O/T Who knows about Computers?

Michael Entin · Nov 24, 2003

You did not say anything about THE most importaint part
for digital photographer: your monitor!

Remember that you view your pictures on a monitor and
a good monitor is much more important than anything else.

auroraproject · Nov 24, 2003

The FX5600 can have 128mb or 256mb of video memory, it's advantage over the 5200 is dual monitor out, and faster ramdacs.

mikee81 said:
Greg Biggs said:

How much video memory. If you are going to do strictly photo
editing as for graphics then a 64 mb card will be fine. As I am not
farmilliar with this card you mention, I do not know how it would
fair when it comes to rendering textures and so on with a program
such as Carrera 3D. I suspect it has atleast 64MB of video memory
so if you are basically wanting to do photo editing you are going
to be right up town. It sounds as if you have a winner there. Enjoy
it and if you find you do not really need all that 1 gig of RAM
just send 512 or so that I can add to mine. I have only a puny 512
RAM here.
Shaun Braley wrote:

Click to expand...

All it says is NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600 but i did got the upgrade
above the graphics card: 128MB NVIDIA GeForce FX(TM) 5200

--
Mikee
http://www.phoetic.net/photography
aim sn: photo freak 81

--
Equipment list in profile.
Favorite photographer: Monte Nagler
http://www.pbase.com/digifan

Mikee · Nov 24, 2003

Michael Entin said:
You did not say anything about THE most importaint part
for digital photographer: your monitor!

Remember that you view your pictures on a monitor and
a good monitor is much more important than anything else.

The HP Pavilion vf17 17"" TFT flat panel display, the dot pitch was not given, but i remember talking to a bestbuy worker and he had great things to say about this monitor. but then again he's there to sell.. ahh i wish i was computer savy.

--
Mikee
http://www.phoetic.net/photography
aim sn: photo freak 81

Michael Entin · Nov 24, 2003

I've found f1703 on the web, is it what you bought?

250 nits brightness; 350:1 contrast ratio,
1280x1024 resolution - you should be fine

It does not have DVI input though (only analog VGA). This
resolution is close to maximum you can get with analog input.

Usually picture is quite good, but if you think you don't get the
crisp picture (which you should expect from TFT), exchange
it (and maybe video card) for something with DVI-input support.

mikee81 said:
Michael Entin said:

You did not say anything about THE most importaint part
for digital photographer: your monitor!

Remember that you view your pictures on a monitor and
a good monitor is much more important than anything else.

Click to expand...

The HP Pavilion vf17 17"" TFT flat panel display, the dot pitch was
not given, but i remember talking to a bestbuy worker and he had
great things to say about this monitor. but then again he's there
to sell.. ahh i wish i was computer savy.

--
Mikee
http://www.phoetic.net/photography
aim sn: photo freak 81

DrWerner · Nov 24, 2003

Mike,

Truthfully, the color rendition in the 17" flat panel display will not be as good as that in a CRT monitor - and the cost is higher. If your "angle of viewing" changes even 10 degrees (primarily vertical), you'll see a subtle, but noticeable color shift. Look at a pure black & white screen (e.g. this forum?) to see this. Similar for top of monitor vs bottom of monitor colors if you aren't exactly centered vertically. With a CRT you can actually tune the colors. With a flat panel, you're (mostly) stuck. Also, the TFT will change color and density of the presentation depending on ambient lighting more than a CRT.

Only downsides of a CRT are size, heat output, and "they need to warm up (5 or 10 minutes) before showing true colors."

Your system is great with that one exception (my opinion). If you truly value your eyesight (oh, yeah: flat panels are harder on the eyes - you'll find yourself blinking more to compensate) and color trueness, you'll swap to a CRT.

DrW

mikee81 said:
Michael Entin said:

You did not say anything about THE most importaint part
for digital photographer: your monitor!

Remember that you view your pictures on a monitor and
a good monitor is much more important than anything else.

Click to expand...

The HP Pavilion vf17 17"" TFT flat panel display, the dot pitch was
not given, but i remember talking to a bestbuy worker and he had
great things to say about this monitor. but then again he's there
to sell.. ahh i wish i was computer savy.

--
Mikee
http://www.phoetic.net/photography
aim sn: photo freak 81

SD Diver · Nov 24, 2003

Mikee,

Only recomendations I'd make are get more storage! 160 gb drives are usually under $100 after rebates. Go and add an external FW or USB2 case for it. I'm at close to a terabyte already! Also, lots of contoversy as to DVD-R vs DVD+R. If you are still at the configuring your system stage, you may want to see if they offer a DVD+ -R for the greatest versatility (you can usually get the Pioneer A106 for ~$150).

Sounds like a great system!

--SD Diver

Michael Entin · Nov 24, 2003

DrWerner said:
Mike,

Truthfully, the color rendition in the 17" flat panel display will
not be as good as that in a CRT monitor - and the cost is higher.

The quality was not good 3 years ago, but now LCDs are as good
as most CRTs. Still about 50% more expensive than comparable
CRT, but it well worth it.

I can't say anything about the one Mikee81 got, but I am
typing this on Dell FP2000, and it is great

DrWerner said:
If your "angle of viewing" changes even 10 degrees (primarily
vertical), you'll see a subtle, but noticeable color shift.

It takes much more than 10 degrees.

DrWerner said:
With a CRT you can actually
tune the colors. With a flat panel, you're (mostly) stuck.

You are not. I calibrated the monitor with ColorVision Spider,
and its colors are very good.

The benefit of LCD is that, unlike CRT, you don't have to calibrate
it every month.

DrWerner said:
the TFT will change color and density of the presentation depending
on ambient lighting more than a CRT.

It was big issue because of low brightness and contrast of older
monitors. While still true, it is not such a big issue anymore.

DrWerner said:
Only downsides of a CRT are size, heat output, and "they need to
warm up (5 or 10 minutes) before showing true colors."
Your system is great with that one exception (my opinion). If you
truly value your eyesight (oh, yeah: flat panels are harder on the
eyes - you'll find yourself blinking more to compensate) and color
trueness, you'll swap to a CRT.

No way. I am programmer and working a lot with computers, and
find my eyes are much better with LCD.

ryusen · Nov 25, 2003

I prefer XP Pro over XP Home
The video should be good enough for what you do.

A few pieces of advice:

Make regular backups and set a system restore point before doing any major changes
vigilantly patch your system. MS will be releasing a security rollup on the second tuesday of each month... go to windows update regularly to get it.
get a good firewall. the one included with XP is not that secure. If you can't get one of those ruoters with built in firewalls, get a software oen liek zonealarm (heck.. even if you get a hardware firewall, get zonealarm)
to visit grc.com they have some free utilities to help close soem additional security holes that MS does not have patches for.

therealting · Nov 25, 2003

I wouldn't worry about the video card as most of the speed you need will be the processor speed for the image manipulation, and you have plenty of oomph there.

In fact I'd say video card output quality is more important than speed for your usage - that's why I use an old Matrox G400 video card, because the DAC is just so good for 2D graphics. Useless for games, but I don't play games. Rather than spend the money on a faster video card, I'd get a bigger / better monitor.

As others have said - 120GB is not that much and you will want to expand. I typically use up half a gig when I download my pictures!

You may also want to consider a second hard drive as a backup for your data files, I keep all my data on two separate hard drives (not partitions of the same drive) and make CD backups as well, so that if one conks out I still have the other one as well as the CD backups (more hassle).

Have fun!

--
Johann
http://www.therealting.com/photos

kenliu117297 · Nov 25, 2003

Sounds great to me. Personally if I was getting a new computer for graphics editing, I would load up on as much disk space as possible and as much RAM as possible. 1.5 Gigs of RAM or more is not too much, especially at today's prices. However, RAM prices continually fall, and it's easy to drop in another DIMM in the future if you have an empty slot. I think the higher end video cards won't make much difference for graphics editing work, especially at 1280x1024 resolution. The more expensive video cards are generally oriented towards fast 3D performance for video games. I would rather spend the extra bucks on monitor calibration hardware. If you are really serious about graphics, you'll want to also make sure that your video card can support a second monitor -- at the prices these days you'll probably want a second one before long.

I would also recommend an external hard drive for doing instant backups. Backing up to optical media is good but it can be a pain, but it's not something you want to do every day. With the new crop of external drives, you can push a button on the drive and the backup will kick off immediately. I back up my computer every few days this way.

mikee81 said:
I bought a customizable computer from HP today and just wanted to
know if it's a good computer (mainly for graphic design, photo
editing and surfing the net)

Some SPECS:

2.6GHz Hyper-Threading, Pentium4
Windows XP Home Edition
1 GB DDR/PC3200 (2 DIMM)
120 GB 7200
8X DVD+RW/+R (DVD writer & CD-writer combo)
secondary drive 48x max hp CD-Writer Drive (48x24x48x)
2 USB 2.0, 1EEE 1394, 7 in 1 reader
Graphics Card: NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600

Dr. Don Sandell · Nov 25, 2003

DrWerner · Nov 25, 2003

Michael Entin said:
DrWerner said:

Mike,

Truthfully, the color rendition in the 17" flat panel display will
not be as good as that in a CRT monitor - and the cost is higher.

Click to expand...

The quality was not good 3 years ago, but now LCDs are as good
as most CRTs. Still about 50% more expensive than comparable
CRT, but it well worth it.

I can't say anything about the one Mikee81 got, but I am
typing this on Dell FP2000, and it is great

Michael Entin said:

If your "angle of viewing" changes even 10 degrees (primarily
vertical), you'll see a subtle, but noticeable color shift.

Click to expand...

It takes much more than 10 degrees.

Michael Entin said:

With a CRT you can actually
tune the colors. With a flat panel, you're (mostly) stuck.

Click to expand...

You are not. I calibrated the monitor with ColorVision Spider,
and its colors are very good.

The benefit of LCD is that, unlike CRT, you don't have to calibrate
it every month.

Michael Entin said:

the TFT will change color and density of the presentation depending
on ambient lighting more than a CRT.

Click to expand...

It was big issue because of low brightness and contrast of older
monitors. While still true, it is not such a big issue anymore.

Michael Entin said:

Only downsides of a CRT are size, heat output, and "they need to
warm up (5 or 10 minutes) before showing true colors."
Your system is great with that one exception (my opinion). If you
truly value your eyesight (oh, yeah: flat panels are harder on the
eyes - you'll find yourself blinking more to compensate) and color
trueness, you'll swap to a CRT.

Click to expand...

No way. I am programmer and working a lot with computers, and
find my eyes are much better with LCD.

To each his own. I've only been working with computers for 35 years now. Worked 20 years in Silicon Valley (including HP).

Each person's eyes are different, and yours might be the exception.

"Not a big issue any more" does not mean it shouldn't be considered. My favorite workspot has lots of windows for daylight and lots of tungsten at night. It's a BIG consideration for me.

"As good as most CRTs" = The really good CRTs used for photo work are superior to average LCDs. Look at what ILM uses. Look at what Mike bought. It's only mediocre for this application. On such a screen (like the HP I'm using now), I can see color shifts with LESS than 10 degrees of body shift. Depends on your eyes. Change the red component by 5 (on 255 RGB hex scale). I can tell the difference. Can Mike? Can you? Like I said: "To each his own."

evan · Nov 25, 2003

i do some graphics work and i know the diffrences ..u need faster H.D it's very important it dose more than half of the job .. and 1 GIG ddram maybe the pc4000=500mhz ....2.6 HT is quite enough i got the 2.4 800bus before 2 month now i got the 3.0 GHZ .. GL .. good pick but try to do something with the H.D .. if u want it for graphics and PS work .. other wise 7200 is good .

Jettubby · Nov 25, 2003

Only thing I'd be concerned about is the motherboard. That's the heart of a system and most overlooked. 99% of the OEMs use stripped down Intel motherboards. Not necessairly "bad" but can't hold water in performance to say an Asus board.

Always remember: "A system is only as good as it's worst part"

Kenny126764 · Nov 25, 2003

Great system! You will be able to burn all your images to a DVDR. Great!
You'll have advantage in fast post processing too.

mikee81 said:
I bought a customizable computer from HP today and just wanted to
know if it's a good computer (mainly for graphic design, photo
editing and surfing the net)

Some SPECS:

2.6GHz Hyper-Threading, Pentium4
Windows XP Home Edition
1 GB DDR/PC3200 (2 DIMM)
120 GB 7200
8X DVD+RW/+R (DVD writer & CD-writer combo)
secondary drive 48x max hp CD-Writer Drive (48x24x48x)
2 USB 2.0, 1EEE 1394, 7 in 1 reader
Graphics Card: NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600

any help would be great, thanks.

--
Mikee
http://www.phoetic.net/photography
aim sn: photo freak 81

--

------------------------------------
English is not my 1st language

Digital Rebel
128 & 256mb Simpletech
256MB Lexar 12x

Mikee · Nov 27, 2003

--
Mikee
http://www.phoetic.net/photography
aim sn: photo freak 81

bretton · Nov 27, 2003

looks good ... dvd writer sounds nice.

is that hard drive 8mb cache? I recommend, I have two

mikee81 said:
I bought a customizable computer from HP today and just wanted to
know if it's a good computer (mainly for graphic design, photo
editing and surfing the net)

Some SPECS:

2.6GHz Hyper-Threading, Pentium4
Windows XP Home Edition
1 GB DDR/PC3200 (2 DIMM)
120 GB 7200
8X DVD+RW/+R (DVD writer & CD-writer combo)
secondary drive 48x max hp CD-Writer Drive (48x24x48x)
2 USB 2.0, 1EEE 1394, 7 in 1 reader
Graphics Card: NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600

any help would be great, thanks.

--
Mikee
http://www.phoetic.net/photography
aim sn: photo freak 81

--
bretton lewis
xhalation.com

rbmorse · Nov 27, 2003

I've had two Raptors fail within two weeks of each other. One was the logic board, the other was something internal to the head positioning mechinism. Never again.

peter/c · Nov 27, 2003

Chillihead said:
Chillihead said:

Chillihead said:

Some SPECS:

2.6GHz Hyper-Threading, Pentium4
Windows XP Home Edition
1 GB DDR/PC3200 (2 DIMM)
120 GB 7200
8X DVD+RW/+R (DVD writer & CD-writer combo)
secondary drive 48x max hp CD-Writer Drive (48x24x48x)
2 USB 2.0, 1EEE 1394, 7 in 1 reader
Graphics Card: NVIDIA GeForce FX 5600

any help would be great, thanks.

--
Mikee
http://www.phoetic.net/photography
aim sn: photo freak 81

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I would swap you for mine anyday!

O/T Who knows about Computers?

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Member

Well-known member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Member

Senior Member

Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Member

Forum Enthusiast

Active member

Keyboard shortcuts