PC Upgrade to speed up scanning?

[brad_herman1]

<p>Hi; Hopefully, I am on the right forum, but here goes anyway.<br>

I just picked up a Nikon Coolscan V ED Scanner. I'm using the Nikon Scan software to scan my negatives and slides etc. So far, I'm pleased with the results, and I'm aware that creating a 4000dpi TIFF file (135MB file) can take some time. A new PC is currently not in my current budget, but I was wondering if a memory and OS upgrade will improve things a bit?<br>

I currently own an HP XW4400 Workstation 2.40 Ghz Core 2 Duo Processor, w ith 4GB of ECC RAM, NVIDIA Quadro FX1500 256MB Pci16 Video Card and 7200 RPM SATA drives. I was wonderi ng if I upgraded from Windows 7 32-bit to Windows 7 64-bit and upgrading the RAM to the maximum that my sy stem would allow, (8GB) would help. If not, I could save up and get an HP refurb (or equivalent) 3Ghz Dual or Quad Core Xeon system. I know that this will not speed up the scanner per se, but it may help with the 135MB TI FF files.<br>

What do you think?<br>

Thanks, Brad</p>

[don_cooper]

<p>An answer to part of your question might be from Nikon's website:<br>

"The use of Nikon Scan software with Windows 7 (any version), or Mac OS 10.5.x or later, or any 64- bit operating system (including 64-bit, 32-bit or Compatibility mode) is not supported.<br>

We suggest trying a third party software option such as Vuescan from Hamrick.com or Silverfast software."</p>

 

[bgelfand]

<p>A faster computer probably will not help, except in the post scanning applying Digital ICE and GEM. The scan speed is limited by the mechanical speed of the scanner and the USB connection.</p>

<p>Both NikonScan and, as far as I know, VueScan are 32-bit programs, so upgrading to Windows 7 x64 will not help those two programs. The upgrade definitley helps Photoshop CS5.</p>

<p>Unless you are runing CAD or editing video, you have wasted money on your present video card.</p>

<p>Are you runnign Photoshop? If you are, scan directly into Photoshop and save the files as PSD file. This will result in file sizes about a third smaller than TIFF files, and you lose nothing. My 4000 DPI scans run about 85 megabytes.</p>

 

[Stock-Photos]

<p>Brad, RAID zero drives will <strong><em>drastically</em></strong> speed up read write times. That's what you want, I think.</p>

<p>I use RAID zero in the main work-horse computer for my <a href="http://www.slidescanning123.com/">35MM slide scanning business</a>. As I open, edit and save large tif files, dozens at a time, <strong><em>fast read-write times are crucial</em>.</strong></p>

<p>RAID zero basically stripes files across two drives, improving r/w performance by having two drives work the file at once.</p>

<p>RAID 0 potentially increases the chance of data loss since 2 drives are used as 1.<br />I bought my system all set up with RAID from Dell.</p>

<p>Read more about <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID"><strong>RAID here, especially the "Standard Levels Description".</strong></a></p>

<p>BTW Brad, do you really need the 16 bit setting? 8 bit cuts the file size in half, another performance booster!</p>

[curt wiler]

<p>Agree with the first two comments above. The USB connection and the scanner mechanics should be the limiting factor. Nikon Scan will work with 64-bit systems with an unsanctioned hack on the drivers, but the advantage of Windows 7 64-bit is with Photoshop. Same with the RAM, since you are already past the maximum usable with a 32-bit system. I have not noticed any difference in scan times on the same computer booting either Win 7 64-bit or Win XP Pro 32-bit on a Coolscan 8000 (which uses a slightly faster FW400 connection). RAID 0 <em>may</em> help - I use it myself for working and scratch files - but again I think the limiting factor is the scanner.</p>

[Stock-Photos]

<p>We might be better able to answer Brad's question if he described what portion of the scan cycle seems to be the bottleneck:</p>

<p>Actual scan (scanner is making noise), Ice processing, file saving, etc.</p>

<p>Brad, DEE (shadow enhancement) option and GEM (grain reduction) add <strong>lots</strong> of time to the cycle (if used). They are very CPU intensive.<br>

I never use DEE and rarely use GEM. Those two options running together can more than quadruple the cycle time, especially with high PPI settings and your 16 bit setting.</p>

[Stock-Photos]

<p>Brad, How long does 1 scan take with your current system and NikonScan settings?</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Most often, it's the "pipe" not the "tank" that is the bottleneck. Old USB 1 is unbelievably slow.</p>

<p>On my old G4 desktop, a combination of fast SCSI and Vuescan software has helped speed up several older scanners</p>

[Stock-Photos]

<p>I was not aware (until now) the the Nikon V was USB 1. I agree that would be the big bottleneck.</p>

[brad_herman1]

<p>At 4000 DPI:<br>

8-bit scan (67.3MB file) takes around 1-minute (not counting the preview scan).<br>

14-bit scan (135MB file) also takes about a minute (not counting the preview scan).<br>

What seems to take the longest is when I try to open a 135MB TIFF file. It takes quite a while rendering the image. Maybe this is normal, and there would be no benefit upgrading to Windows 7 64-bit and 8GB of RAM?<br>

Should I be running any Perfmon Counters to see if there any bottlenecks?<br>

Thanks;<br>

Brad</p>

[brad_herman1]

<p>FYI...All Ports are USB 2.0</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>The coolscan V is USB 2.0 not 1.0. I use one on my 64 bit system (Win XP 64) and on a XP 32 bit system. Scan speed does not really change between the two systems. Opening the files is much faster on my XP64 box because of the 16 Gb of RAM it has.<br>

More RAM and or a faster CPU will speed up the file opening.<br>

Michael</p>

[Stock-Photos]

<blockquote>

<p>"What seems to take the longest is when I try to open a 135MB TIFF file."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is <em>exactly </em>where RAID zero shines, read write times. An upgrade to the operating system and more RAM would not help much in my opinion. More RAM might help if you're opening several files at once.</p>

<p>I went to the Apple store several years ago and on their high end machine, had them open several of my 4000ppi tif files at once, after copying to the HD. Notably slow as expected for a single drive system, regardless of OS, RAM, etc.</p>

<p>My RAID drives open / save big files faster than any single 7200RPM drive. 10,000 RPM drives may be a different story.</p>

[brad_smith8]

<p>Or an SSD.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Brad, I use a V and have timed it. I think your times are as good as you'll get, scan-wise. </p>

<p>Opening TIFF files is an entirely different matter. There surely must be ways to speed that up.</p>

<p>If you're using a Vista PC you do want 3Gigs, maybe only 2 with XP... and dozens of spare gigs of drive space.</p>

<p>I don't see any utility in GEM or DEE (might be handy if you had to deal with a lot of nearly-trash slides). Ice4 doesn't slow scanning in any significant way (maybe 15 seconds). </p>

<p>IMO you won't gain anything with 7 for scanning purposes. If you're willing to re-invest in Photoshop and other apps, 7 offers post processing and other advantages (but it introduces compatibility issues). Most/all scanners were developed first for Microsoft apps, whichhas frequently meant a challenge for Mac users (workarounds etc). </p>

<p>The worst thing about V is the cut film holder, and I've found it absolutely necessary. </p>

 

[denniswms]

<p>I'm curious, what are you doing with the scans that working from 135MB files offers a functional advantage?</p>

<p> Internet viewing/ digital transfer to clients for review are the only reasons I scan and the average image on my web site is a <em>whopping</em> 750kb jpeg - reduced from on average a 35GB tiff scan (67 scanned 400 DPI at 8X10). I have yet to see that reducing from a larger file or greater DPI down to that target 750kb file provides a better viewing experience- so I don't bother.</p>

<p> </p>

[roger_smith4]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm curious, what are you doing with the scans that working from 135MB files offers a functional advantage?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Personally, printing.</p>

<p>I also think you mean reduced from 35mb not GB.</p>