Graphic Card Question

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Sharon, Nov 21, 2003.

  1. Sharon

    Sharon Guest

    What is a good video card to buy for someone who works a lot both with
    PSP and digital photography?

    Sharon
     
    Sharon, Nov 21, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Sharon

    zbzbzb Guest

    >What is a good video card to buy for someone who works a lot both with
    >PSP and digital photography?
    >
    >Sharon
    >


    Matrox cards have always been at the top for best 2D image quality. I use a
    Matrox G400 that can also take two monitors. It is though alot easier to find
    a good card, a montior on the other hand is tough to find a decent one at a
    good price.
     
    zbzbzb, Nov 21, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Sharon

    Frank Weston Guest

    If you're not going to play 3D games or do any video editing, or watch TV on
    your computer, and if you will restrict your activity to one monitor,
    viewing 2D images and business applications, etc., almost any video card
    will do. But, if you want a card capable of very good performance for all
    applications including games, the best bang for the buck is the new ATI
    9600XT. Street price is about $170 which is about as cheap at a really
    decent card comes.


    "Sharon" <> wrote in message
    news:bpk544$1pttqc$-berlin.de...
    > What is a good video card to buy for someone who works a lot both with
    > PSP and digital photography?
    >
    > Sharon
    >
     
    Frank Weston, Nov 21, 2003
    #3
  4. Sharon

    Sharon Guest

    Frank Weston wrote:

    > If you're not going to play 3D games or do any video editing, or watch TV on
    > your computer, and if you will restrict your activity to one monitor,
    > viewing 2D images and business applications, etc., almost any video card
    > will do. But, if you want a card capable of very good performance for all
    > applications including games, the best bang for the buck is the new ATI
    > 9600XT. Street price is about $170 which is about as cheap at a really
    > decent card comes.
    >

    Thanks for the reply! Although I've never used more than one monitor
    that could change so since I'm upgrading anyway I may as well be prepared.

    Sharon
    >
    > "Sharon" <> wrote in message
    > news:bpk544$1pttqc$-berlin.de...
    >
    >>What is a good video card to buy for someone who works a lot both with
    >>PSP and digital photography?
    >>
    >>Sharon
    >>

    >
    >
    >
     
    Sharon, Nov 21, 2003
    #4
  5. Sharon

    Sharon Guest

    zbzbzb wrote:

    >>What is a good video card to buy for someone who works a lot both with
    >>PSP and digital photography?
    >>
    >>Sharon
    >>

    >
    >
    > Matrox cards have always been at the top for best 2D image quality. I use a
    > Matrox G400 that can also take two monitors. It is though alot easier to find
    > a good card, a montior on the other hand is tough to find a decent one at a
    > good price.
    >
    >

    Thanks for the reply. I have been looking at monitors also. I've read
    that the crts diplay color better than the flats. Is that true?

    Sharon
     
    Sharon, Nov 21, 2003
    #5
  6. Sharon

    Frank Weston Guest

    I moved to LCD a few years ago, and I'd never go back to a CRT. You may
    hear argument pro and con, but the best way to make your decision is to look
    at monitors side by side.

    One of the best LCD monitors for the price is the Samsung 172T. It has the
    important qualities you're looking for, which are high contrast ratio,
    excellent brightness, and a good viewing angle. It also is digital and
    analog.

    Go to Newegg.com for customer reviews of lots of monitors and good prices.


    "Sharon" <> wrote in message
    news:bplj4n$1qj7gv$-berlin.de...
    > zbzbzb wrote:
    >
    > >>What is a good video card to buy for someone who works a lot both with
    > >>PSP and digital photography?
    > >>
    > >>Sharon
    > >>

    > >
    > >
    > > Matrox cards have always been at the top for best 2D image quality. I

    use a
    > > Matrox G400 that can also take two monitors. It is though alot easier

    to find
    > > a good card, a montior on the other hand is tough to find a decent one

    at a
    > > good price.
    > >
    > >

    > Thanks for the reply. I have been looking at monitors also. I've read
    > that the crts diplay color better than the flats. Is that true?
    >
    > Sharon
    >
     
    Frank Weston, Nov 21, 2003
    #6
  7. In article <bpk544$1pttqc$-berlin.de>,
    Sharon says...

    > What is a good video card to buy for someone who works
    > a lot both with PSP and digital photography?


    Matrox Millenium G550 Double Head should be very good,
    Matrox Parhelia is absolute king.

    In 2D Photoshop work, there is no other card up to par.
    Best, sharpest signal, industry leading driver support,
    unparred quality.

    --
    Michael Quack <>

    http://www.photoquack.de/glamour/1.htm
    http://www.photoquack.de/fashion/1.htm
     
    Michael Quack, Nov 24, 2003
    #7
  8. In article <bplj4n$1qj7gv$-berlin.de>,
    Sharon says...

    > I have been looking at monitors also. I've read
    > that the crts diplay color better than the flats. Is that true?


    Depends on the price range. There are flat panels that
    will blow everything else out of the water - at prices
    that will blow your bank account.

    If you want reasonably good quality for color proofing
    and more than the regular 1024x768 which seems ridiculous
    in image editing, you have to go for at lweast a 19" CRT.
    I run two 19" CRTs at 1600x1200 pixels side by side, which
    is very useful for image editing. Powered by Matrox, of
    course.

    --
    Michael Quack <>

    http://www.photoquack.de/glamour/1.htm
    http://www.photoquack.de/fashion/1.htm
     
    Michael Quack, Nov 24, 2003
    #8
  9. Sharon wrote:

    > zbzbzb wrote:
    >
    >>> What is a good video card to buy for someone who works a lot both
    >>> with PSP and digital photography?
    >>>
    >>> Sharon
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> Matrox cards have always been at the top for best 2D image quality.


    There's a guy on Ebay selling Matrox G200 cards for 2$ and up. I had
    one several years back and can attest that they are very sharp and
    clear. If you're not running any bleeding-edge games, they will do very
    well.

    > Thanks for the reply. I have been looking at monitors also. I've read
    > that the crts diplay color better than the flats. Is that true?


    As others have said, it's subjective. IMO, a good fine pitch CRT is has
    much better resolution and color accuracy than any flatscreen I've yet
    seen. (There may well be finepitch flatscreen displays that the average
    Circiut City doesn't display.)

    If it were me, I'd get a G200 and spend the saved $100 on a trinitron
    (or similar) 19"+ monitor.

    -Greg
     
    Greg Campbell, Dec 8, 2003
    #9
  10. Sharon

    Maze Guest

    Greg Campbell wrote:
    > Sharon wrote:
    >
    >> zbzbzb wrote:
    >>
    >>>> What is a good video card to buy for someone who works a lot both
    >>>> with PSP and digital photography?
    >>>>
    >>>> Sharon
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Matrox cards have always been at the top for best 2D image quality.

    >
    > There's a guy on Ebay selling Matrox G200 cards for 2$ and up. I had
    > one several years back and can attest that they are very sharp and
    > clear. If you're not running any bleeding-edge games, they will do
    > very well.
    >
    >> Thanks for the reply. I have been looking at monitors also. I've read
    >> that the crts diplay color better than the flats. Is that true?

    >
    > As others have said, it's subjective. IMO, a good fine pitch CRT is
    > has much better resolution and color accuracy than any flatscreen
    > I've yet seen. (There may well be finepitch flatscreen displays that
    > the average Circiut City doesn't display.)
    >
    > If it were me, I'd get a G200 and spend the saved $100 on a trinitron
    > (or similar) 19"+ monitor.
    >
    > -Greg


    I second that about Trinitron monitors - I bought a second hand Sony 420GS
    from a friend, when he upgraded to 19" TFT, it's the best monitor I've ever
    had. I wouldn't have another of it was given to me!
     
    Maze, Dec 8, 2003
    #10
  11. In article <8Y6Bb.17112$yf.6509@fed1read01>,
    Greg Campbell says...

    > >> Matrox cards have always been at the top for best 2D image quality.


    Right. They still are.

    > If it were me, I'd get a G200


    No. The G450 is much faster than the G200 and the double head
    capability is the killer argument in image editing.

    That is - if you are on a budget. If you want the best,
    go for the Parhelia.

    --
    Michael Quack <>

    http://www.photoquack.de/glamour/1.htm
    http://www.photoquack.de/fashion/1.htm
     
    Michael Quack, Dec 9, 2003
    #11
  12. Loads of rubbish.

    As long as your card gives you true colour or more and a very high
    resolution, you will be fine.
     
    Michael, Pamela, Jamie, Samantha, Dec 9, 2003
    #12
  13. In article <II9Bb.2294$>,
    Michael, Pamela, Jamie, Samantha says...

    > Loads of rubbish.


    How very detailed and technically founded this answer is.

    > As long as your card gives you true colour or more
    > and a very high resolution, you will be fine.


    Sure. If you are blind. But you might give it a try
    with identical monitors, identical computers and just
    different graphic cards. You might notice something
    if you are not completely blind.

    I get to compare many different systems every week.
    Matrox cards always stick out with Photoshop.

    I am not happy with just a "very high resolution", I want
    a sharp and clear signal, I want perfect color separation,
    I want perfect video out for my video tutorials, I want
    the best possible calibration technique. Ends up in Matrox
    all the time. With a very clearly visible difference.

    Now what is your professional experience that leads to
    such amazingly detailed opinions as "loads of rubbish"?

    Do you have a hardware calibration system at all?
    Any professional experience? No? Oh...

    --
    Michael Quack <>

    http://www.photoquack.de/glamour/1.htm
    http://www.photoquack.de/fashion/1.htm
     
    Michael Quack, Dec 9, 2003
    #13
  14. I"m going to apologize in advance for dragging this off in an unintended
    direction... Having SAID that...

    I don't know about y'all but my computer gets used for a LOT of things.
    INCLUDING playing games. And the most recent crop of games appear to be
    ABSOLUTE HOGS as far as video cards...

    The recommendations I'm seeing now are things like GeForce 5800 and 5900 series
    or ATI Radeon 9700 and 9800 with the 9600 Pro as a MINIMUM...

    So, PRESUMING these are all great for games and 3D and whatever, which one(s)
    would ALSO be REALLY good for PS? Can I presume if the ATI 9600 XT was a good
    PS card that the 9700 and up would be at LESAT as good if not better?

    Near as I can tell, the old Matrox cards were fine for simple 2D and basic
    editing and such, but do they make anything thats REALLY GOOD for both PS AND
    gaming?
     
    dperez@juno_nospam.com, Dec 9, 2003
    #14
  15. Sharon

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    dperez@juno_nospam.com wrote:

    > So, PRESUMING these are all great for games and 3D and whatever,
    > which one(s) would ALSO be REALLY good for PS? Can I presume if the
    > ATI 9600 XT was a good PS card that the 9700 and up would be at LESAT
    > as good if not better?


    I'll throw in my usual $.02 worth contribution.

    By my experience, the GeForce 5900 Ultra AGP 256
    has been great for both games and PS. A friend of mine
    has an ATI 9800, which he claims to be faster than mine
    with games. Maybe, I haven't had the chance to make
    a comparison, but from what I can see, it's not nearly as
    good as the GeForce with Photoshop (no actual comparison
    tests performed, just my visual impression.)
     
    Paolo Pizzi, Dec 9, 2003
    #15
  16. Sharon

    Rick Guest

    "Michael Quack" <> wrote in message news:...
    > In article <II9Bb.2294$>,
    > Michael, Pamela, Jamie, Samantha says...
    >
    > > Loads of rubbish.

    >
    > How very detailed and technically founded this answer is.
    >
    > > As long as your card gives you true colour or more
    > > and a very high resolution, you will be fine.

    >
    > Sure. If you are blind. But you might give it a try
    > with identical monitors, identical computers and just
    > different graphic cards. You might notice something
    > if you are not completely blind.
    >
    > I get to compare many different systems every week.
    > Matrox cards always stick out with Photoshop.
    >
    > I am not happy with just a "very high resolution", I want
    > a sharp and clear signal, I want perfect color separation,
    > I want perfect video out for my video tutorials, I want
    > the best possible calibration technique. Ends up in Matrox
    > all the time. With a very clearly visible difference.


    The traditional advantage Matrox had in 2D display quality
    has evaporated to the point where now, in comparative
    reviews, cards from Nvidia and ATI routinely equal or beat
    Matrox. Marketing hype notwithstanding, RAMDAC
    speeds and output filters on today's cards are comparable
    among the three major manufacturers. If you run at
    resolutions over 1600x1200 you may still get a better 2D
    image with a Matrox Parhelia, but even that difference will
    be slight.

    Rick
     
    Rick, Dec 9, 2003
    #16
  17. In article <br3ijh$27uobo$-berlin.de>,
    Rick says...


    > > But you might give it a try
    > > with identical monitors, identical computers and just
    > > different graphic cards. You might notice something
    > > if you are not completely blind.
    > >
    > > I get to compare many different systems every week.
    > > Matrox cards always stick out with Photoshop.


    > The traditional advantage Matrox had in 2D display quality
    > has evaporated to the point where now, in comparative
    > reviews, cards from Nvidia and ATI routinely equal or beat
    > Matrox.


    I beg to differ, and I beg to differ from routinely
    inspecting comparative systems. Not even mentioning
    the unparalleled video out.

    > If you run at resolutions over 1600x1200


    Remember - we are talking image editing. I'd expect at
    least two 17" CRT, and no less than 1152x864 on each,
    very likely more. and bigger.

    This is what separates Matrox cards from the rest.
    Now if you are fine with 1024x768 on a single TFT
    and play an occasional gane, you can buy almost
    anything you like or can afford. If you want the max
    in image editing, there is no way around a Parhelia
    or at least a G450 DH.

    > you may still get a better 2D image with a Matrox
    > Parhelia, but even that difference will
    > be slight.


    No. You should try two systems next to each other,
    you'll be amazed. The 3D gaming performance is sub
    par, though.

    --
    Michael Quack <>

    http://www.photoquack.de/glamour/1.htm
    http://www.photoquack.de/fashion/1.htm
     
    Michael Quack, Dec 9, 2003
    #17
  18. In article <>,
    dperez@juno_nospam.com says...


    > I don't know about y'all but my computer gets used for a LOT of things.
    > INCLUDING playing games. And the most recent crop of games appear to be
    > ABSOLUTE HOGS as far as video cards...


    Then you will have to get something else and no Matrox.
    However, your system won't be optimized for image
    editing, then. But given your general purpose approach
    you will very likely be happier with something else.

    > The recommendations I'm seeing now are things like
    > GeForce 5800 and 5900 series or ATI Radeon 9700 and
    > 9800 with the 9600 Pro as a MINIMUM...


    For gaming, I'd recommend the ATIs.

    > So, PRESUMING these are all great for games and 3D and
    > whatever, which one(s) would ALSO be REALLY good for PS?


    That is the problem. You are trying to find a hacksaw
    that is a good hammer. All of the current major cards
    are okay with Photoshop, but the Matrox cards are the
    optimum. With compromises in 3D performance. You can't
    keep the cake *and* eat it.

    > Near as I can tell, the old Matrox cards were fine for
    > simple 2D and basic editing and such,


    Since Photoshop uses no 3D at all, there is no "simple
    2D and basic" editing. You probably have to see the difference
    on two identical monitors with two otherwise identical
    systems where one sports a Matrox and the other any given
    graphic card. Having seen this side by side you'll
    know beyond all testing data what I mean.

    > but do they make anything thats REALLY GOOD for both PS AND
    > gaming?


    Good - yes. Perfect - no. You have to make compromises,
    if you can't afford to dedicate a machine towards image
    editing. For me it would be unthinkable to humble an image
    editing machine with loading games or office applications.

    --
    Michael Quack <>

    http://www.photoquack.de/glamour/1.htm
    http://www.photoquack.de/fashion/1.htm
     
    Michael Quack, Dec 9, 2003
    #18
  19. Sharon

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    Michael Quack wrote:

    > That is the problem. You are trying to find a hacksaw
    > that is a good hammer. All of the current major cards
    > are okay with Photoshop, but the Matrox cards are the
    > optimum.


    Don't listen to this quack, he knows nothing about photography
    and even less about computers. Matrox cards USED to be
    better than their competition for 2-D graphics but now they're
    on a par or even worse than average GeForce models. And for
    gaming they're as pathetic as they can be.
     
    Paolo Pizzi, Dec 9, 2003
    #19
  20. In article <7GkBb.35559$>,
    Paolo Pizzi says...

    > > That is the problem. You are trying to find a hacksaw
    > > that is a good hammer. All of the current major cards
    > > are okay with Photoshop, but the Matrox cards are the
    > > optimum.

    >
    > Don't listen to this quack,


    No wise suggestion. My advice was to test and see with
    two identical setups with just different graphic cards
    to get a first hand experience. Any good computer shop
    should be able to set up two identical systems with
    different graphics cards to give a customer an idea
    of what he is buying. After seeing the difference it
    is easy to decide. I am convinced that first hand
    experience will prove my point while you spout a lot
    of hearsay.

    > And for gaming they're as pathetic as they can be.


    Never said anything different. But gaming wasn't the
    initial concern, as it might have escaped you.

    --
    Michael Quack <>

    http://www.photoquack.de/glamour/1.htm
    http://www.photoquack.de/fashion/1.htm
     
    Michael Quack, Dec 9, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Rob
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    653
  2. Merlin

    GeForce 4 graphic card

    Merlin, Sep 5, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    544
    Mike0000
    Sep 6, 2003
  3. Jerry Manner

    Major problem with new graphic card

    Jerry Manner, Oct 12, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    817
    Harrison
    Oct 12, 2003
  4. Mike Easter

    Re: GRAPHIC CARD QUESTION

    Mike Easter, Sep 23, 2009, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    766
  5. mrcpea

    Graphic card question

    mrcpea, Jul 23, 2011, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,668
    Edwin T.
    Aug 19, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page