Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: LR4 speed  (Read 7148 times)
Walter Schulz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


« Reply #20 on: March 13, 2012, 07:03:11 PM »
ReplyReply

I would be pleased if someone might reproduce my steps and report his/her performance issues.

Took a PV 2010 image and created a virtual copy.
Settings: No lens correction, linear tone curve, noise reduction to zero. No brushes.

Converted it to PV 2010 and "played" only with the colour temperature slider in both PVs: No remarkable difference, follows quite pleasing.
Manipulated tone curve and "played" with colour temperature as above: No remarkable difference, follows quite pleasing.
Tried one of Jeff Schewe's "Don't do it or it will slow down" settings: Added lens correction and doing the same as above: No remarkable difference, still pleasing.
Added luminance noise reduction (about 35): Now the picture changes (sorry for the pun)! PV 2010 slows down a bit, but now there is a remarkable gap in PV 2012! Set noise reduction to zero and performance levels were quite equal again.

System description:
Intel mainboard DZ68DB, i5-2500k (no overclocking), 16 GB RAM
Graphic: Internal HD 3000. Monitor: 1280x1024 + 2560x1440. LR running on the small display, single display configuration, switched big one on and off.
Windows 7 Ultimate, 64 bit.
Image by Canon 7D, RAW in about 23 MByte.

Ciao, Walter
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5469


WWW
« Reply #21 on: March 13, 2012, 08:07:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Added luminance noise reduction (about 35): Now the picture changes (sorry for the pun)! PV 2010 slows down a bit, but now there is a remarkable gap in PV 2012! Set noise reduction to zero and performance levels were quite equal again.

Yes, that's not unexpected. LR4 with PV 2012 is doing something different with previewing the applied noise reduction...I'm pretty sure it's doing it with all screen previews regardless of size-which before it only rendered the noise reduction at certain sizes.That and it has to re-render the whole image including the noise reduction each time you change any adjustment slider.

One thing to try is when you are working on other adjustments, turn off the button on the far left of the Detail panel and see if that speeds things back up while working on other adjustments...
Logged
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2226



WWW
« Reply #22 on: March 13, 2012, 10:39:27 PM »
ReplyReply

I just completed a new build http://phototipobsession.com/2012/03/05/photo-editing-computer-build-and-tips/ and LR4 FLIES.  You simply have to take the whole system in to consideration and make sure everything is optimized.  I benchmarked it after this video and the CPU during PS tests never got above 15%.  The speed is simply from the configuration and setup.

Making sure your ram is setup correctly is a big point.  If you are running 12 GB of ram on a dual channel board for example, you are shooting yourself in the foot.

Using fast disc systems is critical.  LR and PS love SSDs and RAID0 arrays, it is the biggest bottleneck to everything.  The latest chipsets are leaps and bounds above the last overall.  My last system was a quad core overclocked to just 3GHz, this new one even at a stock 3.4 and not using more than a few percent is much faster simply due tot he increased memory rates and architecture.

Yes new software can bring out new bottlenecks, but you have to keep current with your hardware too if you expect current software to shine.  Just like buying new cameras every few years and updating PS to read the files.
Logged

Walter Schulz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


« Reply #23 on: March 14, 2012, 12:56:13 AM »
ReplyReply

One thing to try is when you are working on other adjustments, turn off the button on the far left of the Detail panel and see if that speeds things back up while working on other adjustments...

Funny thing happens after I turn off "Detail": Performance ignores this switch!
1) I add luminance noise reduction (35) and change temperature with "Detail = ON": PV 2012 performs with a gap between changing slider and changing image.
2) Left luminance noise reduction at 35 and set "Detail = Off": Same performance as above. *No* influence.
3) Set "Detail = On", luminance noise slider set to zero: Performance remarkable faster.
4) Left luminance NR slider at zero and switched "Detail = Off": Performance as above in 3.)

-> On my system a performance gap will occur after pushing "Luminance" noise reduction and it doesn't matter if "Detail" panel is activated or not.

Anyone else here able to reproduce this?

Ciao, Walter
Logged
David Eichler
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 317


WWW
« Reply #24 on: March 14, 2012, 02:44:49 AM »
ReplyReply

I just completed a new build http://phototipobsession.com/2012/03/05/photo-editing-computer-build-and-tips/ and LR4 FLIES.  You simply have to take the whole system in to consideration and make sure everything is optimized.  I benchmarked it after this video and the CPU during PS tests never got above 15%.  The speed is simply from the configuration and setup.

Making sure your ram is setup correctly is a big point.  If you are running 12 GB of ram on a dual channel board for example, you are shooting yourself in the foot.

Using fast disc systems is critical.  LR and PS love SSDs and RAID0 arrays, it is the biggest bottleneck to everything.  The latest chipsets are leaps and bounds above the last overall.  My last system was a quad core overclocked to just 3GHz, this new one even at a stock 3.4 and not using more than a few percent is much faster simply due tot he increased memory rates and architecture.

Yes new software can bring out new bottlenecks, but you have to keep current with your hardware too if you expect current software to shine.  Just like buying new cameras every few years and updating PS to read the files.

I miss Tri-X and D-76.
Logged

John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #25 on: March 14, 2012, 07:24:38 AM »
ReplyReply

I miss Tri-X and D-76.

 Wink I think that there are quite a few of us who feel the same, David, but feel too inadequate to mention it . . .

John
Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
John Cothron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170



WWW
« Reply #26 on: March 14, 2012, 07:29:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Wink I think that there are quite a few of us who feel the same, David, but feel too inadequate to mention it . . .

John

I actually started shooting film again (along with digital) and it's quite a nice change.  On the other hand, it opens up another can of worms with scanning...and you end up back in Lightroom for final adjustments and printing Smiley  I don't have an enlarger..lol
Logged

Pete_G
Full Member
***
Online Online

Posts: 233


WWW
« Reply #27 on: March 14, 2012, 10:59:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Funny thing happens after I turn off "Detail": Performance ignores this switch!
1) I add luminance noise reduction (35) and change temperature with "Detail = ON": PV 2012 performs with a gap between changing slider and changing image.
2) Left luminance noise reduction at 35 and set "Detail = Off": Same performance as above. *No* influence.
3) Set "Detail = On", luminance noise slider set to zero: Performance remarkable faster.
4) Left luminance NR slider at zero and switched "Detail = Off": Performance as above in 3.)

-> On my system a performance gap will occur after pushing "Luminance" noise reduction and it doesn't matter if "Detail" panel is activated or not.

Anyone else here able to reproduce this?

Ciao, Walter

I can't confirm this. When I switch off the Detail Panel, the exposure sliders are more responsive. If I set Detail sliders to zero, then the exposure sliders are even more responsive.

From my experience, Detail settings DO definitely affect the exposure sliders, so Detail adjustments should be left to last.

Having a secondary monitor switched on also makes a very big difference to sluggishness in exposure sliders

On installing LR4 (after the beta, which I only had a "test" catalogue in use) I converted my LR3 catalogue as normal. I have since gone into LR3 and written all the adjustments to xmp. I then created a NEW catalogue in LR4 and imported all my files. This seems to have made quite a difference to performance, I can use the exposure sliders fairly well with the Detail Panel switched on AND the secondary monitor active. I shall continue with this new catalogue and hope there is no downside.

**EDIT** I've discovered that simply importing causes the all the images to be converted to process 2012. Digital Dogs method ( see later post) is better.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 12:29:21 PM by Pete_G » Logged

___________________
http://www.petergoddard.org
dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1223


« Reply #28 on: March 14, 2012, 11:41:21 AM »
ReplyReply

If you read the thread I linked to through the end, you will notice that, on page 3, Adobe admitted a bug and released a fix. Besides, there were several releases between launching Lr 3 and its final version, thus comparing Lr 3.7 vs. Lr 4 in terms of speed makes sense, whereas comparing Lr 3.0 vs. Lr 4.0 the way you did does not.

It may make about as much sense to compare 3.7 with 4.0 as 3.0 with 4.0.

There's no guarantee that 4.0 is a continuation of the work that made up 3.7. Specific bits may be copied (lens, camera, etc, data) but beyond that it's hard to know without knowing how the engineering inside Adobe is managed.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8990



WWW
« Reply #29 on: March 14, 2012, 11:50:11 AM »
ReplyReply

I have since gone into LR3 and written all the adjustments to xmp. I then created a NEW catalogue in LR4 and imported all my files. This seems to have made quite a difference to performance, I can use the exposure sliders fairly well with the Detail Panel switched on AND the secondary monitor active. I shall continue with this new catalogue and hope there is no downside.

Same on this end. Exporting and importing seems to really help, at least in terms of moving sliders in Develop.

The process I used was to select all the images and Export as Catalog. Then just open that new catalog which keeps everything (collections, presets, VC’s etc) as it was in the previous catalog.
I did NOT keep the previews (lrdata)!
« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 11:52:01 AM by digitaldog » Logged

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

Posts: 5782


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #30 on: March 14, 2012, 12:12:59 PM »
ReplyReply

It may make about as much sense to compare 3.7 with 4.0 as 3.0 with 4.0...

Perhaps... Especially if you didn't read carefully what I said. I said clearly the comparison is "in terms of speed". Whether it is "continuation" or not is totally irrelevant, you can always compare the speed, just as you can compare it between two totally different programs, doing the same or similar thing, say Aperture vs. Lightroom.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Pete_G
Full Member
***
Online Online

Posts: 233


WWW
« Reply #31 on: March 14, 2012, 12:27:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Same on this end. Exporting and importing seems to really help, at least in terms of moving sliders in Develop.

The process I used was to select all the images and Export as Catalog. Then just open that new catalog which keeps everything (collections, presets, VC’s etc) as it was in the previous catalog.
I did NOT keep the previews (lrdata)!

Andrew,

Your method is better since the images come in as process 2010. My way they came in as 2012 and I don't know if there's a way to batch change them back to 2010.
Logged

___________________
http://www.petergoddard.org
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8990



WWW
« Reply #32 on: March 14, 2012, 12:52:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Some came in as PV2003, some 2010, some 2012; the process I used honors the originals.

Is it too late to go back to your original catalog and export again?
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Walter Schulz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 105


« Reply #33 on: March 14, 2012, 06:17:53 PM »
ReplyReply

I can't confirm this.

Thank you! I have found another issue within my installation not working as indended (some sliders greyed out in PV 2010). I will uninstall LR 4 and try a second run.

Ciao, Walter
Logged
Pete_G
Full Member
***
Online Online

Posts: 233


WWW
« Reply #34 on: March 15, 2012, 08:17:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Some came in as PV2003, some 2010, some 2012; the process I used honors the originals.

Is it too late to go back to your original catalog and export again?

Absolutely, that's what I have done, so thanks for the tip.
Logged

___________________
http://www.petergoddard.org
N Walker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 296


WWW
« Reply #35 on: March 16, 2012, 04:07:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Lightroom V4 - great product but very slow for me in the develop module - painfully slow in the detail section - 2012 process.

Unfortunately having to go back to V3 which has no such issues on my machine - very responsive.

Mac 2 x 2.28 GHz Quad - Core Intel 14 GB RAM - no other software running in background - working on D3S images.
Logged

David Eichler
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 317


WWW
« Reply #36 on: March 20, 2012, 11:57:09 PM »
ReplyReply

When and where? Just to warn you, PV 2012 is much more processor intensive than PV 2010 because all of the Basic panel adjustments are image adaptive...so it LR has to run a lot of computing to make the image adaptive decisions. Also note that lens corrections can really slow down screen display. I tend to do lens corrections last after global and local corrections. Also the local corrections if you make a lot if pins (separate masks) can slow down.

AS for overall performance between the beta and final release...not much change. It would help to specify where you are seeing the slowdowns and what you are doing.

Is this a memory usage issue similar to what happened with LR3, and might Adobe be able to improve the situation as they did with LR3? While not as bad as I got with the earlier versions of LR3, the lag I am getting with LR4 is enough to be frustrating, and will keep me from moving to LR4 entirely (at least until I update my hardware, which I hope to not have to do for another year or so). Right now, using LR4 is kind of like trying to use LR2 on a G5 iMac. Sad
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad