So how fast is your system?

[Dave Brennan103047]

There's been a lot of talk here recently about what kind of computer everyone has. How about some real world results as far as the speed of doing basic operations? I ask this because I'm in the process of either upgrading or replacing my computer, which I use almost exclusively for Photoshop and Nikon View work, and am trying to figure out how much real world improvement I could expect.

Any of you folks with a fast system care to time a few tests for comparison's sake? For instance, to open a D100 raw NEF (full res, not compressed) in PS (6.0) using the NV (5) plug-in takes me 13 sec just to get to the Raw Adjustments dialog box, and another 36 sec after that to put the picture up on the screen in PS. To convert it from 16 to 8 bit takes 7 secs. To rotate the canvas 17.3 degrees CCW (seemed like a good, weird number for PS to crunch) takes 31 sec for the original 16 bit file. In NV, just to open a photo full size from the thumbnail takes 18 sec.

I'm chugging along with a Celeron 500, 256 meg, 40g 7200 RPM cheapy Maxtor, on-board video. By the time I add up the cost of my ultimate system, I'm half tempted to go back and just try to crank this one up with faster CPU, 512 RAM, and a faster HD to see what kind of improvement I get.

Any input appreciated!

Thanks!

Dave

 

[dannv]

Dave, Dave, Dave. have you been sleeping through the computer revolution?

seriously, you shouldn't have to ask whether upgrading from a toy computer (er celeron, i mean) with on-board video is going to help. just a quick comparison - i just opened a nef on my 333mhz intel with mid-range (i.e.$150) graphics accelerated video in

don't let the processor speed rating fool you, the graphics and data transfer subsystem on Celeron machines is what's killing you. so when you upgrade, don't bother with the low low end regardless of processor rating. you also don't need to buy the latest screamers. you will be quite comfortable in a mid-range (say a Dell 4500 or Gateway 500) and notice great improvements. (just did the test on one of my new 1.8mhz machines with higher end graphics -- just over 3 secs. now I'M running into the limits of the data transfer subsystem from the hard drive).

good luck...dav

 

[Dave Harpe]

In your current system, take the ram up to 1GB total and get a 10,000 RPM drive and you will see a remarkable improvement in speed.

At 256 MB RAM, you are probably paging to disk everytime you open a big file, which kills your performance. RAM is cheap. Don't stop at 512...1024 is where you want to be.

The 10K RPM drive will help a great deal as well. Make it a second drive - don't just swap your existing drive. It's always better to have your system files on one drive and your data on the other.

All of that should cost you less than $500, and you'll have a really nice boost in performance...

Dave

There's been a lot of talk here recently about what kind of
computer everyone has. How about some real world results as far as
the speed of doing basic operations? I ask this because I'm in the
process of either upgrading or replacing my computer, which I use
almost exclusively for Photoshop and Nikon View work, and am trying
to figure out how much real world improvement I could expect.

Any of you folks with a fast system care to time a few tests for
comparison's sake? For instance, to open a D100 raw NEF (full res,
not compressed) in PS (6.0) using the NV (5) plug-in takes me 13
sec just to get to the Raw Adjustments dialog box, and another 36
sec after that to put the picture up on the screen in PS. To
convert it from 16 to 8 bit takes 7 secs. To rotate the canvas 17.3
degrees CCW (seemed like a good, weird number for PS to crunch)
takes 31 sec for the original 16 bit file. In NV, just to open a
photo full size from the thumbnail takes 18 sec.

I'm chugging along with a Celeron 500, 256 meg, 40g 7200 RPM cheapy
Maxtor, on-board video. By the time I add up the cost of my
ultimate system, I'm half tempted to go back and just try to crank
this one up with faster CPU, 512 RAM, and a faster HD to see what
kind of improvement I get.

Any input appreciated!

Thanks!

Dave

 

[Group Idiot]

It's funny you bring this up.

I just pieced together my annual "dream system." A 2.8 GHz P4 overclocked to 3.2GHz on an Asus P4T533-C mobo running 2GB of PC1066 RAMBUS. I'm using eight (8) new Western Digital WD2000JB (8M buffer) in a true hot-swap RAID 5 configuration on a 3Ware Escalade 8500-8 64-bit SATA controller (at 32 bit ;-( with converters. I get sustained throughput of 120Mb/sec throughout the transfer--from beginning to end. Graphics is, of course, a Radeon 9700 Pro 128M hooked to dual Eizo L675 18.1" LCD flat panels (had them for a year now--still $1,600 each). Naturally, I have the obligatory Pioneer A04 DVD-R drive and TDK 48X CDRW as well. Oh yeah, it's all stuffed into a giant, side-by-side server chassis pedastal with redundant, hot swap, N+1 550W power supplies.

And I don't even own a joystick ;-)

I can take pictures if you wanna be REALLY sick ;-)

Brendan
--
Blah, blah, blah, camera, blah, blah, blah, lenses, blah, blah, blah, no ego.

 

[Dave Brennan103047]

Ok, ok. So I have a clunky system. The problem is that my current MB can only go to a max of 866 mhz and 512 meg RAM. Instead, I think I'm leaning toward a new system after hearing dannv's times with his machine. And Group Idiot's battlewagon sounds like a downright fire hazard.

I'm still curious to hear others' times for some of these operations I described.

Thanks!

Dave

 

[Group Idiot]

Ok, ok. So I have a clunky system. The problem is that my current
MB can only go to a max of 866 mhz and 512 meg RAM. Instead, I
think I'm leaning toward a new system after hearing dannv's times
with his machine. And Group Idiot's battlewagon sounds like a
downright fire hazard.

Hehe...flick the switch and watch the neighbors lights dim ;-)

Brendan
--
Blah, blah, blah, camera, blah, blah, blah, lenses, blah, blah, blah, no ego.

 

[Ron Reznick]

Dave, as stated you will find a significant performance advantage in adding RAM, but you should at least consider going to an 1800 XP Athlon (well under $100) and relatively high-speed hard drives. To answer your question re: speed, I don't use the PS plug-in for opening NEFs (I process in Capture), but I can tell you that with my dual 2000 MP system and Cheetah x15 (15,000rpm U160 SCSI) hard drives, I have an active file in under 2 sec. in Capture. While throughput on a 15,000rpm SCSI drive is not 120MB/sec. as in the rather expensive RAID setup mentioned elsewhere here, it exceeds 55MB/sec. and is capable of both read and write operations simultaneously -- moving files from one drive to another is quite rapid as a result. The additional advantage of being able to handle large-scale file I/O while doing other things on a system makes SCSI a good option for a professional system (you can handle a CD or DVD burn while batch-processing files and handling other tasks simultaneously -- this saves quite a bit of time daily). The exceptional multi-tasking capabilities of a dual-CPU system and SCSI drives saves my clients an average of 3-4 hours per week (some quite a bit more). I know for a fact that my workflow improved to the point where identical operations done on a similar single-CPU system vs. a dual-CPU system saved approximately 45 minutes per day when I ran the tests -- and both of these were SCSI-based. Reduce one to IDE and the difference becomes tremendous.

Ron

There's been a lot of talk here recently about what kind of
computer everyone has. How about some real world results as far as
the speed of doing basic operations? I ask this because I'm in the
process of either upgrading or replacing my computer, which I use
almost exclusively for Photoshop and Nikon View work, and am trying
to figure out how much real world improvement I could expect.

Any of you folks with a fast system care to time a few tests for
comparison's sake? For instance, to open a D100 raw NEF (full res,
not compressed) in PS (6.0) using the NV (5) plug-in takes me 13
sec just to get to the Raw Adjustments dialog box, and another 36
sec after that to put the picture up on the screen in PS. To
convert it from 16 to 8 bit takes 7 secs. To rotate the canvas 17.3
degrees CCW (seemed like a good, weird number for PS to crunch)
takes 31 sec for the original 16 bit file. In NV, just to open a
photo full size from the thumbnail takes 18 sec.

I'm chugging along with a Celeron 500, 256 meg, 40g 7200 RPM cheapy
Maxtor, on-board video. By the time I add up the cost of my
ultimate system, I'm half tempted to go back and just try to crank
this one up with faster CPU, 512 RAM, and a faster HD to see what
kind of improvement I get.

Any input appreciated!

Thanks!

Dave

--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com

 

[Group Idiot]

He can get away with a newer, dedicated IDE drive if he uses a separate controller that avoids using any CPU, otherwise SCSI, in single drive or lower capacity systems is optimal. I have a small dual AMD MP 2200+ workstation that just serves as my wife's Photoshop and Avid editing system that uses an Adaptec 3200 RAID controller and four (4) 73GB Cheetah X15's. You're right about SMP, the multitasking is a huge benefit if you can make use of it. It doesn't increase Photoshop times on most things by much, if at all, but in Avid it make a sizeable difference. Also, with SMP mobos you get PCI-X or 64-bit slots that can take advantage of all those U160/320 controllers and/or gigabit NICs. Of course, at $800 apiece for the drives, $400+ for the mobo, $700 for the controller, $500 per GB of quality ECC, and then stuff like monitors, CDRs, DVD-Rs, etc, it adds up fast ;-)

It's all about the bucks.

Brendan
--
Blah, blah, blah, camera, blah, blah, blah, lenses, blah, blah, blah, no ego.

 

[Leon Obers]

Nice to hear the specs of your virtual dream machine (= machine in your dreams).

Just give answer to the question of the OP: What are the times for several calculations and loading etc. Tempering your arrogance should be a good act of the day.

--
Leon Obers

 

[Ron Reznick]

My system uses a $235 mobo, a $225 SCSI controller, and two $360 SCSI drives for primary working space. I do have a 120GB WD JB-series drive in an external Firewire case for local archival, but find that the high-speed SCSI working space is thoroughly adequate for my needs at 72GB (I have plenty of working room as long as I either burn CDs or DVDs to clear past projects now and then). While I do not personally edit video (several of my clients do, both professionally (directors, editors, etc.) and home-video), I do shoot several GB per week -- sometimes as much as 12-15GB -- and find that I have plenty of room for that as well as vector graphics, CAD and other production that occurs around here.

While a fast system for professional use is rarely cheap, it certainly does not have to cost as much as what you refer to for storage to get the job done well. I have a number of clients on this board... maybe one or two will chime in here with some of their observations (John? Tom? Michael? Ross? Bruce? Stephen? Arnie? -- anyone reading?).

Ron

He can get away with a newer, dedicated IDE drive if he uses a
separate controller that avoids using any CPU, otherwise SCSI, in
single drive or lower capacity systems is optimal. I have a small
dual AMD MP 2200+ workstation that just serves as my wife's
Photoshop and Avid editing system that uses an Adaptec 3200 RAID
controller and four (4) 73GB Cheetah X15's. You're right about SMP,
the multitasking is a huge benefit if you can make use of it. It
doesn't increase Photoshop times on most things by much, if at all,
but in Avid it make a sizeable difference. Also, with SMP mobos you
get PCI-X or 64-bit slots that can take advantage of all those
U160/320 controllers and/or gigabit NICs. Of course, at $800 apiece
for the drives, $400+ for the mobo, $700 for the controller, $500
per GB of quality ECC, and then stuff like monitors, CDRs, DVD-Rs,
etc, it adds up fast ;-)

It's all about the bucks.

Brendan
--
Blah, blah, blah, camera, blah, blah, blah, lenses, blah, blah,
blah, no ego.

--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com

 

[BKKSW]

Dave -

You have to wait for an NEF to come on screen? Really.. I suppose you could turn the crank a bit faster.. Wait? Gosh.. If I have top wait on my computer it's time to fire it and get one that can follow directions :O)

Good luck with your upgrading..

BKKSW

There's been a lot of talk here recently about what kind of
computer everyone has. How about some real world results as far as
the speed of doing basic operations? I ask this because I'm in the
process of either upgrading or replacing my computer, which I use
almost exclusively for Photoshop and Nikon View work, and am trying
to figure out how much real world improvement I could expect.

Any of you folks with a fast system care to time a few tests for
comparison's sake? For instance, to open a D100 raw NEF (full res,
not compressed) in PS (6.0) using the NV (5) plug-in takes me 13
sec just to get to the Raw Adjustments dialog box, and another 36
sec after that to put the picture up on the screen in PS. To
convert it from 16 to 8 bit takes 7 secs. To rotate the canvas 17.3
degrees CCW (seemed like a good, weird number for PS to crunch)
takes 31 sec for the original 16 bit file. In NV, just to open a
photo full size from the thumbnail takes 18 sec.

I'm chugging along with a Celeron 500, 256 meg, 40g 7200 RPM cheapy
Maxtor, on-board video. By the time I add up the cost of my
ultimate system, I'm half tempted to go back and just try to crank
this one up with faster CPU, 512 RAM, and a faster HD to see what
kind of improvement I get.

Any input appreciated!

Thanks!

Dave

 

[David Cappello]

There's been a lot of talk here recently about what kind of
computer everyone has. How about some real world results as far as
the speed of doing basic operations? I ask this because I'm in the
process of either upgrading or replacing my computer, which I use
almost exclusively for Photoshop and Nikon View work, and am trying
to figure out how much real world improvement I could expect.

Any of you folks with a fast system care to time a few tests for
comparison's sake? For instance, to open a D100 raw NEF (full res,
not compressed) in PS (6.0) using the NV (5) plug-in takes me 13
sec just to get to the Raw Adjustments dialog box, and another 36
sec after that to put the picture up on the screen in PS. To
convert it from 16 to 8 bit takes 7 secs. To rotate the canvas 17.3
degrees CCW (seemed like a good, weird number for PS to crunch)
takes 31 sec for the original 16 bit file. In NV, just to open a
photo full size from the thumbnail takes 18 sec.

I'm chugging along with a Celeron 500, 256 meg, 40g 7200 RPM cheapy
Maxtor, on-board video. By the time I add up the cost of my
ultimate system, I'm half tempted to go back and just try to crank
this one up with faster CPU, 512 RAM, and a faster HD to see what
kind of improvement I get.

Any input appreciated!

Thanks!

Dave

Well - on my dual 1gig Mac G4 - which is where I do most if not all my work.
Here is what I get:
view a NEF in file browser in PS 7 - 2 sec., open file in PS 7 NEF 16 sec.

rotate file in PS7 3 sec. 8 - 16 bit convert - it just happens. Everything else

in PS 7 is very quick. My only conplaint is the NEF open (plugin) - seems to take

for ever (16sec). I don't use Nikon View - just the plugin in PS. I don't have PS
7 on my 1.4 P4 so I can't really say, but other folks here have PCs that
seem to be responsive. I know at the local Fry's here they have low cost
MBs all the time you can usually get a MB + case + CPU and perhaps a CD
for about $300 bucks new - that is a 1.8 P4. You put it together, add some DRAM
and a vid card. Most all your other stuff from
your old machine would X-fer over (drives, mouse, kbrd etc. etc)
The celeron is killing you + the on board video.
7200RPMs are fine, save your $$ there and get more CPU and/or DRAM.
--
Regards, -David
http://www.pbase.com/dcappello/
http://www.telequest.net/~cappello

 

[VJ]

Any of you folks with a fast system care to time a few tests for
comparison's sake? For instance, to open a D100 raw NEF (full res,
not compressed) in PS (6.0) using the NV (5) plug-in takes me 13
sec just to get to the Raw Adjustments dialog box, and another 36
sec after that to put the picture up on the screen in PS.

It also takes my computer about 15s to get the dialog-box in Photoshop 5.5, but it then takes around 50s to put the picture on the screen. Starting up Photoshop in standalone takes 4-5 s. I haven't tested the other timings. Batch conversion of NEF to JPG (performing the adjustments that were already saved in the NEF - mostly exposure, sometimes sharpness and curves) takes slightly over 1 minute per photo.

I'm chugging along with a Celeron 500, 256 meg, 40g 7200 RPM cheapy
Maxtor, on-board video.

I'm using a PII-450 with 384 MB, 2 10K SCSI-drives, and a Matrox G200. I have read that the presence of certain instructions (that Intel introduced in the PIII and Celeron) makes for quite a difference. As my system is quite old (it is one of the first batches of the PII-450, so it was bought in 1998), I'm now also looking to upgrade to a Xeon (and possibly dual Xeon).

SCSI-disk make up for quite a lot of things, esp. when accessing files (lot of IDE-drives have high transferrates, but they still lag behind on seek times). I personally feel my system became far more "responsive" after switching from IDE to SCSI. But there are a number of downsides: the price of 10K drives is high (+ you need a decent controller), the noise (esp. my Quantum 10K is very noisy; the IBM 36LZX is quiter), the heat (you really need an adequate case to cool these drives) and the power consumption (power supply must be up to it). So as to SCSI is worth all these downsides, is another question (I personally think it is).

Basically, I think a well balanced system is what one needs (e.g. my system is now slightly out of balance, as the drives are very fast in comparison to the rest of the system). There is no point in having a very fast CPU if the harddisks are dog-slow (when it comes to image manipulation - gaming, etc. might have different demands). And, a lot of memory is always convenient...

Jörg

 

[Andrew Snow]

If I could put a slight twist on previous posts - I use a dual athlon cheetah X15 for my main workstation, as well as a simple cheap+old 3ware controller with twin 80GB drives, mirrored (so I can sleep soundly knowing I can back up my work to it and a dead drive won't ruin everything).

The dual athlons provide fantastic bang for buck over the top end intel xeon systems, and fast SCSI drives improve ANY system. As for RAM I found I couldn't notice much difference between 512mb and 768mb while working with D1H-sized images, so I'd be happy with 512mb as a minimum for a fast workstation. Opening images in Bibble takes only a moment.. I certainly wouldn't measure it in seconds.

• Andrew

 

[Greg Gebhardt]

There's been a lot of talk here recently about what kind of
computer everyone has. How about some real world results as far as
the speed of doing basic operations? I ask this because I'm in the
process of either upgrading or replacing my computer, which I use
almost exclusively for Photoshop and Nikon View work, and am trying
to figure out how much real world improvement I could expect.

Any of you folks with a fast system care to time a few tests for
comparison's sake? For instance, to open a D100 raw NEF (full res,
not compressed) in PS (6.0) using the NV (5) plug-in takes me 13
sec just to get to the Raw Adjustments dialog box, and another 36
sec after that to put the picture up on the screen in PS. To
convert it from 16 to 8 bit takes 7 secs. To rotate the canvas 17.3
degrees CCW (seemed like a good, weird number for PS to crunch)
takes 31 sec for the original 16 bit file. In NV, just to open a
photo full size from the thumbnail takes 18 sec.

I'm chugging along with a Celeron 500, 256 meg, 40g 7200 RPM cheapy
Maxtor, on-board video. By the time I add up the cost of my
ultimate system, I'm half tempted to go back and just try to crank
this one up with faster CPU, 512 RAM, and a faster HD to see what
kind of improvement I get.

Any input appreciated!

Thanks!

Dave

--

Its way too fast for any photographic software, but it makes 3d models in AutoCad move VERY smoothly! Its overkill!

Greg Gebhardt D1, D1x, CP5000 & CP5700
Jacksonville, Florida

 

[Dave Brennan103047]

Thanks for your help, Ron. I don't have the kind of money to spend for the setup you have (just your hard drives and controller are over a grand.) When I first started kicking around the idea of a new system, I thought about SCSI, but I'm trying to avoid the noise, heat, power, complexity, and especially cost, and was hoping I could get by with 2 WD JBs instead. I'm also looking at a P4 2.53 on the new Intel MB with the 845PE chipset, since I want the fast 333 DDR while avoiding RAMBUS. Dual processors again sound a bit complicated and expensive for me right now. Ditto RAID. I was also considering 1 gig of DDR CAS 2.0 RAM, a Matrox 550, and the assorted CDRW, etc.

It sounds like this setup could give me a big boost in most of these imaging tasks. I want to be sure I'm not throwing money away on only an incremental improvement. Any additional input appreciated.

Thanks to all for your help.

Dave

 

[John Cote]

Dave

I did a test on my SGI dual PIII 866. I have both a 10,000RPM SCSI drive and a 7,500RPM IDE drive on the machine. I opened the NEFF file from both drives and did the rotation from both drives twice. The average of the results were as follows:

To get to the NEFF dialog box: IDE 6 sec., SCSI 3+sec.

To open the file in PS7: IDE 18-20sec., SCSI 10 sec

Rotate 17.3: IDE 26sec., SCSI 11sec.

I was surprised by the rotate speed increase, but it seemed to be consistant. I agree that processor speed is not everything. Be sure to look at video speed and all the "pipe" through which data passes around your box. I am really not sure SCSI is worth the money with the speed of IDE these days, but if you want the ultimate in reliability and speed it is hard to beat. There is no way to have too much RAM.

--
John Cote
http://www.interstatetime.com

 

[John Cote]

Dave,

I just restarted my machine and closed all programs except PS7 and did the tests again. This time the times for the IDE drive were somewhat faster and the SCSI drive only beat it by about 30%. I don't really know how scientific this is. There can be a lot going on inside the box which can influence the time it takes to get to a task.

Anyway, my advice with the price of computers today is to ditch the old box and build or have one built to your specs. Go with top of the line or near top of the line video.

Dave

I did a test on my SGI dual PIII 866. I have both a 10,000RPM SCSI
drive and a 7,500RPM IDE drive on the machine. I opened the NEFF
file from both drives and did the rotation from both drives twice.
The average of the results were as follows:

To get to the NEFF dialog box: IDE 6 sec., SCSI 3+sec.

To open the file in PS7: IDE 18-20sec., SCSI 10 sec

Rotate 17.3: IDE 26sec., SCSI 11sec.

I was surprised by the rotate speed increase, but it seemed to be
consistant. I agree that processor speed is not everything. Be sure
to look at video speed and all the "pipe" through which data passes
around your box. I am really not sure SCSI is worth the money with
the speed of IDE these days, but if you want the ultimate in
reliability and speed it is hard to beat. There is no way to have
too much RAM.

--
John Cote
http://www.interstatetime.com

--
John Cote
http://www.interstatetime.com

 

[Norge]

There's been a lot of talk here recently about what kind of
computer everyone has. How about some real world results as far as
the speed of doing basic operations? I ask this because I'm in the
process of either upgrading or replacing my computer, which I use
almost exclusively for Photoshop and Nikon View work, and am trying
to figure out how much real world improvement I could expect.

Any of you folks with a fast system care to time a few tests for
comparison's sake? For instance, to open a D100 raw NEF (full res,
not compressed) in PS (6.0) using the NV (5) plug-in takes me 13
sec just to get to the Raw Adjustments dialog box, and another 36
sec after that to put the picture up on the screen in PS. To
convert it from 16 to 8 bit takes 7 secs. To rotate the canvas 17.3
degrees CCW (seemed like a good, weird number for PS to crunch)
takes 31 sec for the original 16 bit file. In NV, just to open a
photo full size from the thumbnail takes 18 sec.

I'm chugging along with a Celeron 500, 256 meg, 40g 7200 RPM cheapy
Maxtor, on-board video. By the time I add up the cost of my
ultimate system, I'm half tempted to go back and just try to crank
this one up with faster CPU, 512 RAM, and a faster HD to see what
kind of improvement I get.

Timed it on an Athlon 1800+, 1gig RAM, PS 7:

To get the dialog box: 1+ sec
Into PS: 6+ sec
Rotate 17,3 CCW: almost 3 sec
16 to 8 bit: instantly

Hm, I think I'd sell that pc to an old lady and get a new one. Bying new parts for it...I'm not sure how compatible they would be(new motherboard etc.) if you were thinking of those parts being parts of an upgrade process.
--
Med hilsen fra lille Norge

 

[Ron Reznick]

Andrew, the RAM situation depends a lot on how you work with the various programs you use. When I manually-process images, for instance, I work with 15 D1x/D100 shots or 30 D1h shots at once, which very much increases workflow. Using 1.5GB leaves me about 400MB free for a catalog program (Thumbs+) and Pshop. With 1GB you can work with 10 or 20 respectively. 512MB allows you to work with 5 and 10. The problem with 512MB comes with multi-layer files in Pshop, or significant multitasking. It's easy to hit the wall. I'd say that 1GB is a minimum if you do a lot at once.

Bibble handles files differently... that's for certain :^)

Ron

If I could put a slight twist on previous posts - I use a dual
athlon cheetah X15 for my main workstation, as well as a simple
cheap+old 3ware controller with twin 80GB drives, mirrored (so I
can sleep soundly knowing I can back up my work to it and a dead
drive won't ruin everything).

The dual athlons provide fantastic bang for buck over the top end
intel xeon systems, and fast SCSI drives improve ANY system. As
for RAM I found I couldn't notice much difference between 512mb and
768mb while working with D1H-sized images, so I'd be happy with
512mb as a minimum for a fast workstation. Opening images in
Bibble takes only a moment.. I certainly wouldn't measure it in
seconds.

• Andrew

--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com