Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: LR 4.x and a 30" monitor @ 2560 x 1600 resolution  (Read 1884 times)
Paul2660
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1633


WWW
« on: February 18, 2013, 01:17:59 PM »
ReplyReply

I have LR 4.3 installed on a PC, win7, 4 core, 8 threads, 32GB of ram, with a 1GB Nvidia Geforce GTC470 video card. 

LR is just way slow on any D800 or D800e files with on this machine with a 30" NEC 3090 monitor installed. Video resolution is 2560 x 1600.  I have noticed this slow down really back to ver 3.x but it's just gotten worse in 4. It's not just moving around an image, but zooming to 100% and back, moving a slider like exposure, contrast etc. or drawing a mask.


Same files on a 26" monitor on a slower PC work much faster. It seems to be the higher resolution and 30" screen.  It just gets hard to work on anything as the drag and slow downs really start to add up.

Besides an OS switch, I am willing to consider a different V card or any type of config change to help get over this. 

Thanks
Paul Caldwell
Logged

Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
Photography > http://photosofarkansas.com
Blog> http://paulcaldwellphotography.com
mac_paolo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 419


« Reply #1 on: February 18, 2013, 01:45:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Window size does impact performance.
Try to resize Lightroom window on the very same display to 50% in both dimensions and tell us if it feels quicker. It should.

Paolo
Logged
Hans Kruse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 582



WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 18, 2013, 03:46:52 PM »
ReplyReply

I use LR 4 on a 30" monitor with the the same resolution of 2560x1600 attached to a MacBook Pro (2,6Ghz quad core, 16GB ram) and it runs insanely fast. No waiting for anything. Until I got the 2012 MBP I used a 2009 2 core core2 duo processor at 8GB ram and it was running ok and not like you describe it. It's long time since I used a Windows PC, but it sounds strange that your machine is this slow.
Logged

Sheldon N
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 796


« Reply #3 on: February 18, 2013, 03:55:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Smaller window will help, probably not what you want to hear. High resolution files + high resolution display equals a lot of work for the CPU to render the image. LR4 also brought about the new 2012 rendering process, which is more demanding. Adding things like lens corrections and noise reduction also makes the rendering process slower since it adds additional processes that need to be calculated every time you make a change in the develop window.

A faster video card won't make any difference, LR doesn't use the video card in any significant way, this is a CPU workload issue. Faster/newer CPU's will help the most. Generally some people have different seat of the pants impressions based on their configuration and I've heard complaints from both Mac/Windows users on the speed of LR, so an OS switch isn't necessarily a guaranteed fix.  However, newer hardware tends to be better performing and more efficient, even if the CPU clock speed isn't any faster. RAM doesn't make much of a difference, as long as you aren't using a bunch of other programs at the same time. I've never seen LR grab that much in the way of memory.
Logged

Hans Kruse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 582



WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 19, 2013, 06:16:39 AM »
ReplyReply

When I switched to the Mac in late 2009 I found that Lightroom was running somewhat faster on the Mac compared to the Windows 7 machine (especially browsing pictures in the library module). The clock speed and CPU architecture was the same on both machines except that the MBP was the mobile core2 duo and the desktop was a quad core machine with the same clock speed. When I upgraded from the 2009 machine to the 2012 quad core there was a significant performance boost. Regarding RAM I would say that if you want to run LR and Photoshop at the same time 16GB is a good choice but if you only run LR then 8GB is good enough. The LR 4.0 version and 4.1 was relatively slow but after that I find LR pretty fast, but it does work best on up to date hardware. It runs find on a slightly slower clock speed i5 two core machine as well (like the 13" MBP).

How old is your machine and what CPU model and clock speed is it?
Logged

lfeagan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 208



« Reply #5 on: February 19, 2013, 12:02:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Admittedly another Mac user data point, but I run LR 4.3 from a 2012 MBP on dual NEC PA301Ws @ 5120x1600 and don't have latency issues when zooming panning, etc even when dealing with 100, 200, and 300 MP images. Something is not right with either LR or Windows because your hardware is more than adequate.
Logged

Lance

Nikon: D700, D800E, PC-E 24mm f/3.5D ED, PC-E 45mm f/2.8D ED, PC-E 85mm f/2.8D, 50mm f/1.4G, 14-24 f/2.8G ED, 24-70 f/2.8G ED, 70-200 f/2.8G ED VR II, 400mm f/2.8G ED VR
Fuji: X-Pro 1, 14mm f/2.8, 18mm f/2.0, 35mm f/1.4
Paul2660
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1633


WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 21, 2013, 07:01:04 PM »
ReplyReply

It's interesting to note, on my 26" monitor the slow downs eventually happen, just takes a bit longer.  It seems that the longer I have LR up, with D800 files, the slower it gets, which to me points to a memory leak.  If I reduce the window size it helps a bit for a while, then slows down again.

Same machine Capture one runs insanely fast.  So, I find myself working over there more often. 

I am going to try LR4.3 on my Macbookpro over the weekend, 4 core, 4 threads, 16GB of ram, it's the last gen before the retina display ones.

Thanks for the ideas and pointers.

Paul Caldwell
Logged

Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
Photography > http://photosofarkansas.com
Blog> http://paulcaldwellphotography.com
Phil Indeblanc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1104


« Reply #7 on: February 21, 2013, 10:27:46 PM »
ReplyReply

I run dual 30" at the 2560x1600 resolution, and I have the GT 460 card.
I run Windows 7 64bit Ult. (64 bit makes a good amount of difference).
Using SSD drives, and I have a pretty large catalog 180+K, and I do feel a bit lag on the adjustments, It sure ISN'T snappy..Initial loads are a bit slower for 1:1 zoom.

If things were snappy, it would take a good chunk of time off editing.

From what I have read reported by some respectably experienced members is that the slow down is usually from storage location to the OS read....more a bottleneck issue than cpu.

But this issue maybe different?
Logged

If you buy a camera, you're a photographer...
AFairley
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1127



« Reply #8 on: February 22, 2013, 11:17:38 AM »
ReplyReply

I have a 30" monitor driven by Win 7 on a recent model board with a i7 2.6 CPU, 32MB DDR3 ram and a GTX 560 video card.  Adjustment of D800 files is just shy of instant following slider movement (but gets worse with perspective correction and local adjustments applied), but adjustment of old 8MPix files is silkly smooth.  The size of the monitor has a lot to do with it, in my experience, but it does appear that size of the file being adjusted also is a factor.
Logged

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

Ad
Ad
Ad