 |
| |
| This site requires new users to accept that a small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk after requesting a new account. Thank you. |
| Moderated by: chrisbet, | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
richw
|
Has anybody had a look at one of these yet. It looks like I should be able to display an entire D3 image at 100% on screen. Makes a very strong argument for one of these instead of a Mac Pro. |
|||||||||
amazing50
|
Is there a link to "one of these"? |
|||||||||
richw
|
http://www.apple.com/imac-with-retina/ |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Hi Rich, I think there are arguments for and against ultra high definition screens. The usual viewing distance from a screen tends to be around 600 to 700mm. At that distance I can't 'see' the detail that the extra definition provides, except the image looks crisper. I did take a look at these in the Apple store recently. My retina iPad which is viewed from much closer, say around 400mm seems pretty crisp. What I am asking myself is when do I NEED to see that detail during processing? The only time I really need to get down to pixel level editing is when I am cutting through layers to reveal other layers beneath, for example with the 'Oakdale' IR image which has about six layers. When I erased the top layer to reveal underlying layers around the rigging of the boat I did have to zoom in close, right down to maybe 400% or closer to keep the edit clean, other than that I don't think ultra high definition helps but even then I would have to blow it up even more just to see the image pixels. Other than that I like to see the entire image at a reasonable size and assess the effect of any adjustments I am making across the entire image. Whether seeing the individual pixels at 1:1 helps that I don't know, I guess it can't do any harm, it's probably good when sharpening. I tend to sit right back when making adjustments so I see the entire image rather than focusing on the detail. The ultra high def certainly produces a crisper image but for close in pixel level editing I don't see it as a solution, I would still need to zoom in to very high levels of magnification. Other than that the iMac is a very capable machine for image editing, especially with a decent amount of RAM and a Fusion Drive. I feel far more important is to have a second (cheap, smaller and low res) monitor for the tool pallets and other 'clutter' which otherwise obscures the image, no matter how large the main screen may be. This is a breeze with an iMac, a £25 adaptor and an old PC monitor does the job perfectly. Most households have old unwanted 17" screens lying about, they can get a new lease of life and become an inseparable companion for the main screen. |
|||||||||
jk
|
Yes very nice piece of kit. I try to resist the iMac as although they are beautiful and very powerful I like the facility of multiple ports and disk expanability but this need is largely satisfied via my Drobo 8 drive unit which support a RAID Array of 32TB. Enough for my lifetime of photos and more! The screen must be awesome as it surpasses my Dell 2711UW which give 2556x1600. Maybe for my next machine in 2016. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
The iMac has expansion capability in spades, four USB 3 sockets and two Thunderbolt plus Gig Ethernet RJ45. Speed and huge capacity easily available, Thunderbolt drive are starting to become more affordable. |
|||||||||
jk
|
Got to say I like to have my screen and computer hardware separate so I can upgrade as I think fit but I can understand the beauty of the all-in-one. |
|||||||||
Ed Hutchinson
|
I really, really like my iMac it does everything very well and with much less clutter (jumble of wires and cables for a PC) and being able to use more than one monitor I added 16 gigs of ram to it (total is 20) and I have seen it use up to 15 when editing. The only issue has been OS related Ed |
|||||||||
Robert
|
In a domestic environment the iMac is a real winner, aesthetically pleasing yet very functional. That said JK does have a very good point about being able to replace the processor and retain the screens and storage components. For that reason I prefer the Mac mini, I have had three Mac mini computers two which I have handed down to the children while retaining my hard drives and screens. This is my setup: Attachment: Screen Shot 2014-10-27 at 14.45.24.jpg (Downloaded 37 times) |
|||||||||
jk
|
 Robert I think I should have bought some Apple shares before I had that discussion with you about the Mac Mini. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
I don't claim to be the source of ALL the $60 billion Apple have in the bank but I have made a good contribution!!! |
|||||||||
TomOC
|
Hi Rich- I haven't seen one yet...and won't be looking for as long as I can wait  I bought a new iMac when they had the last upgrade about 6 months ago - I just lusted for the fusion drive, lightening cable, faster wifi and bit the bullet a touch too soon (: I've been updating Macs at intervals more than twice as long as I used to do with PCs (making them actually cost a lot less but I will have a short cycle with my present one once I see the retinal screen, I'm afraid. I've also come to the conclusion that mac pro is not for me. I thought it would be and then they took so long to update it that I've gotten pretty (no, VERY) happy with iMacs. And they are still so much less expensive that they are real value and you can upgrade them as need be. Waiting to hear how long you go until you are back gushing about the retina screen !!!Tom |
|||||||||
richw
|
Robert wrote:Hi Rich, I think there are arguments for and against ultra high definition screens. I'm thinking of actions like sharpening where you need to view the image at 100% to see the effect, otherwise the internal resizing for the view gets in the way. This would allow you to do that whilst still seeing all the image on screen (at least up to 14MP - a D800 will still be more than 1 screen). |
|||||||||
Bob Bowen
|
If we had bought Apple shares in the mid 1990"s would have been sunning myself by now even after capital gains. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Yes but back then computers were a stupid geeky device which caused frustration and mayhem wherever they were employed. Remarkable how the focused developers minds eventually produced a device which has evolved into what we have today. We have a way to go yet, I doubt anybody can foresee where this journey is taking us but I am enjoying the ride! :thumbsup: |
|||||||||
Current theme is Blue
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondsl.uk Thank you. |