Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Best LCD monitors for panoramic performance

Expand Messages
  • steven morton
    I would suggest taking a look at Eizo (pronounced a-zo) monitors http://www.eizo.com/ Cya Steve
    Message 1 of 14 , Nov 30, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      I would suggest taking a look at Eizo (pronounced a-zo) monitors
      http://www.eizo.com/

      Cya
      Steve
    • mrjimbo
      Th emachine sound spretty good. You may want to back off Vista and go with the 64 bit XP Pro.. Other forums have indicated that many things as in printers and
      Message 2 of 14 , Dec 1, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Th emachine sound spretty good. You may want to back off Vista and go with the 64 bit XP Pro.. Other forums have indicated that many things as in printers and software are not yet working on this new operating system.

        Jim
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: matt_nolan_uaf
        To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 11:59 PM
        Subject: [PanoToolsNG] Best hard disks and LCD monitors for panoramic performance


        Hi. I asked my local computer store to spec out a $5000 PC and
        prioritize fast disk drives. My hope is to be able to process 16 bit
        11,000 x 5500 sphericals in a few minutes and 5GP panos in an hour or
        so, though I may be dreaming. I include their parts list below and
        ask a few questions to the group:

        - These 15,000 RPM SAS disks seem to be the fastest around. Is it
        possible to be so fast that the increased speed cant be used? Is
        this even close to that? Or is there something even faster (or
        another component that makes them work faster) that I should consider?

        - LCD monitor -- they included a cheapo monitor here. Does anyone
        have a recommendation for a monitor that is optimal for panoramic
        photography? What specs should be considered minimum?

        - Other comments on components below?

        Whatever I buy, I'll certainly try out Milko's speedtest and let you
        know the results.

        Thanks,
        Matt

        INTEL S5000PSLSASR SERVER MAINBOARD
        http://www.intel.com/design/servers/boards/s5000PSL/index.htm
        INTEL SC5299BRPNA WORKSTATION CASE W/ 650W PSU
        2x STT 2GB DDR2 667MHZ ECC FB SAMSUNG MODULE RAM
        2x SEAGATE CHEETAH ST3146855SS 146GB 15K SAS 3GB/S
        http://www.seagate.com/docs/pdf/datasheet/disc/ds_cheetah_15k_5.pdf
        2x 750GB 7200RPM SATAII SEAGATE HDD
        2x INTEL XEON QUADCORE E5345 2.33GHZ 8MB CACHE LGA771 CPU
        XFX 8600GT 512MB PCIE VIDEO CARD DUAL HEAD
        PHILLIPS 20X DVD+-RW IDE OPTICAL DRIVE
        STARTECH 2 PORT FW800 1PT FW400
        WINDOWS VISTA ULTIMATE X64
        22IN ACER LCD 700:1 5MS WIDE SCREEN
        LOGITECH KEYBOARD AND OPTICAL MOUSE
        1 YEAR WARRANTY PARTS AND LABOR





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Carel
        Matt, Even the fastest mechanical HD will probably be slower than the solid state disks that are coming out in the coming months. The biggest bottleneck for
        Message 3 of 14 , Dec 1, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          Matt,

          Even the fastest mechanical HD will probably be slower than the solid state
          disks that are coming out in the coming months. The biggest bottleneck for
          stitching is the scratch disk and I always hear a LOT of activity from the
          HD head when it is reading and writing large files during stitching (even on
          a dedicated scratch disk, brand new, freshly formatted and empty).

          Alternately you could set up a RAID for your scratch disk with a bunch of
          regular SATAII drives, which should be faster than one superfast single
          drive and in the long run may be cheaper.

          Stay away from Vista. In tests it appears to be twice as slow as XP on the
          same machine:
          http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=204203975

          Carel Struycken

          --
          View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Best-hard-disks-and-LCD-monitors-for-panoramic-performance-tf4927301.html#a14107686
          Sent from the PanoToolsNG mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
        • AYRTON - avi
          ... GET a MAC ! So easier :-) ... AYRTON 21-9982.6313 www.ayrton.com Ladeira de Nossa Senhora, 214 / sl. 101
          Message 4 of 14 , Dec 1, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            On 12/1/07, Carel <cs@...> wrote:
            >
            > Stay away from Vista. In tests it appears to be twice as slow as XP on the
            > same machine:
            > http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=204203975

            GET a MAC !
            So easier :-)

            >
            > Carel Struycken


            AYRTON 21-9982.6313 www.ayrton.com
            Ladeira de Nossa Senhora, 214 / sl. 101 www.vrfolio.com
            Outeiro da Glória - RJ - 22211-100 - Brasil www.vr-images.com
            Panoramas do Rio de Janeiro www.rio360.com.br
          • Mark D. Fink
            Interesting timing on your link Carel. I just did one last email check before creating an image of my hard drive before downgrading to XP. :o) Mark
            Message 5 of 14 , Dec 1, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Interesting timing on your link Carel. I just did one last email check
              before creating an image of my hard drive before downgrading to XP. :o)



              Mark

              www.pinnacle-vr.com <http://www.pinnacle-vr.com/>

              www.northernlight.net <http://www.northernlight.net/>





              -----Original Message-----
              From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com] On
              Behalf Of Carel
              Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 12:46 PM
              To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [PanoToolsNG] Best hard disks and LCD monitors for panoramic
              performance




              Matt,

              Even the fastest mechanical HD will probably be slower than the solid state
              disks that are coming out in the coming months. The biggest bottleneck for
              stitching is the scratch disk and I always hear a LOT of activity from the
              HD head when it is reading and writing large files during stitching (even on
              a dedicated scratch disk, brand new, freshly formatted and empty).

              Alternately you could set up a RAID for your scratch disk with a bunch of
              regular SATAII drives, which should be faster than one superfast single
              drive and in the long run may be cheaper.

              Stay away from Vista. In tests it appears to be twice as slow as XP on the
              same machine:
              http://www.informat
              <http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=204203975>
              ionweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=204203975

              Carel Struycken

              --
              View this message in context: http://www.nabble
              <http://www.nabble.com/Best-hard-disks-and-LCD-monitors-for-panoramic-perfor
              mance-tf4927301.html#a14107686>
              com/Best-hard-disks-and-LCD-monitors-for-panoramic-performance-tf4927301.htm
              l#a14107686
              Sent from the PanoToolsNG mailing list archive at Nabble.com.





              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Carel
              ... I have both a MacBook Pro and an XP system, and although not completely up to speed on the Mac side yet, I dont understand what all the windows/Mac
              Message 6 of 14 , Dec 1, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                AYRTON - avi wrote:
                >
                > On 12/1/07, Carel <cs@...> wrote:
                >>
                >
                > GET a MAC !
                > So easier :-)
                >
                >

                I have both a MacBook Pro and an XP system, and although not completely up
                to speed on the Mac side yet, I dont understand what all the windows/Mac
                bickering is about. Both operating system have their annoyances and both
                first need to be wrestled to the ground before they become usable. Windows
                explorer seems to work a lot faster than Finder or any of the 3rd party
                improvements and I have not found a way to quickly look at raw thumbnails
                yet from within Finder. Adobe Bridge is way too slow for that and misses the
                convenience of a generic file manager such as Windows Explorer.

                Carel Struycken
                --
                View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Best-hard-disks-and-LCD-monitors-for-panoramic-performance-tf4927301.html#a14109006
                Sent from the PanoToolsNG mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
              • panotools@360image.de
                Hi Matt, ... I can confirm that. With all the talk on I/O speed lately I did install a hardware Raid0 (striping) with the 2 (80 gig) scratch discs i had
                Message 7 of 14 , Dec 1, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Matt,
                  >
                  >
                  > Alternately you could set up a RAID for your scratch disk with a bunch of
                  >
                  I can confirm that. With all the talk on I/O speed lately I did install
                  a hardware Raid0 (striping) with the 2 (80 gig) scratch discs i had
                  running with my dedicated stitcher box. I also moved the enblend
                  ,smartblend and autopano plugins to those discs. Turns out that the
                  speedtest files where finished at 1 min 25 sec as compared to 1 min and
                  55 sec before. It does not sound like much, but its an improvement of
                  35% with the same hardware as before. Not bad for a single core 2 ghz/
                  3gig ram AMD box. It took less than 10 minutes to do...

                  In case some testers want to do that and redo a a speedtest you are
                  invited to send me your results.
                  http://www.360image.de/test/smallfoot.htm

                  Cheers, Milko
                • John Riley
                  I just bought a dual drive enclosure on ebay that I plan to use as a dedicated RAID 0 scratch disk for stitching. Does anyone have recommendations on how
                  Message 8 of 14 , Dec 1, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I just bought a dual drive enclosure on ebay that I plan to use as a
                    dedicated RAID 0 scratch disk for stitching. Does anyone have
                    recommendations on how large the disks should be as a minimum? Since
                    I won't be using it for storage, I imagine it doesn't need to be
                    huge, but how big is big enough, give or take?

                    John

                    John Riley
                    johnriley@...
                    jriley@...




                    On Dec 1, 2007, at 8:38 PM, panotools360imagede wrote:

                    > Hi Matt,
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > Alternately you could set up a RAID for your scratch disk with a
                    > bunch of
                    > >
                    > I can confirm that. With all the talk on I/O speed lately I did
                    > install
                    > a hardware Raid0 (striping) with the 2 (80 gig) scratch discs i had
                    > running with my dedicated stitcher box. I also moved the enblend
                    > ,smartblend and autopano plugins to those discs. Turns out that the
                    > speedtest files where finished at 1 min 25 sec as compared to 1 min
                    > and
                    > 55 sec before. It does not sound like much, but its an improvement of
                    > 35% with the same hardware as before. Not bad for a single core 2 ghz/
                    > 3gig ram AMD box. It took less than 10 minutes to do...
                    >
                    > In case some testers want to do that and redo a a speedtest you are
                    > invited to send me your results.
                    > http://www.360image.de/test/smallfoot.htm
                    >
                    > Cheers, Milko
                    >
                    >
                    >



                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Sacha Griffin
                    Then it would be driven by price. They usually only make one size in large production the budget price. Smaller drives are just fractionally cheaper, and the
                    Message 9 of 14 , Dec 1, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Then it would be driven by price.

                      They usually only make one size in large production the budget price.
                      Smaller drives are just fractionally cheaper, and the drive just above it is
                      very expensive.



                      I think the price points are best around 250 gig. If its not for storage..
                      anything you buy will be overkill.



                      Sacha Griffin
                      Southern Digital Solutions LLC - Atlanta, Georgia
                      www.southern-digital.com
                      www.seeit360.net
                      www.ezphotosafe.com
                      404-551-4275
                      404-731-7798

                      _____

                      From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com] On
                      Behalf Of John Riley
                      Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2007 10:43 PM
                      To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [PanoToolsNG] Best hard disks (RAID array question)



                      I just bought a dual drive enclosure on ebay that I plan to use as a
                      dedicated RAID 0 scratch disk for stitching. Does anyone have
                      recommendations on how large the disks should be as a minimum? Since
                      I won't be using it for storage, I imagine it doesn't need to be
                      huge, but how big is big enough, give or take?

                      John

                      John Riley
                      johnriley@chesnet. <mailto:johnriley%40chesnet.net> net
                      jriley@uscupstate. <mailto:jriley%40uscupstate.edu> edu

                      On Dec 1, 2007, at 8:38 PM, panotools360imagede wrote:

                      > Hi Matt,
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Alternately you could set up a RAID for your scratch disk with a
                      > bunch of
                      > >
                      > I can confirm that. With all the talk on I/O speed lately I did
                      > install
                      > a hardware Raid0 (striping) with the 2 (80 gig) scratch discs i had
                      > running with my dedicated stitcher box. I also moved the enblend
                      > ,smartblend and autopano plugins to those discs. Turns out that the
                      > speedtest files where finished at 1 min 25 sec as compared to 1 min
                      > and
                      > 55 sec before. It does not sound like much, but its an improvement of
                      > 35% with the same hardware as before. Not bad for a single core 2 ghz/
                      > 3gig ram AMD box. It took less than 10 minutes to do...
                      >
                      > In case some testers want to do that and redo a a speedtest you are
                      > invited to send me your results.
                      > http://www.360image <http://www.360image.de/test/smallfoot.htm>
                      .de/test/smallfoot.htm
                      >
                      > Cheers, Milko
                      >
                      >
                      >

                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • matt_nolan_uaf
                      John, I m certainly no expert, but from what I ve been reading, the smaller the disk is physicall, the faster it will be. Also, it is possible to partition
                      Message 10 of 14 , Dec 2, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        John,

                        I'm certainly no expert, but from what I've been reading, the smaller
                        the disk is physicall, the faster it will be. Also, it is possible
                        to partition the disks such that you define the innermost part of the
                        disk as a separate partition and just use that as your scratch disk
                        (called quarter stroking). The speed increase is several fold
                        because the arm has to move much less, and is a much cheaper solution
                        apparently than by so-called very fast disks, where the spec speeds
                        are average for anywhere physically on the disk. But if you have the
                        money, then buying 'very fast' disks (like SAS Cheetah 76GB) and
                        quarter stroking those might be the best you can do. But from what
                        I've read recently, using iRAM disks in RAID 0 is a factor of 10,000
                        faster than the fastest disk, but I've never tried it.
                        http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12/05/hyperos_dram_hard_drive_on_the_
                        block/page6.html

                        -Matt

                        --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, John Riley <johnriley@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > I just bought a dual drive enclosure on ebay that I plan to use as
                        a
                        > dedicated RAID 0 scratch disk for stitching. Does anyone have
                        > recommendations on how large the disks should be as a minimum?
                        Since
                        > I won't be using it for storage, I imagine it doesn't need to be
                        > huge, but how big is big enough, give or take?
                        >
                        > John
                        >
                        > John Riley
                        > johnriley@...
                        > jriley@...
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > On Dec 1, 2007, at 8:38 PM, panotools360imagede wrote:
                        >
                        > > Hi Matt,
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > > > Alternately you could set up a RAID for your scratch disk with
                        a
                        > > bunch of
                        > > >
                        > > I can confirm that. With all the talk on I/O speed lately I did
                        > > install
                        > > a hardware Raid0 (striping) with the 2 (80 gig) scratch discs i
                        had
                        > > running with my dedicated stitcher box. I also moved the enblend
                        > > ,smartblend and autopano plugins to those discs. Turns out that
                        the
                        > > speedtest files where finished at 1 min 25 sec as compared to 1
                        min
                        > > and
                        > > 55 sec before. It does not sound like much, but its an
                        improvement of
                        > > 35% with the same hardware as before. Not bad for a single core 2
                        ghz/
                        > > 3gig ram AMD box. It took less than 10 minutes to do...
                        > >
                        > > In case some testers want to do that and redo a a speedtest you
                        are
                        > > invited to send me your results.
                        > > http://www.360image.de/test/smallfoot.htm
                        > >
                        > > Cheers, Milko
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                      • verifone411
                        Regarding Raid setups. For the original image location and the final finished file location. Does this matter? Should either of these placed on different
                        Message 11 of 14 , Dec 12, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Regarding Raid setups.

                          For the original image location and the final finished file location.
                          Does this matter? Should either of these placed on different disks?

                          disk 1 original images
                          disk(s) 2 temp disk
                          disk 3 final image

                          I doubt readyboost would help any in vista eh? There would be no easy
                          way to go back to xp pro 64 I have vista home premium. If I am going
                          to stick with Vista should I upgrade to the better version of vista? I
                          have a 64 X2 Dual Core 5200+ 2.6ghz and I do not know if it is
                          optimized for 64 bit.

                          Thank you

                          KieranMullen
                        • Georgia Real Tours
                          ... Naturally, the answer depends on your raid setup. ... Might not be so hard, actually, but I d recommend going to the 32-bit XP Pro. There s some nasty
                          Message 12 of 14 , Dec 12, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On 12/12/07, verifone411 <kieranmullen@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Regarding Raid setups.
                            >
                            > For the original image location and the final finished file location.
                            > Does this matter? Should either of these placed on different disks?
                            >
                            > disk 1 original images
                            > disk(s) 2 temp disk
                            > disk 3 final image

                            Naturally, the answer depends on your raid setup.


                            > I doubt readyboost would help any in vista eh? There would be no easy
                            > way to go back to xp pro 64.

                            Might not be so hard, actually, but I'd recommend going to the 32-bit
                            XP Pro. There's some nasty problems in 64-bit XP, mostly in regards
                            to software issues and driver issues. And in my opinion, the
                            advantages of Vista are outweighed by the shortcomings of that
                            operating system.


                            > I have vista home premium. If I am going
                            > to stick with Vista should I upgrade to the better version of vista? I
                            > have a 64 X2 Dual Core 5200+ 2.6ghz and I do not know if it is
                            > optimized for 64 bit.

                            I seriously doubt you have a 64-bit Vista, but you might. Take a look
                            at this site: <http://www.windows-vista-update.com/Windows_Vista_64_bit.html>
                            for much better info on both Vista and XP and 64-bit.

                            Another option to consider is a Linux distribution (aka 'distro') and
                            install on it a virtualization solution such as VMWare workstation.
                            You can run essentially any other operating system (even Mac, though
                            with some issues) inside a virtual machine, and I'd wager that you
                            could run XP Pro 32-bit inside that vm faster than you could run Vista
                            with Aero directly on the hardware, especially with a distro that has
                            a small footprint in terms of memor and cpu requirements. In my
                            opinion Linux offers the best utilization of your machine's 64-bit
                            dual-core heart. That's a very respectable piece of hardware you
                            have, by the way. Might as well use it to its fullest extent.

                            Obviously, you would initially want to make the machine dual-bootable,
                            or even tri- or quad-bootable if you have sufficient harddrive space.
                            Do that and you'll literally have the best of all worlds and you can
                            have the freedom to choose the best solution available to you at the
                            time you need it.

                            Go ahead... your machine can take it. ;c)

                            Cheers,
                            Robert~

                            --
                            Mid GA: 478-599-1300
                            ATL: 678-438-6955
                            garealtours.com
                          • mrjimbo
                            Howdy, I agree with Robert about staying off Vista.. As far as the Linux suggestion if your comfortable with taking that on go for it.. If that would all be
                            Message 13 of 14 , Dec 13, 2007
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Howdy,
                              I agree with Robert about staying off Vista..
                              As far as the Linux suggestion if your comfortable with taking that on go for it.. If that would all be new business for you ..Stick with XP pro..

                              As far as the 64 bit OS.. their are many benefits to it but primarily that's the only way you can address more then 4gb of ram.

                              As far as your raid set up.. either I missed info in an earlier post or you haven't gotten their as yet..

                              Basically their are two kinds of raids... at a high level.. Hardware Raids and Software Raids... The hardware version typically costs more but generally are more trouble free. Beyond that you have to decide upon the interface. Today SCSI is still the fastest over Sata, or firewire I would not suggest considering anything using usb.. I have one machine set up which stripes to two disks for speed followed by mirroring to two more for redundency using 320 SCSI. That for me has proved so far to be my favorite set up. It was a bit spendy. It has proven to be secure and relatively fast. I have two other harware raids using 800 firewire.. Their ok but they are tempermental. I am gearing up to do another workstation and I'm going to replicate the SCSI set up but use Sata with the fastest Seagates I can acquire. Also note I don't have any OS on these drives They are for working jobs and current file and or jobs. One more thought...if you can afford to use a drive bay with trays do so.. Make sure to get an extra set of trays right from the get go.. Down the road when you've filled the drive or drives you can just start using another set to continue..

                              jim
                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: Georgia Real Tours
                              To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
                              Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 2:17 PM
                              Subject: Re: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Best hard disks (RAID array question)


                              On 12/12/07, verifone411 <kieranmullen@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Regarding Raid setups.
                              >
                              > For the original image location and the final finished file location.
                              > Does this matter? Should either of these placed on different disks?
                              >
                              > disk 1 original images
                              > disk(s) 2 temp disk
                              > disk 3 final image

                              Naturally, the answer depends on your raid setup.

                              > I doubt readyboost would help any in vista eh? There would be no easy
                              > way to go back to xp pro 64.

                              Might not be so hard, actually, but I'd recommend going to the 32-bit
                              XP Pro. There's some nasty problems in 64-bit XP, mostly in regards
                              to software issues and driver issues. And in my opinion, the
                              advantages of Vista are outweighed by the shortcomings of that
                              operating system.

                              > I have vista home premium. If I am going
                              > to stick with Vista should I upgrade to the better version of vista? I
                              > have a 64 X2 Dual Core 5200+ 2.6ghz and I do not know if it is
                              > optimized for 64 bit.

                              I seriously doubt you have a 64-bit Vista, but you might. Take a look
                              at this site: <http://www.windows-vista-update.com/Windows_Vista_64_bit.html>
                              for much better info on both Vista and XP and 64-bit.

                              Another option to consider is a Linux distribution (aka 'distro') and
                              install on it a virtualization solution such as VMWare workstation.
                              You can run essentially any other operating system (even Mac, though
                              with some issues) inside a virtual machine, and I'd wager that you
                              could run XP Pro 32-bit inside that vm faster than you could run Vista
                              with Aero directly on the hardware, especially with a distro that has
                              a small footprint in terms of memor and cpu requirements. In my
                              opinion Linux offers the best utilization of your machine's 64-bit
                              dual-core heart. That's a very respectable piece of hardware you
                              have, by the way. Might as well use it to its fullest extent.

                              Obviously, you would initially want to make the machine dual-bootable,
                              or even tri- or quad-bootable if you have sufficient harddrive space.
                              Do that and you'll literally have the best of all worlds and you can
                              have the freedom to choose the best solution available to you at the
                              time you need it.

                              Go ahead... your machine can take it. ;c)

                              Cheers,
                              Robert~

                              --
                              Mid GA: 478-599-1300
                              ATL: 678-438-6955
                              garealtours.com




                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.