Handling 5D photos..

[benInMA]

Hey looking for anyone with experience..

I have a G4 mac mini right now and a PC w/AMD Athlon XP 1500+.   Both have 1GB of ram and decent enough disk.

I was fine with either machine before I bought my 5D.  Now processing files at all is quite painful, and I don't even do batch processing very often.   e.x. running noise ninja on 50 10D files would seemingly take an hour.   With the 5D I don't even think of doing anything like that, although I never really use Noise Ninja with 5D files anyway.

But with the 5D even interactive stuff in Photoshop is painful, and using DPP or otherwise doing anything with RAW is painful.  I use PhotoMechanic, and it does a pretty fantastic job of being fast, but even with that, if I am browsing my files and want to preview a 5D image at 100% it takes like 20 seconds just to show the file on the page.  (For a JPG, not a RAW!)

I am far more eager to go with another Mac at this point, but I suppose I could go either way.   The thing is if I get a Mac I am kind of in a software bind since Photoshop is apparently pretty slow on the new Macs.

I'm just looking for anyone else's experiences dealing with 5D or larger files.   I have taken my CF card into the Apple store and played around with Aperture, but it appears that I can't get a good idea of performance as store machines don't have enough RAM to actually run Aperture, it swaps constantly.

I guess I am trying to decide between an iMac 20" and the new Mac Pro.  The question is am I going to limit myself with the iMac since it is only capable of holding 2GB of Ram?   If I buy the iMac I will max out the RAM immediately, if I buy the Mac Pro I'll have to wait to figure out exactly what to do but conceivably it seems like I might want 4GB to actually run at a decent rate?

I'm not a Pro but the thing is doing anything with my photos has become so painfully slow I've basically given in and realized I will need to buy a much faster machine then what I have gotten by with in the past.  (I'm a software guy, I tend to be very cheap with hardware since I've had so many computers over the year and they're generally such a waste of money)

[boku]

Ben - as you probably surmized, you are running very lean on memory.

Whatever you do for a new machine, make sure you have AT LEAST 2 GB installed. If the machine offers RAM expansion room, the more the better. If you are not going to max out the RAM, make sure you get it fitted with RAM that doesn't fill all the slots so you don't have to start over.

I have two 2 GB PCs. They aren't all that fast, but I never hear the hard drives thrashing and the response times are way better than you are reposrting.

My camera is a 5D - I shoot RAW.

If I were buying an Apple, I would get 4 GB and a box that could take it.

I do suspect that Apples are better at memory utilization than PCs, but not by much.

[TomConnor]

I would suggest going with (if you can – and seeing as you are already considering it) a workstation grade machine over a consumer grade machine.  

So that is either a Mac Pro (which look awesome, and, even more surprisingly, seem to offer genuinely good value compared to other workstation offerings), or something like a Dell Precision or Sun Ultra 20.  If you are worried about Photoshop being slow on a Mac - you can always install Bootcamp, and purchase and install a copy of Windows XP.

In terms of RAM, certainly more is better, so if you can get 4gigs, then that is certainly going to enhance the machine's performance significantly.  There are a couple of things to bear in mind, when considering the 4gigs option - first, there is price, as the option on the apple store seems pretty ludicrously priced, especially given that once similarly specc'd memory is available from Crucial it will be much cheaper than the difference in cost reported for the upgrade from 2->4 gigs (so if you are confident upgrading RAM on your own, then this may be a better option).  

Second - to get the most out of a system such as a Mac Pro running Windows, you are probably going to need to get Windows Xp Pro x64 edition, and I am not 100% certain on how well supported the Mac Pro hardware will be by the x64 edition (or how well Photoshop will run on it - is there a 64 bit version of Photoshop ?).  

Third if you do stick with Mac OS X, then there is a possibility that there will be a performance hit associated with it compared to Windows x64 - as the current version does not completely support 64 bit natively.  Also remember that when Leopard (the next version of OS X) does ship, then if apple continues to work as it has done in the past, buying now will mean paying for the upgrade when it is released (in the spring of 2007, allegedly).

But, and it is a big but, the price for the Mac Pro seems very competitive, and, to be honest, it would be my choice (in fact, I am seriously considering getting one – because to me it seems to be the best bit of kit of its type on the market at the moment in terms of its price/performance).

That isn’t to say that the iMac isn’t a really nice machine - I use one at work (for web development stuff and software compatibility testing mainly) - its just that I think that the quality/power of a workstation type machine is something which you really can notice over a consumer pc - although it does come at a price.

Of course the other options are a) buying a decent case/psu etc and then going the DIY continual upgrade path with a PC.  It may be less stable etc, but it does decrease the cost of continually upgrading or B) buying good value consumer level gear (probably from someone like dell) with lots of ram and intel core duo 2 processor.  Either option would work and would be less costly than the workstation option(s).

One quick question (which just occurred to me) - what sort of a performance increase have people (in general) noticed (if any) on machines running SATA drives compared to machines running PATA drives?  IIRC Photoshop uses the hard disk as well as the RAM for some of the stuff that it does, so presumably faster hard disks would increase the performance of Photoshop....


(I should also point out that my views here are those of a evolutionary biologist / software developer / mathematical modeller, rather than a knowledgeable photographer - so they are meant more as guidance to the different specs/options from a computing point of view, than from a photographic one)

[jani]

Second - to get the most out of a system such as a Mac Pro running Windows, you are probably going to need to get Windows Xp Pro x64 edition, and I am not 100% certain on how well supported the Mac Pro hardware will be by the x64 edition (or how well Photoshop will run on it - is there a 64 bit version of Photoshop ?). 

No, there isn't a "64-bit" version of Photoshop yet.

But the extra RAM will still help, since it can be used for the other applications, file system cache etc.

Third if you do stick with Mac OS X, then there is a possibility that there will be a performance hit associated with it compared to Windows x64 - as the current version does not completely support 64 bit natively.

There will also be a performance hit under Mac OS X with Photoshop; it isn't available as a universal binary yet, but that will almost certainly be rectified with CS3 this winter/spring.

Of course the other options are a) buying a decent case/psu etc and then going the DIY continual upgrade path with a PC.  It may be less stable etc, but it does decrease the cost of continually upgrading

... as well as probably decreasing the initial cost ...

or  buying good value consumer level gear (probably from someone like dell) with lots of ram and intel core duo 2 processor.  Either option would work and would be less costly than the workstation option(s).

I think I'd recommend this option if there is a limited budget.

In general, the extra bang you get is far from proportional with the extra money you spend.

Stability is, as you mention, a possible issue, but if the computer is assembled carefully (e.g. using anti-static wrist straps properly) with known-good components, then it can work well for many years.

"Many years" means more than two, because as everybody knows, one computer year is the equivalent of 30 years for humans.

My positively ancient self-built box from 2002 is working quite nicely, although I've maxed out the RAM at 1.5 GiB, which is a bit too little for my tastes. However, it's trivial to upgrade the motherboard/CPU/memory/graphics card combination and get something that's significantly better for less than USD 1000.

One quick question (which just occurred to me) - what sort of a performance increase have people (in general) noticed (if any) on machines running SATA drives compared to machines running PATA drives?

In itself, virtually none.

The inherent advantages of SATA vs. PATA are almost negligible performance-wise for desktop use.

IIRC Photoshop uses the hard disk as well as the RAM for some of the stuff that it does, so presumably faster hard disks would increase the performance of Photoshop....

Simplification:

Most PATA and SATA disks from the same manufacturer have equivalent performance.

No PATA or SATA disks outperform their interfaces yet.

Yes, it is possible -- and not even very difficult -- to create a computer setup where SATA disks outperform PATA disks, but the performance benefits are most clear in server loads when using SATA-II and NCQ, or when using multiple disks if you were stupid enough to use both the master and slave ports on PATA.

The best benefits come from a far handier physical interface, and better interface performance scalability, IMO.

[dwdallam]

I have no problem processing 5D files and much larger. I build all my own machines, and I've always built PCs.

The machine I'm working on at this time is a AMD 64bit Dual Core processor (AMD 64 4800) which was the fastest CPU you could buy last year at this time. I have 2 GBs of high end Corsair RAM and a 250GB SATA300 HD. My hardrive never chugs and I can use any phot filter almost instantly. For instance, I can take a RAW 5D file, open it in PSCS2, and do a surface blur on the entire image in about 5 seconds. Rotations are instant.

Intel just came out with its Dual Core line (called CoreDuo) and if I remember the stats correctly, it's lowest cost Dual Core processor is faster than mine. I think they go for about 200 bucks. Of course the top of the line Intel will set you back about a grand. Don't count AMD out. Their next line, probably due out anytime, will exceed Intel, simply because, if nothing else, their BUS archetecture is faster.

If you know what you're doing, you can build a PC that will blow Apples awa, or at least match it punch for punch on a dollar for dollar basis. You just gotta know how to set one up. Last year I built my machine from the ground up using the best our world had to offer for desktop PCs, and it cost me about 2200 dollars. And that was the same month AMD came out with the worlds fastest consumer CPU--the 4800 X2, which I paid about 900.00 US for. You can buy a faster CPU now for about 200.00.

But as others have said, CPU power isn't really the deal now if you invest in a newer CPU--out since last year. It's your RAM. I don't know if PSCS2 can even handle more than 2GB of RAM at this point, but I'm not sure on that. I know that when Windows Vista comes out and Adobe goes 64bit that the RAM usage will something like explode--in other words, if you want and need 8GB of RAM, it can use it.

[benInMA]

I've built many many PCs from the ground up.

As time has gone on it has become less and less clear it's the right way to go IMO.

In the end I don't really save that much (and lately it seems Dell can beat the build-it-yourself price), and lately things have been moving so fast upgrades to one area always seem to end up requiring or needing upgrades in other areas to work well.

I'm also not sure the stability has been up to par with a really well integrated system from a manufacturer.  I always end up having to "support" the machine myself which I generally consider a waste of time at this point.  I don't want to tinker with windows drivers, or hardware, etc.. I want to write my code, learn whatever I want to learn at the moment, and get my photo stuff done with a minimum of hassle.

Thanks for the thoughts.  I will probably get a Mac Pro at some point this fall.

[TomConnor]

I've built many many PCs from the ground up.

As time has gone on it has become less and less clear it's the right way to go IMO.

In the end I don't really save that much (and lately it seems Dell can beat the build-it-yourself price), and lately things have been moving so fast upgrades to one area always seem to end up requiring or needing upgrades in other areas to work well.

Certainly, at the low end, a company like Dell is almost always going to win on cost - especially when you include the cost of an OS like windows in the price.  However, I have found that when seeking a high-end machine, generally, you can always beat the cost of a manufacturer with a DIY machine.

I'm also not sure the stability has been up to par with a really well integrated system from a manufacturer.  I always end up having to "support" the machine myself which I generally consider a waste of time at this point.  I don't want to tinker with windows drivers, or hardware, etc.. I want to write my code, learn whatever I want to learn at the moment, and get my photo stuff done with a minimum of hassle.

Yeh, certainly there are potential pitfalls when building your own machine - sometimes matching hardware has to be done carefully, although, such info can often be gleaned from appropriate sources without too much trouble (there are quite a few   brands I avoid because of issues I have found with them - Epox and gigabyte for motherboards for example, ATI for graphics, Geil for RAM and Hitachi/IBM for HDD's are some that are immediately obvious).  But, if you carefully put a high end machine together, in my experience it will offer better value and performance than comparable machines.

However, in terms of a high performance ready-made machine  - the Mac Pro certainly seems to be a top candidate.