# CS6 & new Mac Pro



## mawyatt (Jul 25, 2014)

Hello, 

I have Photoshop CS6 and Lightroom 4 running on a MacBook Pro Retina with 8GB RAM. I know I need more RAM since my workload involves very many Nikon D800 stacked images, sometimes >500. I use Zerene for stacking and CS6/LR for post processing the images from Zerene. 

I am considering the Mac Mini, iMac and Mac Pro and will subscribe to CC. I have almost ruled out the Mini due to the 16GB ram limitation, thinking that 16GB will not be enough ram. The iMac seems attractive and of course the new Mac Pro. I have read a few expert reviews that seem to indicate the new Mac Pro 6 processor version would be ideal for CS6 and LR, and work even better with CC as Adobe has coded this to utilize some of the new Mac Pro features. Can anyone provide some guidance and maybe hands on experience with the new Mac Pro and/or iMac? 

Thanks, 

Mike


----------



## clee01l (Jul 25, 2014)

I think you will find the 16GB sufficient.  I'm not sure how much more efficient LR would be with 32GB.  I have a quad core iMac w/ 16GB and a 13" rMBP with dual core and 8GB Both  run LR & PSCC2014 just fine managing my D800 images. I've never stacked more than ~120 36mp *D800* images with Zerene and I find that there is little benefit gained stacking more than about 50 images.  Usually I stack cropped D800 images since there is a lot of waste in the background that does not need stacking.  I use the 16GB iMac to stack with Zerene thinking that the dual core 8GB rMBP would struggle.  The 16GB quad core iMac is more than up to the image stacking task.


----------



## mawyatt (Jul 25, 2014)

clee01l said:


> I think you will find the 16GB sufficient.  I'm not sure how much more efficient LR would be with 32GB.  I have a quad core iMac w/ 16GB and a 13" rMBP with dual core and 8GB Both  run LR & PSCC2014 just fine managing my D800 images. I've never stacked more than ~120 36mp *D800* images with Zerene and I find that there is little benefit gained stacking more than about 50 images.  Usually I stack cropped D800 images since there is a lot of waste in the background that does not need stacking.  I use the 16GB iMac to stack with Zerene thinking that the dual core 8GB rMBP would struggle.  The 16GB quad core iMac is more than up to the image stacking task.



I am using a microscope objective lens with a Nikon 70-200mm F 2.8 as a "tube" lens. All this produces depth of field (DoF) of under 20 microns. My subjects are silicon chips we and others designed, these are small (10mm by 10mm or smaller) but because of the DoF require many stacks. I usually end up needing upwards of 300~500 stacks and will be doing ~1000 stacks soon.

Yes my MBPr with 8GB has been choking on this as you can imagine, but I am not sure if 16GB will be enough. I would really like to get the Mac Mini but am holding off because of the 16GB limit, thus my interest in the iMac and Mac Pro. That's good information that you can stack 100 images with 16GB on your iMac, which can be expanded to 32GB if necessary. Thanks so much for your reply.

Below are some very low resolution (originals are ~220MB) of some of the chips I can show, the best I can't post. The detail is amazing as you can zoom down to the transistor level and see sub-surface metal interconnects.














Cheers,

Mike


----------



## clee01l (Jul 25, 2014)

Those are some very sharp and impressive stacked photos. I understand your problem better now.  I'm still not convinced that you need 100 or much less 1000 stacks.  You can change the frame stacking in Zerene Stacker to stack on every N'th frame  Have you compared results to determine the optimum step distance?

Have you calculated your DoF?  I would think that there might be a better "tube" lens than the 70-200. You can with an adapter mount the camera directly to the scope too. Have you tried that?

How are you moving your focus distance?  Do you use the Cognisys StackShot or another means of changing the focus distance? The Cognisys StackShot  steps down to 2 microns.  

As for computers, the iMac is probably adequate for now but AFAIK, it is only available with a Quad Core CPU.  The MacPro can be expanded to more than 4 cores and I think 6 cores seems to be the optimum for LR.  You should be happy with 32GB of RAM.  The biggest hardware advantage that I find with Lightroom is having a dual 27" display.  
I use the Zerene LR plugin to invoke ZereneStacker from within LR.  Have you tried running Zerene as a stand alone app with nothing else running in the background to suck away CPU cycles?


----------



## mawyatt (Jul 25, 2014)

The DoF is so shallow, sometimes less than 7 microns and soon to be less than 3 microns (these were calculated), that it takes many steps to just a mm. From what I understand the Nikon 70-200F2.8 is a good sub for a dedicated 200mm tube lens. I use the Mitutoyo objective lens which are pretty good objectives. I have tired in the past shooting through the microscopes but the results were not good as using the Nikon "tube" equivalent. If funds were available I might look into a dedicated tube lens, but the computer is the more pressing issue at the moment. I use Cognisys Stackshot running from Zerene Stacker. I don't run Zerene from LR though, it's stand alone for the very reasons you mentioned.

I agree the dual display mode would be beneficial. I would have this with the IMac since I use a Thunderbolt Display with my MBPr.

If I go with the iMac then I'll be tied to it's display (well I could add another external display), whereas if I go the Mac Pro I won't have another display which is bad....and good news. I can use my Thunderbolt display now but with the rumored new 4K displays, Apple will have another opportunity to open my wallet again!!! I've got a few things to think about. 

BTW I am relatively new to Apple stuff, jumping over from the PC a couple years ago...and I am not real pleased with them either, having soldering in the ram in my MBPr!! Now I am stuck at 8Gb!! Had I known (my fault) I would have opted for 16GB, but was thinking I could upgrade at any time....not!! 

Best,

Mike


----------

