Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Beta 3 REALLY slow  (Read 12468 times)
msbc
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 83


« on: June 13, 2006, 06:18:41 PM »
ReplyReply

This is my first try at LightRoom. Is it me or do others find Beta 3 so slow that it's almost unusable?

I imported, by ref, approx 1500 5D CR2 RAW's. On the Develop tab I find making any change takse a long time e.g. choosing a different white balance setting from the drop down - approx 4 seconds. My machine is a G5 Dual 2.0 with 4GB RAM.
Logged
61Dynamic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1442


WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 13, 2006, 06:54:02 PM »
ReplyReply

It can take some time for LR to build the cache which can cause slowdowns if you try to use it at the same time. Look at the top right and make sure there is no processes occurring while you work.
Logged
msbc
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 83


« Reply #2 on: June 13, 2006, 06:56:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It can take some time for LR to build the cache which can cause slowdowns if you try to use it at the same time. Look at the top right and make sure there is no processes occurring while you work.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68124\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Daniel,

Yes, I checked that. After importing I closed and restarted LightRoom - no other processes were happening when I started exploring the Develop tab.
Logged
situgrrl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 342


WWW
« Reply #3 on: June 14, 2006, 03:26:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Beta 3 seems a world faster than 2 on my Macbook Pro - I get the impressions that LR is fairly hardware intensive at the moment and Jeff's article suggests there won't be a massive improvement until v1 is out...

I just changed the WB on a random file shot with an olympus e1 - took less than a second.  I've got a MBP with 2.16 ghz and only 1 gig RAM. I know the file size is smaller but surely not that much?!
Logged

francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6875


« Reply #4 on: June 14, 2006, 04:35:39 AM »
ReplyReply

I just tried on a PowerMac G5 dual (Mac OS X 10.4.6) and LR beta 3 doesn't seem any slower than beta 2. I've checked how long white balance takes (1D2 and 5D files) and the change is reflected on screen immediately (well, about 1 second) although the "Working..." alert stays for about 3 seconds.
Logged

Francois
william
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 370


« Reply #5 on: June 16, 2006, 07:43:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Beta 3 is also MUCH slower than Beta 2 for me as well.  (Particularly in the Develop module).  Also, I don't like the updated UI.  (I do appreciate the added functionality, though)


Quote
I just tried on a PowerMac G5 dual (Mac OS X 10.4.6) and LR beta 3 doesn't seem any slower than beta 2. I've checked how long white balance takes (1D2 and 5D files) and the change is reflected on screen immediately (well, about 1 second) although the "Working..." alert stays for about 3 seconds.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68151\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6875


« Reply #6 on: June 17, 2006, 04:58:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Beta 3 is also MUCH slower than Beta 2 for me as well.  (Particularly in the Develop module).  Also, I don't like the updated UI.  (I do appreciate the added functionality, though)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68354\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'll just add that I didn't check the export function (RAW to Tiff for example) to see if it's slower or not. Other than that, I don't find it slower than Beta 2.
One thing that might worth noting is that CPU usage stays quite high for 3-6 seconds after having changed exposure or white balance (or any other setting) in the Develop tab.
Logged

Francois
Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1911



« Reply #7 on: June 17, 2006, 08:14:37 AM »
ReplyReply

As I edit the video for LR Beta 3 Tutorial, I hear Mark Hamburg and George Jardine saying that the optimization of LR code for speed is just about the last thing the developing team does. My guess is that real speed improvements will not be realized until 1.0 ships. The reason simply is that it makes little sense to optimize for speed when the basic code is still being written/revised.

Chris S
Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9191



WWW
« Reply #8 on: June 18, 2006, 09:07:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
As I edit the video for LR Beta 3 Tutorial, I hear Mark Hamburg and George Jardine saying that the optimization of LR code for speed is just about the last thing the developing team does.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68389\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

True indeed (my experience with doing beta on Photoshop over the years as well). The very last build is often much faster since they bugs found have all be squashed and now becomes the time for optimization.

That said, I find b3 slower but then I'm adding a lot more images to it. It also seems that when it's "doing something" the rest of the computer bogs down and I get a lot of SBBD's (Spinning Beach Ball of Death).
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
macgyver
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


« Reply #9 on: June 20, 2006, 02:09:30 PM »
ReplyReply

For me (PB 1.6, gig of ram) Beta 3 is too slow to use most of the time.  It takes about 5 or 6 trys for it to launch without freezing and then is painfully slow.  A big step backwards.
Logged
benInMA
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 186


« Reply #10 on: June 28, 2006, 10:38:34 AM »
ReplyReply

They might not even be compiling it with the optimizer turned on, hell it might even have the debug symbols in it.

However on my machine (G4) it is simply too slow to be useful.  Unless there is a trial period for the final version I simply won't be able to spend the money they are asking to "test" it.  

Is it much faster if you let it build/maintain the library itself?   Since I was just testing it out I told it to reference my files that were already on my hard drive.  It found 16,000 files in my pictures directory, most of which are 10D images with the newer ones being 5D images.

It took 27 hours for the import to complete.  After all the processes are done it is still so slow as to be useless.  Even to click on a thumbnail and view it in the loupe it seems like it takes 10+ seconds.

I have a license for Photo Mechanic, and it's so ridiculously fast on my modest Mac compared to anything else.   It's faster for me to just use Photo Mechanic and launch Photoshop & DPP for tasks then anything else I've tried so far.
Logged
Concorde-SST
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 102


« Reply #11 on: August 01, 2006, 10:01:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi all,

yes I can notice that LR B3 really isn´t very fast. When I was importing
a big HDD´s archive (about 9000 pics) its VERY slow and in my opinion
doesn´t uses my computer´s resources very well. I´ve got a Pmac Dual 2GHZ
with 6 Gigs of RAM and with the Activity monitor on processor levels are quite
low all the time (when updating databases).

I hope the engineers will put in more adjusting for use with big processor load
tasks, so like "use all what is left" "background" "only when computer is idle".

Just a hint!

otherwise a great program!!

best,

Andreas.
Logged
James DeMoss
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 43


WWW
« Reply #12 on: August 01, 2006, 11:37:26 PM »
ReplyReply

I have Beta tested for over 20 years and trust me, stability is the foundation of any software. My dualcore 3.2ghz handles this program well, as to tasks but my 1.6ghz laptop does not do so well.

On another machine, I tried the beta MS Vista... again slow but stable. May be a sign of things to come seeing that my son-in-law at HP here in Houston says that there is resrearch machines now using dual-quad core processors.

-James
Logged
61Dynamic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1442


WWW
« Reply #13 on: August 02, 2006, 09:54:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
On another machine, I tried the beta MS Vista... again slow but stable. May be a sign of things to come seeing that my son-in-law at HP here in Houston says that there is resrearch machines now using dual-quad core processors.

-James
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72375\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That has been evident in the computer industry for a couple years now. Silicon can only advance so far and we are at the limits of what it can handle. So until new materials can replace it, multi-core CPUs (as well as more advanced architectures) are a new means of adding processing power.
Logged
James DeMoss
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 43


WWW
« Reply #14 on: August 02, 2006, 03:27:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
That has been evident in the computer industry for a couple years now. Silicon can only advance so far and we are at the limits of what it can handle. So until new materials can replace it, multi-core CPUs (as well as more advanced architectures) are a new means of adding processing power.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=72393\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


 LOL, Lightroom is slow cause our systems our slow... that's all. Time to upgrade...again :-) yeay
Logged
glenerrolrd
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65


« Reply #15 on: August 08, 2006, 02:10:00 PM »
ReplyReply

My version of Lightroom has also become terribly slow .  When I try to walkthru images in Library it seems to take forever to bring each image into focus.   The spinning dial indicates that another operation involving the thumbnails is in process.  Initially I started with importing everything into Lightroom itself...now I pull the images into a folder on the desktop and then reference them in place.  This avoids the have two sets of images on the HD .  I expect that we have a relational database performance issue..as the number of images undermanagement increases performance degrades.   Has anybody tried to address this when establishing their indexing scheme / their workflow.  
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6975


WWW
« Reply #16 on: August 08, 2006, 03:24:48 PM »
ReplyReply

I tried to use this program for the first time yesterday. Confession: my computer is a four-year old Dell 8200 using a Pentium 4 processor operating at 2.3 Ghz with Windows XP. (Yes I know, it's time to up-grade!) I've bench-tested this computer for PSCS2 performance and it is absolutely par for the course in its class. It handles PSCS2 and the usual essential plug-ins (PK Sharpener, Noise Ninja) OK for its class - not a speed demon, but tolerable and stable. So far the only programs I've used that occasionally cause it to hang are Adobe Bridge and Lightroom for Windows - Lightroom more so than Bridge. It takes forever to do anything in Lightroom on this computer (even slower than Bridge), so until I up-grade the computer, I shall not be using Lightroom. I'm not blaming Lightroom, just observing something a four-year gap between hardware and software really reveals: that whether optimized or not, new generations of software will severly challenge older generations of hardware, and an after-thought: perhaps the hardware need not be as relatively "old" as mine for these issues to begin to appear.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2006, 03:25:54 PM by MarkDS » Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
James DeMoss
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 43


WWW
« Reply #17 on: August 08, 2006, 04:24:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MarkDS,Aug 8 2006, 03:24 PM
I tried to use this program for the first time yesterday. Confession: my computer is a four-year old Dell 8200 using a Pentium 4 processor operating at 2.3 Ghz with Windows XP. (Yes I know, it's time to up-grade!) I've bench-tested t****snipped ****

LightRoom, IMO, just is not ready to stand alone as the sole image processor. THERE IS a lot I like, much more than I dislike, but it of itself is not ready for primetime. But I will own it when it is released because it is better the a lot of RAW convertors out there

-
James
Logged
joedevico
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 101


WWW
« Reply #18 on: August 21, 2006, 09:29:00 PM »
ReplyReply

I downloaded and installed the Beta on a PC today. I don't care which RAW converter I use as long as it does a good job of conversion. That being said, I was using RAWshooter premium and it runs many times faster on my machine that the Lightroom BETA. If it doesn't run as fast or faster (than RAWshooter) when version 1.0 is released I won't be a user. Everything in the Lightroom BETA is slow.

We'll have to wait and see once 1.0 is released (I assume with a 30-day trial). I am certainly not going to buy a new machine to do what my current machines are doing just fine already.
Logged

Joe DeVico
the PhotoGraphic Design Group
www.photographicdesigngroup.com
www.jdvmusic.com
full time musician - part time photographer
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6975


WWW
« Reply #19 on: August 21, 2006, 11:09:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
As I edit the video for LR Beta 3 Tutorial, I hear Mark Hamburg and George Jardine saying that the optimization of LR code for speed is just about the last thing the developing team does. My guess is that real speed improvements will not be realized until 1.0 ships. The reason simply is that it makes little sense to optimize for speed when the basic code is still being written/revised.

Chris S
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68389\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Chris this makes alot of sense, and won't matter for people with super up-to-date, fast computers, but for the rest of us, the whole idea of releasing the Beta versions is lost on us because it is so painful to use that it is better to skip the experience - which deprives Adobe (at least from those of us with "slow" machines) of the feedback they wanted by releasing it in this form. Anyhow, so be it, they'll probably get enough feedback from those who can use it efficiently, and the rest of us will wait till we either have better computers or they have optimized the program.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad