[filmscanners] Re: Video card for imaging

["Ken C" <kenchow@telusplanet.net>]

Oops. sorry I thought I was off-list.  sheesh, not enough coffee this
morning.

Ken

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken C" <kenchow@telusplanet.net>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: [filmscanners] Video card for imaging


> Alex,
> No worries about being "on topic" since we're not "on list".  Just about
any
> decent modern video card will do fine for image editing these days.
> Something with 32 meg of memory would work fine, and should be reasonably
> priced.  Where the new video cards are headed, with high costs, is in the
> realm of performance for games.  So unless you're a major gamer who has to
> get the best frames-per-second performance as your hero kills or maims his
> opponents, you don't need to go for the latest and thoroughly expensive 64
> meg nVidia whatever card.
>
> Having said that, if you do 3D graphics development that involves having
to
> render the file, I'm told that a fast video card can help speed that up,
> though a fast cpu is what determines how quickly your file will be
rendered.
> What graphics apps do you use?
>
> I built my latest pc with the express purpose of using it for graphics and
> web work.  I have a Sony 19" monitor and was finding it bothersome and
slow
> to have to always drag the application's dialogue boxes out of the way to
> see parts of the image I was working on.  This was always a sore point
with
> me for PhotoShop, and I found it a pain with Dreamweaver.  So, I built
this
> box specifically to run Windows XP so I can run dual monitors.  My second
> monitor is a 15", which is fine because I just drag the dialogue boxed
onto
> it.  Just completed that mod this weekend and I love it.  You need to
> install a 2nd video card, unless you get a special video card (Matrox
sells
> one) that are dual head.  This second card only needs to be basic enough
to
> run a monitor at the resolution you need (and must be compatible with this
> function onXP).
>
> If you run XP you'll need lots of RAM but if I recall you were going to
> start at 512 meg, which is what I have and is certainly enough for XP -
more
> would be better of course.  And if you have more than 1 pc, networking is
a
> lot easier to set up with XP as is Internet access.  I have used W98SE
> successfully but it's not as stable, but be sure to avoid Windows ME, it's
> not a good product.
>
> Feel free to ask anything else, I'm in and out but can usually respond
> fairly quickly.  I don't mind having a conversation with someone with
> similar interests.
>
> Regards, Ken
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alex Zabrovsky" <alexz@zoran.co.il>
> To: <kenchow@telusplanet.net>
> Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 11:30 AM
> Subject: [filmscanners] Video card for imaging
>
>
> Well, to be on-topic one additional question which is related to PC
> hardware: is it important to chose certain Video Adapters for further
image
> editing or just anyone available today will do fine ?
>
> Regards,
> Alex Z
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ------------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
> filmscanners'
> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title
> or body
>
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body