Mac and scans

[JHAG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My PPC G5 is 3 1/3 years old. Works perfectly around the clock.

Feel the need for a change, as some apps (Aperture 2, Photoshop)

do get a bit slow.

Mostly, I decided to ride the bull and scan my 10 000 negs + (24x36 and 6*6), so I will

end with BIG files manipulations (RAW from 50 to 200 Mb).

Had an offer from Apple Europe for a 3.0 Mac Pro with all bells and whistles

and a 512 card.

Is it enough, or should I go upscale with a 3.2 ?

Kind advices would be welcome from distinguished members here.

All the best

Johan

[nhmitchell]

I've never regretted buying more hardware than I thought I was going to need. And, whatever you do, don't skimp on memory. 2 gigs is really only entry level these days.

 

Best,

 

Nick

[JHAG]

Thanks.

I planned 4 Gb.

[eziomi]

Johan:

I'm thinking to buy the same configuration of MacPro and I prefer to stay with the 3.0GHz processor and 8 GB (or even 16GB) RAM, than go up to 3.2 GHz.

Even the basic configuration with 2.8 GHz can be enough, probably.

Which monitor do you have, I'm coming from a MacBook Pro 17", so I do not have a recent monitor. Do you sugget to buy the 23" or the 30" cinema display ?? or eventually also wait for an update as the Apple monitors are out since more than 4 years now.

 

Thanks.

EM

[JHAG]

Caro Ezio,

 

Mi sa che… I'm told two things are essential, and you're perfectly right in one of them : RAM, RAM and RAM again. But one must'nt forget the card. The best would be to go

for the Nvidia 8800, but the cost, hum .

Regarding the screen, I'm with my 23" since 3 years : runs like a swiss clock or like a Leica camera, at that.

So, I'm a happy camper, having to change only the central unit.

I'm also told a larger screen (30") will put a lot of strain on processor, and I would prefer to buy a second screen, namely an Eizo CG211, to have a perfect neutral rendering, with fine tone transitions, especially in B/W. That will be for later on.

Ecco tutto, ossequi saluti.

Johan

[ericperlberg]

I suggest you have a look around Barefeats which has speed tests of a 3.2ghz MacPro v slower models and various memory configurations using Photoshop and other apps. It will give you an idea of real time comparisons vis a vis processor speeds and memory configurations. While Photoshop doesn't require a fast graphics card, Aperture (if my memory is correct) does benefit from one so don't just take the stock graphic's card. 3rd party RAM is significantly cheaper than Apple's with no downside. You might want to think about your hard drives too. Barefeats did an article awhile ago which I think is still definitive about setting up the fastest possible Photoshop setup using a 10,000 rpm WD Raptor drive for system and applications and a separate HD for scratch disk and then yet another drive for your data. Apple charges far too much for hard drives. You can get larger/faster/more robust drives for less money if you buy them separately. The other thing to think about is your back up strategy if you don't already have one. And lastly, you might want to think about getting a top quality monitor. I'm a big Apple fan but Apple monitors (while good) are not the best. I've got a high end Eizo ColorEdge which is excellent and there are a few other models from other manufacturers which are excellent.

 

All the best... MacPros are beautiful machines

[ericperlberg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm also told a larger screen (30") will put a lot of strain on processor,

Johan

 

image stuff is handed off to the graphics card... no? can't imagine a larger screen slowing anything down on the main motherboard. higher end graphics cards which are good for Aperture in any case should handle two 30" monitors with no problems.

[JHAG]

Barefeats did an article awhile ago which I think is still definitive about setting up the fastest possible Photoshop setup using a 10,000 rpm WD Raptor drive for system and applications and a separate HD for scratch disk and then yet another drive for your data.

(…) I'm a big Apple fan but Apple monitors (while good) are not the best. I've got a high end Eizo ColorEdge which is excellent and there are a few other models from other manufacturers which are excellent.

 

All the best... MacPros are beautiful machines

 

Thanx, Eric,

 

I agree with all you said.

In fact, I've just read a post on Luminous Landscape about Raptor 10000, and it seems the right path.

Fit that disk in is not a complex procedure, is it ?

Regarding memory, my current machine has Kingston set of memory, which I paid peanuts.

Regarding the screen, my decision is already made for the Eizo, but as said before, it will be at a later stage.

[eziomi]

Caro Johan,

thanks for your reply.

I agree on the card, must be the Nvidia 8800.

You also confim my concern regarding the 30" screen. For the same pice is probably better to have two 23" ( or next generation 24").

As per the Eizo they are very good , very expensive ( the 30" model just coming out is more than 5k USD), but aso very "heavy" and old on desing and probably too much professional for me.

Happy you do not have to change the screen, since the new MacPro is out I'm waiting to order it because I can't decide on the screen.. the update should be here soon (as reported also in MacRumors Buyers Guide), but with Apple you never know.

 

Have a good week-end.

 

Ezio

[JHAG]

image stuff is handed off to the graphics card... no? can't imagine a larger screen slowing anything down on the main motherboard. higher end graphics cards which are good for Aperture in any case should handle two 30" monitors with no problems.

