Laptop for Digital Imaging

[adwilk]

Ok, I have a laptop now but seeing as its about 3 years old and it was cheap when I got it, its not quite getting the job done. I got it for general computing on the road, ie email, internet, office apps.. blah blah... I'm very frustrated with the lack of capacity (60GB) and snails performance for digital imaging and desktop publishing. Time to upgrade... I'm a pc user, but Have read so many great reviews of the MacBooks... Seriously considering one, but maybe there are some PC options that are just as good. I can spend the 1299 for the new macbook but if I can meet or exceed performance for less in a PC, I'm game for that as well.

I know computers pretty well, but I'm not completely sure of the minimum requirements for such a machine. Any advice would be greatly useful. If you have a computer that you're super happy with, i'd love to hear about that as well. I'm also in the hunt for a new digital camera and am looking at options for that as well. Anybody that has some imaging advice would be greatly appreciated... Thanks...

 

[alexwakelin]

The biggest performance killers for laptops are RAM and the graphics card (or lack of). Any new pc is going to come with windows vista, which needs 4 GB of RAM to run decently, many budget computers only come with 2 GB. The nvidia 9600M GT is a good mid range laptop graphics solution, avoid anything with integrated graphics or shared video memory like the plague.

 

[lsiberian]

Do you need a laptop?

I suggest you look at a dell they are the most reliable PC out there and easy to fix if something goes wrong. Yes even their laptops are easy to fix.

Go with the following order or maxing
1. Get the best video card they offer
2. Get the most cache you can on the computer they offer.
3. Max out the memory as much as you can(this can usually be upgraded later.
4. Don't worry about the RPM of a hard drive too much. It's not the RPMs that make hard drives slow it's the seek time from moving the arm. Hard drives are easily upgraded and very cheap. So if you want to skimp do it there.

Grab that 20 dollar readyboost flash drive from office depot.

I will if I can give you a laptop configuration via dell tonight.

I am a Software Engineer with a computer science degree and many years of teching so if you have any questions ask.

 

[emorphien]

To a large extent the limitation with much of digital imaging is RAM. This is why for working with my photography my homebuilt desktop has 8GB of RAM and my Thinkpad has 4GB. Certainly with most of the popular software being able to take advantage of faster processors and more cores, I'd suggest a dual core if you're getting a laptop. However if you do not need a laptop bang for the buck from a desktop will be far better.

My new laptop that I got September cost me about the same (after a 25 or 30% discount) as the desktop I built myself in June but is at best half of what my desktop is (and in reality much less).

As far as laptops are concerned, Thinkpads have yet to do me wrong and I find them more durable and reliable than most mainstream brands such as Apple or Dell. If however you want a good value keep an eye out because while Dells standard prices sometimes aren't always that great (I haven't looked in 6 months or so) they have very frequent deals from what I've seen which make them an excellent value.

So I'll repeat the basic issue is that buying a laptop is a compromise. You compromise your budget and the performance because you want to take it with you. If you don't need that, don't buy it. My personal recommendation is as much RAM as you can afford (I'd start at 4GB considering how cheap desktop ram has been) and a quad core processor. The processor doesn't have to be current generation either, even the Q6600 which is two generations old is still an excellent choice and a good value option if you can find something with that. Otherwise either the current Intel quads or the previous gen are good choices (I have a Q9450 which is the previous gen from the first half of 2008). I haven't kept up with AMDs offerings at this point but perhaps good values can be had there.

Video cards aren't hugely important for digital photography, but a discrete card in a laptop is always a good choice if you can get it. Many modern laptops like my Thinkpad have discrete and integrated, so you have performance when you need it for 3D applications but you can switch to integrated for a big battery life boost. Whether you go ATI or nVidia there is not really important IMO.

For digital cameras, if you mean SLRs, Canon and Nikon are the biggest guys out there and you will see good availability of a variety of lenses and accessories for their cameras. My favorite aside from them is Pentax but there's also Sony and other companies like Olympus (which uses the 4/3 system). Your best option there is to go to a store and try out the different models in your price range and see what feels best if you don't already have specific needs which one system might meet better than another. If your goal is to build a complete system Canon and Nikon offer more up-to-date components to do so.

 

[lsiberian]

For a true image processing machine MAC's are superior especially a G4. the G4 has the velocity engine. Which basically allows the processor to add arrays in one instruction. That is a very very nice feature for any graphics processing.

They also make very good imaging software and probably have better memory management than Windows.

http://configure.us.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?oc=dydohu5&c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&kc=category~notebooks

The above is a laptop I threw together quickly it costs 2000 dollars.

If you want to go desktop I can give you a parts list of what to buy.

In general brands

Motherboards-Asus(reliable dependable and usually the best.)
Cases - Antec(very nice easy to assemble) They use thumb screws for every thing
Hard Drive- Western Digital(no hard drive company comes close to their reliability)
Memory-any brand usually works
Video Card(the highest memory nvidia you can get)
Sound Card(stick with on board. Creative cards suck and cause issues.)
Fans. If you need to get one get a thermal take.
get some heat sink compund. Not sure if they come with that these days. But put it in between the processor and the fan.

Get the processor with the highest cache lowest speed combo. The extra 100 mhz won't make the difference the extra cache does. If you see a chip with TLB like an Intel Xeon that you can afford. Go for it. TLB = very nice.

I usually suggest going AMD because it's cheaper, but Intel is ok too these days. Make sure to grab a couple case fans. The one buy the chipset should flow out of the case. The one at the front should flow in.

 

[alexwakelin]

get some heat sink compund. Not sure if they come with that these days. But put it in between the processor and the fan.

The cpu will come with thermal compound on it, however the stock thermal compound is usually inadequate. Replace it with some Artic Silver, it is cheap insurance against your cpu overheating.

 

[yettitheman]

Ok, I have a laptop now but seeing as its about 3 years old and it was cheap when I got it, its not quite getting the job done. I got it for general computing on the road, ie email, internet, office apps.. blah blah... I'm very frustrated with the lack of capacity (60GB) and snails performance for digital imaging and desktop publishing. Time to upgrade... I'm a pc user, but Have read so many great reviews of the MacBooks... Seriously considering one, but maybe there are some PC options that are just as good. I can spend the 1299 for the new macbook but if I can meet or exceed performance for less in a PC, I'm game for that as well.

I know computers pretty well, but I'm not completely sure of the minimum requirements for such a machine. Any advice would be greatly useful. If you have a computer that you're super happy with, i'd love to hear about that as well. I'm also in the hunt for a new digital camera and am looking at options for that as well. Anybody that has some imaging advice would be greatly appreciated... Thanks...

Well... I'll say this.
Google search Dell Hell. You might be surprised.
I worked with them a lot at the school, and many a things I have cursed at them for.
I won't even get started with their laptops.

But, you'll find that someone always has something to say bad about a company.

In which case, notebooks I would get:

IBM Thinkpad (not too sure about Lenovo since they are now Chinese)
I never was able to break my old 750Cs and it's a 486 that saw most of it's life running around in a police car! Still runs good for a 486 I don't know how fast the last true IBM notebook was, so it may be a bit... anemic by today's standards. Lenovo's should be pretty well made, or at the very least IBM's support should be. I'd have to read more into this to verify.
But if you found an old IBM Thinkpad that will do you well, chances are it'll be good.

Macbook/Macbook Pro:
Yeah, it's Apple. You won't find the G4 in new Mac's. Rather, an Intel processor and NB. But... the great thing about this is... you can install Windows XP (SP2 or later) (or any other MS OS greater than XP SP2) and dual boot! Now, rumor has been going around that Time Capsule somehow eats the MS partition... so, be weary of that prospect perhaps. Not to mention, for a lot of "artists," they "prefer" Apple because they "say it's better for graphics work/video/ect."
Now, the computer is only as good as the software it uses to handle these tasks, as well as the user, and the hardware. It's not just one thing.

The big thing that Apple seems to have going for it, really, is the battery life. Now, you can get a long run time on a single charge with an Apple (using the factory OS, with XP, it seems to chop it in half). 4 Hours is the lowest stated run time with an Apple (take a little off always; they never run as long as they say, but still, they run close). That's important to some people.
However, I do not remember which ones you can swap batteries with. Keep that in mind.


One thing to keep in mind... since you are doing graphical/image work, get one that is loaded to full storage spec on RAM, or get the least amount of RAM and upgrade it to maximum capacity. You will use it. Yes you will.
A fast CPU doesn't hurt either, but you'll be using more RAM. Don't worry about getting the fastest CPU. Anything new should be an upgrade from 3 years ago.

