Intel-based Macs not so fast (at least not yet)
I was perusing some Photo CD scans of old 35mm slides yesterday. How good is digital today? In one word: outstanding. Of course, good drum scans of 35mm slides beat the pants off Photo CD, but at $30 or more a slide, it’s hardly economical. Even at $1.00/slide (10 years ago), my Photo CD scans were still too expensive (considering the miserable scan quality) compared to what I’m getting today from the Nikon D2X and Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II.
With slides, it is easier to overlook a slightly misfocused image—at least a 4X loupe is required, 10X for critical viewing. Film grain is much stronger than the piddly amount of noise from top-end digital SLRs. Film contrast and dynamic range are a delicate balancing act. Film color rendition, while pleasing, is not exactly accurate for many subjects. Filtration is mandatory for accurate color balance with film.
With digital, noise is low, contrast and dynamic range are excellent, color rendition is superb. Digital is also the ultimate critic and teacher: weaknesses in our photographic skills are ruthlessly revealed as soon as an image pops up on screen: we can see that focus wasn’t quite right, and that f11 was required, not f5.6. In some cases, we can see that the lens needs optical adjustment! Those are just the technical factors; one still has to succeed at composition.
In short, 35mm film had its appeal, but I won’t miss it.
I called Steve Jobs’ performance claims for the new Intel-based Macs “less than honest” in my January 14 blog entry. Was that an ignorant exaggeration? Hardly. Twenty years of professional software development, including disk driver software, benchmark software and compression software (with 3 patents) give me plenty of first-hand experience to draw on—and the Apple hype didn’t smell right to me then or now.
As suggested in the January 11 entry, performance improvements of the new Intel-based Macs might be modest even when native code is run, and quite poor when Rosetta is involved (PowerPC-based apps). Macworld Labs tests results should discourage any photographer looking to buy an Intel-based Mac. While benchmarks with Photoshop and the various raw converters have yet to emerge, it’s a good bet that those programs will run like molasses. Plan to wait until Photoshop and your favorite raw converter(s) are released in Intel-based versions.
That’s the bad news. The good news is that the dual-core Intel chip appears to be no slower than the G5, and can be quite a bit faster when native code is involved. Six months from now, the picture will be considerably improved as many, if not most, popular applications are released as “fat” (Universal Binary) applications.
Apple did the smart thing by introducing the Intel-based iMac first: the customer base for that machine won’t mind (or even notice) the performance hit, nor will it be as upset over the exaggerated performance claims. But photographers accustomed to PowerMac G5 performance expect some real gusto under the hood. By waiting to introduce Intel-based PowerMacs, Apple has shrewdly given both itself and software vendors time to prep for beefier machines to follow.
For a perspective on the iMac Intel Core Dual, see the article at macintouch.com.
