[filmscanners] Re: Digital Darkroom Computer Builders?

["Karl Schulmeisters" <karlsch@earthlink.net>]

Just to clear up some minor misconceptions

Intel has been shipping "Itanium" chip sets for over a year now.  And
Windows XP supports 64bit mode out of the box.  This means 4 Terrabytes of
memory access.

Typically, Windows XP (and Windows 2000) limit user memory space to 2 Gbytes
(the OS takes up the upper 2 GBytes) of virtual memory.  Windows XP has a
boot time configuration switch that allows this to be expanded to 3 GBytes
at some minor performance cost (again I can bore you with details why)


----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@atkielski.com>
To: <karlsch@earthlink.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 1:34 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Digital Darkroom Computer Builders?


Major A writes:

> You're joking? I think M$ are trying to make
> big money to such an extent that they are
> seriously harming their long-term future.
> Not that I object to that, of course...

This is a discussion about getting the best computer for the job, not a
debate on religion.

> This has nothing to do with the "number of
> bits in the architecture", the 32-bit 68040
> allowed 64-bit addresses, for example ...

Memory use and management are hugely complicated once the flat address space
of the architecture is exhausted.  While some x86 machines can physically
access more than 4 GB of memory, they cannot do so with a simple address,
since 32 bits imposes 4 GB as a limit.  Thus, going beyond this on an x86
(Wintel) machine requires the same sorts of severely inefficient kludges
that were used under DOS to get past a 16-bit address limitation.  I have
absolutely no desire to start down that path again; a 64-bit machine is
preferable.

> I'm looking at an Eizo L465 right now, I
> can confirm it's just fantastic. Although
> it's "only" 16" and TN+film (thus its view angles
> aren't as good as IPS ones) ...

Sixteen inches isn't enough for digital image manipulation.  I find even
twenty to be very constraining (but I'd need a crane to lift a larger CRT
onto this desk, and it might distort the local gravitational field
unacceptably).  Additionally, the image quality must not change with the
viewing angle for critical work.

> I was surprised myself when I got this monitor
> how precise colour reproduction can be on a TFT,
> and it's not that much dependant on view angle.
> I always use it in sRGB mode, which seems to be
> exactly what it says.

Good color and sRGB are contradictions in terms.  But since sRGB is a color
space deliberately designed to be as restricted as a TV set, it's no wonder
that it would look good on any monitor.  I never use sRGB for anything.  I
wish I could use something like Wide Gamut, but no display will support
that.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------
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