The more work I do inside Virtual Machines, the more I think my PC is coming ripe for an upgrade. An addional factor is the amount of Photoshop work I've been doing lately, including our annual photo albums.

For Christmas each year, Abi binds a set of albums, and we fill them with a selection of the best photos we've taken of Alex and Fiona. I don't normally do much retouching of the images, but when Liza visited us earlier in the year, she enlightened me about the proper use of levels, curves, and colour balance. I've been practicing with these tools since then, and they are enormously useful. However, doing the photo albums is the first time I've used them for full-page, 600dpi print work. That means images of 6400 x 4100 pixels, and it doesn't take too many of them to kill teh snappy.

So I'm pondering a few upgrades for Frankenstein:

  • AMD Athlon64 X2 (dual core) processor. Dual core is gooood. The 4400+ is the sensible choice, I think. The 4800+ is too expensive for too little added benefit. The 3800+ is cheaper, but given that the 4400+ has both a speed bump and twice the L2 cache, the cost difference is probably worth it.
  • Asus A8N-SLI SE motherboard. A new CPU means a new motherboard, unfortunately. This one supports all the features I need, and is reasonably priced.
  • 256Mb Gigabyte PCI-E Geforce 6600 with SilentPipe (GV-NX66256DP). A mid-range card, because I'm not overly concerned about gaming performance (although it should certainly be good enough for another year or so). However, a chunky integrated heat sink allows it to run without a fan. Another option would be the higher-spec 256Mb Asus PCI-E EN6600GT-Silencer, but I'm not sure if it's worth it. Given how I use the PC, less money on the graphics setup means more money to go on the CPU.
  • 2GB DDR400 RAM. Lots of memory is gooood. 2GB would allow me to run several virtual machines at the same time.

Hmm. Next year...

Comments

I've always edited my photos for print at 300 dpi. You can't see any more detail than that in a photograph, so you can leave the upsampling to the very last stage before printing. That may speed things up a smidge.

Yeah, Keith, but Martin is a purist. He scorns mere perfectionists.

Shhh, Keith! You're undermining my carefully constructed rationalization for getting new hardware!

Oops. My wife never reads my blog, so I get careless. Hi Abi!

You know, you've really gotta watch out for those upsampling artifacts. Not everyone can see them, but for those who can, they'll drive you crazy.

You're gonna need that 60 GB iPod video too, so that you can avoid using so much lossy compression on your music.

(is that better?)

Oh no! You have to do all your development at the highest quality before scaling down...and always keep the undeveloped, full size original files.

My files are 3000x2000, 5-6Mb in size, raw Nikon files and they crunch a little!

Hi, Keith! Thanks for the Christmas card - the kids are looking great.

I looked at the prices for the hardware, and my first thought was, "if he gets to spend that much, can I get another piece of bookbinding equipment?"

You really have to hope Martin's subconscious isn't reading this blog. Otherwise he'll get all guilty and not go through with it, undermining MY argument for that vertical plough.

Keith - you're totally right about the iPod! I hadn't even thought of that!

Rich - I always keep the originals of all the photos we shoot (even the crap ones), and I only ever do work on copies. Even with our new camera's 8 MegaPixel resolution, though, I had to upsample to make full-size 600dpi prints.

I suppose I should do a side-by side comparison to see if there is a difference between doing the adjustments at original resolution and then upsampling, and doing it the other way around. If there is a difference, chances are it wouldn't be noticeable in the prints anyway. Our printer is good, but it still loses a lot of detail in the extreme whites and blacks.

I'm hungry. I wonder if we have any more chocolate lying around the house? Or maybe some bacon. Mmmm....baaacon.