*Mac Users Please*- Dilemma-refective screen

[harroz]

Hi all,

I'm looking at upgrading my equipment to the latest 24 imac, but everytime I go in and see that reflective screen I ask myself "is that actually any good for me" I'm a full time photog so pp images daily. I actually don't like the look of it at all and it is making me think about other avenues in regards to the screen.

So if you use it what do you think, is it o.k?, or would you rethink your purchase next time?


thanks in advance

Mark

[Dan-]

Refurb Mac Pro w/ best vid card you can get + wait. We should be seeing a bunch of Apple updates in September, including LED-backlit displays. Regardless, wait a month for anything Apple you want to buy.

[bubba zanetti]

It was the screen that compelled me to buy the imac. I do all my photoshop stuff in a room without reflection so the screen works fine for me. Nothing i hate more than those uncontrasty/dusty looking screens.

[meglet]

I have a previous gen glossy iMac, and while I love it for everything but PP, I have gotten used to processing on it.

If you are doing daily processing, it shouldn't take long to get used to the difference between your glossy screen, and how it will look for everyone else. Mostly, the difference I have noticed is that I see more detail, so I have to bump the brightness up a notch or two beyond what looks good on my screen.

However, I'll agree with the above recommendations to wait until Apple announces their fall changes before you buy anything.

[Moppie]

Build a hack-n-Tosh :)

Intel quadcore on an intel board and then buy a decent aftermarket LCD.

[harroz]

Thanks guys, appreciate your answers. Yeah, I'm looking into it now, but won't be getting it until December, sounds like they'll have something new in the screen dept so thats good to hear. I'm figuring I wouldn't be the only one put off by it.

cheers,

Mark

[harroz]

how to? I'm ok at using them, but i couldn't trust myself to actually build one!
this was a thought that I was thinking though.

You know someone that can build such a beast?

Build a hack-n-Tosh :)

Intel quadcore on an intel board and then buy a decent aftermarket LCD.

[vetkrazy]

I have had my 24" iMac for two months. I have had no problems editing on the screen, in fact I love it. My previous setup was a windows pc and 2 Dell 24" monitors. I had read several threads about the reflections on the screen but I have not noticed any problems.

[René Damkot]

Why iMac instead of a (used / refurb) MacPro?

[harroz]

good point, this is something I'll have to look into. I don't even know if a refurb pro is available in NZ, I've never seen one advertised anywhere. Maybe they get snapped up fast or something. There is obvious pluss with a Pro.

Thanks

Why iMac instead of a (used / refurb) MacPro?

[Moppie]

how to? I'm ok at using them, but i couldn't trust myself to actually build one!
this was a thought that I was thinking though.

You know someone that can build such a beast?


It's not hard to build your own PC, you just have to make sure the board and CPU you get is surported by OS-X.

With a list of suitable parts a good shop should be able to build some thing pretty damn hot for under $3,000 with out a screen. (quad core, 2TB of harddisk, 8gb of ram etc).

[Tony-S]

Build a hack-n-Tosh :) Intel quadcore on an intel board and then buy a decent aftermarket LCD.

Not an Intel board. They're difficult. Certain Asus and Gigabyte are the two easiest to configure.

It's not hard to build your own PC, you just have to make sure the board and CPU you get is surported by OS-X.

Any Intel Core 2 (Duo or Quad) is the best route.

With a list of suitable parts a good shop should be able to build some thing pretty damn hot for under $3,000 with out a screen. (quad core, 2TB of harddisk, 8gb of ram etc).

Actually, you're talking about US$1300 for such a machine, including a retail copy of Leopard. :)

[Moppie]

Actually, you're talking about US$1300 for such a machine, including a retail copy of Leopard. :)

Which is about NZ$1800.

I recently build a quad core with 2gb of ram 580gb on 2 HDD's with Vista, for about NZ$1200
But that was a Q6600 on an ASUS P5K and with no case. No labour charge etc.

My own desktop, A Q6600 with 2TB of HDD space and 4GB of ram cost about NZ$2,000 with nice case. I would factor in another $1,000 for a store to build it.
Although pasts costs have come down since I got my machine last year.




Is there a specific chipset or board type to look for when wanting to build a hack-n-tosh?

[harroz]

all good, I'm stil listening...

[breal101]

Mark, the screens on the imac leave something to be desired in my opinion. I would go with Rene's suggestion. As a photographer who relies in people respecting my copyright I find the hackintosh suggestion to be repulsive since it clearly violates Apples software agreement.

[Moppie]

Mark, the screens on the imac leave something to be desired in my opinion. I would go with Rene's suggestion. As a photographer who relies in people respecting my copyright I find the hackintosh suggestion to be repulsive since it clearly violates Apples software agreement.


The problem is finding a re-furbed MacPro here in NZ.
They sold in VERY low numbers and we have no local Apple branch, only a couple of distrubtors surported by Apple Australia.

Is there a single quad core version of the Mac Pro?
All the NZ retailers I can find are only selling the 8 core, which is about NZ$4,500 for a very basic spec, but with lots of cores.

[harroz]

interesting point. thanks.


Mark, the screens on the imac leave something to be desired in my opinion. I would go with Rene's suggestion. As a photographer who relies in people respecting my copyright I find the hackintosh suggestion to be repulsive since it clearly violates Apples software agreement.

[Tony-S]

Which is about NZ$1800.

Gotcha.

I recently build a quad core with 2gb of ram 580gb on 2 HDD's with Vista, for about NZ$1200. But that was a Q6600 on an ASUS P5K and with no case. No labour charge etc.

You're ready for a hackintosh. Mines on the Q6600/3.2 ghz with the p5k-e. Works like a champ, but one of my eSATA ports (on the mobo) is nonfunctional. All else works great.

Is there a specific chipset or board type to look for when wanting to build a hack-n-tosh?

The osx86 hcl is the best place to look. Lots of easy boards, but lots more no-so-easy boards. If you build it with OS X in mind, it becomes rather easy to do.

[Moppie]

The osx86 hcl is the best place to look. Lots of easy boards, but lots more no-so-easy boards. If you build it with OS X in mind, it becomes rather easy to do.


So once you get the board and CPU selection right, I take it you also need to be careful with the graphics card? (I would think anythnig available in the Mac Pro would work? 8800GT etc).

Then is there any tweaking needed when installing OS-X?
I have never installed OS-X, but have done plenty of windows installs. Follow the prompts, say hi to Bill, install the drivers, and away you go.

[harroz]

would this also be able to run windows? either via parallels or otherwise?

[Moppie]

would this also be able to run windows? either via parallels or otherwise?

Of course, just like you can run windows on the new Intel Based Macs.

[René Damkot]

Is there a single quad core version of the Mac Pro?

There was one with two dual cores: Click (http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_pro/stats/mac-pro-quad-2.66-specs.html)

4500 is on the steep side, whatever currency it's in :shock:

[Tony-S]

So once you get the board and CPU selection right, I take it you also need to be careful with the graphics card? (I would think anythnig available in the Mac Pro would work? 8800GT etc).

There are far more video card options for a hackintosh than there are for genuine Macs. The dev community has gone to great lengths to support a variety of NVidia and ATI boards (but I think you're limited to 256 mb max of vRAM). The Apple-specific cards are flashed with proprietary code, so you are limited to buying from Apple (or third party with specified drivers). I put an MSI-branded 8600gt with mine and then ran the OSX86 installer. That took about 30 seconds, then on reboot I was good to go.

Then is there any tweaking needed when installing OS-X?

I had to install the NVidia drivers, then run a self-contained audio patch script. After that, a reboot and no issues since. I am using my old Power Mac G4 keyboard, and Apple Mighty Mouse (which I both hate and love) and the mobo's ethernet port (which is manufactured by the same company, Marvel, that makes ethernet boards for genuine Macs), three internal SATA drives, a SATA DVD burner and haven't had any issues. I'm still on 10.5.2, but the upgrade to 10.5.4 appears to be painless for most. I just don't have a compelling reason to update.

[Dan-]

As he runs a photography business, it is a poor decision to try to use a home-built system with an unsupported operating system. What does he do when something breaks? A real Mac user would call up Applecare or take it to an Apple store or reseller. Someone with this homebuilt system has to diagnose the problem himself, buy a new part or go through a long and tedious RMA process with each individual manufacturer.

The short of it is that It is irresponsible to bring that much risk into a business environment. There is only downside to this hackintosh idea. What is the upside? Save some money? In America at least, purchases like this reduce your tax burden. I don't know if it works that way in NZ or even if the OP has a formal business.

How much money is your time worth to you? Will the time you spend building and troubleshooting your hacked computer over its lifetime outweigh the lost revenue (opportunity cost), since you could have been working? If the business isn't that successful, wouldn't that time be better spent drumming up clients rather than tinkering with a computer?

[Tony-S]

As he runs a photography business, it is a poor decision to try to use a home-built system with an unsupported operating system. What does he do when something breaks? A real Mac user would call up Applecare or take it to an Apple store or reseller.

Hey buddy, just for the record, I am a real fscking Mac user. We have two Mac Minis, a MacBook, MacBook Pro, a 24" iMac Core 2 Duo - before Apple decided to go that crappy glossy-only display - an AEBSn, Apple TV, four iPods, two iPhones (both jailbroken and unlocked, thank you very much) and even a PowerMac 6400.

Someone with this homebuilt system has to diagnose the problem himself, buy a new part or go through a long and tedious RMA process with each individual manufacturer.

Many professional photographers are also competent computer people. But I guess your lack of experience on these forums prohibits you from seeing that. :rolleyes:

The short of it is that It is irresponsible to bring that much risk into a business environment.

Thanks for that tip, Mr. Greenspan.

There is only downside to this hackintosh idea.

And you don't know what you're talking about.

What is the upside? Save some money?

There's really only one viable professional photo processing Mac - the Mac Pro. But requiring people to buy a server-grade computer for a small business is really stupid.

How much money is your time worth to you? Will the time you spend building...

Three hours, total.

...and troubleshooting your hacked computer...

Haven't done any troubleshooting. And I have a $1,000 quad-core computer that is faster than the entry-level $2500 Mac Pro.

...over its lifetime outweigh the lost revenue (opportunity cost), since you could have been working?

I've only been running my hackintosh for about 5 months now, but it has not crashed once, none of its parts have failed and it does everything I need it to do. With the $1500 I saved I bought a Sigma 150-500 OS and still had a lot of money left over.

If the business isn't that successful, wouldn't that time be better spent drumming up clients rather than tinkering with a computer?

It would be better if you got off that high horse of yours.

[harroz]

ok Tony... 10 deep breaths ma man ;-)

it's only food for thought.

there's another angle that I'm taking into consideration- I might lease it, as by doing this we get 100% tax deduction form a lease here. So I'm weighing up this hackamac to this also.


Anyway, you've all helped, thanks for your input, I'll bookmark this thread. and come back to it. cheers!

[René Damkot]

I think what was meant here was (accolades by me):
A "real Mac" user

As in: Not hackintosh.

So, indeed, to put it in (partly) your own words:

It would be better if you

take

10 deep breaths

;)

Also note that Mac OSX can only run "legal" on a Mac AFAIK...

[Moppie]

Well said. There is no need to be uncivil about things :cool:



Also note that Mac OSX can only run "legal" on a Mac AFAIK...

This is a good point, although it is currently being challenged by a company building hackntoshs in the states.



Tony, thanks for your good advice, I have to be honest, I think it goes beyond my technical ablity to build one.
It's something I might try for myself, but I wouldn't do it for someone else (Mark, I (and several other Kiwis) can get the bits at wholesale prices from a variety of suppliers).

[Moppie]

Well I did a little digging for you mark (quite day at work ;) )

The cheapest new Mac Pro I could find is about NZ$3400 frpm here: http://www.totallymac.com/nz/bto.lasso?product=APPMA970X/A

They want NZ$369 for a 500GB drive that I can get for about $130 last time I checked.

So a very expensive option, even to buy extra Ram and hard disks else where.
For about NZ$4,000 you could have a really nice system.

There are however some older Mac Pros on Trademe: http://www.trademe.co.nz/Computers/Apple/Hardware/auction-173100698.htm

And even the odd old matte screen iMac: http://www.trademe.co.nz/Computers/Apple/Complete-systems/auction-173446707.htm

I have no idea if they are any, or much better than what you currently have though, and they are still an expensive option.

[harroz]

Thanks Moppie you're a legend!,Yeah, I've been doing some thinking. Thats showing me $4130. Can you get discount there or something?


I'll wait until the new macs come out in Sept/Oct and see what they have in their pocket in regards to the screens, I'll probably go the heaviest/largest imac, fill the ram, and add a couple of 750 ext h/d to it. Then when I get the new 5dmk11:-D I can save my work on them pretty much as soon as I've pp'd them. Thats if they change the screens, if not then it might have to be a pro, but I'll look into that later. I'm running on an imac now with full ram and it has been o.k, but these new cameras are getting so high in mp that its going to be a problem in the future and i don't want to be sitting here more than I have to.

cheers all


Well I did a little digging for you mark (quite day at work ;) )

The cheapest new Mac Pro I could find is about NZ$3400 frpm here: http://www.totallymac.com/nz/bto.lasso?product=APPMA970X/A

They want NZ$369 for a 500GB drive that I can get for about $130 last time I checked.

So a very expensive option, even to buy extra Ram and hard disks else where.
For about NZ$4,000 you could have a really nice system.

There are however some older Mac Pros on Trademe: http://www.trademe.co.nz/Computers/Apple/Hardware/auction-173100698.htm

And even the odd old matte screen iMac: http://www.trademe.co.nz/Computers/Apple/Complete-systems/auction-173446707.htm

I have no idea if they are any, or much better than what you currently have though, and they are still an expensive option.

[Moppie]

Thanks Moppie you're a legend!,Yeah, I've been doing some thinking. Thats showing me $4130. Can you get discount there or something?



There is an option to customise it, where you can choose to have only a single quad core CPU. That drops the price down to $3600


If your going to be upgrading you gear, I would wonder about the ability of an iMac to process large numbers of images.
A single image at a time shouldn't be a problem, but the new 14bit files and ever increasing resolutions means larger and larger files sizes.
Tony has just had to move up to a quad core PC to process Pano's taken with his 1DS.
Of course if your charging by the hour then it doesn't really matter if it takes a little longer ;)

[harroz]

I've read about this 14bit and I'm a little lost on it, as the camera I have I can have them at 16 bit. Is this the same 'bit' ? or is it the jpegs that are 14bit?

Not all of my work will be with the large mp camera, the work I'm doing mostly gets shot in raw and resized down, so only the commercial shoots that are printing anything large like banners etc. and some stock/personal and weddings. still I can imagine weddings being quite cumbersome, but It'll be one at a time anyway, I can't bring myself to batch images as each is unique.

hmm single quad core... more looking ;-)

[Moppie]

I'm a little lost on that 14 bit, as the camera I have I can have them at 16 bit. Is this the same 'bit' ?

Wheres Duncan when we need him?

Think of it like this, the more bits, the more information, the more information, the larger the file type.

The older generation of cameras (yours, mine) produce 12bit RAW files.
The new ones, all produce 14bit raw files.
These either get processed into 8bit JPEGs, or 16bit TIFFs (or DNGs, or photoshop files etc).

So while a 12bit RAW and a 14bit RAW both produce a 16bit file, the 12bit RAW will produce a smaller sized file because it contained less data to start with.
(someone shoot if I am wrong here)

Factor in more megapixels, and you just get ever increasing file sizes which needs better, and better hardware to process them quickly.

[harroz]

yeah, sorry, I know that, what I'm saying though is when i open up a raw image in the converter I can have it at 16bit. so I'm thinking, whats so great about 14, when i get 16 in raw now. But.. I get 8bit jpeg, so I'm thinking maybe they mean 14 bit jpeg.

Anyway, all ok. I can look into it later.. not a biggie ;-)

I just checked out the single, it ends up being 4200-4300 by the time I put in what I need on it. not including the screen... I'd better get marketing ;-)

Wheres Duncan when we need him?

Think of it like this, the more bits, the more information, the more information, the larger the file type.

The older generation of cameras (yours, mine) produce 12bit RAW files.
The new ones, all produce 14bit raw files.
These either get processed into 8bit JPEGs, or 16bit TIFFs (or DNGs, or photoshop files etc).

So while a 12bit RAW and a 14bit RAW both produce a 16bit file, the 12bit RAW will produce a smaller sized file because it contained less data to start with.
(someone shoot if I am wrong here)

Factor in more megapixels, and you just get ever increasing file sizes which needs better, and better hardware to process them quickly.

[Moppie]

yeah, sorry, I know that, what I'm saying though is when i open up a raw image in the converter I can have it at 16bit. so I'm thinking, whats so great about 14, when i get 16 in raw now. But.. I get 8bit jpeg, so I'm thinking maybe they mean 14 bit jpeg.

Anyway, all ok. I can look into it later.. not a biggie ;-)

I just checked out the single, it ends up being 4200-4300 by the time I put in what I need on it. not including the screen... I'd better get marketing ;-)

No such thing as a 14bit JPEG, they are all 8bit :)
The RAW files will show as 16bit, but they in reality only have 12bits of info in them :)



If you do get a new Mac Pro, then get the most basic spec you can, and add aftermarket RAM and hard drives. Will work just as well as "apple" brand parts (being the same parts) but will cost a lot less.

You will still need to do some marketing, but not as much :lol::lol:

[René Damkot]

The older generation of cameras (yours, mine) produce 12bit RAW files.
The new ones, all produce 14bit raw files.
These either get processed into 8bit JPEGs, or 16bit TIFFs (or DNGs, or photoshop files etc).
So far, so good ;)

So while a 12bit RAW and a 14bit RAW both produce a 16bit file, the 12bit RAW will produce a smaller sized file because it contained less data to start with.
The resulting 16bpc tiff is just as large, it's just the Raw that's larger, thus the conversion a bit heavier on the computer.

Should not be an issue. At work I use a G5 dual for Leaf Aptus 75 files (33Mp, 16bit) ;)

yeah, sorry, I know that, what I'm saying though is when i open up a raw image in the converter I can have it at 16bit. so I'm thinking, whats so great about 14, when i get 16 in raw now.

You don't have 16 bit Raw now, you have 16bpc tiff.
The advantage of a 14bit raw, is smoother gradients, and more bits for the shadows: Since a raw file is lineair, half of the available bits are in the brightest stop...
Click (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml).

It even seems to be visible ;)

[Moppie]

At work I use a G5 dual for Leaf Aptus 75 files (33Mp, 16bit) ;)



There seem to be plenty of second hand G5's around.
How good are they?
The specs I saw on them showed only 400mhz ram, and dual 1.8ghz processors, which is quite and old spec now (good luck finding the ram new in other words).
A dual core iMac should be just as fast, if not faster??

[harroz]

all good tit-bits :-)


A dual core iMac should be just as fast, if not faster??


II'm hoping

[René Damkot]

A dual core iMac should be just as fast, if not faster??

I'd hope so, but if you run PSCS2 for instance, there was not that much speed gain going from the last G5 (http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powermac_g5/stats/powermac_g5_quad_2.5.html) to the first MacPro (http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/mac_pro/stats/mac-pro-quad-2.66-specs.html). (Rosetta)

The G5 2x 2GHz is fast enough for me ATM...

Newer (http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powermac_g5/faq/powermac-g5-memory-type-supported-number-of-ram-slots.html)G5s take PC4200.

Nowadays most Intel Macs should be faster I think...