39 Mp digital back

[victor4]

New PhaseOne offerings include a 39Mp back.

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/phase-one-0705.shtml

[gan_esh]

Man!, probable cost's a bomb and a half.

 

I still think film rules, but I guess digital is the future.

[kelly_flanigan1]

The comment <I>"(Don't even think of opening a quarter gig file in Photoshop unless you have at least 2GB of RAM in your computer). "</i><BR><BR> is interesting. <BR><BR>With our Phase One 4x5 scan back; the image is only 35 Megapixel; and makes 105meg files; very easy to work with 512megs of ram. Phase One then recommended using a <bPentium with 256megs as a minimum; with 512megs being a trick settup</b> ; when we got our 35 Mp Phase One back. For scanning we use 200Mhz PPro and 512megs; or 333Mhz Pii with 768Megs; the speed of the computer doesnt matter with a slow tethered rig. A P4 with 2 gigs of ram at 3Ghz doent scan any quicker than a 166Mhz Pentium. <BR><BR>One should be able to open 256meg files with 1 gig of ram; any use 2 gigs if one needs to alot of fancy Photoshop. <BR><BR>The author must be abit green with photoshop if he thinks 2 gigs is a minimum; with a 256meg file; or have a poor computer settup.

[roger krueger]

By the time you get files that big you want to do as much as you can in batches, at which

point speed and memory are both fairly irrelevant.

 

I regularly have 5-8 six+ layer 16-bit 1dsII files open on my 2x1ghz 1.5GB Mac and have

no complaints. Tweaking adjustment and retouch layeres is fairly responsive, then I go do

something else while a batch saves, and then resaves a web version.

[Dave Luttmann]

Actually Kelly, I think you may be green. Have you ever rezzed up a 108 meg (that's 8 bit by the way) file to print a 20x30 or larger? If you work in 16 bit, you'll be looking at a 220 or so meg file. Throw in a couple of layers and history, and 512mb of RAM will leave your hard drive thrashing.

 

I use a 1DS, and for 20x30 prints and working in 16bit with layers, my 2gb of RAM is GONE. Remember, PS likes to have a minimum of 5 times the photos size in MB. Thus, even 108MB needs at least 540MB of RAM.

 

Don't forget, you need a good 128 to 256 MB just to run your OS....thus 512 really leaves you with about 256 to 384. Which isn't enough....period!

[john_banister1]

Given my druthers, I'd prefer a back with 4 shot capability and a 16Mp - 6cm x 6cm sensor.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Dave; I run a print shop; where a 20x30" is often the smallest image we fool with on our 36 or 54" wide printers. One ancient RIP box for an older 36" wide printer uses NT 3.51 ; and a Pentium 167Mhz with 512megs of ram on a special server type system. It can process a 50meg image with in a couple of minutes; a 100meg image in several minutes. The largest file I have sent to it is about 500megs; when our other printers are down for service. I buy several thousand dollars worth of inkjet ink per year; and about a ton of paper per week. In a real life print shop situation; having more ram is important to reduce bogs and bottlenecks. Spending money on gamers cards has no return on investment. Many of our Photoshop boxes have alot more ram than the general publics PC's' since we have less time to fart around. We had a win2000 Photoshop box with 2 gigs of ram 3 years ago. We had a 1 gig box with dual 200mhz Pentium Pros and NT when most folks had a pentium and 16 to 32 megs of ram. The green writer made comments about big files that require 2 gigs; that work fine here with 1 gig; or even 768 megs with some scratch action. The problem might be that in a printers relm one sorts thru the BS of "experts" and one runs alot of tests;a nd runs way cleaner photoshop boxes; with little clutter. Here I have now about 20 boxes ; many are dual boot; dual processor. It only take a few minutes to try larger files on the various boxes; to see if there is any bog.

[Dave Luttmann]

Kelly,

 

We were not talking about a 50 meg file. A 20x30 is well over 100MB in 8bit, and nearly 250MB in 16 bit. A machine with 512mb of RAM and XP Pro running will grind to a halt when working on a 250MB file. If you're working on it with layers and any respectable amount of correction history, then you'll be waiting many minutes. I prefer to wait a few seconds. And I don't need a bank of dual boat servers to figure that out!

[c4-contemporary-art]

jesus people. get a mac.

[steve_swinehart]

"jesus people. get a mac."

 

Why?

[michael_j._kravit1]

I wish these MAC dudes would run side by side tests. In my office we use both Macs and PC's for Photoshop and CAD. The PC's are faster and crashes are almost non existent, more than I can say for the G4's and 5's running Panther or later.

 

The Mac mystique is just urban legend.

[c4-contemporary-art]

why?

Because my six year old G3 at home completely TOASTS the brand new 2

point whatever MHz Dell machines in our office - I can open and

manipulate 200Mb files with complete EASE - about eight seconds for a

save. The Dells grind to a complete HALT with anything over 50Mb.

Photoshop opens in about five seconds versus thirty in the office. To say

NOTHING of the quality of windows apps or the poorly considered (IMHO

granted!) interface and toolkit. What more can I say? This is my experience

of wintel machines. They ARE good for what they were made for, however -

being gaming and surfing porn. I mean... let's be honest.

 

Hmmm... wonder if I'm going to get flamed for this?? My guess is yes.