Building a Photoshop machine for editing BIG files

[Daniel Stone]

hey all,

Well, I've come to a wall. I haven't been into PC-tech since 4 years ago when I bought my MBP, and its been able to handle some occasional Imacon 200mb-300mb files when I have them. Now that I have a drum scanner, this thing spits out 500mb files(and much larger) like nobody's business! Soooooo.... I'm looking to build a new machine.

Starting files will range from 500mb-2.5GB 16bit file size(starting, no layers). So I need a beefy machine with a good amount of "oomph" to move these files with speed and ease. Opening files, rendering/rotating, etc.. I need some speed. Budget is $1500 MAX. These are drum scans, so not your average Epson scan, big files. I'm thinking a nice fast 64gb SSD as a scratch disk, 24-32gb of ram, a 4-8core processor(Intel preferred), and lastly, my CRT diamondtron will be doing the display work.

FYI, I don't know sh!+ about PC components these days, so I'm looking for some recommendations. My buddy just put 32gb of RAM into his PC, and that thing FLYS with big files(he uses a P65+ digital back, he's a tech, but shoots his own stuff too).

Thanks

Dan

[norly]

I would stick with mac. In my opinion as a former PC user they are generally faster to work on, but thats subject to a lot of discussion.

Its a new mac pro on the way according to internet rumors so buy that. Throw in a 256 gb sata 6 SSD h-disk. And 10 gb ram and you will be fine. ( I bought my upgrades separately from another supplier to keep the costs down )

Ive got 2 raid barracuda 7200 rpm disks in my mac pro 2.8 but my small mbp ssd beets the crap out of them when loading and saving files (I think thats the most time consuming part when working 500mb+ files). So I recommend a ssd no matter what..

good luck

[vinny]

He said he's got $1500 max to spend. You can't touch those specs on a mac for that. Hat said, I won't get within 10 feet of a pc. About to get a new mac myself.

[buggz]

If you use win7-64, be warned that the file explorer has a bug in it.
Just pointing to a large .tiff file, >1.somethingGB, I haven't found the limit, will cause the file explorer to consume 100% memory.
This is found also from many users if you search with Google.
I have gotten around this by using Q-Dir, or Bridge, and/or saving large PS-CS5 as .psb

[Daniel Stone]

If you use win7-64, be warned that the file explorer has a bug in it.
...

my scanner comp needs a 32bit OS, so that's whats installed. I'd imagine that for my editing machine 64bit would be best for future-proofing software-wise when it allows for 64bit expansion. If it isn't already available currently(IDK if it is)

-Dan

[Joanna Carter]

my scanner comp needs a 32bit OS, so that's whats installed. I'd imagine that for my editing machine 64bit would be best for future-proofing software-wise when it allows for 64bit expansion. If it isn't already available currently(IDK if it is)

Unlike Windows, OS X supports both 32bit and 64bit drivers and programs at the same time.

I switched to MAcs about 4 years ago and would never switch back to Windows.

[Rider]

my scanner comp needs a 32bit OS, so that's whats installed. I'd imagine that for my editing machine 64bit would be best for future-proofing software-wise when it allows for 64bit expansion. If it isn't already available currently(IDK if it is)

-Dan

I agree with whoever said that you need lots of RAM, and 32bit Windows has a RAM limit, if I remember correctly.

My copy of Win 7 came with both 64 bit and 32 bit CDs, so you can install 32-bit now and "upgrade" to 64 bit for free when the time comes. OEM copies do NOT come that way, however.

You could also probably do a dual boot.

BUT, there is an easier solution to 32-bit scanner drivers, depending on your scanner. Vuescan from Hamrick comes with 64bit drivers for thousands of scanners. And the beauty of it is that once it's installed you don't have to use it; you can use just about any scanning software, and it will work like magic. Vuescan is also a very small, clean install.

For example, I have a Nikon Coolscan 5000, and as everyone is painfully aware Nikon does not make 64 bit drivers for their scanners. So with Vuescan installed, and I can use either Vuescan or Nikon Scan; they both work beautifully.

Btw, buying a PC over a Mac Pro has the nice advantage of leaving some money in your pocket for more interesting things, like film, cameras, photography trips and food.

[Brian K]

hey all,

Well, I've come to a wall. I haven't been into PC-tech since 4 years ago when I bought my MBP, and its been able to handle some occasional Imacon 200mb-300mb files when I have them. Now that I have a drum scanner, this thing spits out 500mb files(and much larger) like nobody's business! Soooooo.... I'm looking to build a new machine.

Starting files will range from 500mb-2.5GB 16bit file size(starting, no layers). So I need a beefy machine with a good amount of "oomph" to move these files with speed and ease. Opening files, rendering/rotating, etc.. I need some speed. Budget is $1500 MAX. These are drum scans, so not your average Epson scan, big files. I'm thinking a nice fast 64gb SSD as a scratch disk, 24-32gb of ram, a 4-8core processor(Intel preferred), and lastly, my CRT diamondtron will be doing the display work.

FYI, I don't know sh!+ about PC components these days, so I'm looking for some recommendations. My buddy just put 32gb of RAM into his PC, and that thing FLYS with big files(he uses a P65+ digital back, he's a tech, but shoots his own stuff too).

Thanks

Dan

Dan, given your budget limitations I'd buy a used or refurbished MacPro, a 2010 model (a MacPro 5.1 model) or later. I'd start off with one HD, although that I would buy NEW, (I'd never trust a used HD) and get as much OWC ram as your budget allows. Eventually I'd add a second HD and more RAM. The need for the MacPro to be a model 5.1 is that it runs 64 bit, and means that Photoshop can address more than 2 gigs of RAM. The earlier MacPros are NOT 64 bit and limit PS to 2 gigs of RAM.

[Jim Andrada]

I run both PC's and Macs so I'm technically agnostic. That said, for the money you'll get more on a PC.

But whichever one you get, the bottleneck is more likely to be the I/O - I edit audio and video and multi-GB files are sort of standard. I use striped RAID for working files and was actually thinking of striping a couple of SSD's. I'm still in investigate mode - not yet sure that SSD's will be much faster that hard drives.

[Brian K]

I run both PC's and Macs so I'm technically agnostic. That said, for the money you'll get more on a PC.

But whichever one you get, the bottleneck is more likely to be the I/O - I edit audio and video and multi-GB files are sort of standard. I use striped RAID for working files and was actually thinking of striping a couple of SSD's. I'm still in investigate mode - not yet sure that SSD's will be much faster that hard drives.

Jim, PS is very different than audio and video. In video you are working with files that are sort of endless. They just keep loading new frames and new sounds, so a RAID or other high speed drive is critical for you. But in the case of PS, once it loads from the HD into RAM, if you have enough RAM you don't go back to the HD.

I have 32 gig of RAM, PS is assigned 21 gig. I work on a 2 gig file and add 6 layers and I end up, according to the scratch size indicator using 10 of the 21 gigs of PS RAM. So even on a 2 gig file layered up to 10 gigs I am no where close to having to use the HD as a scratch disk. ALL you need is PS running in 64 bit and enough RAM. The only I/o bottle neck is opening and saving the file, but you don't do that too often.