How much RAM for medium format (6x6) scanning?

[zxcvbob]

[Notice that replies are redirected to c.p.s]

I just built a computer with a large HDD and with USB2 ports; among
other things I intend to scan my medium format nagatives with the Epson
flatbed scanner that I haven't bought yet. (I haven't decided between a
3200, 3170, or 4870.) Let's assume that I use Vuescan. How much memory
does the system need for scanning and editting the image files? Right
now the system has 256MB of memory and one empty DIMM socket. I assume
256MB will probably work, barely, but is not really enough.

Also does it make a difference whether I run Windows 2000 or Linux for
the operating system? Currently I have Windows 98SE and Linux installed.

Thanks, regards,
Bob

 

[Don]

If you're talking a flatbed scanner there is little point in scanning at
more than 1000 dpi as flatbeds usually don't resolve more than that,
although they are capable of scanning at higher densities. If you're
talking about 2 1/4 inch square, that's a 20 megabyte image when displayed
in most programs. The file will likely be smaller, depending on the file
format.

256MB of RAM is a little marginal, but it should work. I have 1GB for
Photoshop processing of images about twice that size, and it's not too much
by any means. By the time you load Windoze, Photoshop (or something
similar), the scanner drivers and software, etc. much of that 256MB will be
gone.

Don

 

[-]

256 MB will work but all the memory swapping that will be required will
really slow things to a crawl (I know from experience!)
512 MB is the practical minimum
1 GB is preferable
1 GB+ is closer to ideal

How large of a memory chip will each slot accept (and must you insert them
in pairs)? Don't go cheap now only to find that you cannot upgrade later
without needing to throw out your previous memory purchase.

Doug

 

[David J. Littleboy]

[Notice that replies are redirected to c.p.s]

I just built a computer with a large HDD and with USB2 ports; among
other things I intend to scan my medium format nagatives with the Epson
flatbed scanner that I haven't bought yet. (I haven't decided between a
3200, 3170, or 4870.) Let's assume that I use Vuescan. How much memory
does the system need for scanning and editting the image files? Right
now the system has 256MB of memory and one empty DIMM socket. I assume
256MB will probably work, barely, but is not really enough.

Also does it make a difference whether I run Windows 2000 or Linux for
the operating system? Currently I have Windows 98SE and Linux installed.

For 645 at 4000 dpi, 1GB is neccessary, and even that requires being very
careful only to keep two windows on different images open. My next machine
will be 2GB.

Also, by the way, you should have THREE hard disks. Stupid photoshop manages
it's own memory, so you have the OS doing page file things, Photoshop doing
page file things, and your data. All at the same time. You'll be much
happier if those disk accesses are all to contiguous files on different
disks. Unfortunately, various constraints here mean that my next machine
will only have two disks. Grumble.

I'd recommend Win 2000K over 98. Win2K is a modern, Unicode from the ground
up OS, two generations of OS design ahead of Unix, whereas Win 95/98 is an
abomination that would have been technically embarrassing in 1972.

I'll probably go with WinXP in my next machine, but I don't know of any
reason off hand to prefer XP to 2K.

(Oh, yes. If you get 2K, don't install any CD-R/RW software that allows you
to write CD-R/RW from explorer: I've run into at least two buggy ones that
mess up explorer. Just use a dedicated application to write you CDs.)

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

 

[zxcvbob]

256 MB will work but all the memory swapping that will be required will
really slow things to a crawl (I know from experience!)
512 MB is the practical minimum
1 GB is preferable
1 GB+ is closer to ideal

How large of a memory chip will each slot accept (and must you insert them
in pairs)? Don't go cheap now only to find that you cannot upgrade later
without needing to throw out your previous memory purchase.

Doug

It will take up to 1GB chips. They can be installed individually, but I
*think* you have to install a matched pair and change a bios setting if
you want to enable "double data rate".

I was looking for 512MB chips, but I found a deal too good to pass up on
the 256MB's ($10, limit one.)

Best regards,
Bob

 

[Raphael Bustin]

[Notice that replies are redirected to c.p.s]

I just built a computer with a large HDD and with USB2 ports; among
other things I intend to scan my medium format nagatives with the Epson
flatbed scanner that I haven't bought yet. (I haven't decided between a
3200, 3170, or 4870.) Let's assume that I use Vuescan. How much memory
does the system need for scanning and editting the image files? Right
now the system has 256MB of memory and one empty DIMM socket. I assume
256MB will probably work, barely, but is not really enough.

Also does it make a difference whether I run Windows 2000 or Linux for
the operating system? Currently I have Windows 98SE and Linux installed.

A 4000 dpi scan of 6x4.5 film produces around 60 Mpixels,
and from 6x6, around 80 Mpixels.

For 6x6, that's 240 Mbytes at 24 bit color, or 480 Mbytes
at 48 bit color.

Photoshop wants about 3x more RAM than the largest
image size, so you take it from there.

I have 1 GByte of RAM. I can edit 165 Mbyte images
with ease. When I edit 330 Mbyte images (from LF
scans) Photoshop occasionally gets cranky -- and
that's without channels and layers.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

 

[Gregory W Blank]

[Notice that replies are redirected to c.p.s]

I just built a computer with a large HDD and with USB2 ports; among
other things I intend to scan my medium format nagatives with the Epson
flatbed scanner that I haven't bought yet. (I haven't decided between a
3200, 3170, or 4870.) Let's assume that I use Vuescan. How much memory
does the system need for scanning and editting the image files? Right
now the system has 256MB of memory and one empty DIMM socket. I assume
256MB will probably work, barely, but is not really enough.

Also does it make a difference whether I run Windows 2000 or Linux for
the operating system? Currently I have Windows 98SE and Linux installed.

Thanks, regards,
Bob

More Ram is always better when working on image files, I have 512mb
I wish I had a full gig. Can not comment on Linux except check to see
if there is an Epson driver for the OS.

 

[Gary Beasley]

[Notice that replies are redirected to c.p.s]

I just built a computer with a large HDD and with USB2 ports; among
other things I intend to scan my medium format nagatives with the Epson
flatbed scanner that I haven't bought yet. (I haven't decided between a
3200, 3170, or 4870.) Let's assume that I use Vuescan. How much memory
does the system need for scanning and editting the image files? Right
now the system has 256MB of memory and one empty DIMM socket. I assume
256MB will probably work, barely, but is not really enough.

Also does it make a difference whether I run Windows 2000 or Linux for
the operating system? Currently I have Windows 98SE and Linux installed.

Thanks, regards,
Bob

Memory being as cheap as it is put the maximum amount the system can
be loaded with. I put one gig on board mine and still have occasions I
could use more. Graphics are about the heaviest user of memory a
computer usually will do. I had win 98 but it couldn't use the full
memory. I switched to XP pro and I'm running smoother than I've ever
seen. Can't comment on the Linux.

 

[Hecate]

I'll probably go with WinXP in my next machine, but I don't know of any
reason off hand to prefer XP to 2K.

Lots of reasons

(Oh, yes. If you get 2K, don't install any CD-R/RW software that allows you
to write CD-R/RW from explorer: I've run into at least two buggy ones that
mess up explorer. Just use a dedicated application to write you CDs.)

One being that packet writing software works with no problems with XP
;-)

 

[Lassi =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hippel=E4inen?=]

[Notice that replies are redirected to c.p.s]

I just built a computer with a large HDD and with USB2 ports; among
other things I intend to scan my medium format nagatives with the Epson
flatbed scanner that I haven't bought yet. (I haven't decided between a
3200, 3170, or 4870.) Let's assume that I use Vuescan. How much memory
does the system need for scanning and editting the image files? Right
now the system has 256MB of memory and one empty DIMM socket. I assume
256MB will probably work, barely, but is not really enough.

Also does it make a difference whether I run Windows 2000 or Linux for
the operating system? Currently I have Windows 98SE and Linux installed.

Thanks, regards,
Bob

The operating system and the editing software are similar to each other
in the sense that they all need roughly the same amount of RAM. Most
memory will be used for storing the image and its changes ("history").
You want to keep them in RAM, if you want to get the image completed
within one day (i.e. without swapping to disk).

You'll need RAM for three images. That means the current image, the
previous version, and room for other variables and work buffers.
Typically you'll need a quarter of the memory for the OS, so that with
256MB physical RAM you can use up to 64MB images. With 8 bits/colour and
RGB it comes to 21 megapixels, or about 4600 pixels/side, or as full 6x6
scan resolution only 2000 dpi.

If you want 3200 dpi scans, you can work the above computation backwards
to find out how damn much RAM you need...

-- Lassi

 

[Tony H]

[Notice that replies are redirected to c.p.s]

I just built a computer with a large HDD and with USB2 ports; among
other things I intend to scan my medium format nagatives with the Epson
flatbed scanner that I haven't bought yet. (I haven't decided between a
3200, 3170, or 4870.) Let's assume that I use Vuescan. How much memory
does the system need for scanning and editting the image files? Right
now the system has 256MB of memory and one empty DIMM socket. I assume
256MB will probably work, barely, but is not really enough.

