Having troubles opening files of 16 MP?
Jan 23, 2013 00:01:05 #
I do. They computer is slow in opening them, so I always reduce their size to a manageable size, like a maximum width of 2000 or 3000. I find that they remain good quality and easy to open after I do any resizing with a script created with "Automator."
So, I ask because I was tempted to buy a 23 MP camera, but why bother with such a bulkiness?My PC has the maximum RAM already installed.
So, I ask because I was tempted to buy a 23 MP camera, but why bother with such a bulkiness?My PC has the maximum RAM already installed.
Jan 23, 2013 00:19:55 #
Time for a new computer? It is an essential part of a photographer's workflow in these days of digital, and you have to take it into consideration when putting your kit together.
If you get into DSLR video, then you might find you'd need a serious computer upgrade!
If you get into DSLR video, then you might find you'd need a serious computer upgrade!
Jan 23, 2013 00:27:05 #
Bubu wrote:
I do. They computer is slow in opening them, so I always reduce their size to a manageable size, like a maximum width of 2000 or 3000. I find that they remain good quality and easy to open after I do any resizing with a script created with "Automator."
So, I ask because I was tempted to buy a 23 MP camera, but why bother with such a bulkiness?My PC has the maximum RAM already installed.
So, I ask because I was tempted to buy a 23 MP camera, but why bother with such a bulkiness?My PC has the maximum RAM already installed.
It sounds like you may be reducing your overall image to 6-7mp. If you never print anything larger than 8 X 10, you will not have any problems. If however, you ever decide to print a 20 X 30 poster @ 200 dpi, you can have a better image at 24mp. For right now, you will probably be content with the 16mp if you can save one full size raw, dng or tif file to HDD, dvd, RAID or flash memory.
And yes, you are ready for a new computer or, at least, a RAM increase.
Check out Wedding Photography section of our forum.
Jan 23, 2013 06:57:07 #
A lot of folks think its the RAM ( Random Access Memory ) in their computer that causes slow large photo access. Not in every case.
16 Gig of RAM in your computer or laptop isn't going to help at all when you have a 250/500 gig low level graphics chip. That's like buying a Lexus and putting a 13HP engine in it.
Go for the biggest and best graphics card (if possible) for your computer and see your graphics processing jump.
Sarge69
16 Gig of RAM in your computer or laptop isn't going to help at all when you have a 250/500 gig low level graphics chip. That's like buying a Lexus and putting a 13HP engine in it.
Go for the biggest and best graphics card (if possible) for your computer and see your graphics processing jump.
Sarge69
Jan 23, 2013 07:15:53 #
Jan 23, 2013 14:59:38 #
I guess I am used to my iMac and 8GB is the highest it can take. And I don't like Frankesteins. I did that too often with Windows PCs.
I don't print, either... That is why I dont need 23 GB images.
I will not invest in new iOS or new software that goes with new PC, new programs, so it is 16Gb photos tops for me.
I would like to hear from people with iMacs and if this happens with 16Gb images. Or 23 Gbs.
I don't print, either... That is why I dont need 23 GB images.
I will not invest in new iOS or new software that goes with new PC, new programs, so it is 16Gb photos tops for me.
I would like to hear from people with iMacs and if this happens with 16Gb images. Or 23 Gbs.
Jan 23, 2013 15:35:23 #
sarge69 wrote:
A lot of folks think its the RAM ( Random Access Memory ) in their computer that causes slow large photo access. Not in every case.
16 Gig of RAM in your computer or laptop isn't going to help at all when you have a 250/500 gig low level graphics chip. That's like buying a Lexus and putting a 13HP engine in it.
Go for the biggest and best graphics card (if possible) for your computer and see your graphics processing jump.
Sarge69
16 Gig of RAM in your computer or laptop isn't going to help at all when you have a 250/500 gig low level graphics chip. That's like buying a Lexus and putting a 13HP engine in it.
Go for the biggest and best graphics card (if possible) for your computer and see your graphics processing jump.
Sarge69
Above for a video card - that should be 250/500 Mb not Gig. Sorry
Sarge69
Check out Professional and Advanced Portraiture section of our forum.
Jan 23, 2013 16:18:46 #
I think you should talk to the Apple store. 8 GB of RAM should be plenty to process up to 23MP files. Although you may need to uprade the video processor if your machine is old.
Jan 23, 2013 17:13:21 #
photoninja1 wrote:
I think you should talk to the Apple store. 8 GB of RAM should be plenty to process up to 23MP files. Although you may need to uprade the video processor if your machine is old.
Not that old for a Mac. It is a 2009 24" imac
Jan 23, 2013 21:47:15 #
sarge69 wrote:
A lot of folks think its the RAM ( Random Access Memory ) in their computer that causes slow large photo access. Not in every case.
16 Gig of RAM in your computer or laptop isn't going to help at all when you have a 250/500 gig low level graphics chip. That's like buying a Lexus and putting a 13HP engine in it.
Go for the biggest and best graphics card (if possible) for your computer and see your graphics processing jump.
Sarge69
16 Gig of RAM in your computer or laptop isn't going to help at all when you have a 250/500 gig low level graphics chip. That's like buying a Lexus and putting a 13HP engine in it.
Go for the biggest and best graphics card (if possible) for your computer and see your graphics processing jump.
Sarge69
Ram, the graphics card, a slow front bus, a slow processor - all and more can slow graphic transfers. I just suggested the cheapest and easiest step in upgrading. But sometimes the best upgrade is a new computer. On the other hand, the changes in program compatibility instituted by manufacturers will necessitate the purchase of newer software, an expensive and slow (to learn) alternative.
Jan 24, 2013 00:13:14 #
FilmFanatic
Loc: Waikato, New Zealand
I have a Mac Mini with 8gb of RAM and it opens my 100MP images just fine.
I suspect something other than RAM is the issue.
What software are you 'opening' them with?
I suspect something other than RAM is the issue.
What software are you 'opening' them with?
Check out The Pampered Pets Corner section of our forum.
Jan 24, 2013 05:38:58 #
Are you plugging your camera into the computer or just the memory card? Are you opening Raw files or Jpegs. What software are you using to opens files. It's not the computer, you have plenty of Ram
Jan 24, 2013 07:53:12 #
When was the last time you cleared your "cache" or temporary files ?...Can help speed things up...
Jan 24, 2013 09:19:04 #
romanticf16
Loc: Commerce Twp, MI
How full is you Hard Drive? If you don't store your RAW files on an external drive you may find the drive in the computer is getting full and slowing things down. Also, how many Applications do you have open at any one time?
Jan 24, 2013 10:13:22 #
romanticf16 wrote:
How full is you Hard Drive? If you don't store your RAW files on an external drive you may find the drive in the computer is getting full and slowing things down. Also, how many Applications do you have open at any one time?
I DO store all my photos on an external HD, Maybe that is the problem. I suppose the connection to the drive make it slower than if they were stored in the internal HD. BUS speed?
And now that you say so,it started when I added the external and started saving outside the box. Hum!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Professional and Advanced Portraiture section of our forum.