5k iMac, 2. Monitor and dpp4. = Slow ?

Hallo,
normally i use lightroom, the Last days i tried a Little bit with dpp4
but the Workflow is very Slow , it Takes about 8 seconds only to get a Sharp picture. And i mean normal 1dx Raw files ! All Action is not fast, also batch copy and Development .

And i mean not from the Card, but allready saved raw files from the harddisc ,
i have an Late 2014 5kiMac ( or is it early 2015,sorry) , i7, 32gb RAM , 3tb fusiondrive and a Dell u2711 as Second Monitor

my retina mbpro from 2013 with 16gb is faster !!!
Any solution ?

thank you !

The reason your laptop is faster is the integrated SSD drive. I recommend using a fast SSD as your OS and cache drives. It will dramatically speed up things. The fusion drive is just a slow HDD with some limited NAND cache that's good for running smaller applications but not really for processing large volume of RAW files. I myself use a 1TB SSD drive for processing my CR2 files. My desktop system is faster than an iMac but I can't imagine an iMac with SSD would take 8 seconds! To render a RAW. Even my MacBook Air is faster than that!

But is is real.. 8 seconds to see the sharp raw 1dx picture in 100% ..
before the 5kimac i had a windows 7 system with the first i7 in and only 8gb ram and no ssd, only a normal 500GB HDD and it was faster.

i think, the using of 2 monitors and one of them is 5k could be the reason.. dpp4 is not ready for this.. could that be possible ??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Dienesch

But is is real.. 8 seconds to see the sharp raw 1dx picture in 100% ..
before the 5kimac i had a windows 7 system with the first i7 in and only 8gb ram and no ssd, only a normal 500GB HDD and it was faster.

i think, the using of 2 monitors and one of them is 5k could be the reason.. dpp4 is not ready for this.. could that be possible ??

---

Eric when you have a 4K/5K display the system has to render many more pixels. a 4K display has about 4X as many pixels as a standard HD monitor. This means the computer needs to read 4X more data at once and calculate it. This has nothing to do with DPP. So while HDD was enough for your old system is not going to cut it with a 4k/5k screen. Plus your iMac doesn't have a powerful graphics card which is another reason for slowing down

here are my system specs
4.2Ghz quad core cpu
32GB RAM
1TB SSD
Nvidia GTX980
NEC 32" 4K monitor



each 1DX raw takes 3 seconds to render

Good luck

Hi Eric,

Something is wrong! I have the exact same IMAC system with the same parameters and my computer rips!! It is so fast and moves RAW files around so well I can't believe it. I just double checked and it opens/renders RAW files in 1.5 seconds. Every time!! It might take 2-3 seconds to open a 60MB finished TIFF file.
I LOVE my computer and I think you can't get a better system for the money, especially with a 5K monitor included and one cable to plug it in. I think the Monitor is awesome and I am not sure why you would add an external one?? Remove the external and see if it works properly. It should work just like mine, 1.5 seconds!!
If not find out what is going wrong. It isn't normal. I am a pretty serious nature photographer that really cares about detail and quality, thats why I bought this upgraded machine. I din't do the SSD upgrade but I can't imagine it could be much faster. My good friend ordered the same machine and loves his also.
Find out what is going on and then just use the system as it was intended. You should have the same results as we do!!
Let me know how it goes. Hope this helps.

David

Forgot to ask, did you order your machine with the upgraded graphics card?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Salem

Forgot to ask, did you order your machine with the upgraded graphics card?

---

Hi david, I am trying to make a decision about my Mac upgrades; ( new mbp w monitor or keep my mbp and upgrade my 9 yo iMac...)
4.0GHz quad-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 4.2GHzWhich upgraded graphics card do you recommend? from Apple:
Your iMac with Retina 5K display comes standard with the AMD Radeon R9 M380, M390, or M395 graphics processor with 2GB of dedicated GDDR5 video memory for outstanding graphics performance. For even better graphics performance and additional video memory for more demanding tasks, configure your iMac with the AMD Radeon R9 M395X with 4GB of dedicated GDDR5 video memory.

I would choose this configuration: 4.0GHz quad-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 4.2GHz , 3 TB fusion drive, and upgrade to 32 RAM.
system comes with M395 graphics with 2GB, but can upgrade to M395X with 4GB for additional $250.00 is this necessary?

Further, I've used crucial RAM upgrade to my dinosaur iMac, which worked out well. Would anyone advise against a self-"Crucial" upgrade (8GB to 32GB) $224, rather than the $600 Apple charges?

Thanks for your help,
Ann

Hi Ann,

I ordered my IMAC with everything they offered besides the SSD drive and the additional RAM which I added by Crucial as you are thinking of. Exactly the same setup you are thinking of. I did get the upgraded AMD Radeon M395X 4GB video card because I didn't want to take any chances and it's not something you can add later.

You will love the performance of this machine. Mine is awesome and the 5K monitor is outrageous. Cant go wrong with this setup. I have had mine for almost a year and it makes editing photos a breeze.

Don't think twice!!

Hope this helps

David

Hi all , i can only echo Eric´s experience on slow DPP compared to other software .
In DPP i have all the time the spinning wheel in LRC when the image is not fully rendered , in all modules !!!
I have not measured the time , but 8 sec could be well right .
My Kit is as follows :

Mac Pro 2013 ; 6 core ; 64 GB ; D500 graphics ; 250 SSD ; all files on external drives via USB 3.0 . I also tried on internal SSD ..... not really faster . The biggest issue with this is , the more files in one folder the longer it takes DPP to work fast . I actually do not know where the " bottle neck "to slow that whole thing down .

But in the end i can gratefully live with it .... as the DPP IQ outperforms the speed of other software , well just for me . As i am not a pro and do not need to make money with it is another point , likewise batch processing ...... nothing for me .
When i do make my editing stuff ... i have time and i am not on the run or in a hurry :bg3: , generally speaking .

On the other hand when importing images from a shoot into LR .... you need to wait ......

Cheers Andreas

After reading Andres comment I realized that I was talking about opening RAW files with LR not DPP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andreas Liedmann

Hi all , i can only echo Eric´s experience on slow DPP compared to other software .
In DPP i have all the time the spinning wheel in LRC when the image is not fully rendered , in all modules !!!
I have not measured the time , but 8 sec could be well right .
My Kit is as follows :

Mac Pro 2013 ; 6 core ; 64 GB ; D500 graphics ; 250 SSD ; all files on external drives via USB 3.0 . I also tried on internal SSD ..... not really faster . The biggest issue with this is , the more files in one folder the longer it takes DPP to work fast . I actually do not know where the " bottle neck "to slow that whole thing down .

But in the end i can gratefully live with it .... as the DPP IQ outperforms the speed of other software , well just for me . As i am not a pro and do not need to make money with it is another point , likewise batch processing ...... nothing for me .
When i do make my editing stuff ... i have time and i am not on the run or in a hurry :bg3: , generally speaking .

On the other hand when importing images from a shoot into LR .... you need to wait ......

Cheers Andreas

---

The main difference between DPP and LR is that during import LR creates the so called previews. When you zoom on an image it renders the image quickly using the preview file. The advantage is that the files are rendered faster once they have been imported, because the preview file is much smaller and has already been demosaiced. The disadvantage is that the "import" and the creating previews process takes a long time and in the process it created a lot of nested garbage on your disk drive that fills it up. Plus the actual conversion process isn't any faster. (e.g. batch processing)

DPP on the other hand does not have an import process, so every time you open a raw file it has to perform demosaic calculation and render it from scratch.


Having said that it shouldn't take 8 seconds to render a 1DX RAW file, I just tried with a MacBook Pro and these are the numbers.

2015 Mac Book Pro, El Capitan, 16GB RAM, i7 CPU, 512 GB SSD (the NVMe interface on MBP gives 800MB/sec read speed)

average time to render 1DX RAW in DPP 4.3 ~ 3.5 seconds



Hope this helps

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi

The main difference between DPP and LR is that during import LR creates the so called previews. When you zoom on an image it renders the image quickly using the preview file. The advantage is that the files are rendered faster once they have been imported, because the preview file is much smaller and has already been demosaiced. The disadvantage is that the "import" and the creating previews process takes a long time and in the process it created a lot of nested garbage on your disk drive that fills it up. Plus the actual conversion process isn't any faster. (e.g. batch processing)

DPP on the other hand does not have an import process, so every time you open a raw file it has to perform demosaic calculation and render it from scratch.


Having said that it shouldn't take 8 seconds to render a 1DX RAW file, I just tried with a MacBook Pro and these are the numbers.

2015 Mac Book Pro, El Capitan, 16GB RAM, i7 CPU, 512 GB SSD (the NVMe interface on MBP gives 800MB/sec read speed)

average time to render 1DX RAW in DPP 4.3 ~ 3.5 seconds



Hope this helps




I just tried on this machine and here is the number

render 1DX RAW file off SSD

---

Thanks Arash for that explanation, I understand now what each program is doing and what the machine is doing to perform that task. I also know a "bit" more about de mosiacing of the RAW file after reading and trying to understand the rendering process, thanks. Is there a way to reduce the nesting garbage that resides on the HD from LR? Is it a matter of deleting previous library backups?...

