Great Ken. Let's go off-line, OK ? Some fellows might be pissed off if we will continue to talk on-list about that issue. I listen to you very carefully and actually dragged your messages into separate, PC-related directory as a reference together with other nice Listeners helping me out with my issue.
Regards, Alex Z -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ken C Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 9:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Video card for imaging Alex, No worries about being "on topic" since we're not "on list". Just about any decent modern video card will do fine for image editing these days. Something with 32 meg of memory would work fine, and should be reasonably priced. Where the new video cards are headed, with high costs, is in the realm of performance for games. So unless you're a major gamer who has to get the best frames-per-second performance as your hero kills or maims his opponents, you don't need to go for the latest and thoroughly expensive 64 meg nVidia whatever card. Having said that, if you do 3D graphics development that involves having to render the file, I'm told that a fast video card can help speed that up, though a fast cpu is what determines how quickly your file will be rendered. What graphics apps do you use? I built my latest pc with the express purpose of using it for graphics and web work. I have a Sony 19" monitor and was finding it bothersome and slow to have to always drag the application's dialogue boxes out of the way to see parts of the image I was working on. This was always a sore point with me for PhotoShop, and I found it a pain with Dreamweaver. So, I built this box specifically to run Windows XP so I can run dual monitors. My second monitor is a 15", which is fine because I just drag the dialogue boxed onto it. Just completed that mod this weekend and I love it. You need to install a 2nd video card, unless you get a special video card (Matrox sells one) that are dual head. This second card only needs to be basic enough to run a monitor at the resolution you need (and must be compatible with this function onXP). If you run XP you'll need lots of RAM but if I recall you were going to start at 512 meg, which is what I have and is certainly enough for XP - more would be better of course. And if you have more than 1 pc, networking is a lot easier to set up with XP as is Internet access. I have used W98SE successfully but it's not as stable, but be sure to avoid Windows ME, it's not a good product. Feel free to ask anything else, I'm in and out but can usually respond fairly quickly. I don't mind having a conversation with someone with similar interests. Regards, Ken ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alex Zabrovsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2002 11:30 AM Subject: [filmscanners] Video card for imaging Well, to be on-topic one additional question which is related to PC hardware: is it important to chose certain Video Adapters for further image editing or just anyone available today will do fine ? Regards, Alex Z ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
