Reading mode: Light Dark

D60 File Size = need for faster cpu??

Go to last post
V

vito

Well-known member
Messages
246
Reaction score
0
Location
City, OK, US
Because of the file size of the D60 are we going to need a certain amount of ram and processor speed to handle the transfering from the card reader to pc? Then the editing? Do these in a descent amount of time.

Stephen
 
Samantha said:
Because of the file size of the D60 are we going to need a certain
amount of ram and processor speed to handle the transfering from
the card reader to pc? Then the editing? Do these in a descent
amount of time.

Stephen
Click to expand...
Well I can tell you this: If you use Photoshop you can never have too much memory!!

-John
 
I don't think that transferring the file thru a card reader is going to be a problem regardless of the rest of your computer system. Depends somewhat on your card reader though.

Now, with regards to editing, this is a different story. The different programs require vastly different amounts of memory to operate well. I don't have much experience with Photoshop except on my current computer (384MB). And it has always run fine there.

However, I still have a 64MB 486 machine for some special applications. There, I found some years ago that Paint Shop Pro (V4) was plenty happy even with a 50MB file (huge jpg), although it took 30 seconds to load. These were arial B/W photographs from USGS. Corel Paint was so slow and quirky (crashy) that it was unusable with the large file. Every other graphics program that I had at that time (which excluded PS) didn't work at all with this large a file. My need was to crop down the original photo to less than 5% of the original. Once that task was done, then everything else was easy.

So, if you have better than a 500MHz PIII with 128MB, I think you'll be OK. More memory is always better though.
JohnM said:
Samantha said:
Because of the file size of the D60 are we going to need a certain
amount of ram and processor speed to handle the transfering from
the card reader to pc? Then the editing? Do these in a descent
amount of time.

Stephen
Click to expand...
Well I can tell you this: If you use Photoshop you can never have
too much memory!!

-John
Click to expand...
 
I have been working with PS since PS4 on a 100MHz Pentium. I was able to really boost the performance of that machine by adding a lot of memory (I think I added 128K back then).

A faster CPU will help, but RAM is way faster than Disk. If your image started causing disk hits the performance of PS slows to a crawl. If you run out of RAM then it starts saving a bunch of stuff to disk and performance drops.

A second disk on a separate control cabler can help some, but from my experience, RAM helps PS more than anythings.

One place were the CPU helps a lot is in CRW translation. My last upgrade was from a 450MHz PII with 256Meg of RAM to a 1.7GHz with 512Meg of RDRAM. Photoshop was a bit better, but the CRW conversion time went from about 30 Seconds down to 12.

Karl
Critter1 said:
Now, with regards to editing, this is a different story. The
different programs require vastly different amounts of memory to
operate well. I don't have much experience with Photoshop except
on my current computer (384MB). And it has always run fine there.

However, I still have a 64MB 486 machine for some special
applications. There, I found some years ago that Paint Shop Pro
(V4) was plenty happy even with a 50MB file (huge jpg), although it
took 30 seconds to load. These were arial B/W photographs from
USGS. Corel Paint was so slow and quirky (crashy) that it was
unusable with the large file. Every other graphics program that I
had at that time (which excluded PS) didn't work at all with this
large a file. My need was to crop down the original photo to less
than 5% of the original. Once that task was done, then everything
else was easy.

So, if you have better than a 500MHz PIII with 128MB, I think
you'll be OK. More memory is always better though.
JohnM said:
Samantha said:
Because of the file size of the D60 are we going to need a certain
amount of ram and processor speed to handle the transfering from
the card reader to pc? Then the editing? Do these in a descent
amount of time.

Stephen
Click to expand...
Well I can tell you this: If you use Photoshop you can never have
too much memory!!

-John
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--Karl
 
I have 256. I've heard some have 1024 installed. Isn't that a bit overkill?

Stephen
Karlg said:
A faster CPU will help, but RAM is way faster than Disk. If your
image started causing disk hits the performance of PS slows to a
crawl. If you run out of RAM then it starts saving a bunch of
stuff to disk and performance drops.

A second disk on a separate control cabler can help some, but from
my experience, RAM helps PS more than anythings.

One place were the CPU helps a lot is in CRW translation. My last
upgrade was from a 450MHz PII with 256Meg of RAM to a 1.7GHz with
512Meg of RDRAM. Photoshop was a bit better, but the CRW
conversion time went from about 30 Seconds down to 12.

Karl
Critter1 said:
Now, with regards to editing, this is a different story. The
different programs require vastly different amounts of memory to
operate well. I don't have much experience with Photoshop except
on my current computer (384MB). And it has always run fine there.

However, I still have a 64MB 486 machine for some special
applications. There, I found some years ago that Paint Shop Pro
(V4) was plenty happy even with a 50MB file (huge jpg), although it
took 30 seconds to load. These were arial B/W photographs from
USGS. Corel Paint was so slow and quirky (crashy) that it was
unusable with the large file. Every other graphics program that I
had at that time (which excluded PS) didn't work at all with this
large a file. My need was to crop down the original photo to less
than 5% of the original. Once that task was done, then everything
else was easy.

So, if you have better than a 500MHz PIII with 128MB, I think
you'll be OK. More memory is always better though.
JohnM said:
Samantha said:
Because of the file size of the D60 are we going to need a certain
amount of ram and processor speed to handle the transfering from
the card reader to pc? Then the editing? Do these in a descent
amount of time.

Stephen
Click to expand...
Well I can tell you this: If you use Photoshop you can never have
too much memory!!

-John
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Karl
Click to expand...
 
Depends on the OS, as well as on the program one is talking about. In particular, if one runs a lot of programs simultaneously, then large amounts of memory can be a benefit with the matching OS.

But,..., the start of this thread was in the context of the D60 having a larger file size, and will this drag down the computer? Since we're talking about a file around 2.5MB, it seems unlikely that tons of memory is going to do anything. Heavy duty processing of the pixels will benefit from a faster CPU, and opening and closing files will benefit from faster harddrives and interfaces but probably not too much since the file sizes are actually small.
JohnM said:
Samantha said:
I have 256. I've heard some have 1024 installed. Isn't that a bit
overkill?
Click to expand...
Not if you are running W2K or XP.
Click to expand...
 
JohnM said:
Samantha said:
I have 256. I've heard some have 1024 installed. Isn't that a bit
overkill?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
JohnM31499 said:
Not if you are running W2K or XP.
Click to expand...
But, Samantha, you don't have to have 1024Mb of RAM installed. Though I still only process 3Mp images with a PIII-400 and 320Mb of RAM, I don't see the need to run 1024Mb of RAM on my W2K desktop PC.

JohnM said that 1024Mb of RAM is not overkill. He's right - if you can afford it, go for it, but it's not essential either.

-Jagan
 
Not when you are working on 2 gig files, actually 1024 megs ram is not nearly enough, try 2 gigs and dual processors, they help on files that big. But for most applications I would say 512meg is good in a 1+ gig processor and a good graphics/video card, (at least 32megs onboard)

Stephen
Samantha said:
Stephen
Karlg said:
A faster CPU will help, but RAM is way faster than Disk. If your
image started causing disk hits the performance of PS slows to a
crawl. If you run out of RAM then it starts saving a bunch of
stuff to disk and performance drops.

A second disk on a separate control cabler can help some, but from
my experience, RAM helps PS more than anythings.

One place were the CPU helps a lot is in CRW translation. My last
upgrade was from a 450MHz PII with 256Meg of RAM to a 1.7GHz with
512Meg of RDRAM. Photoshop was a bit better, but the CRW
conversion time went from about 30 Seconds down to 12.

Karl
Critter1 said:
Now, with regards to editing, this is a different story. The
different programs require vastly different amounts of memory to
operate well. I don't have much experience with Photoshop except
on my current computer (384MB). And it has always run fine there.

However, I still have a 64MB 486 machine for some special
applications. There, I found some years ago that Paint Shop Pro
(V4) was plenty happy even with a 50MB file (huge jpg), although it
took 30 seconds to load. These were arial B/W photographs from
USGS. Corel Paint was so slow and quirky (crashy) that it was
unusable with the large file. Every other graphics program that I
had at that time (which excluded PS) didn't work at all with this
large a file. My need was to crop down the original photo to less
than 5% of the original. Once that task was done, then everything
else was easy.

So, if you have better than a 500MHz PIII with 128MB, I think
you'll be OK. More memory is always better though.
JohnM said:
Samantha said:
Because of the file size of the D60 are we going to need a certain
amount of ram and processor speed to handle the transfering from
the card reader to pc? Then the editing? Do these in a descent
amount of time.

Stephen
Click to expand...
Well I can tell you this: If you use Photoshop you can never have
too much memory!!

-John
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Karl
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Critter1 said:
Depends on the OS, as well as on the program one is talking about.
In particular, if one runs a lot of programs simultaneously, then
large amounts of memory can be a benefit with the matching OS.

But,..., the start of this thread was in the context of the D60
having a larger file size, and will this drag down the computer?
Since we're talking about a file around 2.5MB, it seems unlikely
Click to expand...
I work with RAW files and convert them to linear tiffs and then go from there. A D30 RAW file converts to a 18 meg linear tiff. The final file, if it's 8 bit, is around 9 meg. I don't know what a D60 file will be but if it starts with twice the information then I imagine that it'll be a good bit larger. If you process this way then you will need a faster computer with lots of ram or spend more time processing. Remember that there is a limit of 512 meg ram for PC's not running 2000, XP or NT.
Critter1 #80734 said:
that tons of memory is going to do anything. Heavy duty processing
of the pixels will benefit from a faster CPU, and opening and
closing files will benefit from faster harddrives and interfaces
but probably not too much since the file sizes are actually small.
Click to expand...
 
2Gigs? Goodness. How did a 6megapixel array lead you to files of that size?
What are you up to?

This thread started with the question whether moving from a D30 to a D60 was going to overwhelm the computer.
stephen said:
Stephen
Samantha said:
Stephen
Karlg said:
A faster CPU will help, but RAM is way faster than Disk. If your
image started causing disk hits the performance of PS slows to a
crawl. If you run out of RAM then it starts saving a bunch of
stuff to disk and performance drops.

A second disk on a separate control cabler can help some, but from
my experience, RAM helps PS more than anythings.

One place were the CPU helps a lot is in CRW translation. My last
upgrade was from a 450MHz PII with 256Meg of RAM to a 1.7GHz with
512Meg of RDRAM. Photoshop was a bit better, but the CRW
conversion time went from about 30 Seconds down to 12.

Karl
Critter1 said:
Now, with regards to editing, this is a different story. The
different programs require vastly different amounts of memory to
operate well. I don't have much experience with Photoshop except
on my current computer (384MB). And it has always run fine there.

However, I still have a 64MB 486 machine for some special
applications. There, I found some years ago that Paint Shop Pro
(V4) was plenty happy even with a 50MB file (huge jpg), although it
took 30 seconds to load. These were arial B/W photographs from
USGS. Corel Paint was so slow and quirky (crashy) that it was
unusable with the large file. Every other graphics program that I
had at that time (which excluded PS) didn't work at all with this
large a file. My need was to crop down the original photo to less
than 5% of the original. Once that task was done, then everything
else was easy.

So, if you have better than a 500MHz PIII with 128MB, I think
you'll be OK. More memory is always better though.
JohnM said:
Samantha said:
Because of the file size of the D60 are we going to need a certain
amount of ram and processor speed to handle the transfering from
the card reader to pc? Then the editing? Do these in a descent
amount of time.

Stephen
Click to expand...
Well I can tell you this: If you use Photoshop you can never have
too much memory!!

-John
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Karl
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
For many who shoot RAW and use 16bits TIFFs within their workflow, you need all the computing power you can get.

If you ever use LinearSharpen by Pekka Saarinen (it does wonders to your image quality), you will know what I mean. I have a one year old Dual P3 1GHz with 1G RAM and I still feel I need more horse power. I don't dare use LinearSharpen on my P3 800MHz 128MB RAM laptop 'cause I don't have that kind of patient.

I don't know what the size of the D60 16bits TIFF image will be, but on the 3.25MB D30, the 16bits TIFF image is 18MB.

Here is an interesting article on PhotoShop performance with Dual Processors: http://www.xbitlabs.com/cpu/photoshop-dual/

Plus, with Digital, you are likely to shoot probably 5-10x more than you would with a regular film camera. On an average day of shooting around, I could easily shoot 50-100 images, or 200-300 images for an all day event.

If you can get it, go with a duallie system...you won't have to worry about upgrading your PC for at least a year...and in PC performance term...that's a long time.

--TN http://www.photovideodisc.com
 
I am sure that you are right.

But WHY does it take more horsepower, and exactly what is the bottleneck in the process?

I know nothing about the algorithms involved, but they could be CPU bound, or memory hungry, or both. If they are CPU bound only, then adding memory will accomplish little. If they are memory bound, then adding a faster CPU (without necessarily increasing the IO throughput) will do little. Of course, you can throw a mega monster PC at it, and not worry, because it will cover both the CPU issue and the memory issue, and hence is must be faster.

Computing power comes from both hardware power and software power. I've made my living developing software for simulating the dynamic behavior of very complex mechanical systems. Over the years, I've watched new programmers become sloppier and lazier regarding their algorithms and software design. The programs become slower and slower even while the hardware has followed Moore's law for the past 20 years or so.

The consumer doesn't really care why. He/she just wants to get the job done quicker, but at a reasonable cost. Throwing out your latest PC because the D60 has a little more resolution doesn't seem prudent. That's where this thread started.
D30Photo said:
For many who shoot RAW and use 16bits TIFFs within their workflow,
you need all the computing power you can get.

If you ever use LinearSharpen by Pekka Saarinen (it does wonders to
your image quality), you will know what I mean. I have a one year
old Dual P3 1GHz with 1G RAM and I still feel I need more horse
power. I don't dare use LinearSharpen on my P3 800MHz 128MB RAM
laptop 'cause I don't have that kind of patient.

I don't know what the size of the D60 16bits TIFF image will be,
but on the 3.25MB D30, the 16bits TIFF image is 18MB.

Here is an interesting article on PhotoShop performance with Dual
Processors: http://www.xbitlabs.com/cpu/photoshop-dual/

Plus, with Digital, you are likely to shoot probably 5-10x more
than you would with a regular film camera. On an average day of
shooting around, I could easily shoot 50-100 images, or 200-300
images for an all day event.

If you can get it, go with a duallie system...you won't have to
worry about upgrading your PC for at least a year...and in PC
performance term...that's a long time.

--
TN

http://www.photovideodisc.com
Click to expand...
 
Shoot medium/fine or even small/fine if you are not going to print 8x10 or larger.
Don't fill up your CF with snapshots using large/fine setting.
Use large/fine for studio shots or if you are going to crop the images.
--Bijanwww.pbase.com/bijan
 
Critter1: Do you need 500dpi image to print a 4x6 or 5x7? Anything over 300dpi would be wasted at that size unless,as I said earlier, you are printing larger.
r1 said:
Bill
Bijan said:
Shoot medium/fine or even small/fine if you are not going to print
8x10 or larger.
Don't fill up your CF with snapshots using large/fine setting.
Use large/fine for studio shots or if you are going to crop the
images.

--
Bijan
http://www.pbase.com/bijan
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--Bijanwww.pbase.com/bijan
 
Critter1 said:
I am sure that you are right.
But WHY does it take more horsepower, and exactly what is the
bottleneck in the process?
Click to expand...
I don't have a clue :-) eventhough I think that having built serveral Dual CPU systems at least removed me from the PC newbie list.
Critter1 #80734 said:
I know nothing about the algorithms involved, but they could be CPU
bound, or memory hungry, or both. If they are CPU bound only, then
adding memory will accomplish little. If they are memory bound,
then adding a faster CPU (without necessarily increasing the IO
throughput) will do little. Of course, you can throw a mega
monster PC at it, and not worry, because it will cover both the CPU
issue and the memory issue, and hence is must be faster.

Computing power comes from both hardware power and software power.
I've made my living developing software for simulating the dynamic
behavior of very complex mechanical systems. Over the years, I've
watched new programmers become sloppier and lazier regarding their
algorithms and software design. The programs become slower and
slower even while the hardware has followed Moore's law for the
past 20 years or so.
Click to expand...
I am totally 100% in agreement with you there because I think SW delevopers are putting efficiency on the low end of their priority. But as the End Users of apllications like, PhotoShop6.0, what choice do I have if if it takes my P3 800MHz labtop 5 minutes to process one of my linearTIF image?

I can either:

1) Do the post processing before I go to bed, and wait for the results. Nope, no patient on my part.

2) Use something else better other than PhotoShop in term of efficiency, not likely since I like LinearSharpen and it only works with PhotoShop.

3) Shoot small JPG and forget about post processing - sorry but I shot JPG all the time when I first got my D30, and I'm much more happier now with the image quality I'm getting from LinearSharpen.

4) Get the most power PC that I can afford without breaking the bank - I tried to do that by building my own systems. Oh, BTW, I do like building my own systems because it's a fun learning experience.
Critter1 #80734 said:
The consumer doesn't really care why. He/she just wants to get the
job done quicker, but at a reasonable cost. Throwing out your
latest PC because the D60 has a little more resolution doesn't seem
prudent. That's where this thread started.
Click to expand...
Actually, I was hoping that pointing to the Dual Processor alternative means that the end users doesn't have to upgrade as often. In my case, I don't feel a need to upgrade my 1GHz CPUs eventhough there are 2GHz+ CPUs out there. Has it been worth it for me? Abosolutely!! If you think PhotoShop is BAD, try Encoding Mpeg2/Mpeg4, and using Adobe Premiere for Digital Video Editing.

Will SW developers get their act together? Most likely not until Hardware development hits some limitation, AND when SW efficiency is more important than new SW features.

Cheers,

--TN http://www.photovideodisc.com
 
It doesn't seem that we are disagreeing. Faster is better. And I am impressed with your ability to put together a dual processor machine.

For your very specific case of Linear Sharpening, have you had the opportunity to determine whether it is CPU bound, memory bound, or both?

I have had the rather boring opportunity to deal with Adobe Premiere. First of all, it takes almost two minutes for the program to launch on my Pentium III 600 Mhz!!

Then, the clips that I have put together were between 10 minutes to an hour to process.

When I was a grad student working on my PhD thesis, using the best computers Cornell Univ had to offer, I used less total computing power on my entire thesis research than a PC uses today to boot once. It's absolutely incredible!! Good thing too. In those days, we had to pay for each CPU cycle, each IO op, and each line printed.

Bill
D30Photo said:
Critter1 said:
I am sure that you are right.
But WHY does it take more horsepower, and exactly what is the
bottleneck in the process?
Click to expand...
I don't have a clue :-) eventhough I think that having built
serveral Dual CPU systems at least removed me from the PC newbie
list.
BayAreaFoto.com said:
I know nothing about the algorithms involved, but they could be CPU
bound, or memory hungry, or both. If they are CPU bound only, then
adding memory will accomplish little. If they are memory bound,
then adding a faster CPU (without necessarily increasing the IO
throughput) will do little. Of course, you can throw a mega
monster PC at it, and not worry, because it will cover both the CPU
issue and the memory issue, and hence is must be faster.

Computing power comes from both hardware power and software power.
I've made my living developing software for simulating the dynamic
behavior of very complex mechanical systems. Over the years, I've
watched new programmers become sloppier and lazier regarding their
algorithms and software design. The programs become slower and
slower even while the hardware has followed Moore's law for the
past 20 years or so.
Click to expand...
I am totally 100% in agreement with you there because I think SW
delevopers are putting efficiency on the low end of their priority.
But as the End Users of apllications like, PhotoShop6.0, what
choice do I have if if it takes my P3 800MHz labtop 5 minutes to
process one of my linearTIF image?

I can either:
1) Do the post processing before I go to bed, and wait for the
results. Nope, no patient on my part.
2) Use something else better other than PhotoShop in term of
efficiency, not likely since I like LinearSharpen and it only works
with PhotoShop.
3) Shoot small JPG and forget about post processing - sorry but I
shot JPG all the time when I first got my D30, and I'm much more
happier now with the image quality I'm getting from LinearSharpen.
4) Get the most power PC that I can afford without breaking the
bank - I tried to do that by building my own systems. Oh, BTW, I
do like building my own systems because it's a fun learning
experience.
BayAreaFoto.com said:
The consumer doesn't really care why. He/she just wants to get the
job done quicker, but at a reasonable cost. Throwing out your
latest PC because the D60 has a little more resolution doesn't seem
prudent. That's where this thread started.
Click to expand...
Actually, I was hoping that pointing to the Dual Processor
alternative means that the end users doesn't have to upgrade as
often. In my case, I don't feel a need to upgrade my 1GHz CPUs
eventhough there are 2GHz+ CPUs out there. Has it been worth it
for me? Abosolutely!! If you think PhotoShop is BAD, try Encoding
Mpeg2/Mpeg4, and using Adobe Premiere for Digital Video Editing.

Will SW developers get their act together? Most likely not until
Hardware development hits some limitation, AND when SW efficiency
is more important than new SW features.

Cheers,

--
TN

http://www.photovideodisc.com
Click to expand...
 
Bijan,

We are not disagreeing. I was suggesting that paying attention to the software was perhaps more important than upgrading the hardware. I was agreeing with you that consciously managing the size of your problem (by using your head, brainpower) would save a lot of bucks and grief!

Bill
Bijan said:
r1 said:
Bill
Bijan said:
Shoot medium/fine or even small/fine if you are not going to print
8x10 or larger.
Don't fill up your CF with snapshots using large/fine setting.
Use large/fine for studio shots or if you are going to crop the
images.

--
Bijan
http://www.pbase.com/bijan
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Bijan
http://www.pbase.com/bijan
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top