I'm sorry, but if you know how to use LR is does NOT create "a lot of nested garbage on your disk drive that fills it up." You can import to the folder structure you wish to use, and can rearrange files and folders any time in any way you wish.

And if you (meaning Arash) are referring to the backups, you might say so. Each one can and should be deleted when they are no longer relevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diane Miller

I'm sorry, but if you know how to use LR is does NOT create "a lot of nested garbage on your disk drive that fills it up." You can import to the folder structure you wish to use, and can rearrange files and folders any time in any way you wish.

And if you are referring to the backups, you might say so. Each one can and should be deleted when they are no longer relevant.

---

Hi Dianne,
I should have asked Arash what he meant about "The disadvantage is that the "import" and the creating previews process takes a long time and in the process it created a lot of nested garbage on your disk drive that fills it up. Plus the actual conversion process isn't any faster. (e.g. batch processing) " , So i will, what do you mean Arash?

Im trying to learn LRCC Dianne, so I jumped ahead and asked Arash how to solve the "problem" before understanding what he meant as a "problem"

I am in practice of deleting back ups in my LR catalog when i have a more recent back up.

Thanks, Ann

I am sorry but I strongly disagree with Diane Miller.



I know how to use LR and that's why I don't us it. LR DOES create a lot of nested garbage, here is an example. I just imported 20 simple RAW files into a new catalog, look what a mess has been created by LR. 10's of nested folders and small files. lots of small files is what makes your system slow overtime.

just look at the naming, a random combo of numbers and letters :eek3:
Attachment 159789

in addition to the RAW files LR has created 92 folders and 80 files occupying 175MB extra space.

I downloaded only 400MB of photos so it's already a 45% overhead in storage.

This is all the thumbnails, preview files, etc that makes the rendering faster.

Attachment 159790


Ann, there is no way around this garbage. As I mentioned to you before I recommend you sit down with someone very skilled in post processing for 2 hours and figure out the best solution for you hardware, software and workflow. You can spend days on this and still be where you started from and there is all sorts of misinformation on the net that doesn't make it easier.

cheers,

I edited my post to clarify that "you" referred to Arash. I don't understand what he thinks is a problem. Creating previews does not create nested garbage unless you do something really strange. You do an import and let LR create previews in order to have ease and flexibility in working with your files. Do something else while it creates the previews in the BG then you have a wonderful working environment that is seamless with PS.

LR CC is basically the same as any earlier version in terms of the basics you need to understand in order to use it. I have a couple of tutorials on my web site that might help anyone trying to learn LR. I need to add more information about how to use the Develop module to the best advantage (which is considerable).

The example above clearly shows the nested garbage. The cataloging

making previews doesn't make it easier, it makes it faster but obviously those previous take space, they have to be created and then stored somewhere.

I don't need to be concerned with the inner workings of a database and how it handles its previews. I have been using LR since 2008 and have 127,000 files in my main catalog and two others with probably 50,000 other images. I have never seen those folders on any computer, Windows or Mac, and have never come close to the inner workings of LR eating into HD space.

My Catalog folder is currently at 2G and my Previews folder is currently at 90G. The Previews folder size fluctuates with newer images being imported at full res and then dropping down to smaller sizes after a time I have specified in Pref's, and is subject to a folder occasionally being re-rendered with full-sized previews if I choose to go back and work with it.

That 90G represents about 7TB of images. If I'm concerned about things eating up disk space, I'm very happy to have a quick and easy way to inspect older files at 100% and make decisions about deleting some.

Here's all I see or need to be concerned with. This is the LR folder in my Pictures folder. The images reside on three internal non-system drives, which are backed up to externals on a daily schedule.

LR works the same (it's the same piece of code) on any system, the nested folders exist, and have been on your system too. You may not know how to find them on your Mac but they are there. Because you cannot locate all of the junk you don't really know how much extra space LR is taking on your system. Especially on a Mac where the OS hides a lot of stuff from your eyes. If you are not comfortable using a Unix terminal you don't really know what's there on your system and how much space it occupies.

I like to know exactly what's on my system and how things are arranged. I don;t like to have thousands of small files and a propitiatory database that will be useless should Adobe stop supporting LR or drop it.

Any ways, this is going off topic now, the point is previews and junk files exist, they take space and it takes time during the import to process and create them. Some may prefer this method, to each their own :S3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diane Miller

Here's all I see or need to be concerned with. This is the LR folder in my Pictures folder. The images reside on three internal non-system drives, which are backed up to externals on a daily schedule.

---

Just as I expected, you are just looking at the surface, the Mac OS file explorer doesn't show you what mess is inside of that *.lrdata and the zip files. My top view also looks like that if I choose to hide everything.

Attachment 159793


If you know how to use a UNIX shell get a wildcard list of LR related files and see for yourself.

you have to backup all of this grabage in addition to your images, if the paths/drives change all of those libraries and previous will become useless and you have to manually locate and match paths to consolidate...not my favorite but as I mentioned to each his own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by annmpacheco

Thanks Arash for that explanation, I understand now what each program is doing and what the machine is doing to perform that task. I also know a "bit" more about de mosiacing of the RAW file after reading and trying to understand the rendering process, thanks. Is there a way to reduce the nesting garbage that resides on the HD from LR? Is it a matter of deleting previous library backups?...

---

rendering means:

read the RAW data, calculate demosaic, apply WB, sharpening, NR, lens correction etc. until the the value of each pixel is final.

What is being discussed here is the difference between 4K/5K displays and a conventional display. An HD monitor (1920X1080) has about 2 Mega Pixels. a 4K monitor (3840 x 2160) has about 8 mega pixels. The system only renders the pixels that are visible on the screen. so at 100% view a 4K screen requires 4X more pixels to be calculated before the picture is displayed in its final form.

hope this helps

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Salem

Forgot to ask, did you order your machine with the upgraded graphics card?

---

Hey the discussion is still going, good !! And yes the problem is the speed of DPP not Lightroom. I like Lightroom more.. not only because it is faster, but that is not my problem here
In some cases DPP is really good for raw exposure, but it is -still- SLOW.

David, Yes My Config is:

imac (Retina 5K, 27`, Modell End of 2014) OS X EL Capitan 10.11.3
First Display Retina with 5120x2880
second Screen: Dell U2711 with 2560x1440, connected with Thunderbold
4GHZ Intel Core i7
32GB Ram 1600 Mhz DDR3
3TB Fusiondrive
AMD Radeon R9 M295X with 4GB onboard

if you disconnect the external monitor, is it sill slow or not? which version of DPP and Mac OS are you using ?

if it is slow even after disconnecting the external monitor I recommend contacting Canon support after re-installing DPP. The Mac Book Pro that I used has less RAM and also a lower spec video card than your system but much faster SSD, yet as I mentioned it only takes about 3 seconds to render a 1DX RAW file. The folder had 1300 RAW files in it.

I agree 8 seconds to render a RAW file is somewhat unusable.

arash, thank you for asking:
i have tried it a few minutes ago.. it is not really faster with only the internal monitor . i use the latest versions of el capitan and dpp 4 (dpp 3 is faster there i have only 1 or 2 seconds to get it sharp!!)

here for example and explanation two screenshots made with only the 5k attached, not the dell:

First screenshot is the starting of dpp, second screenshot is what i mean:

1.
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/u...1/asnlm96q.jpg

doubleclicked an image and waiting waiting waiting for an sharp screen , meanwhile i had the time to make this screenshot
2.
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/u...1/hfqb3bi6.jpg


sorry i dont know why, but i cannot work with dpp4 in this circumstances :e3

Is it DPP 4.0 or 4.3. 4.0 is obsolete.

if it is DPP 4.3 and it is still slow my guess is something in your installation has gone corrupt. Especially since you mentioned DPP3 is faster. Sometime it happens when you update Mac OS. I would first fully uninstall DPP both 3 and 4. The only install 4.3. If that didn't help I would call CPS (or its equivalent in Europe but don't contact Canon general support as they are not proficient with DPP) and explain the situation to them. Tell them it takes 8 seconds to render a 1dX raw. They should be able to figure out what's wrong. Once I had a strange problem with DPP on my Mac. They asked me to run a diagnostic tool and then helped me fix it. The support is usually good

(German Version) DPP 4.3.31.0

And yes we have here also CPS Service., i am Member.. i will do it.

Thank your for hints and help !!

Maybe try English version too before contacting support

Hi Arash i can only echo Eric´s experience with both DPP 3 and 4 , also about the various OS versions as he typed within the image .
I tried on 3 machines .... 2012 MBP retina ( even slower ) 2014 27" iMac ( standard config ) bit faster and my 2013 MacPro ( fastest ... no wonder as it has the most power under the hood ) . On the MacPro it takes DPP the 8 sec to fully render the image ( spinning wheel to disappear ) , there is a "large" wheel for 1 sec and another 7 sec a very tiny wheel spinning in LRC of the main window . The image appears to be sharp after that 1 sec , but something must go on still ... as there is the tiny wheel still spinning , so my thought is that the image is not fully rendered ???!!!

Changing to english language .... sadly not possible , as you have to run the whole OS in english , this might result in chaos if one is not perfect in english , like myself . As sometimes we have to " manipulate " our systems . I asked CPS if it is possible to run DPP in english and the OS in german , they said no . So it is not as good as PS where i can change just the application language without changing the whole OS system .

But i gave it a shot , and nothing changed in DPP behavior ... takes still 8 sec !!!!

As stated before by myself in # 9 , i can gratefully live with the " slower" speed and have the best possible image rendering from my CR2 files .
In the end i ask what are 8 sec in the process ... if i invest 30 min - 1 hour to come to the final output image in some cases even more ... !!!!!

Eric - if you want to have a quick look without delay , just use the " quick view " for sorting out the " bad ones" and the " keepers " .

Just my thoughts , cheers Andreas

Hi Andreas, ignore the wheel. How long does it take from the point that you zoom to 100% until the image is sharp with no further changes? is it 8 seconds or 1 second ? as soon as the image is sharp it is fully rendered and ready

I m not Andreas but Here is my answer, i think he would say the Same :
it Takes 8 seconds to get the Sharp Image.
in a German Forum, we have a discussion about the Same thing.
Almost everybody of the answering Apple Users have the Same experience.

Later, After the big Wheel is disappearing, i have the small Wheel also, but That doesnt matter.
Because then the Image is Sharp and ready to modify.

Andreas yes, i use the quick view for sorting, but Most of the Time i am Using lightroom and this is one of the reasons for me. Ok lightroom is now well Known for me also and is it Smarter for me , Untill Canon is able to make dpp faster ;-)

btw i hate the Auto correction function...on my iPad Here

Arash it takes 1-2 seconds to get the image to the point where nothing seems to change , funny enough if i keep staying in 100 % view and move through the image folder with the arrow keys ( for /backward ) then the delay is significantly shorter .
But i will take your thought and say it is a delay between 1-2 sec in general , and ignore the tiny spinning wheel as you say .

Though i am still interested what is going on in the system while the tiny wheel is spinning , tried to run the Activity monitor to see what is working ...... but im am too dumb to understand all the ongoing cores / processes .

Thanks for your patience Arash to explain or help with suggestions

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Dienesch

I m not Andreas but Here is my answer, i think he would say the Same :
it Takes 8 seconds to get the Sharp Image.
in a German Forum, we have a discussion about the Same thing.
Almost everybody of the answering Apple Users have the Same experience.

Later, After the big Wheel is disappearing, i have the small Wheel also, but That doesnt matter.
Because then the Image is Sharp and ready to modify.

Andreas yes, i use the quick view for sorting, but Most of the Time i am Using lightroom and this is one of the reasons for me. Ok lightroom is now well Known for me also and is it Smarter for me , Untill Canon is able to make dpp faster ;-)

btw i hate the Auto correction function...on my iPad Here

---

Again, as I said ignore the wheel!

Above Andreas's post he says it takes 1-2 seconds for him to render the image sharp which is what I get too. If it takes 8 seconds for you to render an image sharp then something is wrong. No software can be that slow on a modern computer... Sorry I can't help you. You need to contact and talk with Canon or Apple.

Hi Eric,

I had an opportunity to test a Mac Pro (trashcan) on my 4K display. The system spec's are E5 Xeon quad core 3.7GHZ, 32GB RAM, 512GB PCI-E SSD. Dual D700 GPU

it takes about 2 seconds to fully render a 1DX RAW file, about 10 seconds to convert and save a 1DX RAW into 16BIT TIFF
it takes about 4 seconds to fully render a 5DSR RAW file and about 28 seconds to convert and save a 5DR RAW into 16BIT TIFF

These numbers are close to what I get on my similarly configured PC which leads me to believe there isn't a big difference between the PC and Mac version.

in both cases a tiny wheel on the corner of the screen seems to be still rotating long after the image has been rendered. You have to simply ignore it

If your machine is significantly slower I'd contact Apple for help. They are usually much better than Canon when it comes to software support.

Good luck