Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Lightroom's speed is just so-so  (Read 11037 times)
John Schweikert
Guest
« on: April 07, 2007, 10:15:17 PM »
ReplyReply

-
« Last Edit: October 09, 2010, 01:07:40 PM by John-S » Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 09, 2007, 04:49:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I do hope the program gets peppier or it will be less of an option for me in working a lot of images. While Capture One just doesn't have all the incredible image tweaking features of Lightroom, CO makes my life easier, it's quicker just in operating (excluding raw conversion time) and that keeps my blood pressure down. Lightroom definitely raises my BP.

Anyone else have similar feelings?
Yes, and I have the latest Quad G5, with the same amount of RAM as you do.

According to Jeff Schewe, we shouldn't have been nagging about performance during the beta test, because they'd fix that in the final release.

Unfortunately, it appears that Jeff was wrong. Either that, or "1.0" is a beta too, just not in the name.

That being said, I've found the software useful enough to purchase a license anyway; the general user interface is so far the one that's matched my needs best.
Logged

Jan
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8365



WWW
« Reply #2 on: April 09, 2007, 08:17:02 AM »
ReplyReply

I am using a 2.5 years old 2x Xeon 3.06 Ghz with 2 GB RAM, which is still a decent, and Lightroom feels slow.

- previews are slow,
- final conversions are slow.

I didn't do any detailed comparison, but RSP felt faster.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
stefpix
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #3 on: April 09, 2007, 08:40:07 AM »
ReplyReply

LR is faster than working on images one by one in Photoshop -
but it is way slower than iView to browse thru images -
Performance should be better - but I wonder if it is possible when it has to read/write  from/to a large database file.

I keep my library on an external portable USB 2 drive - I wonder if that affects the performance a lot.

but I wish it was faster in the scrolling/rendering. sometimes it hangs after going back and forth a few times beteween 2 images in the develop module
Logged
marclile
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


« Reply #4 on: April 09, 2007, 08:55:27 AM »
ReplyReply

i agree.  although, i might be able to excuse the slowness in the develop module if the library module was fast.  i still can't get over how the most mundane function, browsing thumbnails, is slow.  if anything in LR should be fast, it should be that.
Logged
theophilus
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 154


« Reply #5 on: April 09, 2007, 10:46:32 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm glad some other people are bringing this up.  I was planning on running some experiments to see if I could pinpoint some point of slowdown:

1) removing all keywords
2) smaller database size (I'm currently at 17,000)
3) moving the database to a different physical hard drive inside my desktop

I've also noticed that the "loading" for a 1:1 screen view is instantaneous if I have the image set to "zero'd" first.  I believe if there is no sharpening applied the full-size preview loads instantly.

Also, Lightroom seems very hard-drive dependent.  I'm wondering if sticking the database on a 10,000 rpm drive at the first physical partition would make a difference.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2007, 10:47:41 AM by theophilus » Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7919


WWW
« Reply #6 on: April 09, 2007, 01:15:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi!

I think that Lightroom takes a lot of time to "ingest" a bunch of pictures and to create "previews", once it is finished with that i can be reasonably fast. I'm using Windows right now, I hope it will be faster when I move to Mac.

Best regards

Erik

Quote
I'm glad some other people are bringing this up.  I was planning on running some experiments to see if I could pinpoint some point of slowdown:

1) removing all keywords
2) smaller database size (I'm currently at 17,000)
3) moving the database to a different physical hard drive inside my desktop

I've also noticed that the "loading" for a 1:1 screen view is instantaneous if I have the image set to "zero'd" first.  I believe if there is no sharpening applied the full-size preview loads instantly.

Also, Lightroom seems very hard-drive dependent.  I'm wondering if sticking the database on a 10,000 rpm drive at the first physical partition would make a difference.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111484\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

stefpix
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #7 on: April 09, 2007, 01:48:47 PM »
ReplyReply

I wonder if it would be faster if I kept the library on my internal  drive - but I work on a macbook and I don't have such a hugehard drive space - I don't know how large the library can get.

I keep everything on a 5400 rpm USB portable drive - should try on a 7200 rpm firewire drive -
but I like to work at different locations -
so until LR will be able to merge databases  I am stuck -
I hope it happens fast as since I am shooting RAW I think I will fill a mobile drive in less than a year.

speed has really to be improved - sometimes slowdowns are random - but if I had to show images to a client - iView might be a safer otion on the spot - no embarassing beachballs.

but LR is great to edit the master files at once without filling the hard drive with versions and duplicates it is hard to keep track of.
in this respect it is faster -

but so far maybe the best bet is to have different libraries on different drives  and use something like iView to keep a catalog of all the images off and online.
Logged
rogerjporter
Guest
« Reply #8 on: April 09, 2007, 01:58:06 PM »
ReplyReply

I am no hardware/software expert, but the computers mentioned here sound like they are G5 macs and older pc's, is anyone running lightroom on an intel duo 2 core mac or comparable pc and experiencing the same speed problems?
I assume since lightroom came out just recently it was written with the universal intel core coding, and is faster on the intel macs (and current pcs).  
Running any program through Rosetta will slow it down like molasses.
just a thought!
Logged
stefpix
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #9 on: April 09, 2007, 02:18:52 PM »
ReplyReply

i am running it on a macbook 2.0 Ghz intel core duo 1GB ram.
Logged
tve1964
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


WWW
« Reply #10 on: April 10, 2007, 11:32:55 AM »
ReplyReply

I have noticed that most apps that run on Mac AND Windows tend to be resource hungry and slower.
I know a bit about software (being in the industry myself, although not a developer), and if someone wants to write software to run on both platforms, naturally, one wishes to reuse as much code as possible. This means that one uses either special "layers" (extra software) to handle the specifics about the respective platforms, or use interpreted code. This approach saves a lot of time and money, but the shortfall is that it isn't possible to use all the native features of an OS. This translates into extra memory requirements and more to do for the CPUs. Have you noticed how much is happening on your computer before Photoshop or LR actually show up on your screen?
I have read on the Web that LightRoom has 40% of its code written in the LUA language (an interpreted language). Now that is a lot, and even if LUA seems to be one of the bests in its category, I still have a hard time believing one can get the same performance when 40% of your code is not compiled, than with a compiled executable that shares a lot of the native libraries of the OS. If this info is confirmed, it's going to take a while until we see a significant performance leap in LR. I guess Adobe bet that over time folks will upgrade their HW and it will be less and less of an issue.
I don't see it that way, because I hate it when software developers get lazy and take the easy way at the expense of the end-user. Why would I need a new computer? I still do Digital Photography, word processing and web surfing 99% of my computer time, yet to do the same things I have done in the last 3 years I need to upgrade my HW that is otherwise just fine?

I suspect this is true for Adobe's products in general and LightRoom in particular.

TVE
Logged
fractalgfx
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #11 on: April 11, 2007, 08:07:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have noticed that most apps that run on Mac AND Windows tend to be resource hungry and slower.

This is usual the result of software companies prioritizing the development of new features over software quality, and is has little to do with supporting multiple  platforms.

Quote
I don't see it that way, because I hate it when software developers get lazy and take the easy way at the expense of the end-user.

Don't be quick to criticize the Lightroom developers, you are basing your opinion on two invalid assumptions.

Tasks requiring heavy computation (such as image processing) will be significantly slower when using an interpreted language, but interpreted languages are more than fast enough for many applications.  I just wrote two simple programs to count up from zero for one second.  The program written in a compiled language was about five times faster than the program that was interpreted, but the interpreted program was still able to count past 400,000.  By comparison, the number of instructions required to process simple events such as mouse clicks and keystrokes is small enough that your brain can't perceive the difference.  Most likely, the difference is probably smaller than the your monitor refresh rate.

Your second argument, that bad performance is the result of extra "layers" of code, is based on two faulty assumptions.  First, it is incorrect to even assume that a cross platform app has more layers of code than a program written for one operating system.  There are many approaches to cross platform development, one approach is to separate a programs code into a section that is platform independent, and to maintain two separate sections for handling windows and mac specific code.  This code will operate at the same "layer" as any pure Windows or Mac application.  It is also wrong to assume that a native application is not built upon multiple layers.  Most OSX applications are written using one of two programming API's, Cocoa and Carbon.  Cocoa and Carbon are software "layers" which are built on top of low level OSX components, such as Quartz.  Some cross platform applications might use an extra layer on top of Cocoa or Carbon, but the performance impact will still be negligible.  It is even possible to completely bypass Cocoa and Carbon and develop an application at a lower level than some off apples on software products.

I do share your opinion that Lightroom is inexcusably slow, but I was happy to discover that 40% of Lightroom's code was written in Lua.  The use of interpreted languages can greatly increase programmer productivity and reduce the number of bugs, in the long term this is a good thing for users.

PS:
  Lightroom's performance problems are mostly the result of poor memory management.  I have noticed that Lightroom's memory usage will unexpectedly balloon for no apparent reason.  (If it means anything to you, I suspect the culprit may be a poorly designed garbage collection system.)
Logged
macgyver
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


« Reply #12 on: April 11, 2007, 09:05:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Interesting,  I'm running it on a G4 1.6 ghz with 1 gig of ram and my performance sounds about the same as that which many of you, with far beefier machines, describe.  It's quite usable, but still slow.
Logged
fractalgfx
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #13 on: April 12, 2007, 11:11:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
But I just don't feel the program is quick. My 2GHz Dual Core G5 6.5GB RAM machine seems to be plenty for other software I use and other raw developers, but with Lightroom, selecting images, waiting for the 'loading' and waiting for the grayed out Develop functions to become active is just annoying when working on many images.

You should demand your money back from whoever sold your computer.  A 32 bit operating system can't use more than 4gb of memory and some memory controllers can't handle more than 3gb.
Logged
fractalgfx
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #14 on: April 12, 2007, 11:16:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You should demand your money back from whoever sold your computer.  A 32 bit operating system can't use more than 4gb of memory and some memory controllers can't handle more than 3gb.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=112043\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I should have more specific, not all applications can take advantage of a 64bit operating system.  Even if you are running the 64bit version of OSX, 32 bit applications will still be limited to 4gb of memory.
Logged
marclile
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


« Reply #15 on: April 12, 2007, 11:36:29 AM »
ReplyReply

I think i would have to agree with John.  I don't really care about what code was used or why.  I'm the end user and the only thing that i care about is the responsiveness of the application.
Logged
marcsitkin
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


WWW
« Reply #16 on: April 12, 2007, 01:48:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I am no hardware/software expert, but the computers mentioned here sound like they are G5 macs and older pc's, is anyone running lightroom on an intel duo 2 core mac or comparable pc and experiencing the same speed problems?
I assume since lightroom came out just recently it was written with the universal intel core coding, and is faster on the intel macs (and current pcs). 
Running any program through Rosetta will slow it down like molasses.
just a thought!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111524\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I'm running an Intel Core 2 duo with 4Gig Ram and the speed of LightRoom seems reasonable to me. My biggest collection is about 1200 images, it loads pretty much instantly. A typical folder for me is around 30 10meg RAWS also previews instantly. Plenty of other Nags to complain about, but not speed on this platform.
Logged

Regards,

Marc Sitkin
www.digitalmomentum.com
theophilus
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 154


« Reply #17 on: April 15, 2007, 06:14:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm glad some other people are bringing this up.  I was planning on running some experiments to see if I could pinpoint some point of slowdown:

1) removing all keywords
2) smaller database size (I'm currently at 17,000)
3) moving the database to a different physical hard drive inside my desktop

I've also noticed that the "loading" for a 1:1 screen view is instantaneous if I have the image set to "zero'd" first.  I believe if there is no sharpening applied the full-size preview loads instantly.

Also, Lightroom seems very hard-drive dependent.  I'm wondering if sticking the database on a 10,000 rpm drive at the first physical partition would make a difference.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=111484\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Responding to my own post from earlier, I tried #3 above.  I moved the Lightroom Database to a different physical hard drive than the photos I was working on.  Startup time is nearly instantaneous now, whereas before it took at least 1 minute to load all the previews and go through the database.  I saw no change in the "Loading" behavior.  Perhaps there is an issue with writing the XMP files?

FYI, I'm running an Athlon 64 3500+ (single core) with 2 gigs of RAM.  I built the system myself (my 6th overall), and Photoshop CS2/CS3 is very fast on it.
Logged
stefpix
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #18 on: April 15, 2007, 06:28:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Responding to my own post from earlier, I tried #3 above.  I moved the Lightroom Database to a different physical hard drive than the photos I was working on.  Startup time is nearly instantaneous now, whereas before it took at least 1 minute to load all the previews and go through the database.  I saw no change in the "Loading" behavior.  Perhaps there is an issue with writing the XMP files?

FYI, I'm running an Athlon 64 3500+ (single core) with 2 gigs of RAM.  I built the system myself (my 6th overall), and Photoshop CS2/CS3 is very fast on it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=112577\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

i keep database and photos on a portable drive - temporary solution until it gets filled up -
anyway it randomly slow down -
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8365



WWW
« Reply #19 on: April 15, 2007, 08:52:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Responding to my own post from earlier, I tried #3 above.  I moved the Lightroom Database to a different physical hard drive than the photos I was working on.  Startup time is nearly instantaneous now, whereas before it took at least 1 minute to load all the previews and go through the database.  I saw no change in the "Loading" behavior.  Perhaps there is an issue with writing the XMP files?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=112577\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks a lot for the test results.

That's what I feared most. The very idea of LR is to keep data live for quick and easy access. This is not practially doable with workstation HD as soon as you go beyond a few thousand images.

My personnal conclusion is that LR, and Bridge for that matter, appear to be basically unusable with a NAS for anyone needing to be productive.

The only solutions that are realistic from a performance standpoint become firewire, eSATA, SCSI or fiber channel arrays... all these being significantly more expensive that NAS.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad