Scanning an excellent film original has certain advantages for the highest
fidelity work.
Someone wrote a blurb once about "what if digital was invented first", it
examined
what the perception of film would be if film was born in this age. I wonder if
someone
would post that again.
It would be interesting to read a rough estimate of how much storage it would
take digitally to equal what a couple of storage binders with say fifty or one
hundred
print-file sleeves of color film; given an output size of an 11x14 print. Next,
estimate
what a cabinet of full binders would be. Digital storage is problematic. But
what is
equally problematic is being able to access those images quickly, hence, the
rise
in MAM and DAM solutions. It would be interesting to know what solutions
for accessing the alternative digital image is for everyone. I'm currently using
Canto
Cumulus and Filemaker Pro and I'd like to explore others. Any suggestions?
Regarding the large image file manipulation, I have a few suggestions.
A faster machine: a G5 Macintosh 2GHz
faster RAM and more of it: 2GB minimum ( the G5 can expand to 8GB)
A second internal hard drive that spins at 7200rpm or faster (this is for your
scratch disk)
Adobe Photoshop CS (this program is tweaked for the G5)
I know.... it's an expensive solution.
The alternative: patience
best regards,
Phillip
Charlotte 1 wrote:
> Another thing to consider is how much data your computer will be able to
> handle. I have a 1 Ghz Imac with two 512 MB memory (cards?) - it was the
> fastest Imac I could purchase back in February (2003) but it has trouble
> dealing with large images.. Some of my images are 240 MB and I have to sit
> and wait 20-30 seconds every time I want to make an adjustment (and about a
> minute to open up the image itself).
>
Received on Sat Nov 8 16:20:04 2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 12/04/03-05:18:02 PM Z CST