December 18, 2014, 05:41:43 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - RustyTheGeek

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 80
46
Technical Support / Re: Optimal processing platform of still images
« on: December 04, 2014, 01:39:52 PM »
helpful, I understand your frustration.  It seems like no one these days in the computer realm can get their collective act together.  Everything has something to pull your hair about.

With regard to Lightroom taking forever, I get it.  But if you want lightning fast image review/selection along with basic editing, try Photo MechanicYou'll totally freak out at how fast it is.  Then, after everything is sorted, import into Lightroom with what is left.

47
Technical Support / Re: Optimal processing platform of still images
« on: December 04, 2014, 01:26:33 PM »

Again, IMHO depends on what you need to achieve. Just, image processing starts with proper image quality :) If you mate an high-quality monitor with a so-so graphic card, you can't achieve high quality results, believe me - the whole graphic "pipeline" needs to support the quality you need.

To select/build a proper image processing system you need to start with defining what quality level you need, then build the system around it. IMHO investing in extremely fast and large SSD disks, or very large RAID arrays is less important than image quality. Sure, you need SSDs and RAID too - but you're not running a high frequency trading application or database. For an image processing workstation I wouldn't go to the extreme PCIe SSD disks - a 6Gb/s SATA will be probably fast enough -  but I would start from a good pro graphic card and monitor.

I agree with you. If you use a simple graphic card everything is slow and ugly. My feeling says me, that the critical Question for the Graphic-card is: how large may the TIFFs become? I guess, that the size of the Video-RAM should be two-fold the size of the TIFF. :)

Greetings Andy

Keep in mind I'm not talking about the old slow onboard graphics chipsets from years ago.  The recent Intel graphics is much improved.

I'm not against a dedicated graphics card, I just don't think it needs to cost more than $100 for most photography editing.  The graphics drivers can be a big source of stability problems.  I would suggest at least starting out with the Intel graphics with the latest drivers and then see if a dedicated graphics card makes a significant difference.

In my case, when I recently upgraded my Photo PC to a new ASUS motherboard 3 months ago, I removed the nVidia graphics card I was using and everything is fine running Intel Graphics 4600 with the DELL U2410 IPS monitor I have.

48
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EOS 7D Mark II by DigitalRev
« on: December 04, 2014, 12:10:16 PM »
Kind of a strange review by DigitalRev.  He basically maintains a theme throughout the video that the 7D is still good enough and the Mark II is overpriced and not worth the trouble to upgrade.  Weird.  Not exactly a great way to sell cameras but whatever, man!

FWIW, I skipped the original 7D because I thought IT was overpriced and unnecessary.  I think the 7D Mark II was worth the wait and for what I need it for, I'm glad I have it.  I think for most folks, the 70D would suffice and be more versatile and worthwhile.
Digitalrev has kinda lost that vibe & feel of their past videos, perhaps due to Alamby not working their anymore. Kai's past upbeat vibe and enthusiasm seems to be slightly lacking in recent videos.

No kidding!  That's putting it mildly!

49
Software & Accessories / Re: Lightroom 5.7 - Is it working for you?
« on: December 04, 2014, 12:06:49 PM »
I just tried to "repair" my installation. I'm able to import images again and the 7D mark II files are working. The only oddity is that I can't seem to import files from my desktop but it works fine if I import from other folders on my computer.

Anyways, it's working again and I'm happy. Thanks for the advice Rusty; I'll keep that in mind before I try updating next time.

What error do you get when you try to import from the Desktop?  Could you import from there before?  Maybe it's a permissions issue.

50
So what CR Admin is saying is that it's the number of posts not the quality that counts??? While many of the top contributors have really valuable input, it's easy for anyone to just say "nice picture" or something equally unmeaty to boost their post counts and enter exclusive circles. Really??
Yes.  ;D
Agree. :->

That's how it works, but I really have not seen a issue with those with hundreds of posts trying to build up their numbers.  Its not a problem in any event, the moderators read a lot of posts and know who is who among frequent posters.
I'll reach...
neuro's post count...
someday!!   ;D ;D ;D
Bwaaa Ha Ha Haaaa!!   :D

51
Lenses / Re: Review: Canon EOS 7D Mark II by DigitalRev
« on: December 04, 2014, 11:02:56 AM »
Kind of a strange review by DigitalRev.  He basically maintains a theme throughout the video that the 7D is still good enough and the Mark II is overpriced and not worth the trouble to upgrade.  Weird.  Not exactly a great way to sell cameras but whatever, man!

FWIW, I skipped the original 7D because I thought IT was overpriced and unnecessary.  I think the 7D Mark II was worth the wait and for what I need it for, I'm glad I have it.  I think for most folks, the 70D would suffice and be more versatile and worthwhile.

52
Technical Support / Re: Optimal processing platform of still images
« on: December 04, 2014, 10:50:38 AM »
...... the integrated Intel HD graphics will not support 10-Bit Color Output. ......
What? What?
I thought DisplayPort was all about 10 bit color and DisplayPort is readily available with Intel on board graphics as is support for multiple monitors, the chosen processor must support on board graphics as well as the chipset on the board.
Please don't bust my bubble, at least not if it doesn't deserve it.

DisplayPort is simply another digital connector.  Similar to DVI and HDMI.  The connector doesn't define the specs of the monitor or graphics card.  It simply helps get the signal from one to the other.   :)

Keep in mind, we aren't talking about BBP (like 8, 16, 32 BBP), we are talking about Color Channels.  Read the link that LDS provided, it explains it pretty well.

53
Reviews / Re: Are Gitzo's really overrated?!
« on: December 04, 2014, 10:41:18 AM »
I removed my post because after fact checking, I was mistaken.

Man, don't you hate that!  Start a post, do a lot of looking and research to support your important point only to find that you were wrong all along.  Fold up tent... go home!  (Click, browser window closed....)   :-\ 

54
Technical Support / Re: Optimal processing platform of still images
« on: December 04, 2014, 10:19:50 AM »
Some folks will disagree on this but for photo editing, the graphics card doesn't need to be high end.  Photo editing doesn't require a lot of graphics processing.  In fact, if the motherboard is new (made in the last year)

You forget that a professional video card is more than pure GPU power. It's also about other features like 10+ bit color support (otherwise your high-end monitor can be wasted, see http://www.imagescience.com.au/kb/questions/152/10+Bit+Output+Support), per monitor LUTs (if hw calibration is not available), better built components and drivers - which means more stable output. It is true you don't need the monstrous GPU 3D capabilities of some cards, but still you need a card designed with quality in mind - not volume pricing.

Always build a balanced system for the task you need - don't let a component becomes a bottleneck or cripple the system design  ;)

LDS, thanks, you appear to be pretty sharp on this topic!  And I like the link you provided.  Good info!  You are correct, the integrated Intel HD graphics will not support 10-Bit Color Output.  But neither will most graphics adapters.  What you referenced is on the extreme high end, esp for the monitor.  If the OP wants to spend $2K-$3K on the monitor and then another $1K+ on a dedicated workstation level graphics adapter, then 10-Bit Color support will be within reach.  But is that needed?

I totally agree about a balanced system and evening out performance by removing bottlenecks but I think trying to achieve 10-Bit Color Output is skewing the overall system pretty heavily toward the graphics side of the build, don't you think?  And assuming 10-Bit was eventually achieved, what would the result look like?  Would it be worth it compared to a good IPS High Color Gamut monitor properly calibrated on the Intel 4600 Graphics adapter?

If the OP wants to spend an extra thousand or two, I think there would be more value in investing in a good RAID volume, more external backup, extra RAM and plenty of SSD space and software products not already in place to add to productivity.

55
One person was selling a scribbled note to raise money for a new 5D MK III.

Another person over at the Magic Lantern forum got a 70d donated by the community to port ML, and since he received it he's never been seen again :-p

Seriously?  Or are you joking?   :-\

56
Technical Support / Re: Optimal processing platform of still images
« on: December 04, 2014, 09:10:28 AM »
I was (maybe) expecting a bit more focus on graphic cards and displays though. Personally I think color depth and accuracy is key to good image processing. So any additional advice on that part would be good.

Some folks will disagree on this but for photo editing, the graphics card doesn't need to be high end.  Photo editing doesn't require a lot of graphics processing.  In fact, if the motherboard is new (made in the last year) and has an Intel 4000 series graphics chipset, you really don't even need a card at all unless you are doing multiple displays.  If a card is needed for multiple displays, buy a decent entry level card that doesn't have a fan, just a large heatsink.  These are quiet and more reliable.

Where your money needs to go is for the DISPLAY PANEL.  It should be IPS and High Color Gamut.  I think I remember seeing that you already have a good display you like?  Then why change it?  I have a DELL U2410 IPS panel and I still love it.  And you can get a U2410 refurbished for around $200-$300 these days.  As for 4K displays, meh.  I would give 4K, 5K or whatever K another year to mature and see how they shake out.  They are too new right now and expensive.  Unless you like to be on the bleeding edge, then go for it.

Color Calibration is also a worthwhile investment.  I have a HueyPro calibrator but there are several available.  They will all get the job done, it just depends on how many other features you want with it.  Here is recent review of several... http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2014/02/25/best-monitor-calibrator-for-photographers-6-top-models-tested-and-rated/

Let us know what you decide.  Good luck!!


57
So far, from what I've read of the comments here, I am probably convinced about keeping the 24-70 f/2.8-II.  Rats!  You guys are really no help at all!  :(  You were supposed to say that I could sell the 24-70 f/2.8-II with no regrets because the f/4 is almost as good.  But Oh NOOOO!  You just had to all say the f/2.8 really is that much better, didn't you?!  Man!  You just wait until you ask me if you should sell something!!!

A little background on my current 16-35L/2.8v1... I bought it used from a wonderful lady photographer who travels all over the world (still!) and has made some beautiful images in some very remote areas.  It kind of feels like a "lucky lens".  So even if I go the 16-35 f/4L, I would probably keep my existing 2.8-I.  I also like that it shares the 77mm filter with the 24-105, 24-70f/4 and 70-200/2.8L.  The 24-70f/2.8-II just has to be different with the 82mm, doesn't it??

Anyway, I've never faulted the 24-105 or had a problem with it.  I like that lens and it stays.  But I seriously think you guys are right.  It does make more sense to have the 24-70f/2.8-II with the 16-35f/4.  As much as it costs more, it's the right call.

And for those of you that mentioned a desire for a future 16-35-f/2.8vIII, I AM RIGHT THERE WITH 'YA !!!  That's why I skipped the v-II.  I'm waiting for the III !!  Come on Canon!!  Get with it and bring out a 16-35 f/2.8 vIII !!!  (And while you're at it, sneak in a 24-105 vII as well !)

Thanks for everyone's input, and thanks again for costing me yet more money on photo gear.  Aaaargh!   ;)

58
Software & Accessories / Re: Lightroom 5.7 - Is it working for you?
« on: December 03, 2014, 11:26:43 PM »
EOS Rebel, did you perform a backup before you installed?  Is LR 5.6 still functional (side by side with 5.7)?  Did you backup your catalog first?

This is why I have a few rules about updating Adobe software...

1.  Backup the entire drive so I can restore if necc.
2.  Never do the Lightroom upgrade if I have important work to finish (deadlines).
3.  Wait for at least a couple weeks or a month to see if others have nightmares.

At this point, I would probably un-install LR, reboot and try installing 5.7 again.  Good luck!

(FYI - so far I'm lucky, my install seems to have worked and my 7DII RAW files seem to have imported ok.)

Rusty

59
Good one neuro!  You've got game tonight dude!   :D

60
Technical Support / Re: Optimal processing platform of still images
« on: December 03, 2014, 07:00:57 PM »
This means, that you must have a OS, that is capable to adress more than 16GB RAM (Windows 8 64 bit or Wondows 7 64 bit Enterprise) and a Mainboard with 8 RAM-slots. Greetings Andy

You have a nice system there Andy.  However, the Enterprise version isn't necc for the RAM addressing, just 64 bit.  In fact, most consumers can't get the Enterprise version.  The Enterprise version of Windows is just the consumer Ultimate version but licensed for enterprise.  All versions of Windows work the same for home users.  Unless they need domain support, Home Premium is fine.  I prefer Pro because it does have better user tools and remote desktop support but otherwise, it doesn't matter.  I'm guessing that you might be an Action Pack subscriber if you're using Enterprise...  :D

Rusty, the system I use is the one I explained here "My current PC is:" My argument was, if you want to  handle big PS files you should have as much RAM as you can get with at this time available (and affordable) consumer-technology. This is a 2011-3 system with 64 GB RAM. But you are right. Windows 7 64 bit Professional is just the right Version, not Enterprise.

Greetings Andy
Do you guys really feel like you need all of that RAM. I have 16 GB and I rarely ever have to hit a scratch disk and my files can be pretty big. My PS efficiency score rarely drops below 100% and my scan files are far bigger than standard DSLR files. The more ram thing was definitely true when RAM sticks were measure in MB's but 64GB sounds like an awful lot. Just curious .

Depending on intended use, 16GB is likely fine.  I put in 32GB but I bought that RAM about 3 years ago when it wasn't as expensive.  RAM is a bit high right now.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 80