 

I don't know, Eric. LL forum had a thread about that too.

[ericperlberg]

Last point about Apple's 23" monitor. For a long time the vast majority of them were coming through with a "pinkish" tint that is difficult if not impossible to remove using calibration and profiling. There are endless posts on Apple's forums of people who have had such monitors. I haven't seen one recently but double check if you can (eg if you're buying from an Apple Store) if you decide to go this route.

 

Do you have a link Johan (or title and section) for this discussion on Luminous-landscape about the main processor slowing down with large monitors? I'm curious what the logic would be for that.

 

Eric

[JHAG]

Eric,

I will retain my current 23" monitor, only change the CPU.

Later on, I will go for the Eizo CG211.

I followed so many threads recently, regarding the Mac,

Aperture and Z3100 printer, that I would be unable to

find that particular post. It seemed that the poster had

experienced that problem with a 30".

Yours,

Johan

[ericperlberg]

Johan,

 

Adding and changing hard drives in a MacPro is absurdly easy. Here's a step by step illustrated instructions from apple.

[JHAG]

Thank you again, Eric.

In fact, I will aks my Apple geek engineer to set up a RAID with the WD Raptor and a few internal/external disks.

I don't rely anymore on DVD's (except for external copies to third parties).

[Overgaard]

RAM is the main thing. You got that right.

 

You could use any old machine to run the scanner. I have a 350 Mhz G4 for that because I was told back then that the 350 Mhz was best for that (forgot why, might be because the Imacon scanner is SCSI).

 

But having a complte separate machine working on the scans is perfect as you can monitor it in between working on the main machine.

[mobilexile]

Skip the 3.2 -- not enough of a bump to warrant the price jump. The 3.0 will do you nicely and the extra $ will do well on RAM. I have the dual 3.0 dual core Intel model with 6GB RAM -- it smokes. I use it for design -- art director by trade. I can run several memory hog apps simultaneously without issue.

 

When I first bought the machine I tried using a Raptor 10K as my startup disk but had issues. I needed to make it a secondary disk originally. May have been user error since I now have it working.

[Guest Bernd Banken]

My PPC G5 is 3 1/3 years old. Works perfectly around the clock.

Feel the need for a change, as some apps (Aperture 2, Photoshop)

do get a bit slow.

Mostly, I decided to ride the bull and scan my 10 000 negs + (24x36 and 6*6), so I will

end with BIG files manipulations (RAW from 50 to 200 Mb).

Had an offer from Apple Europe for a 3.0 Mac Pro with all bells and whistles

and a 512 card.

Is it enough, or should I go upscale with a 3.2 ?

Kind advices would be welcome from distinguished members here.

All the best

Johan

 

Johan,

 

can you imagine how time consuming these scans will be?

I started to scan my family shots in color and ended up with my abandoned s/w negs from 1970-1972.......and started again photograpy in 2006...

[JHAG]

I know Bernd

About 10 minutes per scan with a little postprocess…

I didn't say I will scan the whole 10 000.

Just pick (and print) a few hundred.

Are you relieved ?

 

PS : Send it to a lab is not an option : disappointing results (and bills).

[Sandokan]

Hi Johan,

 

I am sure saving money is not the most immediate concern, but here is what I have seen in pricing up Macs:

Mac prices for peripherals are very over priced!

 

Buy the fastest processor

 

BUT buy

Least amount of RAM

Smallest hard drive

cheapest graphics card

 

Then buy Kingston RAM

Buy an external RAID (I have a Thecus) with 5x1TB discs -total cost was CHf2000 (and these were Western Digital although Samsung were same price)

Thecus: thecus.de

Also consider replacing the internal drive with a faster one sourced outside from Apple Store.

Or buy the same RAID card but not from Apple

Buy a second graphics card (which can be sourced cheaper than Apple's price for an upgrade)

 

And I fully agree with an Eizo monitor - more expensive than Apple's but worth it.

 

Enjoy shopping

 

Ravi

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[roguewave]

Johan, here's a completely differnt take. My wife uses Apple and I use a PC. Both are just boxes. The cost difference of the boxe is huge. I bought a 64 bit quad core Intel PC with 16 gigs RAM & Terabyte Drive for under $3,000. It runs Vista 64 & the 64 bit versions of Lightroom & Photoshop like greased lighting. Nothing like it. Apple is cute and wonderful for layouts and design, but processing time is slow and when you have mutiple applications up, it slows to a crawl. The cool thing is that ADOBE is centering the products so they will look and act the same on both platforms, but perform much better on 64 bit Multiple core Intel chips & bus. I love my wife's mac for everyday use, but it is slow & that wheel of death just keeps on spinning, even on the latest 23' Dual I bought her last September. As Photoshop merges with Lightroom (inevitable) it will take more CPU & memory. It needs a wide open flat space to do all the computations ata low coat per mip. Apple is expensive, You pay for the logo & the panache. Plus, their eqipment is unreliable in the high end.