How much RAM for medium format (6x6) scanning?

[Notice that replies are redirected to c.p.s]

I just built a computer with a large HDD and with USB2 ports; among
other things I intend to scan my medium format nagatives with the Epson
flatbed scanner that I haven't bought yet. (I haven't decided between a
3200, 3170, or 4870.) Let's assume that I use Vuescan. How much memory
does the system need for scanning and editting the image files? Right
now the system has 256MB of memory and one empty DIMM socket. I assume
256MB will probably work, barely, but is not really enough.

Also does it make a difference whether I run Windows 2000 or Linux for
the operating system? Currently I have Windows 98SE and Linux installed.

Thanks, regards,
Bob

zxcvbob writes:

Right
now the system has 256MB of memory and one empty DIMM socket. I assume
256MB will probably work, barely, but is not really enough.

You assume correctly. You'll need at least 512 MB--but you can never
have too much memory when scanning.

The best thing to do is simply to configure as much memory as the
hardware will allow. I believe Windows NT-based (NT, 2000, XP) systems
will allow up to 2 GB for application space. But many motherboards
won't allow you to go that high.

Also does it make a difference whether I run Windows 2000 or Linux for
the operating system?

Yes. Photoshop runs under Windows, but not under Linux, and the range
of applications for Linux is more limited overall (at least for
image-editing purposes).

Also, the Intel architecture limits directly-accessible RAM to 4 GB.
You'd have to go to a 64-bit OS to get beyond that limit. That day will
come for photographers and image editors more sooner than later.

Currently I have Windows 98SE and Linux installed.

You need to run an NT-based version of Windows (such as 2000) to handle
that much memory correctly.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic wrote:

zxcvbob writes:


Also does it make a difference whether I run Windows 2000 or Linux for
the operating system?

Yes. Photoshop runs under Windows, but not under Linux, and the range
of applications for Linux is more limited overall (at least for
image-editing purposes).


Depends, I get better scans from my scanner in linux an I do in windows,
viewscan works in either and the gimp 2.0 isn't bad for a low cost (free)
image editor. Plus linux doesn't have the ram issues than win98 does. For
the cost of windows XP retail (to use more ram) and photoshop, he could
take a vacation somewhere! :-)

--

Stacey

My short answer: Switch to XP pro. Install 4GB RAM if you can. Programs in
XP cannot address more than 2gb, but the extra allows you to have more other
programs (and of course the hungry OS) in RAM at the same time.

To use all the memory Linux can theoretically handle, you have to get into
things like recompiling the Kernel and all kinds of messy stuff.

Photoshop is great but awesomely expensive. You can do a huge amount of good
work with Adobe Elements which is only something like $100, maybe less.
Elements can take a lot of Photoshops plug-ins, and actions.

gimp is so very cool, but in my humble opinion, XP and Adobe Elements is a
whole lot more effective and less hassle.

"jjs" wrote in message
...
}
} My short answer: Switch to XP pro. Install 4GB RAM if you can. Programs
in
} XP cannot address more than 2gb, but the extra allows you to have more
other
} programs (and of course the hungry OS) in RAM at the same time.
}
} To use all the memory Linux can theoretically handle, you have to get into
} things like recompiling the Kernel and all kinds of messy stuff.
}
} Photoshop is great but awesomely expensive. You can do a huge amount of
good
} work with Adobe Elements which is only something like $100, maybe less.
} Elements can take a lot of Photoshops plug-ins, and actions.
}
} gimp is so very cool, but in my humble opinion, XP and Adobe Elements is a
} whole lot more effective and less hassle.

Windows NT, 2000, XP and 2003 will allow you to use 3GB for a process, but
you must add the /3GB switch to the boot.ini entry. You should also install
the latest service pack, and for Window XP you may need to install hotfix
Q328269 (http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;328269).

Regards,
Aaron Queenan.

I've scanned 645 and 6x7 cm films with my Nikon 8000 (4,000 dpi) with no
problems using both 768 MB and 1.5 GB RAM machines. I think the 6x7 scans in
14 bit mode were around 560 MB each, the 645's around 330 MB, so your 6x6 cm
would be midway between these. I would write off each scan to disk before
going to the next one.

Bill

Stacey writes:

Depends, I get better scans from my scanner in linux an I
do in windows ...

It's the same scanner, so the quality of the scans will be the same.
The OS has nothing to do with it.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic wrote:

Stacey writes:

Depends, I get better scans from my scanner in linux an I
do in windows ...

It's the same scanner, so the quality of the scans will be the same.
The OS has nothing to do with it.


But the drivers aren't the same and they are what interprets the
information from the hardware. You don't believe that different driver
versions in windows won't help/hurt a scanners performance do you?
--

Stacey

In article , Stacey
wrote:

But the drivers aren't the same and they are what interprets the
information from the hardware. You don't believe that different driver
versions in windows won't help/hurt a scanners performance do you?

Technically, a 'driver' is just an interface between the OS and a
perripheral. The intelligence that interprets the image is in the program.
A bad driver usually simply doesn't work.

Recently, jjs posted:

In article , Stacey
wrote:

But the drivers aren't the same and they are what interprets the
information from the hardware. You don't believe that different
driver versions in windows won't help/hurt a scanners performance do
you?

Technically, a 'driver' is just an interface between the OS and a
perripheral. The intelligence that interprets the image is in the
program. A bad driver usually simply doesn't work.

Your comment is an enhancement, not a contradiction of what Stacey has
said. In many (if not most) cases, the functionality of the peripheral
device is determined by the driver, not the application (program). Some
programs, such as VueScan, circumvent the supplied driver to provide a
direct interface to the scanner. However, Photoshop will not do this. So,
it's quite possible (and even likely) that some functions of a scanner
would be available or work better under one OS than another, simply
because of differences in the drivers.

Neil