building a "hybrid photo" computer

I'm in the process of choosing components to build a pc to use in our studio. It will be dedicated to image editing and digital output, and won't have internet access or even a sound card. To keep the cost down, there will be no bells and whistles... just lots of memory and graphics-crunching power.

We will be scanning 120 film and 4x5 b&w film negs, and outputting up to 13" wide digital positives and negs for now with my Epson 1280... but want to be capable of going even larger in the future when $$ allows a new printer. So I want to "overbuild" if anything. ( I'm heading toward making photogravures, and my etching press bed is 30" wide)

Probably will use an AMD Athlon x2 processor unless I'm convinced otherwise.... but beyond that, what do you all suggest I get for a graphics card, and amounts of memory, etc?

Thanks for any advice!
susan

Susan, you may wish to rethink the internet access. Most software requires the ability to authenticate or validate. No app comes out without some bugs. Updates take care of this, and clean up or make more efficient aspects of your programs. Then, there are the plugins and other things that might need to be added...

I am using the X2 5000+ Athlon core and am well satisfied.There are some issues with video editing that require manually assigning a single processor to the task, but this does not seem to be an issue with static graphics.

2GB is pretty well the new standard. It is a requirement to make the new Vista OS run efficiently because it is a hog. Its game is to precache massive amounts of program op files "just in case" you start them up to make initial speed faster. I am staying with XP. 4GB is not a bad investment, but some programs in 32 bit can only access 2.

SATA or SCSI drives are the fastest and SATA seems to have become the new standard. As to graphics cards, many good selections are to be had in both NVidia and ATI/Radeon. I prefer the AGP mount over the PCI-E as the AGP is a dedicated video slot and can access the MB much faster. Get the most memory onboard as you can afford, and consider dual monitor support. Once you start working with two monitors, you will never go back...

Susan said:

Probably will use an AMD Athlon x2 processor unless I'm convinced otherwise.... but beyond that, what do you all suggest I get for a graphics card, and amounts of memory, etc?

Click to expand...

Honestly? Get a Mac.

I have a PC for all my "computer" stuff (like surfing the web right now) and a Mac for all my photo stuff.

Regards, Art.

OK, good thing I'm here asking, because I never thought about "needing" internet access for program updates, authentication, etc.. I have 3 computers on a wireless broadband access here, and I'm SO tired of "chasing bugs" that get in from the internet... the thought of having my graphics computer not even connected seemed like a wonderful thing. sigh....

I'll be using XP, but would like to be able to move to Vista later on. XP Pro is 64 bit isn't it? Would that be the way to go with the Athlon 64?

Two monitors... yeah I definitely want that. CRT's, too... or maybe one big CRT and a smaller lcd for keeping menus on? Does that work? Actually, which monitors is a whole other discussion for later, too.

PC vs Mac... Thanks for the advice, I have both now, so am very familiar. For this machine however, I want to stick with a PC.

The answer to buggies and beasties is to install something like Zone Alarm Pro firewall and lock your ports and apps down. I designed and administered a system of 7 servers and 63 workstations and all of the trouble came from users installing stupid "helper" and gimmick apps. That stopped when I locked all installation permissions down...

I am not sure that Vista is a good move for the next year or so until various issues are cleaned up. The OS has a great deal of DRM lockdowns in place and other buried management paradigms that are either not user friendly, or easy to change. Drivers will remain an issue for some time.

XP Pro by itself is not natively 64 bit. Dont even think about XP Home or Media Edition. There is a seperate 64 bit version of the program, and that only comes into its own when a 64 bit version of an application is installed. Drivers again are an issue, as many third party manufacturers are not bothering to write for older peripherals. Sell something new, you know... This is particularly a problem with scanners, cameras, printers, pen tablets, and custom graphics production equipment.

You may wish to think about panel display monitors. Conventional CRT displays can only deliver a certain range of color output. This is what the sRGB standard is based on. Panel displays have the capability of displaying the full Adobe RBG color profile. Additionally, calibration of monitors is easier with the panel display, and they are more amenable to using the calibration "spider" to fine tune display accuracy.

When I was doing web work, I set up one LCD and one CRT. Resolution on the first was at 1028 and the second at 800. This way I could drag the browser window (or photoshop) back and forth to see the real time differences between what a viewer would see in a variety of real world environments. The difference in color rendition and luminosity is tremendous.

I am now using dual 19" panels, with the same resolution because the work has turned to press ready preparation. The hot advantage to the other monitor is that a completely different application can be displayed on the second monitor, and all of the PhotoShop menus can be docked there as well. Very convenient for multitasking and clutter free editing.

I'm using a 17" Dell laptop w/ a core duo core processor and 2gb of RAM which just flies through CS2 while working on my Canon 400D, Panasonic Lumix-LX2, and 4"x5" digital negative scans. I do plan on purchasing a desktop computer sometime down the road this year and the 24" iMac really looks like the way to go...a 2ghz dual core processor with 2-4gb of RAm along with a wireless mouse and keyboard to interface with a wall-mounted 24" monitor sounds like heaven.

The following is only an opinion
Buy a mac. In the long run it will be cheaper, more reliable, require less hardware knowledge, and out of the box it is better suited to your needs.

If you wish to go with a PC. The AMD 2x 64 chips are great bang for the buck. Quadra or Fire GL graphic cards are excellent, but a bit expensive (600.00 and up). If you cannot afford a quadra or similar graphic card get a good, but not expensive gaming card (nvidia 6800, 7600 or ATI 1300).

Currently the only reason to buy Windows' 64 bit version is for the memory usage -- not for 64bit apps. If you plan on installing more than 3 gigs of ram go with windowsXP 64.

Build redundancy into to your system -- Plan on having a convenient no hassle back-up system; have your data stored on a raid 1 (preferably raid1+0); have your os/app drive burned onto a bootable restorable optical -- I'm working this one out currently, any suggestions would be appreciated.

A good system that is overbuilt for todays needs will last longer. A system that uses the newest socket (AM2 for AMD), and has room for more memory than you intend to install are generally good choices. Understanding that there will be failures and planning for them is a must.

Building the system your self can save you 30 to 50% over buying new with warranty from Dell. I'd recommend shopping newegg.com. If you're looking to buy pre built Dell is the benchmark.

Thanks for the responses.

Pragmatist... I don't understand what your'e speaking of when you say "panel display". Are you talking about LCDs? My understanding is that they are still not as good for graphics as a crt, but if I could get one that would accurately render color and even more important in my case... shades of gray... I'd love not having a huge crt taking up space. I could use guidance in this area for sure...

jd... I do want to design this to be upgradable for a while... so maybe going with xp 64 is a good idea, even though I'll prolly only get 2gigs of memory for now. I'm planning on using the AM2, also. And for backup... I already have an external hard drive I use for that, and I love it. My studio computer just went wonky on us ( hence the decision to finally upgrade to a newer one), and when my husband went white in the face, thinking of all his image files lost... it was nice to reassure him that at least 98% of them are safely backed up.

I'm going to do some more research and I'll keep reporting back here as I progress ( or especially if I get toooo confused ) ).

susan

I have switched to LCD's. They are not as good as a good CRT, but a good LCD should work well for you. The thing to look out for is an LCD that has a large contrast ratio (1:700 to 1:1000). make sure the monitor has a full set of tools (colour channel adjustments, colour temp, etc...) I use dual LCD's, but can only calibrate one because I have one, two headed graphic card and Windows will only apply one monitor profile per card. Eventually I may get a second card and a third monitor. IMHO two monitors offers the greatest leap in efficiency of any upgrade.

Finding a good CRT is going to get hard -- all the good crt companies are either out of business or have switched to lcd's. lacie was the best, Sony made an excellent line of high end monitors, but both have switched to LCD's. Viewsonics were and may still be very easily calibrated and reasonably priced. Like LCD's you'll want to find one that has a full set of adjustment tools, a high refresh rate and resolution. Resolution on a CRT may be somewhat more important for a CRT than an LCD.

Yeah I was plannig on a G series Viewsonic crt. Actually, the old gateway crt I've been used to using is such a piece of stuff, LOL. ANYTHING will be a huge improvement I'm sure! I'll do some checking into LCDs though... I sure would rather have those than crts as long as I can get a decent image.

thanks,
susan

jd callow said:

I use dual LCD's, but can only calibrate one because I have one, two headed video card and Windows will only apply one monitor profile per card. Eventually I may get a second card and a third monitor. IMHO two monitors offers the greatest leap in efficiency of any upgrade.

Click to expand...

That could be another argument for getting a Mac then, if memory serves OS X assigns profiles to the monitor, not the video card.

I'd agree that adding a second monitor is a really good upgrade to consider and unless you're looking at a motherboard with 2 slots for video cards you'll need a card that can run 2 large monitors at the same time. I say large because a lot of the cheaper video cards have a second output but if you check the specs you'll often find they can't run both outputs at a very high resolution.

I'd say getting a good dual head video card as Mr. Callow suggests is a good way to go so if you plan to run 2 calibrated displays, you should be looking at a Mac.

John, I am using the nVidia/GeForce solution, and am able to set ICC profiles for both monitors. #1 is running in sRGB, and #2 is in Adobe RGB. Also, more and more "panel" monitors are eliminating onboard controls beside basic brightness/contrast in favor of control applets on the computer. I have some more info, and will post later when I get to the office...

Look at EIZO displays as well. They have long been an indsutry leader in high-end displays, both CRT and LCD (like others almost exclusively LCD today). They are pricy but even their bottom line displays perform much better than most of the inexpensive off brands. They do have an online store where they sell a few discontinued and refurbished models and this is an excellent way to shop for their products.

We use three of their displays in our scanning workshops, shipping them all over the country and they perform flawlessly.

As for a good CRT, I believe Sony still makes one but it is (or was) in the $1500 range.

Pragmatist said:

John, I am using the nVidia/GeForce solution, and am able to set ICC profiles for both monitors. #1 is running in sRGB, and #2 is in Adobe RGB. Also, more and more "panel" monitors are eliminating onboard controls beside basic brightness/contrast in favor of control applets on the computer. I have some more info, and will post later when I get to the office...

Click to expand...

I'm running nVidia as well (both the cards and MB chipset) and I'm very happy with their products. The profiles are specific to the calibration requirements of the monitor and, in my case, are set by the colorvision spyder. I may be missing something here and would love to read your post on the subject. FWIW, I have never been happy with sRGB and would only use it begrudgingly as a last (client requested) resort for screen display only.

I didn't know that the nVidia controls and or hardware monitor applets may be able to adjust out put to meet the calibration needs. It makes sense. All the monitors that I looked at had the controls built-in to the monitor. It would also make sense to have the controls on the computer and the monitor be a 'dumb' device.

frugal,
When buying a dual headed card you need to be sure that the card can support the resolutions you require. Mine is in the 3k range so it wasn't an issue.

All the good MB's will have (at least) two PCI express slots.

Having said all that, I'd still recommend a MAC for a dedicated imaging workstation.

An excellent Mac will run about 25 - 50% more than a comparable PC (Dell - home built), but will have all these issues worked out for you prior to purchase. Over the long haul the MAC will be far easier to maintain, less susceptible to invasion, and if history holds true, take far longer to grow obsolete. I have a G3 recently upgraded with new OS, and apps sitting next to me. It runs like a champ.

jd callow said:

I have a G3 recently upgraded with new OS, and apps sitting next to me. It runs like a champ.

Click to expand...

What apps are you using that for?

Tom.

On the iBook (the one next to me) it has OSX 10.4, MS Office pro and the usual website tools. It replaces a wintel laptop of similar vintage that couldn't make the leap. I use it for web site/app regression testing and my wife uses it for editing and school.

On an older blue g3 (with the silver cd tray door and which I no longer have access to) which hadn't been upgraded beyond OS 9.x it has all the usual imaging sw plus some. It lived through at least 1 generation of wintel boxes and to my knowledge is still going strong. It could have easily been upgraded to OSX, but the healing brush wasn’t compelling enough to spend the money.

I setup a digital lab a few years back. It was really heart breaking. I updated their windows boxes to find them still lacking or barely meeting the bare minimum. I then replaced the important machines only to watch them become sloth like as otherwise intelligent people brought them to their knees because of their lack of IT chops. All the while the MACs, often with software a version or two out (some of the software was even out of production), would still perform as expected and made no great demands upon their users.

Meanwhile, I have an old intel box (1.5 ghz p4 w/ .5 gig Ram) which reached it’s level of incompetence with winXP and CS1. I have installed linux on it and use it to capture video with a small amount of editing. It is as if the machine has gotten a new lease on life.