View Full Version : Painter IX dream machine (hardware specs)

09 September 2005, 08:08 PM
After searching around on the boards it seems that the current thinking is that processor speed is favorable to ram. Nothing I saw however seemed to answer my own question, thus I post it here.

What is the best hardware spec for Painter IX that will allow one to work on big (poster sized) print ready illustrations?

I've read on these boards also that most prefer to move the image into photoshop then resize it. I understand that, but still I'd like to know what you all think is important for large file size performance in Painter IX.

Thanks in advance,


the rookie
09 September 2005, 09:29 PM
It seems you got two questions in one, but let me see if I understand this, I suggest for the poster sizing and printing always go for 300dpi (resolution), now I'm no pixel wiz as of yet but, if your looking for the size in pixels, setup the image based on it's actual inches size and photoshop and find out what the pixel size is by changing the inches to pixels and wa la... setup your pixels size based off the output from photoshop in painter, if your printing you got to think in graphic design terms for printing and it is probley best to import it photoshop for the tweaks needed for print, and then CMYK, 300 DPI and boom, get some quality paper and boom again,

As far as hardware and this day in age, I have a 40 GB hard drive with ATI card with a Pent 4 chip, that should handle any and everything needed and even this is much but hopefully you get the picture, well hope this helps a tad a you pretty much had two questions in one

painter (sizing)

Computer and Hardware

Im not a moderator so I couldn't really tell you where to place this one!!

09 September 2005, 11:13 PM
From the Mac side, I painted an 11.5 x 17.5 illustration at 300 dpi on a 1.25 ghz Mac Mini with NO problem. Painter was very responsive and didn't lock up once.

09 September 2005, 11:48 PM
I find some acrylic/oil/effect brushes get some slowdown when over 75px-really varies on the brush also.(must be able to render the effect faster-so keep that in mind with your tool settings and system specs.)
It also depends on how many layers you have down.

My system specs while using Painter XI & Pschop CS2.
19" Viewsonic graphic series & 17" LCD
3400+ AMD
1GB PC3200
256MB GeForce 6800 Ultra
120GB SATA150
120GB ATA133(with empty scratch partition)
Intuos3 9x12"

Have yet to crash out of PainterXI with a working area of 2400x3200+ and 4 layers with 900dpi (seeing the brush can be a problem when scaling out.)

09 September 2005, 07:56 AM
horrorshow: can i ask; what are you doing that needs 900dpi resolution?

as to the main question; i work at 41.5cm * 30 cm. at 300dpi. that way i can zoom to 25% on my screen to see what the image is looking like at a print preview size. (300 dpi/25%=what it will look like printing out).(somewhere in the p8 help files , under image res/printing.)

i also have the advantage of down sizing my riff pic to 290*210cm (A4) neatly from the original size above.
i only have 512ram, 2100clock machine and there are slow down issues with some of the oil brushes,etc. i use painter 8 of course! p9 is apparently faster alround.

the best things that are needed for a painter supercomputer is RAM - utterly loads of!!! try loading up to the pcs max ram limit, which could be nowadays about 2/3mb+!and good quality stuff, ofcourse. and a fast clocked pc, which i think are above 3.5mhz nowadays. graphics cards are not an issue unless you do 3d or use 2 monitors. i have been told by sapphire help desk that the ram on a graphics card does NOT contribute towards the running of a 2d application! only a 3d one!

it also might help to have a computer dedicated to painter only! and have a cheaper/crappier pc for music internet, games etc...

i think you would have to give your image dimensions so that people can compare with something they might have done in the past.

hope this helps.

09 September 2005, 03:06 PM
Thank you all, your comments have been real helpful. As for the size of the document in question, I was thinking somewhere in the neighborhood of 20"x30" ... your typical movie poster size or there abouts. Personally I don't ever think I would need to work larger, but then again 5 years ago I thought a 40 gig hard drive would be all I would ever need. :)

09 September 2005, 03:18 PM
horrorshow: can i ask; what are you doing that needs 900dpi resolution? chris
*Just have worked higher then resampled back(never saw anyplace stating i shouldn't do it that way.)

CGTalk Moderation
09 September 2005, 03:18 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.