Recommend computer configuration for processing digital images?

[hazmee]

Hi,

I am also thinking of making my own PC, as for the LCD screen, which one would you recommend? The Samsung or LG above or the EIZO?

Cathay was selling the Eizo 21" for SGD 1500 or so

HS

Between the three, I would rather get the Samsung 245T. Really value for money. I can't say about the Eizo because I have never used one and it is just way off my budget. On another note, Samsung supplies the panels for most Eizo branded LCDs.

 

[unseen]

I'm currently using a MacBook (Core Duo version - the 32 bit processor) with 2 GB RAM and using iPhoto on Mac OS X Leopard with RAW photos shot on a Canon EOS 350D. It's not the fastest system in the world but I can download about 100-ish photos, tweak them and (get selected ones) online with relative ease.

Windows (especially Vista) isn't exactly the most ideal platform for going through your digital workflow given its relatively resource-hungry nature. Also, to make the most out of your hardware, a 64-bit platform would be the way to go. Most versions of Windows are 32-bit... unless, of course, it's written on the box that it's a 64-bit Edition. But then, you'll get driver compatibility problems because some companies only have drivers for 32-bit Windows and those won't work properly with 64-bit versions. Let's not start on memory limitations, shall we?

To be fair, Windows does have it's advantages. But it's not in the media/creative department. Weighing on between Windows and Macintosh, I trust my Mac because it feels far more responsive and capable of juggling all the photos that I take and the videos I edit. Whether or not it's using Photoshop or Windows Live Gallery, Windows just doesn't cut it. Even my sister (who studied Mass Comm in TP - I believe they call it CMM) opted for a Mac rather than a cheaper alternative on Windows.

Moral of the story? If you can afford it (and are willing to stick to the whole Apple eco-system), go for a Mac-based workflow. I grab my RAW files straight off the camera and into iPhoto. No need for RAW converting software. It'll happily gobble up my 2 GB CompactFlash card with delight. No questions (or errors) asked.

let me provide an alternative look at this perspective.
For most people who compare Mac against PC

Mac: You pay $3000 for $2000 worth of hardware
PC: You pay $1000 and expect $2000 worth of hardware

If you spend $2k on PC hardware, you'll get a system that easily trashes a Mac.

 

[Parka]

Even simple standalone graphics card are quite affordable nowadays. What's the budget?

The last time I saw in Sim Lim, a quad core, 4 gb ram, 400 harddisk with a graphics card was going less than $1500. Now can be even less. Without LCD monitor of course.

 

[unseen]

Is it ok to go for an onboard graphics card?

Since photo processing is not graphic card dependent?

This way we can save about 300-400 on a graphics card and invest in more ram or a larger LCD.

:think:

Nevermind the short answer, the real answer is Yes.

Photoshop etc all use 2d graphics only. Your onboard graphics card is more than enough.
Your photos are 2D, and any manipulations done on them are just mathematics for 2d manipulation. The common graphics cards finish 2D graphics display in a snap. They are more expensive because the cards boasts of superior 3d accelerators: They accelerate drawing of 3d graphics. They can't do nuts for 2D graphics (think your processor)

You will not see ANY difference between a $700 gaming graphics card and onboard graphics card.

If you want to listen to the computer illiterate, at least take a moment to consider the system requirements for photoshop:
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/photoshop/systemreqs/
They stated the minimum hardware requirements (pentium, centrino or better), but they only require a 16 bit graphics card. Makes you wonder if the people who created photoshop know what they're talking about, doesn't it?

Basically, onboard graphics are pretty slow for doing graphics and photo work. But if you are going on the cheap, no one is going to stop you from using one.

No way man. That's a negative.
No calculations are done using graphics cards for simple 2d graphics (think photoshop).
Onboard graphics cards may suck at 3d acceleration, but they're no different from a $700 graphics card for normal display.

 

[unseen]

Even simple standalone graphics card are quite affordable nowadays. What's the budget?

The last time I saw in Sim Lim, a quad core, 4 gb ram, 400 harddisk with a graphics card was going less than $1500. Now can be even less. Without LCD monitor of course.

What's the motherboard?
The motherboard, providing the physical link between harddisk and ram, is actually very important.

If you buy a cheap mobo, and it has inefficient datapath design, it will actually cause your system to be slower (if at all noticable).

*shrug* but ya, PCs are cheap nowadays.

 

[glennyong]

if still want cheaper. things like graphics card can grab 2nd hands....

haha...

i have been running my C2D system for like 2.5yrs... still running and blazing fast...

sharing my specs.

C2D E6600 2.4ghz
2x 7900 GS Sonic Xpertvision SLi
2x 500GB hdd, with 2x 1TB external hdds.
2x Sony DVD writers (i am not really picky about brands lah)
580w coolermaster real power psu.

2x 19" LG monitors... so far... so good... and of course backed up with my mbp. :bsmilie:

 

[Havoc]

What kind of computer should i build and how much? + the monitor
if i am using Maya and photoshop often.

 

[JLee]

Cathay was selling the Eizo 21" for SGD 1500 or so HS

There are 2 models as in category for EIZO's monitor. The really good ones are the CG series, which cost a BOMB!! and the more affordable ones are the CE series, like the one selling in Cathay Photo. Bits & Bytes Marketing is the distributor for EIZO monitor.

 

[hazmee]

No way man. That's a negative.
No calculations are done using graphics cards for simple 2d graphics (think photoshop).
Onboard graphics cards may suck at 3d acceleration, but they're no different from a $700 graphics card for normal display.

I have both machines (onboard and standalone) at home and I can see the difference in performance (speed I mean) dramatically when using with my 24" monitor. Plus I don't get to use dual monitors which is another plus for me. Anyhow, a decent card cost only about S$200. It all depends on the user I guess. YMMV.

I do agree with you about getting a solid and stable motherboard.

 

[Winduhs]

The reason why onboard gfx cards are not advised is not because they have bad colour production etc. Onboard gfx cards make use of shared memory, i.e. the ram in the pc, instead of having their dedicated memory, means if your gfx card is busy drawing on the screen, you end up with less ram to do your processing.

 

[ExplorerZ]

its more worthwhile to get a graphic card as well, a decent one might just be about $100 (6800GT, HD2600 etc), old but still reliable and definitely more than enough for 2d and also some basic 3d rendering. another thing is, when u are bored, at least u can do some gaming with it. :bsmilie:

 

[Hollud]

let me provide an alternative look at this perspective.
For most people who compare Mac against PC

Mac: You pay $3000 for $2000 worth of hardware
PC: You pay $1000 and expect $2000 worth of hardware

If you spend $2k on PC hardware, you'll get a system that easily trashes a Mac.

Well, you are right about the "expect" part.

Yet still, the Mac is the better platform, and you can't really deny can you? It's not so much about hardware (Macs are on Intel so that nullifies any expectations about cost) but about software. And that, is the crux on which the argument lies.

You'd be expecting a $2000 Vista machine to trounce a $3000 Mac. But the Mac will be still be faster. It'll feel faster, it'll respond faster and it'll perform faster. If PCs had that same level of performance (and usability), why do most creative professionals still prefer the Mac?

That, and you can't deny that gorgeous design of Apple's machines. Pretty and powerful.

Comparing a Mac with a PC? Now that would really be comparing apples with oranges.

But, one man's meat may be another man's poison. With Apple now overtaking Acer as the third largest PC vendor in the United States, that would be quite a fair bit of poison for you to digest.

 

[hazmee]

Err...Mac vs PC. Here we go again.

 

[chanxj]

Actually photoshop cs3(not the earlier versions) does use the graphic card for accelleration

Nevermind the short answer, the real answer is Yes.

Photoshop etc all use 2d graphics only. Your onboard graphics card is more than enough.
Your photos are 2D, and any manipulations done on them are just mathematics for 2d manipulation. The common graphics cards finish 2D graphics display in a snap. They are more expensive because the cards boasts of superior 3d accelerators: They accelerate drawing of 3d graphics. They can't do nuts for 2D graphics (think your processor)

You will not see ANY difference between a $700 gaming graphics card and onboard graphics card.

If you want to listen to the computer illiterate, at least take a moment to consider the system requirements for photoshop:
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/photoshop/systemreqs/
They stated the minimum hardware requirements (pentium, centrino or better), but they only require a 16 bit graphics card. Makes you wonder if the people who created photoshop know what they're talking about, doesn't it?





No way man. That's a negative.
No calculations are done using graphics cards for simple 2d graphics (think photoshop).
Onboard graphics cards may suck at 3d acceleration, but they're no different from a $700 graphics card for normal display.

 

[theRBK]

Windows (especially Vista) isn't exactly the most ideal platform for going through your digital workflow given its relatively resource-hungry nature. Also, to make the most out of your hardware, a 64-bit platform would be the way to go. Most versions of Windows are 32-bit... unless, of course, it's written on the box that it's a 64-bit Edition. But then, you'll get driver compatibility problems because some companies only have drivers for 32-bit Windows and those won't work properly with 64-bit versions. Let's not start on memory limitations, shall we?

To be fair, Windows does have it's advantages. But it's not in the media/creative department. Weighing on between Windows and Macintosh, I trust my Mac because it feels far more responsive and capable of juggling all the photos that I take and the videos I edit.

er, I've been using Windows (XP 32 and then Vista 64) for commercial DI work and do not have any probs with it... have used OSX at work as well and between OSX and XP, they seem to crash as often... programs in Vista have crashed before for me (not very often and can't remember an instance of Photoshop crashing in Vista) but not the OS itself... my choice would easily be Vista 64... as for drivers, that's mainly when it was just intro and now not much prob with drivers... in any case, hadn't been prob with drivers needed for Photoshop even when just intro... responsiveness with Vista 64 has been great as well on my ~4yr old home system (has it been that long already...wow go opteron go)... moral of story, Vista 64 boleh

as for CRTs, quite hard to get good new CRTs now right... as for 2nd hand, don't think its worth it cause CRTs don't age very well... get a decent LCD better... get a Dell 2408

on board graphics should be good enough really or a low end graphics card... for now... at the moment, Photoshop does not use graphics cards to help do processing...

Actually photoshop cs3(not the earlier versions) does use the graphic card for accelleration

Photoshop CS3 does use the graphics processor to help render the 2D image that you see on the screen (but not the actual number crunching involved say when you paint or use a filter) but that doesn't really take much effort and should be ok with contemporary on board graphics... don't think memory requirements for display purpose is very heavy... something like 16MB I think... colour should not be affected as Photoshop would be handling rendering, as long as your monitor is properly profiled... having said all that, there are rumours that Photoshop CS4 might be able to utilize dedicated graphics processors to help in processing... watch this space...

Yet still, the Mac is the better platform, and you can't really deny can you? It's not so much about hardware (Macs are on Intel so that nullifies any expectations about cost) but about software. And that, is the crux on which the argument lies.

You'd be expecting a $2000 Vista machine to trounce a $3000 Mac. But the Mac will be still be faster. It'll feel faster, it'll respond faster and it'll perform faster. If PCs had that same level of performance (and usability), why do most creative professionals still prefer the Mac?

I don't really see a Mac as being superior... it might suit a person who is more familiar with OSX rather than Windows but that goes as well the other way... and this is from my experience in using both OSX and Windows systems in high pressure situations... and as for creative professionals... this brings me to "one last thing"...

there is no 64bit Photoshop CS4 planned for Mac... only for Windows 64bit systems... thus Mac users of the upcoming CS4 will still be stuck with <4GB of RAM whereas Windows 64bit system users will be restricted to how much RAM they can stuff into their systems... with current motherboards that should be 8GB... and with Intel's Nehalem coming up, should be able to get 12GB... or 24GB if we can get 4GB DDR3 modules... or even more in a workstation motherboard... creative professionals (those that aren't using Windows now that is... and there are plenty who do use Windows now...) would have some serious decisions to make...

 

[Hollud]

there is no 64bit Photoshop CS4 planned for Mac... only for Windows 64bit systems... thus Mac users of the upcoming CS4 will still be stuck with <4GB of RAM whereas Windows 64bit system users will be restricted to how much RAM they can stuff into their systems... with current motherboards that should be 8GB... and with Intel's Nehalem coming up, should be able to get 12GB... or 24GB if we can get 4GB DDR3 modules... or even more in a workstation motherboard... creative professionals (those that aren't using Windows now that is... and there are plenty who do use Windows now...) would have some serious decisions to make...

In any case, isn't CS4 the one where Adobe is talking about using GPU acceleration alongside CPU processing? If that's the case, than the operating system is no longer the bottleneck, which would render this argument completely and utterly pointless. :bsmilie:

 

[hazmee]

Ok guys, let's not get carried away with stuff that doesn't concern the threadstarter. I think he or she has probably shied away by now with all these technical talk. Let's just say both Mac and PC can get the same work done. No need to explain that further. The thing that matters now is price and performance.

To make things easier for TS, I'll sum it up for you:

1. DIY PC based is relatively cheaper compared to say a Mac Pro, Mac Book Pro, iMac.
2. DIY PC looks like some dodgy hardware when compared to a Mac but that's about it as look goes.
3. Some like Mac OS, some like Windows. No one is better than the other. It is how you make full use of it.
4. For DIY PC, look for stable and solid motherboard and a good display monitor.
5. Invest your money on a monitor calibrator.
6. Based on what members recommended here, an onboard graphics card is more than enough for simple post production work.
7. If you are confused by all these mumbo jumbo, go to the Mac shop and just buy a Mac.

 

[Hollud]

Ok guys, let's not get carried away with stuff that doesn't concern the threadstarter. I think he or she has probably shied away by now with all these technical talk. Let's just say both Mac and PC can get the same work done. No need to explain that further. The thing that matters now is price and performance.

To make things easier for TS, I'll sum it up for you:

1. DIY PC based is relatively cheaper compared to say a Mac Pro, Mac Book Pro, iMac.
2. DIY PC looks like some dodgy hardware when compared to a Mac but that's about it as look goes.
3. Some like Mac OS, some like Windows. No one is better than the other. It is how you make full use of it.
4. For DIY PC, look for stable and solid motherboard and a good display monitor.
5. Invest your money on a monitor calibrator.
6. Based on what members recommended here, an onboard graphics card is more than enough for simple post production work.
7. If you are confused by all these mumbo jumbo, go to the Mac shop and just buy a Mac.

Well, just to add to that...

Consider what you will be working on before making your purchase. If you are going to working on files that are small in size (probably in the range of Megabytes), a consumer PC or Mac (with sufficient memory) will be just fine. Perhaps Photoshop experts here can give a general resolution size that would warrant as something "small".

If your files are going to be bigger (breaching into the realm of Gigabytes), then you will need a more powerful system to cope with the immense complexities of the file.

 

[killervinz]

let me provide an alternative look at this perspective.
For most people who compare Mac against PC

Mac: You pay $3000 for $2000 worth of hardware
PC: You pay $1000 and expect $2000 worth of hardware

If you spend $2k on PC hardware, you'll get a system that easily trashes a Mac.

If you are not aware, read these links for your leisure reading

http://www.informationweek.com/news/windows/operatingsystems/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=207400285

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/reviews/4258725.html?page=1

 

[airmj]

Does it matter if the graphic card output is only VGA? will DVI provide sharper or more accurate color reproduction?

I heard the 30" lcds require double DVI outputs to support the huge resolutions.

Most onboard motherboard cards are VGA only. :think: