Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: LR4 speed totally unacceptable  (Read 40925 times)
hugowolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 588


« Reply #140 on: October 10, 2012, 12:09:45 PM »
ReplyReply

One of the things that seems to slow my development in Lightroom is doing lens corrections first: rotate, vertical and horizontal perspective, barrel and pincushioning. These along with vignetting and cropping would seem to be logical first steps in any workflow, but maybe there is a reason why they are so low down in the development panel.

Brian A
Logged
One Frame at a Time
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 162


« Reply #141 on: October 10, 2012, 12:14:01 PM »
ReplyReply

The preference files are easy enough to find and rename.
eg Win 7 <root>/users/<user name>/AppData/Roaming/Adobe/Lightroom/Preferences/
Deleting old preference files makes no difference here.

LR4 wasn't good, 4.1 was a bit better, 4.2 seems very slightly better, but it's still painfully unreactive at times.

Now using an i7 @3.5/3.9ghz, 32gb ram, SATA III SSDs for OS & scratch disks onto a GTX470 powered 3840x1440 desktop. It really ought to fly with that hardware.

The files in my Win 7 folder are ".agprefs", not ".plist" - is this the mac extension of the same file or maybe plist is in a different folder (looked briefly but could not find it)?
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1888


WWW
« Reply #142 on: October 10, 2012, 01:16:38 PM »
ReplyReply

The files in my Win 7 folder are ".agprefs", not ".plist" - is this the mac extension of the same file or maybe plist is in a different folder (looked briefly but could not find it)?
I believe the .agprefs is the correct file for Lightroom preferences on Windows systems.
The file name quoted by the OP is illegal in Win systems, too many periods. As you say .plist isn't found in any searches, so I guess the preferences are differently named in Mac systems.

Hopefully someone knowledgeable about both systems can give confirmation of that assumption ?
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2650



WWW
« Reply #143 on: October 10, 2012, 01:32:42 PM »
ReplyReply

agprefs is correct for Windows, plist for Mac.

There's not much of a track record of prefs causing problems with LR on Windows, while deleting an app's preference file is often a cure-all on Mac.
Logged

One Frame at a Time
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 162


« Reply #144 on: October 10, 2012, 01:47:47 PM »
ReplyReply

I can also make the claim that LR is slow to update changes made in Develop. Would be great if we could get this squared away. I'm running a 1st gen i7 mobile processor (Q740) with 8 gigs of ram.
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1888


WWW
« Reply #145 on: October 10, 2012, 02:01:17 PM »
ReplyReply

I can also make the claim that LR is slow to update changes made in Develop.
This is where the problems with responsiveness mainly show themselves and people have been complaining about it since LR4 beta1.
Join the club ;-\
Logged
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1543


WWW
« Reply #146 on: October 10, 2012, 02:06:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Not trying to minimize your complaints, but I run a 6 core, W7, 24 GB ram, LR 4.2 machine and it runs fine. I had a tiny bit of occasional sluggishness till I updated the graphics driver, but nothing since. All adjustments are instantaneous.
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1888


WWW
« Reply #147 on: October 10, 2012, 02:13:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Not trying to minimize your complaints, but I run a 6 core, W7, 24 GB ram, LR 4.2 machine and it runs fine...... All adjustments are instantaneous.
On what screen size ? what file size ?

« Last Edit: October 10, 2012, 02:15:27 PM by Rhossydd » Logged
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1543


WWW
« Reply #148 on: October 10, 2012, 04:16:14 PM »
ReplyReply

On what screen size ? what file size ?



24" file size-native raw 5DII plus stitched files from same.
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1888


WWW
« Reply #149 on: October 10, 2012, 05:03:57 PM »
ReplyReply

24"
That's the bit that makes it work acceptably for you. Small desktops mean less pixels to change.

You won't find it so great if you upgrade to a larger monitor(s).
Logged
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2225



WWW
« Reply #150 on: October 10, 2012, 06:55:45 PM »
ReplyReply

BS.  2D is absolutely nothing to pump out.  This isn't rendering or using card acceleration.
Logged

hugowolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 588


« Reply #151 on: October 10, 2012, 07:51:15 PM »
ReplyReply

That's the bit that makes it work acceptably for you. Small desktops mean less pixels to change.

You won't find it so great if you upgrade to a larger monitor(s).
Apart from anything else, it would depend on how many pixels, not the physical size of the display, and even then I cannot see that making much difference.
(Anyhow, it would be 'fewer' not 'less')

Brian A
Logged
Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1543


WWW
« Reply #152 on: October 10, 2012, 09:52:46 PM »
ReplyReply

That's the bit that makes it work acceptably for you. Small desktops mean less pixels to change.

You won't find it so great if you upgrade to a larger monitor(s).

If it matters I run two minitors. Both Lacie 24" one is pretty old and I use it just for tools etc.
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1888


WWW
« Reply #153 on: October 11, 2012, 01:23:21 AM »
ReplyReply

BS.  2D is absolutely nothing to pump out.  This isn't rendering or using card acceleration.
You've missed the point, the size of the rendered image IS significant.
Every time you move a slider in LR every screen pixel is recalculated. Double the size of the image, double the CPU workload.

Just try it. Have LR set up for a small screen size (including all the pre-rendered library previews), then upgrade to a screen twice the size. The slow down in responsiveness is very noticeable.

Or do you have a better explanation of why some people see no problems with responsiveness on slower systems with smaller screens ?
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1888


WWW
« Reply #154 on: October 11, 2012, 01:26:09 AM »
ReplyReply

I run two minitors. Both Lacie 24" one is pretty old.
Do the sums on the data being processed. If both are widescreen (1920x1200) my desktop is about 20% bigger, if the old one is narrower there's an ever greater difference.
Logged
Tony Jay
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2045


« Reply #155 on: October 11, 2012, 04:05:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Every time you move a slider in LR every screen pixel is recalculated. Double the size of the image, double the CPU workload.

That is correct.

Tony Jay
Logged
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2225



WWW
« Reply #156 on: October 11, 2012, 05:54:50 PM »
ReplyReply

What you fail to realize is that workload is a tiny, tiny percentage.  Turn on a CPU meter and run through things yourself.  it doesn't peg 100% at ALL no matter the screen size.  Sorry but some of you have absolutely no idea how a CPU/GPU and drivers work together or what things they are used for.
Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1888


WWW
« Reply #157 on: October 12, 2012, 03:36:55 AM »
ReplyReply

What you fail to realize is that workload is a tiny, tiny percentage.  Turn on a CPU meter and run through things yourself.  it doesn't peg 100% at ALL no matter the screen size.
Really ? actually I run CPU & GPU meter all the time and have been doing so since LR3 to try to find out where things can be improved.
Have a look at the attached screen shot. 7 cores over 60%, 3 cores over 70%, 3 cores at over 80% and one core at 94% and that's just a quick stab at getting a screen shot of LR4.2 in action. Given reaction times it could have been even higher.
Quote
Sorry but some of you have absolutely no idea how a CPU/GPU and drivers work together or what things they are used for.
GPU really isn't an issue with LR. Again look at the screen shot and see how much the graphics card is doing....next to nothing.


« Last Edit: October 12, 2012, 03:38:37 AM by Rhossydd » Logged
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2225



WWW
« Reply #158 on: October 12, 2012, 10:33:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Really ? actually I run CPU & GPU meter all the time and have been doing so since LR3 to try to find out where things can be improved.
Have a look at the attached screen shot. 7 cores over 60%, 3 cores over 70%, 3 cores at over 80% and one core at 94% and that's just a quick stab at getting a screen shot of LR4.2 in action. Given reaction times it could have been even higher.GPU really isn't an issue with LR. Again look at the screen shot and see how much the graphics card is doing....next to nothing.




Thank you for proving my points!  If the CPU is not pegged at 100%, as you show - it's NOT the bottleneck.  In the VAST majority of cases it's the disk system.
Logged

One Frame at a Time
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 162


« Reply #159 on: October 12, 2012, 10:53:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Not to be argumentative - my system is slow to update the screen, and from what I can see, my system is not reading or writting to disk when this occurs (adjusting the sliders in Develop). When I used to work in PS 5, you could tell the scratch disk was slowing things down on big files.  But with 8gigs of RAM my i7 laptop does not seem as disk intensive; as with previous machines and earlier versions of PS.

What kind of experiences are people having with the current Camera Raw in PS?  My understanding is that it is also using similar complex algorithms as the new process ver in LR?

Paul
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad