FAQtoid

Aaron Wilson · Dec-25-2005, 07:51 PM #1

I read in a photo mag. about a video card they had recumended... I can't find that mag any more :(... They said it was the best card for working on photos vs. like a gamming card. Can any one recumend a good video card? I have a old navida card right now. Also... those color correcters they sell... do they really work? I see them for 199+, they have a suction cup for the onitor and then plus into the usb... any and all feed back be great!

gus · Dec-25-2005, 08:34 PM #2

Im no computer boffin...i'll establish that fact 1st. I have found that any vid card that has a bit of punch to ok. To my understanding once the shot is opened on the screen then there isnt a whole lot happening ' if '.. processing is not taking place. I would expect a $150 128 meg card to render a photo about the same to a human eye as a $2550 1024 meg Doom3 special.

If you want to talk about monitors then that is different.

***David_S85*** · Dec-25-2005, 08:42 PM #3

If you're not into gaming or HD video editing, the the video card doesn't need to be a rocket. Even most motherboard based integrated graphics chips can do 1920 x 1200 x 32-bit color these days. That said, it wouldn't be a bad idea to go with a discrete video card, so the on-board memory can help with the speed a little bit (the speed you don't really need if photos are the only concern).

The main thing is DVI out. One output is good (and necessary), two is better if you'll ever add a second digital only monitor to your machine. I'm not too sure on this next fact, but calibration might be an issue if all you have is analog out.

babybluetx23 · Dec-26-2005, 01:36 PM #4

You can get a monitor Calibration Kit http://cgi.ebay.com/COLORVISION-SPYD...ViewItemCalled Spyder 2. Im looking at getting one so I dont have to constantly recalibrate my monitor.

Tserrof · Dec-29-2005, 11:49 AM #5

I agree with what David and Humungus have said. Unless your a total qualityphile, the difference between onboard graphics and a dedicated card are negligable. Personally, I can't really tell the difference between the 6600 GT in my desktop and the IEG2 in my laptop.

Just for the record though, the latest offerings from Nvidia have higher HQV test scores than those of ATI or Intel.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

FAQtoid

Dgrin Challenges

Need some help with Accessories?

Tutorials

The Hot Seat

Africa!

SmugMug How To:

SmugMug News:

SmugMug Status

Dec-25-2005, 07:51 PM #1
Aaron Wilson ^OP The VETTE Man Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Bay Point, CA Posts: 329	PC Video card I read in a photo mag. about a video card they had recumended... I can't find that mag any more :(... They said it was the best card for working on photos vs. like a gamming card. Can any one recumend a good video card? I have a old navida card right now. Also... those color correcters they sell... do they really work? I see them for 199+, they have a suction cup for the onitor and then plus into the usb... any and all feed back be great! __________________ www.dipphoto.com All feed back is welcomed!! http://www.dipphoto.com/ :lust :lust

Dec-25-2005, 08:34 PM #2
gus Major grins Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: the wasteland Posts: 16,183	Im no computer boffin...i'll establish that fact 1st. I have found that any vid card that has a bit of punch to ok. To my understanding once the shot is opened on the screen then there isnt a whole lot happening ' if '.. processing is not taking place. I would expect a $150 128 meg card to render a photo about the same to a human eye as a $2550 1024 meg Doom3 special. If you want to talk about monitors then that is different.

Dec-25-2005, 08:42 PM #3
*David_S85* Spotter of DGrin Forum Oddities & Spam Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: somewhere near Chicago, IL., USA Posts: 8,493	If you're not into gaming or HD video editing, the the video card doesn't need to be a rocket. Even most motherboard based integrated graphics chips can do 1920 x 1200 x 32-bit color these days. That said, it wouldn't be a bad idea to go with a discrete video card, so the on-board memory can help with the speed a little bit (the speed you don't really need if photos are the only concern). The main thing is DVI out. One output is good (and necessary), two is better if you'll ever add a second digital only monitor to your machine. I'm not too sure on this next fact, but calibration might be an issue if all you have is analog out. __________________ Moderator of DGrin Forum Support & Digital Darkroom. My Smugmug "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky

Dec-26-2005, 01:36 PM #4
babybluetx23 Major grins Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Arlington Tx Posts: 149	You can get a monitor Calibration Kit http://cgi.ebay.com/COLORVISION-SPYD...ViewItemCalled Spyder 2. Im looking at getting one so I dont have to constantly recalibrate my monitor. __________________ Cynthia Cox Arlington, Tx http://www.innovativeillusionsphoto.com/ OMP member #: 173034 Canon EOS 5D : Bogen 3051 tripod : Bogen Monopod : Bogen 3030 head unit : Canon Speedlight 580EX : Canon EF 28-200 F3.5 : Canon 70-200 f2.8L : Canon 24-70mm F2.8L and other Canon Gear The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE." - Ernst Haas

Dec-29-2005, 11:49 AM #5
Tserrof Big grins Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: BC Posts: 17	I agree with what David and Humungus have said. Unless your a total qualityphile, the difference between onboard graphics and a dedicated card are negligable. Personally, I can't really tell the difference between the 6600 GT in my desktop and the IEG2 in my laptop. Just for the record though, the latest offerings from Nvidia have higher HQV test scores than those of ATI or Intel.


Tell The World!

Tweet