Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Is a laptop powerful enough to run Photoshop fast?  (Read 14875 times)
John.Murray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #20 on: October 19, 2006, 09:48:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think one of the comments made to that blog sums up my feelings exactly - fuzzy math.† If I get the time at the office tomorrow I will actually test his theory on a couple of my drives and do back to back sandra tests.† My guy feeling is the results will be nowhere near as incredible as that suggests they should be.† Frankly, if that kind of free speed was available by such simple setups - the gaming community would have been using it for YEARS.† The facts is - they are not, not at all.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Actually, his math is crystal clear and well supported by the provided links    He also never states that difference is "incredible" - rather a great way to get the I/O performance of an expensive high RPM drive on a less expensive one.   The gaming community recognizes the fact that high RPM drives simply perform better.  

My personal experience is that short stroking *any* drive makes a noticeable difference in overall system performance.  Another advantage is that the extra partition can be used a store for user preferences and settings.  In fact, during  Windows setup the %ProfilePath% can be set to use this partition, making it very easy to blow away or upgrade the OS without losing any user or application data.


In any case a great tool for objective measurement of HD subsystem performance has been around for years:

[a href=\"http://www.iometer.org]http://www.iometer.org[/url]

Finally, Photoshop RAM usage is actually the same on either OSX or Windows:

OS X: http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/332270.html
Windows: http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/332271.html

In a nutshell, PS can directly use a bit more than 3GB on 64bit hardware.  Plugins and filters can load above this for a total of 3.7GB.  Memory above this to a total of 8GB is used as cache for the scratch disk.

hope this helps - John
« Last Edit: October 19, 2006, 10:16:04 PM by Joh.Murray » Logged

kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2226



WWW
« Reply #21 on: October 20, 2006, 07:13:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Not a 'bit' more - a LOT more.  Yes, it uses up to 3GB for the file itself, .7 more for plugins and then the rest up to 8GB for scratch - that is STILL being used by PS and is a HUGE bonus, compared to a PC!  In comparison, on a PC after 3GB, it's as is the ram simply isn't there!  PS can not address it whatsoever, it's 100% wasted.  The OS can use it, but not as scratch, so it's not useful to PS.

Tell you what - I'll take the time today to do some tests here.  I have my second drive in this system barely used, I'll off load it's content to my file server and try different partitions and format schemes, run a few benchmark utilities and put this argument to rest.  

I predict single percentage gains if any at all, based on it's lack of use in the industry alone.  Just common sense tells me that if it worked, it would be used by EVERYONE looking for more performance, especially system builder & sellers looking for every fraction of a second, or professional organizations such as studios that put such high premiums on system performance and time.  Heck, just look at the latest article/videoblog by MR - if Studio One could get more free performance, don't you think they would do such a simple change?  Anyway, talk's cheap, let me get started on the tests   I need to re-read the article now to be sure on what they want.
Logged

lightcreator
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


WWW
« Reply #22 on: October 20, 2006, 07:44:19 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi. I am looking to upgrade to a new computer for post production work and wanted to find out if a laptop would be powerful enough for my needs.

I shoot on a Canon 1ds mkii, process the Raw files to 16bit 96mb Tiffs in Capture one and do my colour correction in Photoshop CS.

At the moment I have a 3 and a half year old Sony Vaio GRT715M Laptop. It has a Pentium 4 2.8GHz processor, 1 gig of ram (itís maximum) and a Nvidia Geoforce FX Go5600 video card. When I got it I was working with 36mb 16 bit files from a Canon 10d and with only 512mb of ram. It was fine for this. A year or so ago I brought my 1ds mkii and upgraded the laptop to a gig of ram. But the problem is, it is slow. For example, if in photoshop I opened an image (96mb), then made, say, a few curve adjustments in a row, the first couple would be fairly quick but by the third it would be hanging for about 10 seconds, then 15 seconds for the 4th adjustments etc. And the more complicated I make the images, if I start adding layers or making composites, it will hang for a lot longer. This can get pretty frustrating when making a lot of tweaks and adjustments, as I tend to do.

So, my thought is to upgrade but I have a few questions.

1. How realistic is it of me to expect photoshop to run a lot faster on files of this size? Ideally I would love to be able to have a much larger history or use multiple layers, without the machine starting to hang. Is this achievable?

2. I was looking at getting something along the lines of the HP Pavilion dv6174EA. It has an Intel Core 2 Duo T5500 1.66GHz processor, 2 gig of Ram, and a Nvidia GeForce Go 7400 graphics card. I am not a computer expert so I am not clear on how big a jump this is in terms of processor and Ram from my current Sony laptop? Is it a far superior machine which would run photoshop a lot faster and leave me free of the frustrations of a constantly hanging computer? Or is it only a small jump and really I am not going to see any significant improvements. It would be great to hear any thoughts?

3. Am I being crazy expecting what I want from a laptop and should I get a desktop instead.? I really love having a laptop and it works perfectly with my workflow. I run it duel monitor with a Lacie 19Ē (if I got a desktop I would definitely get a second monitor so I could stay duel monitor). And I do often need to take it out on shoots, so if I upgraded to a desktop I would still need to keep the old laptop for location work, and then have the complication of having two different machines. So essentially, I would love to upgrade to a laptop but am I crazy for that, would all my problems be best solved going for a desktop? Also, just to mention, my budget canít really go much above the cost of the Pavilion above, or a similar machine, £900 in the UK. Also all my software and knowledge is PC so I would rather stick with a PC for now.

It would be great to hear anyoneís thoughts. I know whatever I buy I will be relying on it for the next couple of years (but am not going to be upgrading my camera in this time), so I just want to make sure I get it right.

Many thanks.

Tim
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80479\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I know you said you are PC based.

Best solution, upgrade to a MacBook Pro running both MAC and XP PRO with 2gb ram but the budget a bit more £1750???  About a third of a 1ds ii in price.

If NOT, try Macbook running both MAC and XP PRO with 2gb ram - I think about £1000.00???  About a fifth of a 1ds ii in price.

I don't know if you are aware, MAC gets less viruses.  Also recent test shown that MACBOOK PRO and MAC PRO runs faster than XP WINDOW machine with XP on Apple BootCamp.

So you get style, best of both world and still able to run your WINDOW app.  

A laptop will NEVER replace a desktop.  Because manufacturers can add more to desktop and also the heat problem prevent faster chip to add on laptop.

Canon EOS 1ds ii 16bit 96mb Tiffs is very demanding with Capture One, even on my Apple Quad G5 running Capture One can take a bit of time just high res jpg and QuickProof.  So you are asking a lot from a laptop at least before manufacturers can solve the heat / power ratio.

Well, I am sorry to sound arrogant       , if you can afford a Canon 1ds ii and processing file to the max, you really need fairly expensive computer to run - laptop or desktop!!!  

RAW processing isn't for the faited heart computers.  CHEAP COMPUETR AND HIGH END DSLR do not mix very well consider the SIZE of your file!!!      

But ask yourself, do you really need to res up all your 1ds ii files to 96mb 16bits Tiff?  Can you maybe say do 72mb 16 bit or 8 bits Tiff???   I archive a lot of PhaseOne 39mp files and it is getting a bit out of hand, at least for storage!!!  

CORE 2 DUO isn't that much faster than CORE DUO, and I guess a powerful desktop is what you need PC or MAC.  What you really need is a BIG BAD "MAC PRO" 3 GHZ with 4GB RAM (16GB RAM would be nice) at least running with either XP PRO or MAC OS X.      
Logged

http://www.wingliu.com
Creative Photography + Giclee Printing
John.Murray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #23 on: October 20, 2006, 10:51:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Not a 'bit' more - a LOT more.† Yes, it uses up to 3GB for the file itself, .7 more for plugins and then the rest up to 8GB for scratch - that is STILL being used by PS and is a HUGE bonus, compared to a PC!† In comparison, on a PC after 3GB, it's as is the ram simply isn't there!† PS can not address it whatsoever, it's 100% wasted.† The OS can use it, but not as scratch, so it's not useful to PS.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=81316\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sorry - Adobe's own documentation disagree's with you:

Windows

"When you run Photoshop CS2 on a computer with a 64-bit processor (such as a, Intel Xeon processor with EM64T, AMD Athlon 64, or Opteron processor), and running a 64-bit version of the operating system (Windows XP Professional x64 Edition), that has 4 GB or more of RAM, Photoshop will use 3 GB for it's image data. You can see the actual amount of RAM Photoshop can use in the Maximum Used By Photoshop number when you set the Maximum Used by Photoshop slider in the Memory & Image Cache preference to 100%. The RAM above the 100% used by Photoshop, which is from approximately 3 GB to 3.7 GB, can be used directly by Photoshop plug-ins (some plug-ins need large chunks of contiguous RAM), filters, actions, etc. If you have more than 4 GB (to 8 GB), the RAM above 4 GB is used by the operating system as a cache for the Photoshop scratch disk data. Data that previously was written directly to the hard disk by Photoshop, is now cached in this high RAM before being written to the hard disk by the operating system. "