Also does it make a difference whether I run Windows 2000 or Linux for
the operating system? Currently I have Windows 98SE and Linux installed.

Thanks, regards,
Bob

Bob

I'm using Win 98SE with 256 Mb and scanning 6x6 on an Epson 2450 at
2400 dpi, 48 bit depth, and importing to Photoshop 7 directly via the
Epson TWAIN driver. This produces 160 Mb files and works fine.

I don't think it would work using 4800 dpi that the 3200 / 3170 / 4870
are capable of, so you'd be better off with 512 Mb.

TonyH

 

[Tony H]

(e-mail address removed) (Tony H) wrote:


Sorry, if scanning at 4800 dpi 48 bit depth then that would give 4 x
160 Mb = 640 Mb files, so you'd be better off with 1 Gb of RAM.

With 512 Mb you'd probably get away with 24 bit colour depth scans.

TonyH

 

[jjs]

My short answer: Switch to XP pro. Install 4GB RAM if you can. Programs in
XP cannot address more than 2gb, but the extra allows you to have more other
programs (and of course the hungry OS) in RAM at the same time.

To use all the memory Linux can theoretically handle, you have to get into
things like recompiling the Kernel and all kinds of messy stuff.

Photoshop is great but awesomely expensive. You can do a huge amount of good
work with Adobe Elements which is only something like $100, maybe less.
Elements can take a lot of Photoshops plug-ins, and actions.

gimp is so very cool, but in my humble opinion, XP and Adobe Elements is a
whole lot more effective and less hassle.

 

[Georg N.Nyman]

Well, I had the same question about one year ago. I came to the
following conclusion: 512MB is absolute minimum, I would recommend 1GB
RAM and up.
The next question - WIN or Linux, I have both installed and can say that
I prefer Linux. Windows XP Pro needs a lot of RAM due to the large
Photoshop program and the architecture it uses. And the cost of the SW -
my goodness, you can buy a lot of RAM and PC power for a full version of
Photoshop CS!
I use Linux with Vuescan ( the PRO version for around $70.00 ) plus Suse
9.0 and an Epson 4870. Editing is done in GIMP, which is free and very
powerful, once you learn how to use it.
My files from a 6x7cm negative are usually around 110-120Mb, which give
me 500dpi resolution at 11x14inch print size. As most digital printers
in industry print with about 300-500dpi, it is quite OK. For very
special negatives, I increase the dpi value to 800-1000, but this does
not happen very often. It makes only sense to significantly increase the
dpi value if you have got a printer which also can print at that
resolution ( besides - do you see the difference between 500dpi and 1000
dpi on 11x14inch? ). Most commercial printers in printing stores print
at 400dpi, some go up to 500dpi on the final print.
So, to sum it up, my recommendation would be ( if you also want to save
quite a lot of $$ ) - Linux plus Vuescan plus GIMP. It is not that
difficult to install the components and make it work if you have got a
properly installed recent Linux version running on your PC.
Have fun and if you run into troubles, let me know - http://www.gnyman.com
George Nyman

 

[Aaron Queenan]

}
} My short answer: Switch to XP pro. Install 4GB RAM if you can. Programs
in
} XP cannot address more than 2gb, but the extra allows you to have more
other
} programs (and of course the hungry OS) in RAM at the same time.
}
} To use all the memory Linux can theoretically handle, you have to get into
} things like recompiling the Kernel and all kinds of messy stuff.
}
} Photoshop is great but awesomely expensive. You can do a huge amount of
good
} work with Adobe Elements which is only something like $100, maybe less.
} Elements can take a lot of Photoshops plug-ins, and actions.
}
} gimp is so very cool, but in my humble opinion, XP and Adobe Elements is a
} whole lot more effective and less hassle.

Windows NT, 2000, XP and 2003 will allow you to use 3GB for a process, but
you must add the /3GB switch to the boot.ini entry. You should also install
the latest service pack, and for Window XP you may need to install hotfix
Q328269 (http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;328269).

Regards,
Aaron Queenan.