Most graphics cards anymore are decent for video work. The only reason why you would need a powerful/specialized one is to hook up another monitor that has an insane native resolution (think 30" Apple Cinema) or you are graphic designing and need a Workstation type GPU (but I don't think you are doing AutoCAD or making the next Halo 7 game).

Other than that, it's preference, and research.
Don't jump in the pool until you are 100% sure, and always have a set of water wings on! (IE, backup plan).

 

[adwilk]

Alright, unfortunately, It has to be a mobile solution... As far as a desktop goes, I've got one that'll do the trick that i built about 8-10 months ago and really doesnt need an upgrade just yet. I need to put together imaging projects on the road and use a lot of graphic intensive processes in web development and what not.

I like that dell machine, I went to every major brand i could think of and put together one of the best laptops they had and compared price vs features relevant to my needs. I guess I'm just torn between spending 2 grand on a pc or maybe a macbook pro at this point. I really like the thinkpad too... They seem to be really powerful and reliable. I need to use photoshop, image ready and a handful of other adobe apps.. i'm comfortable with them so the software specifically available for mac has little attraction to me. I'll use the adobe suite no matter what. The ability to multi boot windows on the mac is very attractive provided its reliable and stable..

Thanks for all the advice...

 

[emorphien]

You really won't go wrong with any of those options. IMO it's more important to have more RAM than to have the fastest processor on offer for the laptop so keep that in mind. Of course that depends somewhat on your file sizes and how many files you work on simultaneously, but more RAM is good. OSX and Vista are also pretty good at handling RAM and CPU for heavy multitasking these days, so if you're like me and you run Bridge, Photoshop, Capture One and other various things simultaneously they both do well. Vista will not perform its best IMO unless you do load it out sufficiently but the setup I described will do the trick (it's what I have on my Thinkpad).

For a true image processing machine MAC's are superior especially a G4. the G4 has the velocity engine. Which basically allows the processor to add arrays in one instruction. That is a very very nice feature for any graphics processing.

They also make very good imaging software and probably have better memory management than Windows.

False, but you are way behind the times anyway. Imaging wise it's a wash these days. In fact even in the G4 days; pick your favorite imaging package, there were tradeoffs going either way.

As far as the Thinkpads these days, Lenovo or not they do not look or feel in any way inferior to my older IBM Thinkpads so I am still confident in them and will continue to buy them until something changes such as Lenovo screwing it up or someone else doing it better for the same or less money.

 

[adwilk]

These are the specs for the thinkpad I put together...

System components
#
Intel Core 2 Duo processor T9400 (2.53GHz 1066MHz 6MBL2)
#
Genuine Windows Vista Business
#
15.4 WXGA TFT, w/ CCFL Backlight
#
ATI Mobility Radeon 3650 with 256MB
#
4 GB PC3-8500 DDR3 SDRAM 1067MHz SODIMM Memory (2 DIMM)
#
UltraNav (TrackPoint and TouchPad)
#
320 GB Hard Disk Drive, 5400rpm
#
DVD Recordable 8x Max Dual Layer, Ultrabay Slim (Serial ATA)
#
Express Card Slot & PC Card Slot
#
Intel WiFi Link 5100 (AGN)
#
6 cell Li-Ion Battery

$1559


A comparable dell will be about the same...

MacBook Pro 15" model

# 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
# 4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
# 320GB Serial ATA @ 5400
# SuperDrive 8x (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
# None
# Backlit Keyboard (English) / User's Guide

$2249

Is the macbook worth the extra coin? Thats what i need to narrow down now... I really need to get something ordered.. I like the dell the more i look and read reviews but I can decide between it and the thinkpad after the fact...

Would it be worth buying a cheap notebook and upgrading it or should i buy it put together the way i need it.

 

[emorphien]

That Thinkpad looks great but be careful, in my opinion WXGA is too low of a resolution to really take advantage of a 15.4" screen, particularly for imaging. I would suggest upping that, see if they have something like WSXGA or WSXGA+ or even WUXGA. The Macbook will have a higher res screen, I do not know about the Dell.

Also think about whether you want an LED backlight, it will offer better battery life. For imaging it depends a lot on the display and either way if you really care you'll have the hardware to calibrate it.

Even with the upgraded screen it looks like the Thinkpad will be less than the Macbook (which Thinkpad model is that?), and my opinion and experience tells me that it will be a more durable machine than the Macbook. Still, the new Macbooks are better than the old on that front so far it seems although it's a little soon to tell. Personally another hit against the Macbook is the glossy display unless you can get it without that.

That's the same processor and RAM I've got in my Thinkpad, I think for most work you'll be happy with that configuration. You could probably upgrade the Thinkpad's hard drive to 7200 RPM but from what I've read in the past with the high capacity notebook drives there isn't always a big gap in performance between the 5400rpm and 7200rpm due to the fact that the platters are so dense. Whether that's still true or not I do not know.

As far as buying the notebook less loaded out and upgrading it yourself, that depends. You might save a bit on the hard drive but then you have to install everything yourself. If that bugs you then don't do that. Really the only other thing user serviceable is the RAM and that's a place where historically Apple, Dell, IBM and just about everyone else has significantly overcharged. Check that yourself though someplace like Newegg. When I bought my T400 I really didn't save anything by upgrading it myself, so I just ordered it with the 4GB installed. In the past though I've noticed that upgrading the RAM myself can save me hundreds of dollars.

I should note that I wiped my T400 clean and did a fresh install of Vista and the drivers and utilities I wanted. I've done that with every prebuilt computer I've used. Stock installs tend to have a lot of extra crap on them be it drivers or other things or just suffer from bloat from all that crap. I have done it with my Mac as well to free up space from things that I would never need that come preinstalled.

 

[adwilk]

Ok, its either this ThinkPad or the Macbook Pro listed above... This is the thinkpad W500 15.4" with some upgrades... Priced at $1854


System components
#
Intel Core 2 Duo Processor P8400 (2.26GHz 1066MHz 3MBL2) 25W
#
Genuine Windows Vista Ultimate
#
Microsoft Windows XP Professional US English RDVD
#
15.4" WUXGA TFT
#
ATI Mobility FireGL V5700 with 512MB VRAM
#
4 GB PC3-8500 DDR3 SDRAM 1067MHz SODIMM Memory (2 DIMM)
#
UltraNav (TrackPoint and TouchPad)
#
320 GB Hard Disk Drive, 5400rpm
#
DVD Recordable 8x Max Dual Layer, Ultrabay Slim (Serial ATA)
#
Express Card Slot & PC Card Slot
#
ThinkPad 11b/g Wireless LAN Mini PCI Express Adapter III
#
Integrated AT&T Mobile Broadband (3G)
#
6 cell Li-Ion Battery
#
Country Pack North America with Line cord & 90W AC adapter

Think this will work? Mac?

 

[emorphien]

That'll be a beast of a machine. I see you dropped the processor down, not really a big deal most likely but a little extra never hurts in the long run if you can afford it Definitely don't sacrifice RAM to get a slightly faster chip though!

I'll tell you one reason I'd prefer the Thinkpad over the Macbook and that's the display seeing as how the Thinkpad shouldn't have a glossy display and compared to the Macbooks 15" 1440x900 display, the 1920x1200 display will be real nice to work with for
imaging.

Still, the Macbook won't be bad of course but the biggest hit against it in my opinion is the glossy display which I feel is unacceptable.

 

[lsiberian]

False, but you are way behind the times anyway. Imaging wise it's a wash these days. In fact even in the G4 days; pick your favorite imaging package, there were tradeoffs going either way.

Really that's a very harsh statement to make. There are numerous advantages the G4 had in its day and still would have over Intel chips. If programmed into use. I do prefer the IA assembly language though for it's ease of use. comparatively.

There are certainly tradeoffs, but the velocity engine makes a huge difference in graphics processing. Because it drastically cuts down the required instruction set for the processing to be done.

Dell laptops are very reliable in my experience. Far more than most laptop companies. I don't think he would have any problems.

The system I put together for him is optimized as far as it can be optimized. It has 6 megs of cache, and 8 gigs of ram. I think it would do fine for him. though I would like a bigger video card since he is a graphic heavy user.

 

[lsiberian]

Ok, its either this ThinkPad or the Macbook Pro listed above... This is the thinkpad W500 15.4" with some upgrades... Priced at $1854


System components
#
Intel Core 2 Duo Processor P8400 (2.26GHz 1066MHz 3MBL2) 25W
#
Genuine Windows Vista Ultimate
#
Microsoft Windows XP Professional US English RDVD
#
15.4" WUXGA TFT
#
ATI Mobility FireGL V5700 with 512MB VRAM
#
4 GB PC3-8500 DDR3 SDRAM 1067MHz SODIMM Memory (2 DIMM)
#
UltraNav (TrackPoint and TouchPad)
#
320 GB Hard Disk Drive, 5400rpm
#
DVD Recordable 8x Max Dual Layer, Ultrabay Slim (Serial ATA)
#
Express Card Slot & PC Card Slot
#
ThinkPad 11b/g Wireless LAN Mini PCI Express Adapter III
#
Integrated AT&T Mobile Broadband (3G)
#
6 cell Li-Ion Battery
#
Country Pack North America with Line cord & 90W AC adapter

Think this will work? Mac?

Can you upgrade the cache anymore? it makes a huge difference in performance.

 

[adwilk]

Ok, pulled the trigger... Thinkpad W500.. similar to the one above, but upgraded the processor after some thought. Might as well make it as future proof as I can if I'm gonna spend the money... Looks like I'll have to wait a couple weeks.. that sucks, but it what it is... Heres the final product...

System components
#
Intel Core 2 Duo processor T9600 (2.8GHz 1066MHz 6MBL2)
#
Genuine Windows Vista Ultimate
#
Microsoft Windows XP Professional US English RDVD
#
15.4" WUXGA TFT
#
ATI Mobility FireGL V5700 with 512MB VRAM
#
4 GB PC3-8500 DDR3 SDRAM 1067MHz SODIMM Memory (2 DIMM)
#
UltraNav (TrackPoint and TouchPad)
#
320 GB Hard Disk Drive, 5400rpm
#
DVD Recordable 8x Max Dual Layer, Ultrabay Slim (Serial ATA)
#
Express Card Slot & PC Card Slot
#
Integrated Bluetooth PAN
#
Intel WiFi Link 5300 (AGN)
#
9 cell Li-Ion Battery
#
Country Pack North America with Line cord & 90W AC adapter

Total $2164, cheaper than the macbook pro, more than I initially wanted to spend but it is for business. I'm looking forward to having something I wont have to be quite as patient with...

Thanks for all your help... I'll let ya know what I think once its in my hands... so much for that new DIY sub project.. oh well...

 

[lsiberian]

You could probably upgrade the Thinkpad's hard drive to 7200 RPM but from what I've read in the past with the high capacity notebook drives there isn't always a big gap in performance between the 5400rpm and 7200rpm due to the fact that the platters are so dense. Whether that's still true or not I do not know.

There isn't a big difference because the arm moving is what takes the longest not the spinning. A Solid State harddrive would be significantly faster. But will cost more money.

 

[adwilk]

There isn't a big difference because the arm moving is what takes the longest not the spinning. A Solid State harddrive would be significantly faster. But will cost more money.

Yeah, the solid state was way out of my price range (+700 or so)

 

[lsiberian]

Yeah, the solid state was way out of my price range (+700 or so)

Yeah they are pricey. Just use readyboost for your page file. That will help a lot with speed. I use it at work and my computer runs way faster.

In a few years I would expect to see solid state take over, but we'll see. It is way faster than current Hard drives though. It is the first thing I would upgrade on my computer actually. Before even upgrading machines.

 

[emorphien]

Really that's a very harsh statement to make. There are numerous advantages the G4 had in its day and still would have over Intel chips. If programmed into use. I do prefer the IA assembly language though for it's ease of use. comparatively.

There are certainly tradeoffs, but the velocity engine makes a huge difference in graphics processing. Because it drastically cuts down the required instruction set for the processing to be done.

You can talk about theoreticals all you want, I know the differences. In actual use the G4 often fell behind its contemporaries using many mainstream imaging software programs... particularly later in its life as Motorola failed to scale it effectively.

Can you upgrade the cache anymore? it makes a huge difference in performance.

Looks like he did, certainly doesn't hurt.

There isn't a big difference because the arm moving is what takes the longest not the spinning. A Solid State harddrive would be significantly faster. But will cost more money.

True, however even with the faster spinning access times can generally be reduced and transfer rates increased. The drives are at a point at the moment where the data density seems to make that less effective, for whatever reason. And yes some SS drives can be faster in certain ways but from what I've seen many can fall down when you have enough simultaneous transfers going on.

And of course my statement of false was mostly in response to your assertion that a Mac is a superior imaging platform. A dated statement that never had a strong foundation in practical results anyway. Certainly Apple had an early foothold in much of the media content/creation but catering to that crowd, tradition and user comfort with the familiar have likely had more to do with the perception of their superiority than anything else.