36-50 MP vs. Computing Power: With all the talk about the 36-50 megapixels on the new cameras, it seems you would have to have a powerful computer to handle these files. I think some...

skingfong Loc: Sacramento

With all the talk about the 36-50 megapixels on the new cameras, it seems you would have to have a powerful computer to handle these files. I think some of us might forget about upgrading our computers at the same time to keep up with these huge files.

I don't have a camera with this many megapixels so I don't have any experience in bringing in files and working these huge files in PP. For all of you who have these high MP cameras, have you found this to be an issue? Seems like everything would take twice as long unless you upgrade your computer.

Whuff Loc: Marshalltown, Iowa

skingfong wrote:

With all the talk about the 36-50 megapixels on th... (show quote)

I'm sure the same questions were asked back when 12 Mp was a large file. Computers get more powerful every couple of years. When I wanted to upgrade my first computer to 64 megabytes of ram, I was told that was unnecessary since no program would ever need that much memory.

Walt

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

skingfong wrote:

With all the talk about the 36-50 megapixels on th... (show quote)

You are making the assumption that all pixels are of equal size. Your assumption is erroneous.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

skingfong wrote:

With all the talk about the 36-50 megapixels on th... (show quote)

S, I have no experience with big files but I do have experience with little files.
You are probably right, what takes me a 1/10 of a second now would very probably take 2/10's of a second!!!
Is that what your asking?? :lol:
SS

skingfong Loc: Sacramento

Whuff wrote:

I'm sure the same questions were asked back when 12 Mp was a large file. Computers get more powerful every couple of years. When I wanted to upgrade my first computer to 64 megabytes of ram, I was told that was unnecessary since no program would ever need that much memory.

Walt

That sounds like my 1st computer also. I can't believe it cost over $2K back then with a printer, monitor and scanner. I've rebuilt 5 or 6 times since then. I had to rebuild again after I bought my last camera.

skingfong Loc: Sacramento

SharpShooter wrote:

S, I have no experience with big files but I do have experience with little files.
You are probably right, what takes me a 1/10 of a second now would very probably take 2/10's of a second!!!
Is that what your asking?? :lol:
SS

I guess it's all relative. It is kind of what I'm asking only on a larger scale. With my relatively smaller files, I still rebuilt my computer and went to USB3 which made a big difference in bringing the files in from the memory card. I also went with new motherboard, processor RAM and hard drives. It never ends.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

skingfong wrote:

With all the talk about the 36-50 megapixels on th... (show quote)

I had a computer that was perfectly fine with my D70, D200, D300, D700 D3S. Dual Core Pentium, Windows XP, 4 gb ram, 750 gb drive. When I got my D800, things got very slow and when using Photoshop, I would get many out of memory errors. Content aware, lens blur and other filters and procedures would not execute.

I upgraded to an i7 quad core, 16 gb then later to 32 gb ram, 1 tb system drive cached with a 60 gb SSD, and a 4 disk RAID 6 for another 4 TB storage. It made a huge difference, and now my 36 mp D800 raw files, and working 16 bit psd files execute better and faster than my 6 mp files did on my old computer. By the time I have all my layering done, my 16 bit files can reach 600 mb or larger.

So with the bigger files, it would not only take longer, but an old slow computer may not even be able to execute all the procedures you want to do on an image.

CLF Loc: Raleigh, NC

A little humor. When we brought out the first PC it was going to have 32k of memory. What we got in DOS from the individual (now Microsoft) needed to have 64k. As it progressed I remember the 512k version with a 10mg hard file was way beyond anybodies need. Boy we were wrong.

Lead Foot

Boentgru Loc: Boston, Massachusetts, USA

davidrb wrote:

You are making the assumption that all pixels are of equal size. Your assumption is erroneous.

There is one and only one number associated with each pixel (of various formats), regardless of pixel size.

zigipha Loc: north nj

davidrb wrote:

You are making the assumption that all pixels are of equal size. Your assumption is erroneous.

:shock: :shock: :shock: :?: :?: :?:
whhhhhaaaaaaat?

zigipha Loc: north nj

skingfong wrote:

With all the talk about the 36-50 megapixels on th... (show quote)

Keep in mind that processing power/storage required is proportional (roughly) to the number of pixels. So if you go from 16M to 32M pixels, you need 2x transfer time memcard->disk transfer time, 2x load-into-photo-editing-time (worst case), 2x rendering time etc. Unless you get to the case that Gene mentioned where you run out of memory, then you get catastrophic results

There may be other scenarios like where you are just on the edge of using virtual memory for the image at 16 and now need it at 32 that could be more then 2x time.

Try to search for a large raw image on the internet, download it and open it up, see how long it takes.

Morning Star Loc: West coast, North of the 49th N.

CLF wrote:

A little humor. When we brought out the first PC it was going to have 32k of memory. What we got in DOS from the individual (now Microsoft) needed to have 64k. As it progressed I remember the 512k version with a 10mg hard file was way beyond anybodies need. Boy we were wrong.
Lead Foot

There's also a quote ascribed to Bill Gates:
"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
That was 1991, today it's not a rarity to find computers with 16 or even 32gb memory.

planepics Loc: St. Louis burbs, but originally Chicago burbs

So many people talking about re-building their computers. I can't do that with my Gateway laptop. I have an i3, 6 GB RAM and a 640 GB HDD.

Picdude Loc: Ohio

skingfong wrote:

With all the talk about the 36-50 megapixels on th... (show quote)

You are absolutely right. Many people don't think to check or upgrade their computer when they upgrade their camera. But the problem doesn't stop at the hardware level. There are a significant number of people who try to change from older versions of a software package to the latest version, just to find out they did not first check the system requirements of the software package. Then to learn they now have to upgrade their computer if they want the new software to work.

It seems one of the hardest lessons newcomers have to learn about this hobby/career is that not only do you have to learn photography and your camera equipment, you also need develop at least a basic understanding of computer hardware and software. Especially if you plan on upgrading your photography equipment as you're experience grows.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

skingfong wrote:

With all the talk about the 36-50 megapixels on th... (show quote)

You can have large files in excess of 1 GB by creating a large panoramic. See how your system performs with that should give you an indication of what a 50 MP file will do. Yes, 50 mpx is going to strain your system. You need a fast processor, a lot of ram and the support of a graphics card. The prefect computer for photographers are those used by gamers where rendering is important. One of the keys to performance is the new SSD drive. I installed a 500 GB SSD for my applications and it was a huge difference. I also installed 32 GB of ram and a new 4.4 Ghz intel CPU along with an Nvidia GeForce 980 GPU.

I am sure there will be settings on the camera to reduce size such as switching from 14 to 12 bit images. Shoot in cropped mode on a FF.will also reduce file size. It is going to be interesting.