 

[Mr. Grinch]

[Notice that replies are redirected to c.p.s]

I just built a computer with a large HDD and with USB2 ports; among
other things I intend to scan my medium format nagatives with the
Epson flatbed scanner that I haven't bought yet. (I haven't decided
between a 3200, 3170, or 4870.) Let's assume that I use Vuescan. How
much memory does the system need for scanning and editting the image
files? Right now the system has 256MB of memory and one empty DIMM
socket. I assume 256MB will probably work, barely, but is not really
enough.

Also does it make a difference whether I run Windows 2000 or Linux for
the operating system? Currently I have Windows 98SE and Linux
installed.

A 4000 dpi scan of 6x4.5 film produces around 60 Mpixels,
and from 6x6, around 80 Mpixels.

For 6x6, that's 240 Mbytes at 24 bit color, or 480 Mbytes
at 48 bit color.

I'm glad you mentioned the color bit depth. Some scanners will only
return 24 bits, while some will return more. I don't know how much of a
difference this makes to the user as far as quality goes, but it
certainly does make a big difference in the amount of memory required.

Photoshop wants about 3x more RAM than the largest
image size, so you take it from there.

Thanks. I knew it was a hog but I never knew how to really optimize it.
I've got a dual P3-800 with 1GB ram and 5 hard disks. I was never sure
how many scratch disks I should set up, but it sounds like I've got
enough ram. My scanner is limited to 600 dpi optical and 24 bits color
is all it returns, so it sounds like I'm ok as far as RAM goes. Most of
the time I save as JPG but when I want something better I've been using
PNG.

I have 1 GByte of RAM. I can edit 165 Mbyte images
with ease. When I edit 330 Mbyte images (from LF
scans) Photoshop occasionally gets cranky -- and
that's without channels and layers.

Yeah, it adds up pretty quickly when you start using some of the more
advanced features. 181mb used out of 454mb assigned to Photoshop, just
for a single 600dpi 4.5" by 3.5" 600dpi scan. 233mb for a 4" x 11.5"
APS panorama scan. That's before adding anything. I can see that if I
do get an Epson 3170 and set it to higher resolution and color, I'm
going to need to assign more RAM for Photoshop too.

Thanks again for the info. It's much appreciated.

 

[Mr. Grinch]

(e-mail address removed) (Gary Beasley) wrote in

Memory being as cheap as it is put the maximum amount the system can
be loaded with. I put one gig on board mine and still have occasions I
could use more. Graphics are about the heaviest user of memory a
computer usually will do. I had win 98 but it couldn't use the full
memory. I switched to XP pro and I'm running smoother than I've ever
seen. Can't comment on the Linux.

Windows 98 or ME really does limit how much RAM you can work with. I've
got 1GB of ram, dual boot ME and Server 2003. In ME I have to actually use
msconfig to limit the maximum RAM to 512. If I don't, ME tries to use all
that extra ram for disk cache, but it runs out of the memory area it uses
for pointers to that cache. Result is that you get memory errors if you
give it too much memory!

Photoshop is definately the biggest memory hog I've used. Maya comes next,
and Xnews after that.

 

[Mr. Grinch]

printing stores print at 400dpi, some go up to 500dpi on the final
print. So, to sum it up, my recommendation would be ( if you also want
to save quite a lot of $$ ) - Linux plus Vuescan plus GIMP. It is not
that difficult to install the components and make it work if you have
got a properly installed recent Linux version running on your PC.
Have fun and if you run into troubles, let me know -
http://www.gnyman.com George Nyman

I suppose for the person who doesn't want to install Linux directly to a
partition, you could use VMware or Virtual PC to run a virtual Linux box.
I wonder how much it would affect performance. I've used both to test OS
changes (it's great for testing / recovering / back out of changes) but
I've never tried to run anything like the GIMP inside a session.

 

[jjs]

But the drivers aren't the same and they are what interprets the
information from the hardware. You don't believe that different driver
versions in windows won't help/hurt a scanners performance do you?

Technically, a 'driver' is just an interface between the OS and a
perripheral. The intelligence that interprets the image is in the program.
A bad driver usually simply doesn't work.

 

[Neil Gould]

Technically, a 'driver' is just an interface between the OS and a
perripheral. The intelligence that interprets the image is in the
program. A bad driver usually simply doesn't work.

Your comment is an enhancement, not a contradiction of what Stacey has
said. In many (if not most) cases, the functionality of the peripheral
device is determined by the driver, not the application (program). Some
programs, such as VueScan, circumvent the supplied driver to provide a
direct interface to the scanner. However, Photoshop will not do this. So,
it's quite possible (and even likely) that some functions of a scanner
would be available or work better under one OS than another, simply
because of differences in the drivers.

Neil