charlesp

<p>I posted a question a while ago explaing my dilemma in deciding on a new iMac. I couldn't tell which model would<br>

be sufficient wihout being more than I need. So I decided to rent a new 27", Core i5, 2.8 GHz/ 8GB RAM machine.<br>

I think I've decided. The first thing I tried was to compare a Transform action on a 450MB file, the same image on<br>

each desktop. On my 5 yr. old 2 GHz/2 GB RAM iMac, a "rotate" action took 90 seconds - not workable.<br>

On the new iMac, 9 seconds - very workable.<br>

This was like bringing home a cute puppy dog.<br>

No way is it going back.<br>

Of course, I'll probably wonder just how cute the Core i7 machine would have been....<br>

One is never rich enough, thin enough or in possession of a fast enough computer.</p>

 

<p>I just took a look at the original 1.4 MB file provided and, looking at it at 60" x 50.014, it indicates 70 ppi.<br>

Yet when printed without up-rezzing, it looked fine for the purpose intended.</p>

 

<p>Just when I thought I had the relationship between image file size and printable size figured out, sort of, this happened.<br>

I'm exhibiting at a trade show next month and I'm choosing images to have a graphics co. output on to vinyl, and apply to backdrop Sintra panels for my display booth. The images I will be displaying will be product shots from a supplier in the UK. He told me the images were from 1.4MB to 5MB each. I replied that they would be too small as some images will be as large as 120cm/4' in the long dimension. He assured me that they had printed from those files in Europe and had printed at 120cm x 160cm!<br>

So I hesitantly had him email my graphis co. a sample image to test and he sent a 1.4MB image. I saw a test strip today printed at approx 150cm/5' and was amazed that the image looked fine. Almost like a slightly soft focus, which actually works in this application. I can only surmise that in this application, i.e. display panels in a trade show viewed from a distance, that the sharpness I had assumed would be critical is simply not. But there was no sign of the "jaggies" I expected to see. So much for insisting that the supplier send 200MB files to an FTP site. Any idea why this tiny file size printed to a large size so well?</p>

 

<p>Thanks for all the input, folks. Change of plan, I THINK. I can reconfigure the room where I work and CAN make room for the 27" iMac.<br>

I was about ready to order the 2.93 core i7, 8 GB Ram today when an acquaintance told me she finds her 27" too big! She says its more work to keep moving her head rather than just her eyes, going from image on screen to Toolbar etc. So NOW Im back to thinking 21.5".<br>

Has anyone decided after trying, that they prefer a smaller screen size, or do people who find this, eventually adapt? I have no problem with learning to adapt; I just really don't want to be wishing I had a faster machine!<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>My 5 year old iMac (Intel Core Duo, 2 Ghz, 2 GB Ram) is past its best-before date and I need to update asap.<br>

I often work with large film scan image files (300-400 MB) and I'm getting too old to wait for PS actions to complete.<br>

I'm currently using CS3 and looking to find out what will optimize speed in image processing. <br>

I'm looking at the 21" iMac (no room for the 27"), but don't know if there would be a significant difference in speed between the 3.06<br>

and 3.2 Ghz models. I plan on getting 8 GB Ram for sure, but I'm also unsure if I should upgrade to CS5.<br>

Any suggestions?</p>

<p>Thanks everyone!</p>

<p>Please excuse the slightly off-topic question but is it correct to assume that, given the file size required for such large prints, a digital camera like a Canon 5d would not be up to the task of a 30" long size print? I currently shoot 6x4.5 and 6x7, but I'm wondering...</p>

<p>Thanks guys. I'm really looking forward to this, although I'm wondering whether I should just pack hiking boots instead of the bike...<br>

I have a reservation starting Jan.2nd at Stovepipe Wells but I'll need a place in Las Vegas for the first night. Any off-the-strip or on the way to VOF recommendations? I should also ask for lens recommendations. I'm thinking one wide zoom, one long telephoto zoom and one macro. Thanks!</p>

Thanks Bobs.

I'm thinking of the 5D kit with 24-105 L lens on the current rebate promo. I have fast 24, 50 and 85 and 200 F2.8 primes as well as the 28-

135 which I think I might replace with the kit lens. My wish list also includes the 70-200mm F4 IS which looks like a very nice lens. Awfully

good price when bought with the 5D!

I'm about ready to change up from my Konica Minolta 7D, primarily because of the 7D's unreliable AF performance. And I have a few nice

Canon lenses from 35mm film days. I'm curious to know if anyone made a similar move and had any comments on the differences.

Hopefully better dynamic range? Better AF?

Thanks.

James, I see the note on the rebate form, However B&H is offering the rebate as an instant discount without any mailing-in and doesn't

appear to require proof of citizenship.

Thanks Don. I see how it works. But also if one doesn't want to wait for a rebate to be mailed back, it looks like B&H,

perhaps along with others, gives the same amount as a discount at time of purchase.

I'm told by some local shops that Canon's current rebate promotion is strictly "mail in" and has been extended to July 31.

But others say there is also an "instant rebate" in addition, that ends June 30th.

Can anyone here clarify?

I'm looking to possibly buying into a Nikon body and lenses. I tend to use telephoto lenses a lot so I'm curious to know whether I'm wiser to

look at the D300 or wait for the rumoured D700 full frame Nikon, and then enlarge smaller images. I think I read somewhere that for

situations where, say, a 200mm lens is needed, the image quality will hold better with a crop factor camera versus enlarging smaller

images from a full frame camera. Any thoughts? Tests?

Thanks all.

Thanks folks. Maybe part of me likes to go "against the grain" and support less popular camera makers. But then, there's a

big cost here for that quirk. I can feel myself leaning to maybe the D300...

Oops, I meant E-3!

This has probably been asked in various ways but I'm still not certain of the route to take. My formerly wonderful KM 7D is now driving me

crazy with its slow AF so I'm looking to jump to a new system. I find I do a lot of low light (stage eg) photography and I'm intrigued by the

Olympus 35-70 2.0 lens and a few other of their lenses. Is it wrong to assume that the advantage of the fast lens may be compromised by

the less-than-industry-leading high ISO performance (I've read) of the E-1? If one has no great brand allegiance or stock of other-brand

lenses, is there any good reason not to opt for 4/3 over the D300, 40D etc alternatives? Having hefted a few cameras, I prefer the

ergonomics of the E-1 over all others except the Nikon D300 which for me is similar. The other less expensive cameras simply

(unfortunately) don't work for me physically. Incidentally, I'm not concerned about making large prints as I use MF and film for that.

Cheers.

I know I saw a mention here somewhere but I can't find it now. Someone had mentioned a source in the

U.S for Nikon's little S510 in Pink. I've looked everywhere and all I can find is Silver. Can anyone help me?

Thanks!

Hi Darek,

 

I don't know if its ok to mention here, but I have an RZ Pro ll that I originally bought for

product photos. I've completed that work and haven't used it for a few months. I also have

a 645 and I really don't know need both, so if you're interested, drop me a line. I could

take a close look, but I think the body, back, 110mm lens are in pretty mint condition. Its

never been used roughly or outside. I really like the rotating film back; it makes

composition on the tripod much easier. Its really a drag (for me) that well built film

cameras have dipped so much in value. I still love the whole film workflow. I even enjoy

the scanning and digital processing! Weird, I know. The RZ has been great by the way, for

producing gorgeous 30" x 42" inkjet images.

Thanks guys.

I see that Fixerlabs Sizefixer is suggested for enlarging raw camera files but I wonder if there is any

advantage to it instead of uprezzing in Photoshop CS3. I need to uprez some 200 MB files to approx 600

MB.

Any ideas?

Good comments all. Re the 16:9 ratio, does anyone know if older format monitors are

available? My images are closer to 4:3

I'm interested in showing in showing several hundred images on a continuous play in a gallery setting.

As a technoklutz,I haven't a clue as to what I should be looking at. My preference is for a 40" LCD TV I

have seen in electonics stores. But of course I will be showing stills, so I am not sure if LCD TV's are

designed for that. Should I stay with a 30" monitor designed for computer connection or will the larger

screen TV work? Thanks!

Thanks so much Robert. Other than the annoyance of removing all those screws, is nothing

tricky? No springs to go "boing" etc? Once the cover is off, is it fairly obvious how to release

the non-ejecting holder? Some part to lift up or?

Thanks Vick. Do you know if they email manuals on PDF?

Thanks again.

I've searched all over for a source for a manual for a Karadn-M with no luck. Any suggestions?

Thanks all.