Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Impt feature of graphic PC

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Behind a lens
    Posts
    2,312

    Default Impt feature of graphic PC

    What components is impt for a PC that is used mainly for photos processing?

    Helping a friend to build one.

    Thanks.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    12,938

    Default

    I find that a graphics card with good 2D, lots of memory and lots of harddisk space are more important.
    Check out my wildlife pics at www.instagram.com/conrad_nature

  3. #3
    JerChan
    Guests

    Default Re: Impt feature of graphic PC

    Originally posted by binbeto
    What components is impt for a PC that is used mainly for photos processing?

    Helping a friend to build one.

    Thanks.
    High speed CPU, FSB, RAM and hardisk.

    A good graphics card, something like Oxygen. Big amounts of RAM and hardisk space.

  4. #4
    sunyee
    Guests

    Default

    good printer...and fast comp...the quality of the photo depend very much on the printer and transfer speed(from comp to printer) and not forgeting the paper
    lots of ram, good graphic etc is mean or faser loading on the comp, was it worth doing self print? i find that going thru the lab for print so much easy and faster hehe

  5. #5
    JerChan
    Guests

    Default

    Originally posted by sunyee
    good printer...and fast comp...the quality of the photo depend very much on the printer and transfer speed(from comp to printer) and not forgeting the paper
    lots of ram, good graphic etc is mean or faser loading on the comp, was it worth doing self print? i find that going thru the lab for print so much easy and faster hehe
    I use a 990cxi. So far, so good. No complains.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    370

    Default

    A matrox video card!

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    370

    Default

    and lotsa ram...

  8. #8

    Default

    Just get a Mac with lotsa RAM.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Originally posted by YSLee
    Just get a Mac with lotsa RAM.
    And a nice Apple 22" CinemaDisplay LCD Monitor.

    Regards
    CK

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Several things are indispensible.

    [1] A colour calibratible monitor with LOTS of real estate, the more the merrier.
    [2] The more RAM the merrier.

    The rest are really secondary. Nice but not the end of the world. A CD/RW and/or a huge hard disk might also be necessary depending on your working style.

  11. #11

    Default

    you're all wrong !!!!!!!

    the most important feature is.... a MAC !
    36frames Wedding Photography - http://www.36frames.com
    rueyloon - http://www.rueyloon.com

  12. #12

    Default

    Windows 2000.

    As for physical RAM, 512 seems to be enough. I can work on 3 x 35Mb pics simultaneously with 2 IE windows open and not run out of physical RAM. You should also be thinking about faster RAM and if the photoprocessing computer is for commercial use, PC1066 RDRAM should be considered with the new 533FSB P4's (with a theoretical memory bandwidth of 4.0 Gb/s+)

    Otherwise, PC266 DDRAM is good and cheap....

  13. #13
    ClubSNAP Admin Darren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    8,510
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    For me, the order of importance would be:-

    1. RAM - lots and lots and lots of it - 256MB minimum, 512MB best
    2. HD - SCSI if money no object; ATA133 alternative
    3. Processor Speed - at least 1.5Ghz
    4. Graphics Card with DVI output
    5. LCD with DVI input (CRT also can)
    6. Optional - hardware color calibrator if you are concerned about color accuracy.

    If going for CRT and analog input, go for a Matrox card since they give the best ANALOG video output. DVI from Nvidia or Matrox or ATI very very close, so anyone will do.

    My current config:-
    Pentium 4 1.7Ghz with 384MB memory (RDRAM)
    60GB HDD (IDE, ATA100)
    CD-RW
    17-in LCD driven via DVI from Nvidia GeForce3

    My NEXT config (dream dream):-
    Pentium 3Ghz with 512MB memory (most likely DDR SDRAM)
    At least 80GB HD (either Serial ATA or Ultra160SCSCI)
    Nvidia GeForce4 (or GeForce5 )

  14. #14

    Default

    get a big, sharp, low radiation monitor. Either Sony or NEC...they are low in radiation. 17inch at least. 19 or 20inch if possible. I will get a CRT, as LCD too expensive.

    CDRW, get a burn proof one. Asus latest CDRW claims to be "no more bad disc".

    RAM, I would get 512MB at least if possible. Note that Win98 will not utilize this much RAM, you need Win2000 or XP.

    Processor...I won't get the fastest available...a P1.7GHz is good enough for me

    Hardisk...80GB, partition into 4 (30, 20, 15, 15)

    Display card, not very sure about this one...can check with other's recommendatin. GeForce 4 64MB any good (quite famous)?

    Mouse. Optical mouse of course.

    Motherboard. Again, not sure...but a good motherboard will give you stable performance and reliability. Asus or Intel original mainboard? Make sure you get the one with firewire port, 4x AGP, enough USB port, number of slot for rams...etc.

    This is what I can think of now...or the computer that I am going to build...
    DR KOH KHO KING

  15. #15

    Default

    (1) Win 98 can utilise 512Mb. AFAIK, 98 and ME can utilise above 512Mb with the appropriate registry setting (could be the same for 98?). Search pcmag's site. Also, at current picture file sizes, 512Mb is enough.

    (2) virtually all cdrws have buffer underrun technology.

    (3) firewire - i do not see it as a necessity - unless you plan to have several firewire peripherals. also, you should take a look at the firewire equipped motherboards; they cost more than buying a firewire card separately because they have loads of other stuff.

    Originally posted by Kho King
    get a big, sharp, low radiation monitor. Either Sony or NEC...they are low in radiation. 17inch at least. 19 or 20inch if possible. I will get a CRT, as LCD too expensive.

    CDRW, get a burn proof one. Asus latest CDRW claims to be "no more bad disc".

    RAM, I would get 512MB at least if possible. Note that Win98 will not utilize this much RAM, you need Win2000 or XP.

    Processor...I won't get the fastest available...a P1.7GHz is good enough for me

    Hardisk...80GB, partition into 4 (30, 20, 15, 15)

    Display card, not very sure about this one...can check with other's recommendatin. GeForce 4 64MB any good (quite famous)?

    Mouse. Optical mouse of course.

    Motherboard. Again, not sure...but a good motherboard will give you stable performance and reliability. Asus or Intel original mainboard? Make sure you get the one with firewire port, 4x AGP, enough USB port, number of slot for rams...etc.

    This is what I can think of now...or the computer that I am going to build...

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Behind a lens
    Posts
    2,312

    Default

    Thanks all for the reply..

    What I have in mind for him is:
    P41.6A
    Abit DDr M/b
    256+256Meg DDR
    TDK 32x10x40x CDRW
    Maxtor 60Gb Hdd
    17" samsung(will changed to better one if have budget)
    Abit Geforce 3 Ti200
    **** and the rest like kb,mouse,fdd,casing etc ***

    He only has a budget of abt $1.5K.

    He doesn't have much PC parts knowledge but he knows what scanner and printer he wants.
    He's going to get a his own scanner and printer by himself.

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    singapore
    Posts
    5,499

    Default

    don't forget the all important CD writer!!! otherwise you'll run out of disk space very soon...

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    Okay, this 512Mb of RAM is enough is beyond me. Photoshop as a rule of thumb likes 7 times the file size you are working on. That's real file size, not JPEG compressed file size. A good 35mm scan comes in at about 45-50Mb, at 7 times, that's almost your 512Mb, plus the memory your OS takes up, etc. Work with more than one, and you start to jump. Work with higher res scans and you're stuck up the creek without the proverbial paddle. With the price of RAM being what they are, buy as much as you can physically put in, and worry about the rest later. Frankly, I'd go for more, slower RAM as opposed to less, more expensive RAM if cost is an issue.

    Macs are also a myth. Unless you need the integration with other graphics professionals, or do a lot of high intensity crunching in PS, and I mean the high intensity stuff, then Macs are actually not any more advantageous than PCs. In fact for the normal photographic processes, PCs are usually faster.

    Like I said, about the only two things that really matter for picture work is a good monitor with tonnes of real estate, and as much RAM as you can get your hands on. After that it depends on your workflow.

  19. #19

    Default

    Anyway, my 512Mb response was accompanied by my stating that the conclusion was based on me using 3 x 35Mb files open at the same time, so obviously, those using larger files should know their mileage will vary I suppose similarly for Darren as a D1x user - given his file sizes, he finds 512Mb 'best'. I'm not sure what sort of file sizes Kho King is working at that requires more than 512Mb....

    Under such conditions, 512Mb of fast RAM will result in photoprocessing just that little bit faster compared to 1Gb of slower RAM. Of course, 1Gb of fast RAM is even better.

    Furthermore, RAM prices drop, and when the time comes, you can upgrade 512Mb of fast RAM with an additional 512Mb of the same type. Whereas for 'slow' RAM (say DDR-266) when you add DDR-400 (in the future) to it, you're still stuck at DDR-266 speeds....

    p.s. if i ever get an A3 printer and have to rez up my files then definitely, more than 512Mb . But s9000 - $999 wahhhhhh....
    Last edited by erwinx; 6th July 2002 at 10:55 AM.

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Behind a lens
    Posts
    2,312

    Default

    Originally posted by erwinx

    Under such conditions, 512Mb of fast RAM will result in photoprocessing just that little bit faster compared to 1Gb of slower RAM. Of course, 1Gb of fast RAM is even better.

    Furthermore, RAM prices drop, and when the time comes, you can upgrade 512Mb of fast RAM with an additional 512Mb of the same type. Whereas for 'slow' RAM (say DDR-266) when you add DDR-400 (in the future) to it, you're still stuck at DDR-266 speeds....

    The bad news is Ram price increased a bit this 2 weeks... Like for a 256DDR increased from 70+ to 90+. So will still still to 512Meg 1st. cos the price jump will be too great.

    Thanks again for all the valueable information.

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
  •