If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Will a new computer help?
Robert Coe wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:53:13 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote: : writes: : : As for XP, it can't even use the 2G ram you have so don't worry about that. : : Not true. XP will use up to 4 GB. 3 GB. There was a 64 bit XP which would use more. According to the wikipedia, 128 GB of RAM and 2TB virtual storage. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM My high blood pressure medicine reduces my midichlorian count. :-( |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Will a new computer help?
On 2012-02-20 14:11:11 +0000, Robert Coe said:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:53:13 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote: : writes: : : As for XP, it can't even use the 2G ram you have so don't worry about that. : : Not true. XP will use up to 4 GB. 3 GB. 4 GB, with an option in boot.ini to make 3 GB available for applications instead of 2 GB. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Will a new computer help?
"Alan Justice" writes:
I have recently started editing digital files and it is very slow (RAW: 16 MP, 24 MB). (Slides were slow too, but now I end up with many more shots.) I have many hundreds of images to edit after a shoot. I use Canon software that came with the 1D Mk4 (ver. 3.8.1.0, 2010). It takes about 2 minutes to load 1000 images into the display when I click on the folder. This makes it impractical to go back and forth between different folders. To best evaluate images I display most of them full screen. It takes over 3 sec to load a single picture to full frame. That's about 1 hour just waiting, assuming I only want to look at each full frame once. Photo Mechanic is the ultimate software solution for fast evaluation and rating of photos. About $150 last I looked. Fast enough that I mostly get sub-second switches between full-screen views of RAW images. (It's pre-rendering in the background, so if I push it I *can* reach the end of its cache, but basically that happens only when I work to demonstrate it). Is my computer the slow part, the software, or what? And if hardware will help, should I worry more about processor speed or RAM? I also need another 2 TB of disk space and the same for backup, and I don't know if this computer will handle it, so I may need a new computer anyway. I have a Dell with Pentium 4 Processor, 2.8 GHz with 2 GB SDRAM, Win XP. That's a little small memory these days. I sometimes stitch 2 GB panoramas, and while I have done that on a 2GB laptop, I let that run all night (and then got a bigger laptop). Do you mean "quad core", or "Pentium 4"? The 2.8GHz suggests quad core; if not, then a single core processor is also a problem these days. -- David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Will a new computer help?
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:13:35 -0500, Robert Coe wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:46:33 +1100, Noons wrote: : Alan Justice wrote,on my timestamp of 20/02/2012 5:05 PM: : : So why is your 2.9 GHz much faster than my 2.8? Is it the additional : RAM (8 GB vs 2), or is it the type of RAM? (SDRAM vs DDR3 - what's : the difference?) : : DDR3 is a heck of a lot faster than SDRAM. And given you are procesing a : lot of very large images, the processor cache becomes almost immaterial, : which makes the memory speed the major determinant on hos fast things will : go. As well as disk access speed, of course. Although that one can be : improved with more cache, hence the 8GB. But be careful: going 8GB means : you'll have to go 64-bit OS as well to take full advantage of them. 4GB : is plenty if you stay with 32-bit. And there is really no reason why you : should need 64-bit for the images you are processing. The 32-bit versions of Windows will not make use of any memory beyond the first 3GB. And I've found DPP to be slightly flaky under the 64-bit OS. Not flaky enough to keep me from using it on a 64-bit machine, but flaky enough to keep me from recommending that others do it. Its probably not running in true 64 bit mode but as the original 32 bit running in a 'sand box' for 32 bit applications. You can tell how it runs in a 64 bit machine by looking to see whether it is stored in 'Programs' or 'Programs(x86)'. The latter is for 32 bit applications. Regards, Eric Stevens |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Will a new computer help?
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:11:11 -0500, Robert Coe wrote:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:53:13 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote: : writes: : : As for XP, it can't even use the 2G ram you have so don't worry about that. : : Not true. XP will use up to 4 GB. 3 GB. 3.25 GB actually. My understanding is that XP can access the whole 4 GB region but it allows the user to see only 3.25 GB. The rest is used by Windows. Regards, Eric Stevens |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Will a new computer help?
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 09:24:33 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote: : On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:13:35 -0500, Robert Coe wrote: : : On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:46:33 +1100, Noons wrote: : : Alan Justice wrote,on my timestamp of 20/02/2012 5:05 PM: : : : : So why is your 2.9 GHz much faster than my 2.8? Is it the additional : : RAM (8 GB vs 2), or is it the type of RAM? (SDRAM vs DDR3 - what's : : the difference?) : : : : DDR3 is a heck of a lot faster than SDRAM. And given you are procesing a : : lot of very large images, the processor cache becomes almost immaterial, : : which makes the memory speed the major determinant on hos fast things will : : go. As well as disk access speed, of course. Although that one can be : : improved with more cache, hence the 8GB. But be careful: going 8GB means : : you'll have to go 64-bit OS as well to take full advantage of them. 4GB : : is plenty if you stay with 32-bit. And there is really no reason why you : : should need 64-bit for the images you are processing. : : The 32-bit versions of Windows will not make use of any memory beyond the : first 3GB. And I've found DPP to be slightly flaky under the 64-bit OS. Not : flaky enough to keep me from using it on a 64-bit machine, but flaky enough to : keep me from recommending that others do it. : : Its probably not running in true 64 bit mode but as the original 32 : bit running in a 'sand box' for 32 bit applications. You can tell how : it runs in a 64 bit machine by looking to see whether it is stored in : 'Programs' or 'Programs(x86)'. The latter is for 32 bit applications. The latter. None of the Canon photo editing utilities have a 64-bit version. Nor is there a 64-bit version of the Canon RAW codec, so 64-bit Windows is unable to generate thumnails for .CR2 files. Bob |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Will a new computer help?
On 2012-02-19 18:10 , Alan Justice wrote:
I have recently started editing digital files and it is very slow (RAW: 16 MP, 24 MB). (Slides were slow too, but now I end up with many more shots.) I have many hundreds of images to edit after a shoot. I use Canon software that came with the 1D Mk4 (ver. 3.8.1.0, 2010). It takes about 2 minutes to load 1000 images into the display when I click on the folder. This makes it impractical to go back and forth between different folders. To best evaluate images I display most of them full screen. It takes over 3 sec to load a single picture to full frame. That's about 1 hour just waiting, assuming I only want to look at each full frame once. Is my computer the slow part, the software, or what? And if hardware will help, should I worry more about processor speed or RAM? I also need another 2 TB of disk space and the same for backup, and I don't know if this computer will handle it, so I may need a new computer anyway. I have a Dell with Pentium 4 Processor, 2.8 GHz with 2 GB SDRAM, Win XP. A new computer might improve on that. It sounds like you have older 667 MHz memory (or slower), that's one bottleneck. Single core? Single thread execution? Graphics board not employed as a processor? Note that processor speeds are generally capped around the 3 GHz mark. Speed is now improved by faster memory and multi-core/multi-thread CPU's. Have you tried Bridge (with PS CSx)? I have no issues seeing thumbnails for review and switching folders with hundreds of photos is quick (not the first load perhaps). (Core Duo 2.8 GHz, 667 MHz memory). Photos load less quickly of course into ACR. Generally, more memory is a better choice than the fastest processor. And today's machines come with 1333 MHz (or faster) memory as well as 2 or 4 (or more) cores. For photo processing, 2GB is adequate but these days 4 - 8 GB is more "common". Memory has become pretty cheap. All that said, I'd go i7 (Quad) with at least 8 GB of 1333 or faster memory. I almost never buy "the fastest and mostest", but the model just below that. The difference in price rarely reflects the improvement in processing. Get memory to reduce swapping. * * * I now take this opportunity to suggest you take a gander at a Mac and break free from Windows. (You can always run your Windows license on the Mac under Bootcamp, Fusion($), Parallels($) and others(free) to make the transition). I use Fusion, but recent tests show that Parallels is a faster system - I'd get that if I needed a new virtualizer. OTOH, Fusion hosts any x86 OS (Linux, Sun OS, etc.) - Parallels hosts only Windows (IIRC). You can transfer your Windows photoshop license to Mac too. Also, iMac's come with very high quality displays that are very sharp and have excellent colour calibration right out of the box. If you get a Mac, order it with minimal memory and update that yourself with mail order modules (various good sources). Much cheaper (no effect on warranty). I'm not suggesting that image processing on the Mac is quicker for a given CPU/Mem configuration, it's pretty much a wash in most cases. -- "We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty." Douglas Adams - (Could have been a GPS engineer). |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Will a new computer help?
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
... Robert Coe writes: Extracting useful information from the process list in the Task Manager is a pretty specialized skill. I've used every version of Windows since 2.2, and I'm still not particularly good at it. To expect a professional photographer to save more time than he wastes in such an effort is a bit silly, IMO. You don't have to be an expert, you only need to get used to the machine. Look at the task list from time to time, and get used to what you see. If you normally have 30 processes running, and one day you see a new one that you've never seen before, something has changed. You can then go out on the Web and look for the new process, and figure out what it does and whether or not you really need it. snip+++++ I currently have 37 processes running with no applications open. Seems odd. The largest is 38 MB and seems to be related to the backup program I use for the external HD (Retrospect). But it only backs up when I press the button, so should it be in memory? If I End Process, will it muck things up? This is my fear of any process. If things then work right, how do I correct it? -- Alan Justice http://home.earthlink.net/~wildlifepaparazzi/ |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Will a new computer help?
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:11:27 -0800, "Alan Justice"
wrote: : "Mxsmanic" wrote in message : ... : Robert Coe writes: : : Extracting useful information from the process list in the Task Manager : is a : pretty specialized skill. I've used every version of Windows since 2.2, : and : I'm still not particularly good at it. To expect a professional : photographer : to save more time than he wastes in such an effort is a bit silly, IMO. : : You don't have to be an expert, you only need to get used to the machine. : Look : at the task list from time to time, and get used to what you see. If you : normally have 30 processes running, and one day you see a new one that : you've : never seen before, something has changed. You can then go out on the Web : and : look for the new process, and figure out what it does and whether or not : you : really need it. : : snip+++++ : : I currently have 37 processes running with no applications open. Seems odd. : The largest is 38 MB and seems to be related to the backup program I use for : the external HD (Retrospect). But it only backs up when I press the button, : so should it be in memory? If I End Process, will it muck things up? This : is my fear of any process. If things then [don't] work right, how do I : correct it? If you really feel the need to screw around with the processes, start by rebooting your computer. If it doesn't come up normally or something you need doesn't work right, then it's a good thing you checked first. Fix the problem and try again. Assuming the computer survives the reboot normally, it's generally safe to stop processes, as long as you don't change how they behave on startup or the authority under which they run. That's because if stopping a process breaks something, rebooting will set it right. Bob |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Will a new computer help?
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:53:13 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
writes: As for XP, it can't even use the 2G ram you have so don't worry about that. Not true. XP will use up to 4 GB. OK, I should have said XP will probably never use 2G for normal use with still photos. I've had lots of stuff running, editors and Windows windows and background music and training videos and never used all my 2G... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Computer | Irby | Digital Photography | 194 | March 19th 07 12:38 PM |
Computer?? | jd | Digital Photography | 46 | October 23rd 06 10:58 AM |
For the computer geeks.... | secheese | Digital Photography | 1 | January 12th 05 03:05 AM |
2 Scanners To One Computer | HRosita | Digital Photography | 5 | January 10th 05 09:38 PM |
2 Scanners To One Computer | Tim Forehand | Digital Photography | 16 | January 10th 05 02:23 PM |