac or Linux.
Is there any robust photo editing software available for a Linux box?
Jim Cole
18-Dec-2013, 13:43
Personally I wouldn't trust a windows based system for any serious work. Go with Mac or Linux.
I've been using Windows self-built computers for my photo business since 2002 and do serious work. Never suffered more than drive failures which happen on any computer and are not an issue if you have multiple redundancy built in. I completely disagree with your assumption. The "Mac or Linux is better" argument is stale.
The "Mac or Linux is better" argument is stale.
Stale... perhaps.
Correct... yes.
- Leigh
Stale... perhaps.
Correct... yes.
- Leigh
Let's see you prove that demonstrably.
Today, an off-the-shelf MacBook is basically just a Dell laptop in a shiny aluminum case. To say a Mac is better is ridiculous. You might like the OS, but that's the only difference.
Well, Bryan...
I've been designing computer-controlled systems since 1973, including some very large ones...
...like the guidance and control system and the launch control system for the Pegasus rocket.
...like the press control system for a large local newspaper, printing half a million papers a day.
I could go on with more of the 50+ computerized products I've designed, but I won't bore you.
In every case, the μ$oft operating systems were rejected at the outset of the project due to poor reliability.
Most of the large systems used some variant of the Unix operating system, of which the
Mac OS X and Linux systems are current examples.
For most of the smaller products, I wrote the entire operating system myself.
- Leigh
That's pretty irrelevant to today's computing. There's plenty of sources showing that Windows-based computers are used pretty exclusively in big business, space, etc. - about the only Mac-only firms are sponsored by Apple.
The "Apple" computer these days is 100% targeted at the young 20-something demographic with disposable income.
Regardless - I'm asking for demonstrable proof that a Mac "is better."
Lenny Eiger
18-Dec-2013, 14:55
That's pretty irrelevant to today's computing. There's plenty of sources showing that Windows-based computers are used pretty exclusively in big business, space, etc. - about the only Mac-only firms are sponsored by Apple.
The "Apple" computer these days is 100% targeted at the young 20-something demographic with disposable income.
Regardless - I'm asking for demonstrable proof that a Mac "is better."
Bryan,
This is simply not true. In my other life, I build database systems. None of my clients are sponsored by Apple. There are thousands and thousands of developers, consultants, vars and everything else. I am not going to answer your demonstrable proof request because I refuse to get in to a Mac vs PC argument. This crap never ends.
You aren't giving very good advice to this OP who asked about a higher end computer system, either. You brush off his concerns because they may be less than what video editing (or rendering) requires. I've actually done this stuff, on a high end computer, and its excruciating. I don't like waiting 20 minutes for something to save, and wondering if it will. Adobe is horrible at large files.
Lenny
Of course you won't show demonstrable proof because there is none. The simple facts are that, in terms of hardware, there is no difference between a Windows-based PC and a Mac, and in terms of OS, you might prefer one or the other, but both are stable and problems basically only arise from problems with drivers and other 3rd-party issues that are not the fault of the OS.
I'm giving perfectly fine advice sir. In your post you mention that "Adobe is horrible at large files." Please tell me how that is relevant at all to one's choice of OS?
A high-end system is defined by its specs and power, not by what OS it is running.
Well, Bryan...
I've been designing computer-controlled systems since 1973, including some very large ones...
...like the guidance and control system and the launch control system for the Pegasus rocket.
...like the press control system for a large local newspaper, printing half a million papers a day.
I could go on with more of the 50+ computerized products I've designed, but I won't bore you.
In every case, the μ$oft operating systems were rejected at the outset of the project due to poor reliability.
Most of the large systems used some variant of the Unix operating system, of which the
Mac OS X and Linux systems are current examples.
For most of the smaller products, I wrote the entire operating system myself.
- Leigh
Leigh,
Your chest thumping and feather fluffing aside, the examples you give (machine control) are almost totally irrelevant and your information/opinion (that widows is unreliable) is at least 13 years out of date....closer to 15 years in my estimation (going back to WinNT 4.0).
That's pretty irrelevant to today's computing. There's plenty of sources showing that Windows-based computers are used pretty exclusively in big business, space, etc. - about the only Mac-only firms are sponsored by Apple.
The "Apple" computer these days is 100% targeted at the young 20-something demographic with disposable income.
Both of these assertions are completely false (wrt the mac book, mac mini and mac pro products).
There are many counter examples which easily disprove these assertions. to wit: many (most) software engineers and web programmers working for the big names in Silicon valley today have a choice of either a Mac Book or a Windows machine for their personal workstation.
Regardless - I'm asking for demonstrable proof that a Mac "is better."
There isn't any....either way.
I work at a university. The amount of targeted advertising and marketing towards this demographic to buy Apple products is ridiculous. It's quite clear that it is their intended market. As for what OS businesses are using...well I don't know of any large-scale polling so I guess I shouldn't really extrapolate from small sample sets and anecdotal evidence. If anything, yes, they have a choice, because it's all the same computer parts anyway. Which is my point.
Preston
18-Dec-2013, 16:47
It's interesting that the OP hasn't responded to this thread. Why? I think it's because no one has directly answered his question: "What computer system specs are required to process 8x10 16bit 2400dpi colour and neg scan files?". Instead, it has turned into the (inevitable) Mac vs. PC /Mac OS vs. Windows argument, and DYI vs. pre-built, which, in my opinion doesn't solve anything, nor does it help the OP. Also, I believe the OP is not interested in building his own machine, so, lets' do this...
If you know of a vendor who builds and/or sells a great machine, at a reasonable cost; Mac or PC, please point the OP to it. If you have specifics in mind regarding the specs for CPU, GPU, Optical drives, SSD's, HDD's, RAM, cooling, etc., please list them.
I don't know if the OP has already found a vendor and purchased a machine, but if he hasn't, let's help him out.
Thanks,
--P
That's a fair point Preston. Let me post my system that I am 100% sure would satisfy almost anyone on this board w/ regard to performance, short of any bottle-neck caused by Adobe products:
Intel Quad Core i7 3770
ASRock (or similar*) Z77 motherboard
G.SKILL Ripjaws Z Series 16GB (4 x 4GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM
MSI (or similar) R7770-2PMD1GD5/OC Radeon HD 7770 GHz
Cooler Master 850w PSU
Cooler Master Hyper 212 Plus CPU Cooler (fan)
Crucial M4 128GB SSD for OS and programs (you'll need a 2.5" to 3.5" drive mounting kit)
Western Digital Black, Red, or Blue SATA hard drives for storage/scratch disks, depending on your needs
Antec 300 Case
*Please refer back to my original post regarding model numbers being used among multiple brands, with the same basic operational specs
This is the system I am running right now. It was built in October of 2012. It is running Windows 7 64-bit Professional Edition. It has been the most stable computer I have ever built, with perfect compatibility among components. I have not had a single major error or lock-up. It runs Adobe CS6 flawlessly, up to and including 8x10 scans of 2400DPI or more with multiple layers. I also run huge audio and video projects that are much more intensive on computing power.
I can honestly not say if all of these components are still being sold. All the time components are upgraded and changed, so if they are not available, there is probably a model that is very similar if not almost identical, with a model number that is likely incremental from the old one.
The entire system cost me about $1,000 last year, but I already owned a good monitor and some small items like DVD burners and such. Those are all pretty much identical so it shouldn't be an issue. The monitor is a personal choice depending on your size needs and such.
Hope that helps the OP, if he is even still around.
the examples you give (machine control) are almost totally irrelevant and your information/opinion (that widows is unreliable) is at least 13 years out of date....closer to 15 years in my estimation ...
Well, Brad...
Fortunately, reality is not influenced by your "estimation" of anything.
- Leigh
Well, Brad...
Fortunately, reality is not influenced by your "estimation" of anything.
- Leigh
Resorting to petty insults...really?
Is it really so difficult for you to accept that Windows is quite reliable and has been since Windows NT4?
Windows is completely unsuited to applications other than the desktop for a whole multitude of other reasons, cost is usually the top of that list.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.