| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 89187 | 2008-04-23 09:15:00 | Value of this PC | jwil1 (65) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 661948 | 2008-04-24 06:14:00 | Yup .. the avg person is just going to look at the Ghz, and MB and GB and inches for the screen and if its a LCD and just maybe also what brand is the box. That its ready to go, internet ready, software ready. | Nomad (952) | ||
| 661949 | 2008-04-24 06:14:00 | I don't play games. I might get a new computer in a year or two but there is a difference between practical and ideal. Ideally I would want quad core, 8GB, 4 HDD in 2x RAID 0 and a 5th HDD as external, its probably not worth it. Practically for a individual 1x internal HDD is probably ok. For this thread, seriously I would just continue using it as a computer in the spare room for guest? Or just donate it. If you doing that I would just take the Photoshop out for your own use. It might be possible to upgrade Photoshop 7.0 to CS version? Then it supports digital RAW files. If you into that. If you got a latest camera that requires CS3, you can convert the files to DNG and it opens fine in CS. Why only 8GB of RAM on a Quad core when a Quad core will do up to 16GB and your not into gaming? |
vitalstatistix (9182) | ||
| 661950 | 2008-04-24 06:21:00 | Why only 8GB of RAM on a Quad core when a Quad core will do up to 16GB and your not into gaming? Cos 16GB is too expensive. I do photoshop work. So disk speed is more appreciated. Just to get a new sweet spot after x64, and in future when it cheapens can upgrade the rest to 16GB. But practically for the amateur photographer a avg CPU dual core, is fine, 2 or 3GB, one internal HDD and one external HDD for backups. x32 OS. |
Nomad (952) | ||
| 661951 | 2008-04-24 06:27:00 | Fair enough. I would have thought that dual core with 8GB should be fine for Photoshop work? What sized images do you mostly deal with? | vitalstatistix (9182) | ||
| 661952 | 2008-04-24 06:40:00 | Yeah .. 8GB is an option, 2 banks, leave the other 2 for future. File size around 32MB tiff not including layers. That's just a RAW file converted to TIF. If I scan film anywhere up to 120MB these days without layers, could be up to 500MB if I get to larger sized film. :D |
Nomad (952) | ||
| 661953 | 2008-04-24 12:41:00 | What exactly do you propose to do with an 8 GB image file? Project it on an Alp at an opticians conference? Seems like a lot of resolution to throw around. | R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 661954 | 2008-04-24 22:10:00 | 8GB was the RAM, not file size. I intend to get into sheet film thats 4x5 inches scanned maybe at a 4000dpi whatever filesize that is. Its not the size I want, its I like the style of those (older) cameras like they can shift and tilt, sheet film is a lot more sharper than roll film, less or virtually no distortion. Ie., the camera with the cloth over your head, they can still use the same pro modern film as your latest Nikon or Canon but just larger size. If I have a great shot, I would like a print of the size of A1 or A0 and framed indoors on a wall. Printed so high in resolution that you can almost read the road signs, I thought of things like HKG peak look out or the Great Wall etc .. the Grand Canyon, Venice ... But actually even 4x5" film, you still won't produce a 300dpi print for that size. That was what I was advised. Larger the film size it diminishes b/c of some film properties, one being flatness hard to maintain. I have a A3 that's not that large. A2 is maybe like a calendar size .. People tend to say a 6MP digital SLR or maybe a 8MP is equiv to a 35mm film scanned. 6MP RAW converted to TIF at a 32bit file becomes 24MB without layers. If you scanned the film at 4000 dpi which tends to the factory std for a dedicated scanner and what most pro's do, that file size is 120MB abouts. Arguably some say the digital is cleaner and sharper. The file size of the film scans are larger than digital files because the scanner scans in rows and that builds up data size or more bloat. |
Nomad (952) | ||
| 661955 | 2008-04-24 23:24:00 | 8GB was the RAM, not file size. I intend to get into sheet film thats 4x5 inches scanned maybe at a 4000dpi whatever filesize that is. Its not the size I want, its I like the style of those (older) cameras like they can shift and tilt, sheet film is a lot more sharper than roll film, less or virtually no distortion. Ie., the camera with the cloth over your head, they can still use the same pro modern film as your latest Nikon or Canon but just larger size. If I have a great shot, I would like a print of the size of A1 or A0 and framed indoors on a wall. Printed so high in resolution that you can almost read the road signs, I thought of things like HKG peak look out or the Great Wall etc .. the Grand Canyon, Venice ... But actually even 4x5" film, you still won't produce a 300dpi print for that size. That was what I was advised. Larger the film size it diminishes b/c of some film properties, one being flatness hard to maintain. I have a A3 that's not that large. A2 is maybe like a calendar size .. People tend to say a 6MP digital SLR or maybe a 8MP is equiv to a 35mm film scanned. 6MP RAW converted to TIF at a 32bit file becomes 24MB without layers. If you scanned the film at 4000 dpi which tends to the factory std for a dedicated scanner and what most pro's do, that file size is 120MB abouts. Arguably some say the digital is cleaner and sharper. The file size of the film scans are larger than digital files because the scanner scans in rows and that builds up data size or more bloat. Im glad YOU know what YOUR talking about!!! :clap |
password (5384) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||