OS X:

"When you run Photoshop CS2 on a 64-bit operating system, such as Mac OS 10.3 and higher, it can access up to 8 GB of RAM. You can see the actual amount of RAM Photoshop can use in the Maxiumum Used By Photoshop number when you set the Maximum Used by Photoshop slider in the Memory & Image Cache preference to 100%. The RAM above the 100% used by Photoshop, which is from approximately 3 GB to 3.7 GB, can be used directly by Photoshop plug-ins (some plug-ins need large chunks of contiguous RAM), filters, actions, etc. If you have more than 4 GB (to 8 GB), the RAM above 4 GB is used by the operating system as a cache for the Photoshop scratch disk data. Data that previously was written directly to the hard disk by Photoshop, is now cached in this high RAM before being written to the hard disk by the operating system."

-John
« Last Edit: October 20, 2006, 10:54:57 AM by Joh.Murray » Logged

kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2226



WWW
« Reply #24 on: October 20, 2006, 10:56:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes you are correct, as I am assuming everyone on a PC is using Windows XP not XP64, as it is largely an experimental, unused, unsupported, undeveloped OS.  

Is *anyone* here using XP64 as their OS?
« Last Edit: October 20, 2006, 10:56:34 AM by kaelaria » Logged

John.Murray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #25 on: October 20, 2006, 11:50:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yes you are correct, as I am assuming everyone on a PC is using Windows XP not XP64, as it is largely an experimental, unused, unsupported, undeveloped OS. 

Is *anyone* here using XP64 as their OS?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=81360\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm running it Kaelerian . . . .   It was released in April 2005   Far from experimental, unused, and unsupported.  MS has had 64bit support since Server 2003.

In any case I'll certainly defer any further discussion to your experience and judgements.

Take care -John
Logged

kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2226



WWW
« Reply #26 on: October 20, 2006, 12:08:27 PM »
ReplyReply

That's one hand up...any others?  

BTW the main reason it's so unpopular is the lack of drivers and software support  I've played with it several times, but I have yet to have all my hardware supported at any given time.  Performance wise, at the best, it's equal to WinXP.  At worst, very slow, especially in some games (games drive the PC hardware market).

I have my test system setup ready to go, to test the drive theory...I'll have results very shortly...
Logged

kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2226



WWW
« Reply #27 on: October 20, 2006, 12:35:07 PM »
ReplyReply

OK here's the first results, one WD 40GB drive, formatted to 37GB.  Using Sandra 2007.

First run, full partition:
Throughput 41MB/s
Random Access Time 12ms

Second run, partitioned down to 19GB:
Throughput 42MB/s
Random Access Time 12ms

Third run, partitioned down to 10GB:
Throughput 41MB/s
Random Access Time 12ms
Logged

Josh-H
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1905



WWW
« Reply #28 on: October 22, 2006, 11:39:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Back to the original Question for a moment and this may be of interest to others.

I purchased a mac book Pro only about 4 weeks ago - to be honest I was less than happy with its performance running CS2 and Lightroom. So much so I took it back and got my money back. It was just to slow for my liking. Even rendering RAW images in DPP was too slow. I wasnt a fan of OSX either - but thats beside the point and was not a factor in returning it.

I bought a Dell Precision M90 Laptop - Duo Core 2 2.33 Ghz, with 4 Gig DDR2 Fast RAM with 100 Gig 7200rpm drive and a NVIDIA Quadro FX GO 2500M 512 mb Video card. It ABSOLUTELY HAMMERS and runs CS2 at lightning speed.

Rendering of RAW files is virtually instant from a 5D 12mb RAW file and I can batch process about 30 images in less than two minutes to 16 Bit Tiff files. Photoshop is super quick - Photokit sharpen plug in completes its Capture Shapren of a 5D 16 bit Tiff by way of example in about a second  - as opposed to the mac which took about 4 seconds.

I should note this was not an inexpensive laptop - in excess of $4000 US dollars as spec'd - a lot of that cost was in the RAM as each RAM chip is 2 Gig. 4 Gig RAM is overkill and really not required - I just needed a TAX write off so it seemed a good idea at the time.

Back to the question however - YES you can run Photoshop on a laptop with no speed problems.

Late Edit - Is
Quote
*anyone* here using XP64 as their OS?

Yes - no problems running it with the CS2 suite on my machine.

another late edit - you could build a desktop that would eat my laptop for breakfast when comparing sheer raw speed - mostly due to the Hard disk speed difference and the ability of the desktop to run a striped RAID set-up for the same amount of money - but.. and its a big but for me... there is no portability with a desktop and I wouk in the field a LOT.

My workflow is best suited to a high end laptop - which I now plug into an external monitor when working in the studio  - so I would base any deicsion on where nd how I wanted to work and then purchase the appropriate hardware.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2006, 11:55:19 PM by JHolko » Logged

John.Murray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #29 on: October 23, 2006, 04:45:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
OK here's the first results, one WD 40GB drive, formatted to 37GB.† Using Sandra 2007.

First run, full partition:
Throughput 41MB/s
Random Access Time 12ms

Second run, partitioned down to 19GB:
Throughput 42MB/s
Random Access Time 12ms

Third run, partitioned down to 10GB:
Throughput 41MB/s
Random Access Time 12ms
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Interesting results . . . however did you notice the *measured* hard drive size as reported by Sandra?  Like many (if not most) disk benchmarks. Sandra calculates preformance based on hardware drive size reported by the system BIOS .  This is exactly why you would not see any difference based on partitioning alone.

I also performed benchmarking over the weekend and included Sandra.  In addition I included results from Iometer which *does* respect disk partitions and is more indicative of real world results (Iometer was originally developed by Intel and is now open sourced - there are binaries available for nearly any platform - [a href=\"http://www.iiometer.org]http://www.iiometer.org[/url] )

Test system:  3 year old Dell Laptop (D800) Intel 1.6Ghz "Centrino" proc/855 chipset.  2 Ghz RAM.  Drive is a spare 20GB 4200/RPM IBM (Hitachi) w/ATA66 interface.  WinXP SP2.  Network adapters, and all radios disabled.

Tests on system with HD partitioned to full capacity

Sandra:
SiSoftware Sandra

Benchmark Results
Drive Index : 18 MB/s
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.
Random Access Time : 19 ms
Results Interpretation : Lower index values are better.

Performance Test Status
Run ID : PGM02-Full on Monday, October 23, 2006 at 11:35:21 AM
Processor Affinity : No
System Timer : 3.6MHz
Use Overlapped I/O : Yes
IO Queue Depth : 4 request(s)
Block Size : 1MB

Volume Information
Capacity : 19GB

Benchmark Breakdown
Speed at position 0% : 17MB/s (96%)
Speed at position 3% : 18MB/s (99%)
Speed at position 6% : 17MB/s (93%)
Speed at position 10% : 18MB/s (100%)
Speed at position 13% : 17MB/s (96%)
Speed at position 16% : 17MB/s (93%)
Speed at position 20% : 15MB/s (84%)
Speed at position 23% : 16MB/s (90%)
Speed at position 26% : 15MB/s (85%)
Speed at position 30% : 16MB/s (86%)
Speed at position 33% : 15MB/s (84%)
Speed at position 36% : 15MB/s (84%)
Speed at position 40% : 15MB/s (83%)
Speed at position 43% : 15MB/s (84%)
Speed at position 46% : 14MB/s (79%)
Speed at position 50% : 15MB/s (80%)
Speed at position 53% : 14MB/s (78%)
Speed at position 56% : 14MB/s (79%)
Speed at position 60% : 14MB/s (77%)
Speed at position 63% : 13MB/s (74%)
Speed at position 66% : 14MB/s (75%)
Speed at position 70% : 13MB/s (70%)
Speed at position 73% : 13MB/s (70%)
Speed at position 76% : 12MB/s (68%)
Speed at position 80% : 12MB/s (67%)
Speed at position 83% : 12MB/s (66%)
Speed at position 86% : 11MB/s (60%)
Speed at position 90% : 11MB/s (60%)
Speed at position 93% : 10MB/s (56%)
Speed at position 96% : 10MB/s (56%)
Speed at position 100% : 10MB/s (54%)
Random Access Time : 19 ms (estimated)
Full Stroke Access Time : 23 ms (estimated)

Performance Tips
Notice 5008 : To change benchmarks, click Options.
Notice 5004 : Synthetic benchmark. May not tally with 'real-life' performance.
Notice 5006 : Only compare the results with ones obtained using the same version!
Tip 2 : Double-click tip or press Enter while a tip is selected for more information about the tip.


IoMeter:

'Version
2004.07.30
'Time Stamp
2006-10-23 11:46:06:753
'Access specifications
Total I/O's per second: 215.47
Average I/O Response Time: 4.6409
Maximum I/O Response Time: 46.7053



Tests on same system with the same drive partitioned to half capacity (short stroked)

Sandra:
SiSoftware Sandra

Benchmark Results
Drive Index : 18 MB/s
Results Interpretation : Higher index values are better.
Random Access Time : 19 ms
Results Interpretation : Lower index values are better.

Performance Test Status
Run ID : PGM02-HALF on Monday, October 23, 2006 at 12:47:53 PM
Processor Affinity : No
System Timer : 3.6MHz
Use Overlapped I/O : Yes
IO Queue Depth : 4 request(s)
Block Size : 1MB

Volume Information
Capacity : 19GB

Benchmark Breakdown
Speed at position 0% : 17MB/s (95%)
Speed at position 3% : 18MB/s (99%)
Speed at position 6% : 17MB/s (93%)
Speed at position 10% : 18MB/s (100%)
Speed at position 13% : 17MB/s (96%)
Speed at position 16% : 17MB/s (93%)
Speed at position 20% : 15MB/s (84%)
Speed at position 23% : 16MB/s (90%)
Speed at position 26% : 15MB/s (85%)
Speed at position 30% : 16MB/s (86%)
Speed at position 33% : 15MB/s (84%)
Speed at position 36% : 15MB/s (84%)
Speed at position 40% : 15MB/s (83%)
Speed at position 43% : 15MB/s (84%)
Speed at position 46% : 14MB/s (79%)
Speed at position 50% : 15MB/s (80%)
Speed at position 53% : 14MB/s (78%)
Speed at position 56% : 14MB/s (79%)
Speed at position 60% : 14MB/s (77%)
Speed at position 63% : 13MB/s (74%)
Speed at position 66% : 14MB/s (75%)
Speed at position 70% : 13MB/s (70%)
Speed at position 73% : 13MB/s (70%)
Speed at position 76% : 12MB/s (68%)
Speed at position 80% : 12MB/s (67%)
Speed at position 83% : 12MB/s (66%)
Speed at position 86% : 11MB/s (60%)
Speed at position 90% : 11MB/s (60%)
Speed at position 93% : 10MB/s (56%)
Speed at position 96% : 10MB/s (56%)
Speed at position 100% : 10MB/s (54%)
Random Access Time : 19 ms (estimated)
Full Stroke Access Time : 23 ms (estimated)

Performance Tips
Notice 5008 : To change benchmarks, click Options.
Notice 5004 : Synthetic benchmark. May not tally with 'real-life' performance.
Notice 5006 : Only compare the results with ones obtained using the same version!
Tip 2 : Double-click tip or press Enter while a tip is selected for more information about the tip.



IoMeter:

'Version
2004.07.30
'Time Stamp
2006-10-23 13:03:06:502
'Access specifications
Total I/O's per second: 261.43
Average I/O Response Time: 2.6245
Maximum I/O Response Time: 28.2249


Although benchmarks are usefull, it's important to determine *exactly* what is being measured.  Sandra is certainly usefull for comparing different physical drives, it is not however, a valid measure of "real world" data I/O.  IoMeter with it's support for network and san storage systems on the other hand is.  That is why database and network admins use it.

In any case, short stroking *does* offer real performance advantages at a great price

Addendum:  

For grins I thought I would include results from the (full stroked) drive that normally lives in the above described laptop, a Hitachi 60GB 7200RPM unit w/ATA100 Interface.

IoMeter:

'Version
2004.07.30
'Time Stamp
2006-10-23 15:02:52:217
'Access specifications
Total I/O's per second: 645.83
Average I/O Response Time: 1.5417
Maximum I/O Response Time: 54.5654


hth - John
« Last Edit: October 23, 2006, 05:10:38 PM by Joh.Murray » Logged

kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2226



WWW
« Reply #30 on: October 23, 2006, 05:48:40 PM »
ReplyReply

OK let's go beyond benchmarks - come up with an actual real world example in PS on an image - create an action that will take a couple minutes and let's see what actual real world testing gives.  I'm very curious now.
Logged

John.Murray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #31 on: October 23, 2006, 05:53:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
OK let's go beyond benchmarks - come up with an actual real world example in PS on an image - create an action that will take a couple minutes and let's see what actual real world testing gives.† I'm very curious now.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Absolutely   Working on it now, will report back.

[a href=\"http://driverheaven.net/photoshop/]http://driverheaven.net/photoshop/[/url]  looks promising in that there's a ton of collected data to comapre results to.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2006, 06:03:03 PM by Joh.Murray » Logged

Julian Love
Guest
« Reply #32 on: October 31, 2006, 02:53:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Back to the original Question for a moment and this may be of interest to others.

I purchased a mac book Pro only about 4 weeks ago - to be honest I was less than happy with its performance running CS2 and Lightroom. So much so I took it back and got my money back. It was just to slow for my liking. Even rendering RAW images in DPP was too slow. I wasnt a fan of OSX either - but thats beside the point and was not a factor in returning it.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=81703\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm in the market for an upgrade, and have also been wondering about using a MacBook Pro as my primary machine with an external monitor for when I'm back at base. I am surprised and slightly dismayed to hear about your experience. I assumed a 2.3Ghz chip with 2GB RAM would be fine for RAW conversion and moderate PS work. I was hoping to run Lightroom or Aperture on it, with colour correction and limited editing in PS.

FWIW, I currently run a P4 2.8 Ghz PC with 1GB ram (4 years old and maxed out on RAM) and rather like the user who started this thread, it runs Rawshooter perfectly well, but begins to bog down in PS. I also have a laptop, and find it a pain to have 2 systems, hence the idea of a powerful laptop as a primary machine.

My budget is around £1500. Sounds like a Mac Book Pro would be a bad choice. Maybe i'll see if I can try one at the Apple store in town.

Julian
Logged
Gary Ferguson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 522


WWW
« Reply #33 on: October 31, 2006, 04:33:16 PM »
ReplyReply

I got a 17" PowerBook G4 for location work, but I find I'm using it for more and more Photoshop work, Canon 5D shots up to stitched shots from a P25 on a sliding carriage.

It's not as fast as my desk top, no where near, but sometimes speed isn't everything. Sometimes a new and different idea means more than the hurry up, and for those happy occasions it's great to be able to take a job to a more convivial space. I wouldn't use the PowerBook screen for pantone referenced pack shots, but I don't do too many pantone referenced pack shots so it's not really a problem!

If you need to batch process lots of shots, then you'll need an appropriate set-up, but if your work is about fewer better shots without being under a deadline cosh then you've got more options, one of which is a laptop.
Logged
Tim H
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #34 on: November 15, 2006, 03:44:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Thanks to everyone who commented on this thread, greatly appreciated.

SoÖ. I went for a desktop in the end, a Dell Dimension 9200 with an Intel Core 2 duo 2.4Ghz processor, 2 gig of Ram, 320gb SATA 7200Rpm hard drive and a Nvidia Geoforce 7900GS graphics card. Like I said at the beginning, I really wanted a laptop but got the feeling I needed to go the desktop route to get the speed I wanted within my budget.

Iíve had the computer for about a week and so far itís great. Everything is so much quicker. Photoshop runs fast and there are none of the frustrations of it hanging after only a few history states that I had in the old laptop. I have done a little bit of editing with 2 or 3 layers and this hasnít slowed it down yet. I havenít done any major multiple layer jobs or composites yet. I would say there have been a couple of times that it has taken a while to catch up with itself (maybe a few seconds) when I am deep into history states (have it set for 99) but nothing that has been a problem. Capture one steams through the image previews and I would say processes my Raw files about 5 times as fast as the laptop. The overall experience is that I donít feel slowed down by the computer, it doesnít get in the way of what I want to do. But yes, my real world experience is that it is a significant jump forward from the laptop, and that is what I was looking for. Whether I would have gotten that with a laptop or not, I donít know.

So itís good, I have my laptop to take out on location to use for copying files to and previewing for the client and the desktop for fast editing work back at base. It works well.

Tim
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad