Is MacPro overkill for digital photography?

[qveda]

I'm about to finally migrate from PC to Mac. I plan to do digital photography, maybe some video and audio. I'm sure a MacPro (dual quad xeon processors) would handle anything I throw at it (D700 images, scans, Photoshop + Lightroom, HDRI processing).

but is the MacPro overkill ? There seems to be such a large gap in processors offered between the MacBook Pro (core2), and the MacPro (dual xeons) for more or less a similar price.

If I go with MacPro , would it make sense not to order it with just a single xeon to save $500. and 4gb ram.

thanks in advance for your practical advice !

[CrackedButter]

Umm, what kind of camera do you have how much editing are you going to do?

If you had a digital back generating 50-60 megapixel images I'm sure you would need a MacPro but I use a MacBook and its fine for me to edit 12 megapixel images (Canon 5D) with. Though I should get a matte screen instead of using the glossy one.

[mlemonds]

did you consider the 3.06 imac?

MacBook you are paying $$ for the mobility and the LCD. in my ESTIMATION you will see a MBP with quad core next year.

[pprior]

Obviously there is no exact answer to your question.

However, I will tell you I have a quad core 2007 3ghz mac pro with 11GB of RAM and I find it too slow sometimes. I have very little patience with computers - I want my creativity to flow freely, not wait on the machine to do something.

If you're doing it for a living, time is money - so get the fastest you can afford. There are a lot of people running LR and PS on iMac so it certainly can be done, but especially given that GPU speeds are limited I would never use one for my primary editing machine and certainly not a laptop.

I use my machine 90% for photo editing, most commonly in aperture and CS3, 10MP RAW files from a 1DMIII

[PeteB]

It comes down to cost.

If you can comfortably afford the quad-core, then go for it. It'll last you, and you'll be able to push it real hard without it lagging too much on you.

However, if the cost is a stretch for you, then go with the MacBook Pro, it'll serve you well and do what you demand of it. It'll just be a bit slower at it than the quad.

[ChrisA]

but is the MacPro overkill ? There seems to be such a large gap in processors offered between the MacBook Pro (core2), and the MacPro (dual xeons) for more or less a similar price.

I have an iMac, which has about the same "stuff" inside as a MacBook Pro (only a larger screen and faster disk.) It works well for what you are planning to do but does hang up for a second or two. For example last night I have four RAW images on screen and when I move the loupe tool between them there was about a two count delay.

I also have some images scanned from medium format into 100 megapixel fi es. If you work with this size file (300MB Tiff) very much then you are going to want the Mac Pro although my iMac does work

One big difference between the two computers is that the Mac Pro can hold much more RAM. I don't know if the extra cores help as much as the RAM.

[Kebabselector]

Is it overkill? For me it would be, I'm happy using my 2ghz MacMini for Lightroom and CS3 - though it does struggle a little using the correction brush on LR. I don't use any complicated filters on CS3 which might cause a slowdown.

[Westside guy]

Overkill. :D

[pointycollars]

It's overkill because it's way too expensive for what you get, with the specially-made ram that is egregiously expensive and the fact that you'd want a nice resolution monitor to go along with it, you're looking at 4 grand, probably.

I'd get the 3.06 iMac, it's got a huge screen and it's plenty fast for photography. I own a 2.4 MacBook Pro and do some digital photography for my job, and it's plenty fast for me - though I use a Nikon D40.

[MacBass]

Obviously there is no exact answer to your question.

However, I will tell you I have a quad core 2007 3ghz mac pro with 11GB of RAM and I find it too slow sometimes. I have very little patience with computers

Wow.

On the flipside, what would the be slowest machine to effectively edit digital photography? My dad wants to get into the world of Macs, and he doesn't think that a Mini like mine would cut it - despite the fact that one of my cores is faster than the processor in his laptop and his desktop. And I have more RAM than both his machines combined.

[termina3]

On the flipside, what would the be slowest machine to effectively edit digital photography?

For most everything, the Mac Mini would do fine…*just feed it plenty of RAM, a nice monitor, and an external HDD. If you can't stand waiting, the MP is the way to go (you can do the math…*there's a premium).

but is the MacPro overkill ? There seems to be such a large gap in processors offered between the MacBook Pro (core2), and the MacPro (dual xeons) for more or less a similar price.

If I go with MacPro , would it make sense not to order it with just a single xeon to save $500. and 4gb ram.

If you're going to want a new computer in a few years anyway, or you'd like the mobility of a laptop (once set up, the Mac Pro is set up. It's 50lbs and takes about an hour to restring, coil, and secure the cords), go with the MBP.

If you know you can resist wanting a new computer, the Mac Pro will last you. Upgrading RAM, HDDs, even graphics cards is easy. The only thing that really won't change is the processors (which is why you shouldn't give into that $500 savings now, unless you know you'll be able to plug another processor in later) and mainboard.

Buy RAM from Crucial or Other World Computing, not Apple. Buy bigger hard drives from New Egg or Other World Computing; just go with the cheapest one Apple offers, use it as a boot drive, and stick in a second if you need more space. (Almost) any SATA drive will work. Apple always overcharges for extras.

Graphics cards are more of a hassle…*but luckily you won't feel the need to upgrade them as often.

I have a pre-2008 2.66 quad coming up on it's 2yr mark and I only notice slow downs in RAM-intensive tasks (and I only have 2GB, so serves me right in Aperture).

Oh, and as to the iMac:

I'll parrot what everyone else always says: glossy screen=poor color

[Kebabselector]

On the flipside, what would the be slowest machine to effectively edit digital photography?

Until I got my 2ghz C2D Mini I was using a Core Duo 1.66 MacMini (with 2gb ram).

I guess the older G4 might be able to cope as well.

[wheezy]

However, I will tell you I have a quad core 2007 3ghz mac pro with 11GB of RAM and I find it too slow sometimes. I have very little patience with computers - I want my creativity to flow freely, not wait on the machine to do something.

Nothing is instant, no matter how snappy Steve tells you it is :)

For now, I edit on a 2Ghz C2D Macbook with 2GB RAM and it churns along just fine. Aperture is a memory hog, I can't have that and PS CS3 open at the same time without having lots of beachballs.

To me, HDD speed and RAM are where the speed is going to be for photo editing, and 4GB max in the iMac is nice, but with how easy it is to hit 8 and 10 and more GB's of RAM in the MacPro, that is going to be my next purchase.

Also, the glossy screen just kills me. I'd prefer to find a white matte iMac just to get the better screen; Granted mine is a Macbook with an alright LCD, the color differences between that and my 2005FPW Dell are night and day, from color accuracy to contrast to viewing angle etc. Having two screens showing two sets of colors is annoying. Having dual 20's or 24's on a MP would be much nicer. :)

[woodlandtrek]

IIRC, Aperture passes off a lot of the processing to the graphics card, while lightroom is mostly CPU based, so that's something to take into consideration. Also, I'm not sure how well aperture and lightroom use multiple cores. If you can't find a clear answer on this, I would suggest visiting an apple store and checking out how many cores are actually being used on the mac pro when you are editing photos. I think in some cases a 3.06 imac will give you faster speeds than the lower end mac pros because of the higher clock speed.

[localghost]

how long will you have to work on it?
(>3 years = mac pro)

which level?
color sensitive work (prints) needs a good display, so you would have to get an external one anyways for the macbook/pro, maybe even for the 24-inch imac.

tight deadlines, relevant part of your income?
you'll want more than one hard drive for work, at least another one for backup. cpu is less of an issue, but still. future applications will probably tax your gpu more than todays, you might want to upgrade it down the road.

it's perfectly doable on either machine (save for the mini), but if you have the money, don't think twice and get the mac pro.

if your budget is tight and your photo gear needs to be upgraded, or if you just want to work on some jpgs for web galleries the biggest imac + external drive will fit the bill.

right now i am struggling to complete an extensive wedding job with about 2000 5d raw files in aperture + cs2 on my G5 2x2 and i loose a lot of time because my mac can't keep up with me.

[bking1000]

MacPro will work wonders for you.

[qveda]

Wow, thanks everyone for your great input. I'm planning on getting a D700, CS3+Lightroom. There is a chance that I may get a used 4x5. If I do, I may end up scanning transparencies (= large file sizes). But in the foresable future, I don't have time to take lots of photos due to my day job.

I'm selling a powerful PC to make the jump to Mac. And I do expect it to be my do-it-all computer for ~ 3yrs. So I should probably go ahead and get 2 xeons installed if I go with the MacPro. I suppose in a couple of years, I could upgrade the Xeons to the faster speed.

I've seen the Planar PX series monitors. They look great, get great reviews, and I undertand their drivers work well with the eye-one Display2 color correction device.

But sounds like an iMac would work as well and save me $$ (for lenses and software) . I could still add a Planar monitor (correct??) but HD space and memory would be constrained.

[thomahawk]

then again, it may not be overkill.
you never when new software that comes out in the future that requires better set ups. like a new OS or say you want to play games. you never know. even if you use it for photoshoping and video editing. you are more prepared for future things that come out. because you have a good setup that will be able to handle anything

[MacNoobie]

Are you kidding me? the MacPro was made for photography (among other things). Sure its a little more then a MBP but when I'm trying to edit files from a 5D & 1D Mk II I want to make sure the Mac can keep up with it. Dropping files into LR2 then switching to CS3 and having 10-20 files open + firefox without a slow downs pretty invaluable.

Seriously though I tend to do a lot of multitasking so the MacPro's perfect just be sure to load it up with as much ram as you can since the 2GB that comes with it feels piss weak.

[blownco]

ill sell you mine itll be fine with editing pm me if interested.

[localghost]

(...) I'm planning on getting a D700, CS3+Lightroom. There is a chance that I may get a used 4x5. If I do, I may end up scanning transparencies (= large file sizes). But in the foresable future, I don't have time to take lots of photos due to my day job.

(...) And I do expect it to be my do-it-all computer for ~ 3yrs. (...)

But sounds like an iMac would work as well and save me $$ (for lenses and software) . I could still add a Planar monitor (correct??) but HD space and memory would be constrained.

the imac supports external displays up to 1920 x 1200, and does not offer external sata. so you are restricted to <30" and firewire (or network storage). it will work, but you will notice the difference (even if the cpu/gpu would be the same, which of course they are not).

[Macanadian]

but is the MacPro overkill ? There seems to be such a large gap in processors offered between the MacBook Pro (core2), and the MacPro (dual xeons) for more or less a similar price.


Mac Pro has screen size over the Mac book. I was going to get a Mac Pro recently, but, opted for the iMAC 20 inch. Next year I'll probably will get a Mac Pro. My reasons are: I'm starting a wedding photography business, since weddings in my geographic area are in lower number in the winter time. Holding off of the Mac Pro till next year made sense to me.

Mac Pro can be more useful for myself. Since I don't have a studio (work at home photographer). I can bring the Mac Pro to my clients and show them.

I don't know how heavily you are going to be into photography. But myself I find the more photo's you take. It helps having a larger screen, larger hard drive. If you are shooting a few hundred shots a month in JPG. Go for the Macbook. Once the Macbook starts to hold you back in production. Sell it and buy a Mac Pro.

[nepfotos]

I switched a few weeks ago from my imac to my new MacPro and I'm more than happy. Much faster (especially with 10 GM RAM) more HD space more monitor choices.
I would do it again and would never switch back to the iMac :p
Peter

[wheezy]

Last night I decided to go into more heavy editing in PS CS3, as in burn and dodge, run some filters, do more than just the RAW editor and maybe removing some dust spots.

My Macbook (sig) was slow as a dog. Lots of Beach Balls, the brush didn't remotely keep up with my mouse movements, and the fans were screaming. It would drive me nuts to work on it if that were the type of editing I worked with. (I don't right now, but I'd love to learn the greater darkroom techniques of photoshop in the near future).

It sounds like a budget isn't your greatest concern, or you've just been incredible at saving. While lenses are what really makes the picture, if you can jump for a Mac Pro now I wouldn't look elsewhere. And might as well go 8-core as S.Leopard is supposed to handle multi-core at a level we haven't seen yet.

[anubis]

I've got the 3.06GHz iMac. The only time it feels slow is when I'm flipipng through pictures in full preview mode (not quick preview) in Aperture. If I start going too fast it will start taking a few seconds to generate the preview. Also, if I have Aperture, Photoshop, and iWeb open (and firefox and mail, of course) sometimes it feels like it's running low on RAM. I think I'm going to upgrade to 4GB and that should be fine.

I'd recommend the 3.06GHz iMac if you can live with the glossy screen. Otherwise if money is no object, then hell no the Mac Pro isn't overkill!!! :D

[mrgreen4242]

Obviously there is no exact answer to your question.

However, I will tell you I have a quad core 2007 3ghz mac pro with 11GB of RAM and I find it too slow sometimes. I have very little patience with computers - I want my creativity to flow freely, not wait on the machine to do something.

If you're doing it for a living, time is money - so get the fastest you can afford. There are a lot of people running LR and PS on iMac so it certainly can be done, but especially given that GPU speeds are limited I would never use one for my primary editing machine and certainly not a laptop.

I use my machine 90% for photo editing, most commonly in aperture and CS3, 10MP RAW files from a 1DMIII

It sounds to me like you are throwing money into the wrong parts of your computer. 4x3ghz w/11GB of RAM is fast enough for just about anything being done right, let alone still photography. That's the sort of rig they edit HD video on, in near realtime.

I'm betting it's your HDD setup that's slowing you down. You should hook a RAID5 made up with 10k RPM drives to that and see how it works for you. I'm guessing you are having load times between opening/saving/changing files. Even 10MP RAW files are only, what, 10-12mb each? You can cache hundreds of those in RAM with 11gb of memory, so it must be harddrive load times you are "feeling".

A dual core MacPro with 4gb of RAM and a really fast HDD setup would likely feel faster than a quad core with three times the RAM editing photos. I'm not a photographer, but I am a network/system admin/tech and have experience working with huge amounts of data.

[anubis]

It sounds to me like you are throwing money into the wrong parts of your computer. 4x3ghz w/11GB of RAM is fast enough for just about anything being done right, let alone still photography. That's the sort of rig they edit HD video on, in near realtime.

I'm betting it's your HDD setup that's slowing you down. You should hook a RAID5 made up with 10k RPM drives to that and see how it works for you. I'm guessing you are having load times between opening/saving/changing files. Even 10MP RAW files are only, what, 10-12mb each? You can cache hundreds of those in RAM with 11gb of memory, so it must be harddrive load times you are "feeling".

A dual core MacPro with 4gb of RAM and a really fast HDD setup would likely feel faster than a quad core with three times the RAM editing photos. I'm not a photographer, but I am a network/system admin/tech and have experience working with huge amounts of data.


Uhh... agreed. As I mentioned earlier I've got a 3.06GHz iMac with 2GB RAM and EVERYTHING in Aperture and Photoshop CS3 is instantaneous for me, processing 8MB RAWs from my Canon XT, except when I try to flip through a dozen or more photos within a few seconds in full resolution preview mode, and even then it only takes the computer a couple of seconds to "catch up" and render the full resolution preview for all of those photos.

[localghost]

I've got the 3.06GHz iMac. The only time it feels slow is when I'm flipipng through pictures in full preview mode (not quick preview) in Aperture. If I start going too fast it will start taking a few seconds to generate the preview. Also, if I have Aperture, Photoshop, and iWeb open (and firefox and mail, of course) sometimes it feels like it's running low on RAM. I think I'm going to upgrade to 4GB and that should be fine.

I'd recommend the 3.06GHz iMac if you can live with the glossy screen. Otherwise if money is no object, then hell no the Mac Pro isn't overkill!!! :D

aperture generates the preview right after importing (or changing the file) - might be load times. reducing their size in the preferences to mach your screen could speed things up. 4GB sound like the right amount of RAM (i use 3GB, not maxed out, but without other apps running while editing, and only 2-4 files open in cs2 at the same time).

here (http://www.bagelturf.com/aparticles/tips/tipperf/index.php) is a very good checklist to get the most out of your mac+aperture, gives a good insight into the important parts of the system too.

[pprior]

Uhh... agreed. As I mentioned earlier I've got a 3.06GHz iMac with 2GB RAM and EVERYTHING in Aperture and Photoshop CS3 is instantaneous for me, processing 8MB RAWs from my Canon XT, except when I try to flip through a dozen or more photos within a few seconds in full resolution preview mode, and even then it only takes the computer a couple of seconds to "catch up" and render the full resolution preview for all of those photos.

Well waiting a couple of seconds drives me crazy, that's my point. I don't want to ever wait on my computer.

The Ram gets eaten up by parallels and PS and aperture and other programs, I don't like shutting things down to run something else.

I started with 2GB of ram and I can guarantee you you would see a huge difference if you upgraded to 4GB (which I did). then I went to 8GB and saw a slight boost, but nothing dramatic. However I frequently do large batch imports of RAW files - 8-16+GB at a time and I can tell you that importing that many 10MP RAW files at a time will destroy a computer with less RAM. I know because I've been there.

I've had an external eSATA raid5 unit, and it was too noisy for my taste so I returned it. RAID5 internally is not doable with the space that i need. I know that disk speeds are likely my biggest slowdown at this point, but can find no easy way to fix that problem.

[termina3]

Mac Pro has screen size over the Mac book. I was going to get a Mac Pro recently, but, opted for the iMAC 20 inch. Next year I'll probably will get a Mac Pro. My reasons are: I'm starting a wedding photography business, since weddings in my geographic area are in lower number in the winter time. Holding off of the Mac Pro till next year made sense to me.

Mac Pro can be more useful for myself. Since I don't have a studio (work at home photographer). I can bring the Mac Pro to my clients and show them.

I don't know how heavily you are going to be into photography. But myself I find the more photo's you take. It helps having a larger screen, larger hard drive. If you are shooting a few hundred shots a month in JPG. Go for the Macbook. Once the Macbook starts to hold you back in production. Sell it and buy a Mac Pro.

He's comparing a MacBook Pro, iMac, and Mac Pro--not the MacBook to the MacBook Pro, which is what I think you're speaking of. The Mac Pro isn't the type of computer you'd want to "take to your clients."

And now that I'm posting, periods are not interchangeable with commas. I sympathize if English is not your first language…*but still.

[termina3]

I know that disk speeds are likely my biggest slowdown at this point, but can find no easy way to fix that problem.

10k scratch/temp disk?

[qveda]

Not having migrated to Mac yet , what is meant by "scratch disk" ?
If I get a MacPro with 320gb HD (OS and apps), then add another internal drive for data, and perhaps an internal or external drive for backup, what is needed for a 'scratch disk' ??

[Westside guy]

Well waiting a couple of seconds drives me crazy, that's my point. I don't want to ever wait on my computer.

The Ram gets eaten up by parallels and PS and aperture and other programs, I don't like shutting things down to run something else.


This is a peculiar affliction that seems to mostly limit itself to afflicting Mac users. That's one thing I've never understood - why people just leave all these programs running. I remember observing this back long before OS X.

The only reason I'm commenting about this is because, in threads like this one, I keep reading people posting variations on "your system just crawls if you only have the default 2GB of RAM". No, for most of us it doesn't. It can, if you always leave all these big programs running; but you should make it clear that's what you're doing when you say "Oh, gosh, you really need 4GB or even 8GB of RAM." :D

So anyway, I appreciate that you said exactly that. ;) Context is important.

[mrgreen4242]

Well waiting a couple of seconds drives me crazy, that's my point. I don't want to ever wait on my computer.

The Ram gets eaten up by parallels and PS and aperture and other programs, I don't like shutting things down to run something else.

I started with 2GB of ram and I can guarantee you you would see a huge difference if you upgraded to 4GB (which I did). then I went to 8GB and saw a slight boost, but nothing dramatic. However I frequently do large batch imports of RAW files - 8-16+GB at a time and I can tell you that importing that many 10MP RAW files at a time will destroy a computer with less RAM. I know because I've been there.

I've had an external eSATA raid5 unit, and it was too noisy for my taste so I returned it. RAID5 internally is not doable with the space that i need. I know that disk speeds are likely my biggest slowdown at this point, but can find no easy way to fix that problem.

Sorry, don't want to sound like a jerk, but you're sound like a computer hypochondriac.

First, 8gb of RAW files, even 12MP raw files, is 750 photos. You're saying you regularly import 750-1500 photos, sometimes more?

Second, you admit that disk speed is likely why you have to "wait for seconds" for things, but you got rid of an eSATA RAID5 drive because it was too noisy. You didn't think to put it further away from you or inside of a noise baffling enclosure? Money seems to be of little concern to you so a longer cable or a vented cabinet should be within your reach.

Third, an "internal solution" isn't viable because you can't get enough space? You can put 4TB in a Mac Pro. Not sure what you are running right now, but 4TB will hold about 400,000 RAW photos. Assuming you left a very nice DSL on a motor drive constantly taking, say, 4 photos per second, that's about 28 hours worth of photos. I get needing more than 4tb of space for something like editing a big HD movie, but for still photography, the disk needs aren't THAT extreme.

Fourth, importing batches of (smallish) files shouldn't really be a memory intensive operation. It's a sequential process limited by drive space more than available RAM. I'm doubting importing even 8bg of 10mb files eats up more than a gig of RAM or so (based on my experience as a system admin with file servers and database servers). There may be some automatic processing going on during the import that eats up RAM, but the actual import itself shouldn't really do much with system memory.

It just sounds to me like you are making up problems for yourself. Like I said, I don't want to sound like a jerk, but I'm just not "buying what you are selling", as they say.

[localghost]

Sorry, don't want to sound like a jerk, but you're sound like a computer hypochondriac.

First, 8gb of RAW files, even 12MP raw files, is 750 photos. You're saying you regularly import 750-1500 photos, sometimes more?

Second, you admit that disk speed is likely why you have to "wait for seconds" for things, but you got rid of an eSATA RAID5 drive because it was too noisy. You didn't think to put it further away from you or inside of a noise baffling enclosure? Money seems to be of little concern to you so a longer cable or a vented cabinet should be within your reach.

Third, an "internal solution" isn't viable because you can't get enough space? You can put 4TB in a Mac Pro. Not sure what you are running right now, but 4TB will hold about 400,000 RAW photos. Assuming you left a very nice DSL on a motor drive constantly taking, say, 4 photos per second, that's about 28 hours worth of photos. I get needing more than 4tb of space for something like editing a big HD movie, but for still photography, the disk needs aren't THAT extreme.

Fourth, importing batches of (smallish) files shouldn't really be a memory intensive operation. It's a sequential process limited by drive space more than available RAM. I'm doubting importing even 8bg of 10mb files eats up more than a gig of RAM or so (based on my experience as a system admin with file servers and database servers). There may be some automatic processing going on during the import that eats up RAM, but the actual import itself shouldn't really do much with system memory.

It just sounds to me like you are making up problems for yourself. Like I said, I don't want to sound like a jerk, but I'm just not "buying what you are selling", as they say.

most people think editing photos will never really tax a system because of the way _they_ work with them. even semi-pros often think so, because their concentrate on their shooting, dslr gear, advertising and never spend a second to review their workflow.

i work full-time as an editor/pj for a website and started to do other photo assignments on the side. even those small web sized pics will bog down reasonable (in this case: windows) systems, when you are in a hurry. i completely hit a wall trying to implement a similar workflow on my g5 with high resolution raw files. the same system works excellent cutting sd-dv in fcp.

while i am not there yet, it's easy for me to see how a pro will even max out a system like the one above. you can not just do the numbers and think it will be ok.

just a few examples: the raw-file you are mentioning does not stay at 12MB. import one into cs, make a couple of layers and see what you end up with as .tiff or .psd. open a series of those (to compare color, copy layers, presets with fonts, whatever) and run a some of your scripts - sooner or later it will stop you with crap like "can't do that, currently running (another) script". if you have a series of shortcuts for a series of scripts, you'll type them mechanically and it will bug the hell out of you if you are stopped in the middle of it (even if it's just a few seconds).

1500 pictures are not that uncommon in the digital age, too. and while i could not afford a vented cabinet for storage, it's not like i could not use it. 2x2 hd (raid os, raid scratch) will have to be my next setup, so even the new mac pro will force me to backup externally.

[pprior]

Sorry, don't want to sound like a jerk, but you're sound like a computer hypochondriac.

First, 8gb of RAW files, even 12MP raw files, is 750 photos. You're saying you regularly import 750-1500 photos, sometimes more?

Second, you admit that disk speed is likely why you have to "wait for seconds" for things, but you got rid of an eSATA RAID5 drive because it was too noisy. You didn't think to put it further away from you or inside of a noise baffling enclosure? Money seems to be of little concern to you so a longer cable or a vented cabinet should be within your reach.

Third, an "internal solution" isn't viable because you can't get enough space? You can put 4TB in a Mac Pro. Not sure what you are running right now, but 4TB will hold about 400,000 RAW photos. Assuming you left a very nice DSL on a motor drive constantly taking, say, 4 photos per second, that's about 28 hours worth of photos. I get needing more than 4tb of space for something like editing a big HD movie, but for still photography, the disk needs aren't THAT extreme.

Fourth, importing batches of (smallish) files shouldn't really be a memory intensive operation. It's a sequential process limited by drive space more than available RAM. I'm doubting importing even 8bg of 10mb files eats up more than a gig of RAM or so (based on my experience as a system admin with file servers and database servers). There may be some automatic processing going on during the import that eats up RAM, but the actual import itself shouldn't really do much with system memory.

It just sounds to me like you are making up problems for yourself. Like I said, I don't want to sound like a jerk, but I'm just not "buying what you are selling", as they say.

Hey, no offense taken, and i'm only responding in this thread because I do the kind of thing I think the OP is doing as well.

I do regularly import that many photos. I shoot sports events and will often fill 2-3 8GB cards and sometimes twice that. It's just what I do.

Striking a balance between performance and noise is always something I have struggled with. I've toyed with the idea of a noise baffled cabinet, but the professional ones are 3-5K and I just can't justify it.

With aperture, doing a 8GB import will completely dog down the computer, creating a large swap file, and making hte system near unusable. It may be a bug, but I'm dealing with it.

I've got a 750GB boot disk, a 500GB scratch disk, a 500GB data disk, and a 1TB backup disk in my computer, and they all are almost full. Attached is a 4TB Drobo which is 80% full and a 1.5TB NAS in the basement which is 90% full. When I say I don't have room internally, I mean it :)

And I do not think I'm out of the ordinary for a semi-pro photographer and any full time pro will use way more than I do.

I don't claim to be an expert, but just explaining my situation, which the OP may or may not find useful.

Cheers

[termina3]

Not having migrated to Mac yet , what is meant by "scratch disk" ?
If I get a MacPro with 320gb HD (OS and apps), then add another internal drive for data, and perhaps an internal or external drive for backup, what is needed for a 'scratch disk' ??

It's a more pro-apps thing than an Apple thing (although, come to think of it, I've never heard of one on an XP box).

The scratch disk is super-high speed (either 10,000rpm SATA or 15K+ SAS) hard drive that handles large amounts of information that you'd rather have on RAM, but can't because there's too little RAM. Obviously the difference between having data on a 7,200 (or…*5400) rpm drive is noticable when compared to a 15,000rpm drive.

Usually you can designate a scratch disk in programs like photoshop for large files that need to be pulled up quickly/worked on.

Think of it as an overflow tank.

[valdore]

I chose my Mac Pro because of the fact I can throw four hard drives in it, to store all those crazy numbers of RAW files one tends to accumulate.

That and the processing power of this thing means it also handles anything I throw at it, and I can keep using it for several years with no worries about obsolescence.

[snberk103]

This is said with a smile on my face....

To the posters who can't stand to wait a second or two for their systems to respond, you have no idea....

I was creating an art photograph (a montage for a photo art show) in CS3. It was 40 x40 by inches with over a dozen layers. It was slightly bigger than a 1GB. I was working on a 1.66 Mini with 1GB of memory. Before each working session I would restart the Mini to clear all the memory, and then not open anything other than CS3 and the image.

I was terrified the Mini would crash, so I would try and save often... After hitting the save button I would go and do a load of laundry, or mow the lawn (small sections at a time), do a sink of dishes.... etc. I'm not kidding. Sometimes I would forget to save for a few hours, and you know.... that little Mini never crashed. Not once. I never lost any work. I managed to complete that project over the course of a week or two.

Then I had chance to do another project, of similar size. I went and got an 8 core Mac Pro, and I'm not sorry at all. Its not perfectly tweaked for speed I'm sure... (learnt some things reading this thread though)... but I don't complain - I have yet to do anything where I had time to even get out the office door before it was completed. This system will do me for years.

And the Mini? Is happily working as a media centre. I even named him.

To the OP - It may be overkill to get a Mac Pro, but you will get years of service out of it. And its more flexible too. Better choices for HDs (internal and external), more displays, etc etc. The only problem with a Mac Pro is that when its time to retire it, you won't be able to fit it into that little space on the shelf next to the stereo... :rolleyes: ... If you are a professional, get the best tools you can afford. It sounds like you aren't quite ready yet to do this full time, so perhaps you should wait a bit longer to go "whole hog" on a system until you will be using it more fully.

Good Luck....

[wheezy]

I forgot all about the Scratch Disk! I've been running my MB 5400rpm Drive. Moved it to a 7200RPM External, so it should speed me up a little bit.

It seems that the MP is the general consensus here for several reasons. If you can afford to get it before you buy your camera and start loading up on the RAW files that would be ideal, then you can put them where you want to right from the start. When I buy my MP I'll have to move allll my files from their 2 or 3 locations and reorganize them; it'll be a tedious joy.

[Westside guy]

I forgot all about the Scratch Disk! I've been running my MB 5400rpm Drive. Moved it to a 7200RPM External, so it should speed me up a little bit.

It seems that the MP is the general consensus here for several reasons. If you can afford to get it before you buy your camera and start loading up on the RAW files that would be ideal, then you can put them where you want to right from the start. When I buy my MP I'll have to move allll my files from their 2 or 3 locations and reorganize them; it'll be a tedious joy.

I don't think there's anything even approaching a consensus in this thread...

[wheezy]

I don't think there's anything even approaching a consensus in this thread...

Okay, not a consensus. I just think I'm seeing MP as the winner cause that's what I would buy. I hereby denounce any claim to a consensus. :)

I did switch my Scratch disk over and while photoshop goes about the same, OS X seems to be more responsive (snappy, if you will) and my system Swap doesn't seem to be nearly as large.

[ZballZ]

Someone who knows how should make this into a poll, this i getting interesting :D

1: Overkill! Go with MacBookpro!
2: Overkill! Go with iMac!
3: Sure, you need to go MacPro!

[jwt]

If I go with MacPro , would it make sense not to order it with just a single xeon to save $500. and 4gb ram.
This is the set-up I have and it is perfect. I use LR and PS all the time and even with this set-up there is still some lag sometimes, indicating that it is not overkill. Other times I get into a situation where I make a 16-bit panorama with several 14 MB RAW file, and after some layers work got started it swelled to almost 1 GB. I never even realized it was that big because this machine handled it so well. In that case I realized how happy I was with my purchase.

[pprior]

Okay, not a consensus. I just think I'm seeing MP as the winner cause that's what I would buy. I hereby denounce any claim to a consensus. :)

I did switch my Scratch disk over and while photoshop goes about the same, OS X seems to be more responsive (snappy, if you will) and my system Swap doesn't seem to be nearly as large.

You're talking about setting scratch disk in photoshop, right? There is no scratch disk for the system is there?

[termina3]

You're talking about setting scratch disk in photoshop, right? There is no scratch disk for the system is there?

…but retrieving files (documents, photos, movies, etc.) from a faster drive would show in the OS…*even if it's not due to the OS.

Theoretically the OS can have a scratch disk: install the OS on one of those superfast drives and devote it as a boot disk.

[FSBW21086]

i boot off a 750 gig velociraptor 10,000 rpm drive. The system feels very "snappy" but still I thought things would be nearly instant and they aren't. I use two 750gb Barracudda 7200.11 drives in a RAID0 for all my files. Scrolling through itunes or lightroom photos for example isn't buttery smooth with the slider. Its a big increase over my macbook pro. But i/o speed I think will see a much needed improvement in snow leopard.

Exporting 13 MB raw files takes under a second in lightroom (8bit,tiff) :) this is where the mac pro excels. Multi tasking is also amazing.

[qveda]

It's a more pro-apps thing than an Apple thing (although, come to think of it, I've never heard of one on an XP box).

The scratch disk is super-high speed (either 10,000rpm SATA or 15K+ SAS) hard drive that handles large amounts of information that you'd rather have on RAM, but can't because there's too little RAM. Obviously the difference between having data on a 7,200 (or…*5400) rpm drive is noticable when compared to a 15,000rpm drive.

Usually you can designate a scratch disk in programs like photoshop for large files that need to be pulled up quickly/worked on.

Think of it as an overflow tank.

Ah!, so that's what is meant by a 'scratch disk'. Didn't know that applications like PS and LR would need more than 4gb , and so didn't think they would need an ultra high speed HD - but I guess this is like a giant memory cache. So when I buy my Mac Pro, does it make sense to use the default 320gb drive for the OS (probably comes that way) and apps, and then get a one large super fast drive for all the data? Then you'd still want a back up drive that doesn't need to be as fast, right? And the backup drive could be internal or external - right?

[jwt]

So when I buy my Mac Pro, does it make sense to use the default 320gb drive for the OS (probably comes that way) and apps, and then get a one large super fast drive for all the data?
A lot of people swap the stocker, claiming it's not fast enough, but I kept mine and it opens 200 MB images like they're jpegs. No complaints on speed despite the poor benchmarks relative to other drives.

[JeffTL]

I run Lightroom on a 2.2 GHz MacBook Pro and it's plenty fast. My catalog is on a Western Digital RE2 disk in an Icy Dock FireWire 800 enclosure and it's very fast indeed. On today's MBP or MacBook it'd be faster yet.

[termina3]

Ah!, so that's what is meant by a 'scratch disk'. Didn't know that applications like PS and LR would need more than 4gb , and so didn't think they would need an ultra high speed HD - but I guess this is like a giant memory cache. So when I buy my Mac Pro, does it make sense to use the default 320gb drive for the OS (probably comes that way) and apps, and then get a one large super fast drive for all the data? Then you'd still want a back up drive that doesn't need to be as fast, right? And the backup drive could be internal or external - right?

Well, perhaps, but I'd suggest trying it without a scratch drive and see if you have any hiccups. I don't have a scratch drive, but I don't work with big files (>10mb); that's also why I can get away with so little RAM.

[wheezy]

You're talking about setting scratch disk in photoshop, right? There is no scratch disk for the system is there?

No, not one for OSX. However, if PS is paging out RAM to my faster external drive, it seems to keep the System Swap drive smaller on my MB, so if the MB has a smaller size to search over....

I'll start digging my hole right here, and it's getting deeper. I'm make more guesses here than a back-street Vegas Magician. Things just seem a tad more responsive even after working on some big .psd's in PS as compared to before.

[-hh]

(Hi all ... its been awhile)

I've been running a G5 PowerMac for 5 years now, with a strong emphasis on photography.

This has also included fairly frequent instances of scanning 35mm slides at the 50MP - 200MP range, which is a real fast way to get the machine bogged down and crying for mercy. Bottom line is that while this faithful beast still does fine with generic routine tasks, modern digital photography eats up more and more processing power (and disk storage).

As such, I will be replacing this machine in the near future -- I'm partly just waiting until the next hardware bump (it is due soon (http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#Mac_Pro)), but I'm also waiting on a camera gear 'bump' too.

IMO, it is fairly safe to say that there's no such thing as overkill. Instead, its merely a question of how long will you be able to run the machine before growth in 'other factors' eats up whatever excess power you originally had.

For example, while I've had my current G5, much of the original "stress" from digital photography was a 4MP camera that only shot JPG. Today, I'm asking it to routinely handle an 8MP camera that does RAW+JPG (plus film scans).

And on the horizon for tomorrow is whatever the hardware specifications are going to be for Canon's 5D replacement, which is currently a 12MP camera and is rumored to jump to somewhere around 18-21MP. The number isn't as important as the simple observation that the bar is going to be moved up again in terms of what is going to be asked of the computer to handle it.

Since I've gotten a healthy 5 years out of my current Mac, I'm not too terribly concerned about the cost of its replacement. Bottom line is that it will be a Mac Pro and I won't step down from the dual Xeon quad to save $500 today...buying that second CPU will cost me less than $10/month over the next 5 years (2009-2014) of its anticipated minimum lifespan.

In the meantime, my current G5 will be re-purposed as an OS X (Tiger) Server, so while it doesn't have enough horsepower for modern digital photography needs, I'll probably get another 3 years of useful life out of it :-)

Sure, I might be able to 'get away' with less power today, and get a good iMac or something, but given how photography has continued to grow (and continue to grow), I simply don't expect that an iMac today will last as long as a Mac Pro will before the expectations bar gets pushed higher. As such, the cost question for me is along the lines of buying two iMacs over the next ~5 years versus just one Mac Pro. Perhaps if I had a strong need for having a house full of computers that trickle down through family members, I'd go that route, but since I don't need multiple computers, I tend to take bigger steps and hold each one longer.


-hh

[Consultant]

Depends on
what you do,
your budget, and
what your time is worth.

Only you can figure it out. Mac Pro is ideal for some people.

[ChrisA]

This has also included fairly frequent instances of scanning 35mm slides at the 50MP - 200MP range,

Are you 35mm slide really that good that they need even 50MP scans?

I've yet to see any 35mm film that needs to be scanned at more then 4000 DPI.
A 50MP scan works out to almost 6000 DPI and a 200MP scan works out to about 11,000 DPI. Do you mean "megapixels" or "megabytes". Megabytes seems reasonable as the size of an uncompressed tiff file.

From what I've read and seen Both Fuji Velvia and Kodak 100VS top out at around 100 cycles per millimeter and there is absolutely no detail below that level.

[-hh]

Are your 35mm slide really that good that they need even 50MP scans?

I'd like to think that a few of them are :D For the most part, I'm currently doing quick scans at 3200dpi @ 48bit, which works out to ~15MP. If its something clearly superior & noteworthy, I may notch it up to 40-50MP.

What I really see as more of the real underlying question is partly philisophical in that oversampling permits a "save all the data" approach to avoid future 2nd or 3rd re-scans for other projects. The problem is that if the size is so large that the computer hardware ends up choking, reality trumps philosophy.

I've yet to see any 35mm film that needs to be scanned at more then 4000 DPI...and a 200MP scan works out to about 11,000 DPI. Do you mean "megapixels" or "megabytes". Megabytes seems reasonable as the size of an uncompressed tiff file.

The 200MP number was megapixels. The final image was 17433 x 11551 pixels, which works out to roughly 200MP; the file size in Photoshop format was 1.2GB. This had been a personal experiment which came from a "push all the hardware" trial that I had first done way back in 2005.

This file size proved impactical for the hardware, as a simple "Autolevel" would take nearly 7 minutes to complete. In the workflow that followed, this is what was then down-sampled to 8717 x 5778 ... roughly 50MP (120MB Photoshop file size).


From what I've read and seen Both Fuji Velvia and Kodak 100VS top out at around 100 cycles per millimeter and there is absolutely no detail below that level.

~100 line pairs per mm is the general rule of thumb for a 'Good ISO 100' film, although there's a lot more to the question than that. For example, Kodachrome 64 was generally considered to deliver around 120-150 at 1:1000 contrast ...but only 60 at low contrast. As usual, context is everything. For example, there's some philisophical hair-splitting over the measure of lines itself, with the point-of-debate being that a "line pair" technically is a dark stripe with a bright one next to it, it is actually 2 pixels, so 50 lines/mm is 50*2 = 100 pixels. Bottom line is that this (and many other factors) makes it impossible to try to boil down all the variables to one "equivalency" number. :D

And in adding to this mix, I have some tripod-mount work with Ektar 25. As per this source (http://www.dantestella.com/zeiss/resolution.html), they state that Ektar topped out at 200 line pairs per mm. Similarly, other sources allude to Kodachrome 25 supposedly being in the 200-250 range...so there's still potentially open questions.

In general, my personal take on the age-old question of "digital equivalency" for 35mm has waffled from 40MP down to 25MP. The more that we investigate the subject, the more good points are found on the question of how to measure a qualitative subject...its not just quantity, but also quality.

And something else to consider in terms of computer hardware to support the scanning of historical film is that not all film is 35mm; I figure that medium format (6x4.5mm) will be roughly 40 megapixels at 3200dpi.



-hh

[qveda]

Hello again,
On my PC (its for sale, any takers ;-), I have 3 SATA 7200rpm drives. one for OS and apps, one for data, one for other data or backup.

on a new MacPro, (buying very soon), what is recommended? comes with 320gb. I assume the OS and apps would go there. should the second drive for data be super fast? 10Krpm ? would you notice a difference from 7200rpm?

Perhaps a backup drive would not need to be fast, just large. any big advantage of going external vs internal?

[snberk103]

The advantage of an external backup drive is that you can take it with you. Ideally, you should have at least 2 backup drives, one of which is always off-site in case the building that computer is in is destroyed.

[Digital Skunk]

....

For some of the 1TB and soon to be 1.5TB drives the 10k's won't be much faster. If you can order your MacPro online, get it configured with the 1TB stock so that you don't have to worry about replacing the main drive in the future and have a useless 320GB sitting around.

The second drive can be for backup internally, or you can stripe two drives for speed as the main, then stripe two more for backup and speed.

....

A bit over the top, but yes.

[qveda]

For some of the 1TB and soon to be 1.5TB drives the 10k's won't be much faster. If you can order your MacPro online, get it configured with the 1TB stock so that you don't have to worry about replacing the main drive in the future and have a useless 320GB sitting around.

The second drive can be for backup internally, or you can stripe two drives for speed as the main, then stripe two more for backup and speed.


The problem I have with ordering my MacPro with 1TB drive is that I thought I would get better performance with separate drives for OS+apps (320gb), and Data (500 or 1TB). Then you should easily be able to backup just the data drive.

Would striping two identical drives provide better performance? reliability? both? Does the MacOS allow you to stripe the drives or would I need a Raid card? (if so, that would put me over my budget).

[Digital Skunk]

The problem I have with ordering my MacPro with 1TB drive is that I thought I would get better performance with separate drives for OS+apps (320gb), and Data (500 or 1TB). Then you should easily be able to backup just the data drive.

Would striping two identical drives provide better performance? reliability? both? Does the MacOS allow you to stripe the drives or would I need a Raid card? (if so, that would put me over my budget).

The OS will allow you to do a RAID through Disk Utility, and you can access that through the install disks so you can RAID your drives then install Leopard.

It may not be as necessary though, even if you want that speed, to do a non-hardware RAID with two 1TB drives since they will be fast enough.

As far as speed goes when it comes to applications and boot disks, you have nothing to worry about as a photographer. Running the application from the system drive is required by many apps, and wouldn't yield you much of a speed gain if you stuck them on another drive.

[qveda]

As far as speed goes when it comes to applications and boot disks, you have nothing to worry about as a photographer. Running the application from the system drive is required by many apps, and wouldn't yield you much of a speed gain if you stuck them on another drive.

To clarify, I would expect to install all applications on the OS drive. But all data would go on the 2nd drive. and a 3rd for backup. This has been the recommendation in the PC world, especially for streaming types of applications (like audio and video). Does this rule of thumb also apply to the Macs ?

I'd rather just have OS, applications and data on one drive, and a second drive for backup. I would only use 3 if it improves performance for photography and some video work.

[valdore]

Is 10.6 Snow Leopard going to assist in providing the ability to have both a software RAID and also have redundancy?

[Digital Skunk]

...

If your video isn't full HD video editing with Final Cut Studio then leaving everything on the main drive is okay. Or if you aren't doing video every single waking moment of your professional life either SD or HD then you can leave everything on the main drive.

For organization, it may help putting all your content on an alternate drive though, then backing up that main drive with your content and the other with all the apps and OS software.

[localghost]

To clarify, I would expect to install all applications on the OS drive. But all data would go on the 2nd drive. and a 3rd for backup. This has been the recommendation in the PC world, especially for streaming types of applications (like audio and video). Does this rule of thumb also apply to the Macs ?

I'd rather just have OS, applications and data on one drive, and a second drive for backup. I would only use 3 if it improves performance for photography and some video work.

osx will make better use of lots of ram than 32-bit windows (never used 64-bit), which might or might not help (depending on the app as well). it will not change your drive performance.

this pdf-guide (http://homepage.mac.com/boots911/.Public/PhotoshopAccelerationBasics2.4W.pdf) has good recommendations (pages 15, 16) for setups.

[qveda]

Wow, Localghost, thanks for the article (pdf) ! great info that I've been looking for .
The article indicates a performance boost by using 10K SATA for OS and Apps and image files , and a second 10K drive (perhaps ~150gb) dedicated for scratch.

Question: how do I change the 320gb drive that comes with the MacPro to 10k (from 7200) ?

[qveda]

The other interesting option for Photoshop high performance from the article is going with two pairs of drive in Raid0 for OS startup, apps and files. Could I do that by adding a second 7200rpm 320gb SATA drive after I get the Mac Pro , and using MacOS to create the Raid0 pair ??

[Digital Skunk]

Wow, Localghost, thanks for the article (pdf) ! great info that I've been looking for .
The article indicates a performance boost by using 10K SATA for OS and Apps and image files , and a second 10K drive (perhaps ~150gb) dedicated for scratch.

Question: how do I change the 320gb drive that comes with the MacPro to 10k (from 7200) ?

The same document suggests using the faster (because its more dense) 750GB drives. And as was said, the 10k drives aren't as fast as the 1TB drives and most likely the 1.5TB that is out soon.

The other interesting option for Photoshop high performance from the article is going with two pairs of drive in Raid0 for OS startup, apps and files. Could I do that by adding a second 7200rpm 320gb SATA drive after I get the Mac Pro , and using MacOS to create the Raid0 pair ??

Yup, it was said a little while ago. You can strip (RAID 0) two fast drives and make them faster.

[rhett7660]

First, 8gb of RAW files, even 12MP raw files, is 750 photos. You're saying you regularly import 750-1500 photos, sometimes more?

I do, and I don't get paid for a lot of the stuff I do. Most of it is for myself. Going out and taking a crap load of pictures. Or when my wife and myself go out to take pictures. We have amassed over 10K worth of pictures in a very little time period.

But then again, I have a couple of assignments where I have filled up my 2 8gig sticks and several 2 and 1 gig sticks.

I have a Mac Pro, and I don't think it is overkill (see sig). It works pretty darn good for what I need it to do and I don't find myself waiting very long to do what I need it to do.

[Phrasikleia]

Going out and taking a crap load of pictures. Or when my wife and myself go out to take pictures. We have amassed over 10K worth of pictures in a very little time period.

My husband and I took over 9,200 photos (all RAW) in a three-week period this summer. :eek: And then there was the rest of the summer!

I wish I had a Mac Pro. Since I loaded all those photos into Aperture, the program has turned into a slug on my MacBook Pro.

[rhett7660]

My husband and I took over 9,200 photos (all RAW) in a three-week period this summer. And then there was the rest of the summer!

That is what I am talking about....!!!!

[Digital Skunk]

That is what I am talking about....!!!!

Are they any good?

I remember training a few shooter students and they shoot just as many images simply by holding down the shutter button. Real waste of space and editing time.

[localghost]

Wow, Localghost, thanks for the article (pdf) ! great info that I've been looking for .
The article indicates a performance boost by using 10K SATA for OS and Apps and image files , and a second 10K drive (perhaps ~150gb) dedicated for scratch.

Question: how do I change the 320gb drive that comes with the MacPro to 10k (from 7200) ?

I second what Digital Skunk said. 10k drives (= hardware feature you can't change) are only worh it if a) you don't have the space for 2x7200 drives or b) you want ultimate speed with 2x10 drives.

to get an idea what you might need and how to get there (or if you are bored at work ;-) ) also have a look at barefeats (http://www.barefeats.com/) and xlr8yourmac (http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/).

[Phrasikleia]

Are they any good?

Yeah, the vast majority of them are great, but these are what you might call technical photos. We go into museums that have Graeco-Roman sculpture and shoot every single object on exhibit, from multiple angles and with many detail shots. We also go to archaeological sites and shoot every important feature (lighting permitting). Our goal is to get images that (ideally) are suitable for academic publication, but that are at least very high quality teaching images.

Along the way we occasionally stop to smell the roses and take what we now call "daily thread shots", which are meant to be more artistic, purely for fun, and potentially something we might share on the Photo of the Day thread. :)

[localghost]

Are they any good?

I remember training a few shooter students and they shoot just as many images simply by holding down the shutter button. Real waste of space and editing time.

i understand where you are coming from, but these days you are rarely the only one with a dslr on any scene. the big agencies often send more than one pj, and on my last wedding "uncle bob" showed up with a 1dIII. having the perfect moment in focus AND nailing the exposure is what will get you your next commission. at least i am not able to verify the first one without a large display and the second one without aperture/cs etc.

spray and pray get's you nowhere, but skimping on exposures when your competition doesn't is a different story.

[Phrasikleia]

i understand where you are coming from, but these days you are rarely the only one with a dslr on any scene. the big agencies often send more than one pj, and on my last wedding "oncle bob" showed up with a 1dIII. having the perfect moment in focus AND nailing the exposure is what will get you your next commission. at least i am not able to verify the first one without a large display and the second on without aperture/cs etc.

spray and pray get's you nowhere, but skimping on exposures when your competition doesn't is a different story.

Exactly. You don't have to be doing "spray and pray" to rack up a ton of images. In those three weeks that we got those 9,200 shots, we were putting in 8-hour days of photographing, working very hard on the framing and exposure of each shot. My friends think I'm nuts to have spent several weeks in Greece and only about 2 hours total at the beach. :o

[localghost]

Exactly. You don't have to be doing "spray and pray" to rack up a ton of images. In those three weeks that we got those 9,200 shots, we were putting in 8-hour days of photographing, working very hard on the framing and exposure of each shot. My friends think I'm nuts to have spent several weeks in Greece and only about 2 hours total at the beach. :o

2 hours at the _same_ beach?!? tricky sunset? :D (J/K)

[Digital Skunk]

spray and pray get's you nowhere, but skimping on exposures when your competition doesn't is a different story.

Agreed. There is a fine line between the two. Shooting at 10 fps is nice for bursts of 7-10 for that one crucial moment, but bursts of 30 or more while the main shot isn't a winner isn't a good practice.

[qveda]

You guys have been very helpful. Thanks for the pointers to URLs , etc regarding drive configurations for optimum photoshop performance.

Question 1: If I want to use a faster configuration for start up disc than the 320gb 7200rpm that comes std in the MacPro, how would I go about changing it? Will the Apple store build the computer with a drive that I supply? or a Raid0 on two drives? Or would I have to rebuild the system myself from MacOS install discs onto my own drives?

Question 2: I understand that Raid0 is faster, but also introduces a second point of failure. Does this imply that Raid0 of two fast drives is not a good choice for the startup disk ?

[localghost]

You guys have been very helpful. Thanks for the pointers to URLs , etc regarding drive configurations for optimum photoshop performance.

Question 1: If I want to use a faster configuration for start up disc than the 320gb 7200rpm that comes std in the MacPro, how would I go about changing it? Will the Apple store build the computer with a drive that I supply? or a Raid0 on two drives? Or would I have to rebuild the system myself from MacOS install discs onto my own drives?

Question 2: I understand that Raid0 is faster, but also introduces a second point of failure. Does this imply that Raid0 of two fast drives is not a good choice for the startup disk ?

it's easy to put more drives in a mac pro, you can diy. either buy another similar drive for 2x320 raid0, or just use the factory drive for something else. failure is 2x likely to happen with raid0, so a regular backup is vital - but you should do that anyways, even without using raid0.

you can always boot your mac from an external drive if you press the option key during startup.

[giffut]

.... would recommend a MacPro OctoCore 2,8Ghz and fill it with 8GB RAM. That´s cheap for now and brings enough power for the future. Anything more is of no use at the moment, at least regarding photoshopping. The more ghz are really just for rendering video projects - and if you are a Pro and every second counts. Get third party RAM and HDs, like proposed before. Don´t buy topnotch, but reasonable powerfull for what you need.

Snow Leopard will bring severe enhancements in memory managment and CPU/GPU usage, though, but that´s still the future. And it would need software improvements on Adobes side which are still far far away to use all memory and cores of the host machine. CS 4 will not deliver those - and Final Cut/Logic Studio users beg´n´pray for this, too.

Then I definitely would create a RAID 0 from two 10k or 15k Raptors and put the Photoshop Scratch Disk onto it, together with the OSX virtual memory folder. This alone will speed things up quite tremendously, when importing into Aperture or dealing with huge multilayer Photoshop files. Put it into Thermaltake internal HD cooling cases and off you go without bleeding ears.

I have the minor version of this: Two 160GB SATA 7.2k drives in RAID 0 configuration, with the VM folder and the scratch disk on it. It also houses any Video projects I am working on (amaturish). So any of my photoshopping efforts are uninterrupted by the system drive grinding to a halt because of virtual memory or scratch disk I/O. Overally my system (SelfMac Core2Duo 2,8Ghz, 4GB RAM, several HDs, one RAID 0) now performs almost without any beachballs. Always eparate the system/applications from the data.

[localghost]

.
(...) and put the Photoshop Scratch Disk onto it, together with the OSX virtual memory folder.
(...)




this is a very smart system hack, but it's still just that. qveda, be sure you understand what you (or that little app) are (is) doing before you start.

[giffut]

... speed of the startup is neglible, important is the performance of the data disks, that hold your projects, virtual memory and scratch disks. Having a 7200rpm SATA startup disk is more than enough. You don´t need a fast booting, but fast running system.

To localghost: Of course it´s a hack - well, I call it enhancement. It just changes the standard path, which is the system disk. There is no magic, there is no terror to the system.

Sometimes it´s just that the feet form the path ;-)

[localghost]

(...) - well, I call it enhancement. (...)

isn't that what the borg say, too? :D

no offense, i don't even know if it causes any problems - i don't know enough unix to judge it, and i don't want to find out the hard way at the wrong time, that's all.

[qveda]

.... would recommend a MacPro OctoCore 2,8Ghz and fill it with 8GB RAM. ....
Then I definitely would create a RAID 0 from two 10k or 15k Raptors and put the Photoshop Scratch Disk onto it, together with the OSX virtual memory folder. This alone will speed things up quite tremendously, when importing into Aperture or dealing with huge multilayer Photoshop files. Put it into Thermaltake internal HD cooling cases and off you go without bleeding ears.


Hi giffut, to clarify, you are recommending that for my new Mac Pro, I would add 6gb ram (for total of 8gb), and use the minimum default drive that comes with a new MacPro (320gb, or larger 7.2k SATA) with the OS installed on it for the OS , applications, and data, image, video , audio files. Then add a 10K raid0 pair for scratch and virtual memory. Correct?
Wouldn't a single 10k drive be all I'd need for scratch to make it faster than the 7.2K drive?

[giffut]

... for the MacPro. The drive scheme I recommend would be like this (I now dream my own system, if that´s ok):

- 320GB (stock configuration) Systemdisk for OSX and applications. A Western Digital Raptor/VelociRaptor with 10k rpm is good here, too.

- 1TB for general data/project files (two additional ones are possible via hidden internal SATA ports and mountable in the second optical drive bay)

- RAID 0 with Raptor/VelociRaptor drives (or cheaper with standard 7.2k rpm SATA drives of small sizes) for virtual memory/scratch and temporary data (only properly backed up one, of course). Chaining two drives in RAID 0 gives you roughly double the performance compared to one drive only. For scratch and virtual memory the more throughput you get, the better.

The data/project drive would be backed up, of course, to an external drive, too. You could buy Sonnets E2P or E4P PCI-Express eSata cards with port multiplier function. This gives you support for up to 10 (E2P) or 20 (E4P) drives, in supported enclosures. But you already mentionned that you got rid of an external enclosure. I propagate it anyways.

A recommended cheap but reliable drive casing would be Mapowers 2xSATA TB32 case with USB/eSata connections. You would use them with the two drives independantly (JBOD) mounted - so you could pack two 1TB drives in their, to backup your data/project HD and for other data stuff. If those drives are only mounted for backup purposes and otherwise off, you could get rid of the internal fan and make it really silent (it´s just screws and one connector, easily reattachable in case of warranty issues).

You can stuff additional drives into your MacPro, though. There are two additional SATA ports hidden on the logicboard. Use a PCI-Express SATA RAID card for more internal drives. I would choose any of the Highpoint Rocketraid 23xx/35xx series.

Here are all the links with information on the stuff I mentionned:

---

http://www.sonnettech.com/product/fusiond500p.html
http://www.sonnettech.com/product/tempo_sata_e4p.html

Sonnets 5-Bay storage tank. This would give you the maximum possible 5 drives per port multiplier. So with a E4P card and four of those you can go 20TB.

---

http://www.highpoint-tech.com/

Check the 35xx or 23xx series. This manufacturer is a top hardware RAID recommondation, in case you want to have it.

---

http://mapower.com/Product.asp?CateID=146&LineID=10

The Mapower case I mentionned. It says "USB only" for Macs, but that is definitely not true. In conjunction with the Sonnet E4P card which I am happily using with two of those cases.

---

http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/feedback/Mac_Pro_Ext_SATA_Case_Kit.html

The two internal SATA ports within the MacPro

---

http://www.westerndigital.com/de/products/products.asp?driveid=496

Two of the new VelociRaptor or two classic Raptors (cheaper, but louder and more power hungry).

---

For the data drives I´d choose Samsung drives: They are silent and fast.

---

The hack aka "enhancement" by your own feet:

http://forums.macosxhints.com/showthread.php?t=81586

Search for the posts by the user "E_James" (February 19th 2008). After installing properly, test it hard on project files before going productive.

[qveda]

... for the MacPro. The drive scheme I recommend would be like this (I now dream my own system, if that´s ok):
- 320GB (stock configuration) Systemdisk for OSX and applications. A Western Digital Raptor/VelociRaptor with 10k rpm is good here, too.


Hi, great info, but beyond my need and budget. Mostly likely I would use stock configuration for the startup (OS and applications). And get a faster drive (150gb 10k) for scratch and VM, and add 3rd larger 7.2k drive later for files. Then backup everything to a large (internal or external drive). This seems simple and probably meets all my needs.

But, if I wanted to upgrade to 10k for startup, and Raid0 for scratch, what would I need to do to migrate the OS and applications from the stock drive to the new faster drive??

[localghost]

Hi, great info, but beyond my need and budget. Mostly likely I would use stock configuration for the startup (OS and applications). And get a faster drive (150gb 10k) for scratch and VM, and add 3rd larger 7.2k drive later for files. Then backup everything to a large (internal or external drive). This seems simple and probably meets all my needs.

But, if I wanted to upgrade to 10k for startup, and Raid0 for scratch, what would I need to do to migrate the OS and applications from the stock drive to the new faster drive??

i prefer ccc (http://www.bombich.com/software/ccc.html)

[giffut]

... just start with whatever you find suitable at the moment. That´s the huge advantage using the MacPro: Expand it when needed - so your pockets won´t bleed.

[qveda]

i prefer ccc (http://www.bombich.com/software/ccc.html)

Ah! so when you want to migrate your Startup disc to a faster drive (and also migrate your scratch disk to and even faster drive), you would install the new drive in a bay, format it, and use CCC to copy your complete Startup drive image to the new drive. Then power down, remove the orig Startup drive, replace it with the cloned faster drive, and then Power back on - is that all there is to do ?

[localghost]

Ah! so when you want to migrate your Startup disc to a faster drive (and also migrate your scratch disk to and even faster drive), you would install the new drive in a bay, format it, and use CCC to copy your complete Startup drive image to the new drive. Then power down, remove the orig Startup drive, replace it with the cloned faster drive, and then Power back on - is that all there is to do ?

basically, yes. i simply use file-level copies because it allows you to clone the same drive from which you have booted, works like a charm, very reliable.

for block-level copies you have to boot from a different drive than the one that is being cloned. you can find more info about this in the ccc documentation.

you don't even have to remove the old drive if you plan to keep using it for other things. just plug the new one, clone, change startup drive in preferences, reboot, be done.

[qveda]

great! this is the info I've been looking for :-) must not have been explaining myself very well in previous posts.

thx !