Computer hardware when editing large format files (100MP+)

The computer I use is home built from a time that games where more a priority than photo editing.
Back then I did some photo editing, but my camera was an Olympus 16MP micro four thirds camera.
Now my software (Luminar 3) is crashing frequently. This happens mostly when removing dust or exporting.
According to my tastmanager my RAM at those times is at 100% use.

My hardware:
Processor: Intel Core i7-6700K
MB chipset: Z170
Video: GeForce GTX 1070
RAM: 16GB (2x8GB module) | DDR4 | 3,2GHz | CAS Latency 16 | True latency 10,0ns

Scanning:
Black and white 4x5 on an Epson V800, 2400DPi, Tiff

What would be a good upgrade?
I have room for 4x DDR4 RAM module

Does anyone else have chashing problems with big files and Luminar 3?

Try Photoshop and Lightroom with a 30 day free trail. If this doesn't work, then it may be your hardware, because it should be able to handle large files. If it does work, the problem could be with Luminar 3.

Your computer configuration sounds a lot like mine and I have no issues editing both 4x5 and 8x10 scans, in PS CC, done at 1800. With color, I try to use only adjustment layers (to minimize total file size), but with B&W I can do just about anything I want. I suspect your issue is Luminar.

The system is fine, the software may be the problem

I have similar box with 32 ram, GeForce, SSD main, Win 10 always updated asap

and use up to date CC PS with no problem on multiple large files

No idea what Luminar is...

Thinks you can try: More swap space. Do you have SSD drive? Maybe you can uninstall your photo editing apps and install it on a faster SSD drive. And of course, more memory is always good. I think I've edited a large file like yours on my old i3 machine and it was pretty slow. I endured. Its not like I'm spending 6 hours in a darkroom, I can let it do its thing, get coffee, and finish up. But yeah, swap and faster drive. Just some thoughts.

Yep not the hardware. I have basically the same system with an older CPU. No problems on Lightroom/Photoshop, and even do multi-camera video editing which is way more hardware-intensive.

More RAM is always the first and best answer. Put the max in there you can and you'll see a huge difference. 64 gb should be the minimum you have in there for your purposes, then a larger, faster drive for scratch disk. You could also be having, on top of not enough ram, applications that may not be written well in terms of memory use and allocation.

I'm going to try out the 30 day trial. (The cheapest option). Also becouse it's a hobby and I finance it by fabricating lenses. So it's not an endless money pit.
After that 30 days there are two options: subscribe PS or extend RAM.
As a hobby photographer I don't like a membership to PS, that is why I use Luminar. But the next 30 days may convince me.

Tell us about the lenses, in a different thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xifoideus

I'm going to try out the 30 day trial. (The cheapest option). Also becouse it's a hobby and I finance it by fabricating lenses. So it's not an endless money pit.
After that 30 days there are two options: subscribe PS or extend RAM.
As a hobby photographer I don't like a membership to PS, that is why I use Luminar. But the next 30 days may convince me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xifoideus

I'm going to try out the 30 day trial. (The cheapest option). Also becouse it's a hobby and I finance it by fabricating lenses. So it's not an endless money pit.
After that 30 days there are two options: subscribe PS or extend RAM.
As a hobby photographer I don't like a membership to PS, that is why I use Luminar. But the next 30 days may convince me.

---

I don't think those are you only options. You absolutely need more ram regardless and you may in fact be better off with Photoshop in the long run as well. As shitty as Adobe has become as a software company in the last twenty years, they generally have fairly well written software especially when it comes to memory management, but their math is typically better than most others as well, and while it's unfortunate that you can only subscribe to their products now, the price for Ps and Lr together is so trivial that it shoots down the arguments against subscribing. Far less than your phone, internet or cable
[/B]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatchian

I don't think those are you only options. You absolutely need more ram regardless and you may in fact be better off with Photoshop in the long run as well. As shitty as Adobe has become as a software company in the last twenty years, they generally have fairly well written software especially when it comes to memory management, but their math is typically better than most others as well, and while it's unfortunate that you can only subscribe to their products now, the price for Ps and Lr together is so trivial that it shoots down the arguments against subscribing. Far less than your phone, internet or cable
[/B]

---

I highly disagree, for photo editing, 16 gb is more than enough. Recommending 64 as a minimum is absurd.

Did you see that the OP is wanting to edit 100mp+ files. No, it's not absurd at all to have a 64 gb minimum. Start adding layers upon layers. Start adding freaking Smart Layers an Objects and you'll be forced into .psb files and you'll want and appreciate every megabyte of ram you can stuff into your box. It's entirely possible that YOUR editing needs are less demanding, but even you would benefit from those guidelines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatchian

Did you see that the OP is wanting to edit 100mp+ files. No, it's not absurd at all to have a 64 gb minimum. Start adding layers upon layers. Start adding freaking Smart Layers an Objects and you'll be forced into .psb files and you'll want and appreciate every megabyte of ram you can stuff into your box. It's entirely possible that YOUR editing needs are less demanding, but even you would benefit from those guidelines.

---

64 GB can't hurt but I really don't think it's the cause of OP's software issues. Photoshop has a very smart memory management system and could handle editing a file that large easily. Other newer applications probably aren't as highly developed yet and might choke on larger images (their target market is probably DSLR hobbyists, not people scanning huge film images).

I can edit 500 mb+ files no problem.

I3 processor. My system is 10 years old.

Windows 7. CS6.

No mention here of a second dedicated hd as a scratch disk?

It all depends on what you're trying to do with limited ram and a 500 mb file. Simple color corrections, spotting and healing and maybe a Free Transform might seem fine, but start adding multiple layers, merged layers, several adjustment layers and the memory requirements jump quickly. You really want to do as much as possible in RAM and not hit scratch, and then, if you are working on large files, a dedicated RAID Level 0 with at least two SSD's in a Thunderbolt 2 or 3 drive bay will help as well. Photoshop actually uses scratch disk as soon as you open any file, even ones small enough to be held fully in RAM - at least three times the file size initially and then more as needed. So fast drives and preferably the aforementioned RAID 0 configuration will help. But just having a fast startup drive makes little difference for how Ps uses memory. A fast drive used for saving your files to separate from your startup drive will help files open and save faster but won't make Ps faster.

Ten y/o computers can operate just fine - at least for awhile - until they no longer support the latest OS's, but newer boxes generally have much faster ram and faster i/o busses and Thunderbolt 3, which can make a huge difference. My 2008 MacPro finally needed upgrading after ten years on the job and the less expensive but much faster iMac maxed out with ram is several times faster with most operations and others, like processing raw Canon files in Capture One, is literally ten times faster than before, coming down to just over a second from almost fifteen. I often do very complicated tabletop shots that, with stitching and focus stacking, will number upwards of 200 frames for a single final image. A palpably faster experience that doesn't leave you time to sweep the floors.

I use two computers. MacBookPro with 16gb mem and 1TB hard drive. Process10-20gb size files. My MacPro I have 128gb mem, dual cpu (fastest ones for the Mid 2012, and work on Hard drives 500GB to 4TB and up. The biggest boost I go was using SSD drives for my working drives. I use mechanical drives for storage. For the SSD you need the ones with the highest sustained read/write through put (most start fast then fall off to a crawl) and you only realize the full potential when the SSD is an internal drive. When external, it gets bottled up. I use LR and PS, most PS as I can work on files that can get up to 60-70gb in size. LR is good for files about 1gb or smaller and that don't need a lot of work or more advanced techniques based on your project.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xifoideus

The computer I use is home built from a time that games where more a priority than photo editing.
Back then I did some photo editing, but my camera was an Olympus 16MP micro four thirds camera.
Now my software (Luminar 3) is crashing frequently. This happens mostly when removing dust or exporting.
According to my tastmanager my RAM at those times is at 100% use.

My hardware:
Processor: Intel Core i7-6700K
MB chipset: Z170
Video: GeForce GTX 1070
RAM: 16GB (2x8GB module) | DDR4 | 3,2GHz | CAS Latency 16 | True latency 10,0ns

Scanning:
Black and white 4x5 on an Epson V800, 2400DPi, Tiff

What would be a good upgrade?
I have room for 4x DDR4 RAM module

Does anyone else have chashing problems with big files and Luminar 3?

---

Turns out that yes. Many many people have this problem regardless of if they have 16 or 64 gb of ram. It's software, not your hardware that is the problem.

https://community.skylum.com/hc/en-u...nar-3-Crashing

https://community.skylum.com/hc/en-u...-on-Windows-10

https://community.skylum.com/hc/en-u...inar-3-Crashes


The list goes on and on.

I routinely process image files that are 1.6GB (8x10 scan)

iMac from 2011, 32GB memory, i7 processor and using CS6 with a dedicated scratch disk. No problems whatsoever and as long as this computer boots up, there's no need to upgrade.

My largest image file is 7GB and there are no issues processing this either. It's slow but no crashing.

I am running Photoshop and LR, both current 2020 versions. PS crashes all the dang time. Giant files are slow to work with, but hey they're giant files. LR is a bit more stable but not that snappy.

I'm running a late 2015 iMac 27" i7, 32gb RAM, the better of the two graphics cards they were selling at the time. So fully loaded for late 2015, with an SSD of course.

Adobe software is CPU intensive. After 32gb you hit the law of diminishing returns. Of course more is better, but even OWC want's about $650 for a 64gb memory set. So...nah.

Hopefully when I'm ready to upgrade I'll be able to afford an iMac Pro. IMHO iMac's are near perfect photography computers. Good hardware and a beautiful screen. Sure some monitors are better at the margins but you need to be doing some pretty high level reproduction work to require those Eizo monitors. Plus iMac's should last for about 8-9 years of regular work, so the cost breakdown by year is still low.

Of course it doesn't help that 10.15.2 broke all tethering from cameras, making it a bit of a PITA to scan film with my S1R at the moment. Thank you, Apple. I'll be turning off automatic updates from now on.

After my last post a patch came out for Luminar 3 (version 3.2)
So far I have not had a crash. (Have not been editing a lot of heavy files)
It works for me. So that saves a lot on the budget.

Like Tin Can in post #9, I also would like to see a separate post on the OP's lens fabrication work.
keith

Its more like lens alteration. I linked to the thead, you can see my Heidosmat for Linhof.
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...00#post1535900