okay what is AVCHD?

TK2142 wrote:

 

I can confirm that the display size issue is still a problem in LR3.2 RC.

 

I have an image with a number of tweaks and when I apply an adjustment brush stroke to it, depending on the display size the stroke will be very delayed and slow, or relatively fluid. Bringing in the bottom panel (F6) makes all the difference. This is on a 1440x900 screen and using an image in portrait orientation.

 

LR3.2RC now can show a considerable lag between pressing "K" and the adjustment brush being ready to appear. Is that a trade-off that has been made to make the subsequent brushing quicker or avoid the impression that the brush is ready (cursor showing) but wasn't quite?

 

BTW, only played perhaps a total of 15min with LR3.2 RC and have a nice message overlayed on the top of my image "An unknown error occurred"... Only went back and forth between images and made test applications with the adjustment brush.

The display size issue had been confirmed on both Windows and Macs (See the "LR3 Slow Rendering" thread), and I opened another bug report on it yesterday.  You may want to add your voice so it gets corrected (perhaps before 3.2 official release) in an update.

https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=wishform

While you're there, you could use the same form for the other issues. 

The link was down near the bottom of the official notification of the 3.2 RC.

Jay S.

mei! wrote:

 

This is a 'release candidate' so users are expected to give feedback on it? What is the official channel for doing that?

Mei!

Here's the link.

https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=wishform

Jay S.

err.. uhm.. no, shouldn't have any effect at all.  This is just the first update of many for 3.0..

It's not quite the same as "unlocking" your iphone!

Cheers!

So for us newbies at this, with Lightroom...since this 3.2 is a Release Candidate, do I need to download it now, or is it okay to wait until the official Release is available (whenever that will be)?  Also, do I also need to download Adobe Camera Raw 6.2 as well to go with it, or is the ACR 6.2 release solely for other products, e.g., can I download it and use it for Photoshop Elements which is currently using ACR 6.1?

Does this RC 3.2 update 3.0 or does it replace it?  Regardless, when the actual Release comes along will it update LR3.0 (assuming I don't install the 3.2 Release Candidate) or replace it.  Not being someone who is familiar with all this stuff - Release Candidates vs. Releases, etc. it is all a bit confusing at first.  When I was using Photoshop Elements I did not have to deal with this sort of stuff, you bought the new version when it came out (there were no upgrades to individual versions), or not, and stayed with the old version, for example, I have tended to buy only the even numbered versions, e.g., PSE4/6/8 and skipped the intermediate odd numbered versions 3/5/7.  LIghtroom is obviously different in this respect and I would like to understand how all this works.  Any insight that anyone would care to provide will be greatly appreciated.  Thanks.

Regards,

WesternGuy

You are making this too difficult.  The RC will install over the Lightroom 3.0.  The release notes tell you how to go back to Lightroom 3.0 if you want to.  I haven't found it necessary to do that.  You do not need to download ACR to go with Lightroom.  Lightroom does not use the ACR plug-in.  The RC and any subsequent Lightroom releases will be named Lightroom.exe.  They simply install over the top of the old one, and your serial number and your user settings will remain in place.  If you want the RC, go ahead and try it.  If you don't, just wait for the official release.

The thing that's not quite clear to me is the issue of the libraries....I have installed the RC and it seems to have exactly the same library as LR3, as I expected.  But, if that's the case, why do I need to keep LR3 installed on my computer?  Shouldn't we theoretically migrate over to the RC version and dump LR3.0?

JimHess wrote:

 

You are making this too difficult.  The RC will install over the Lightroom 3.0.  The release notes tell you how to go back to Lightroom 3.0 if you want to.  I haven't found it necessary to do that.  You do not need to download ACR to go with Lightroom.  Lightroom does not use the ACR plug-in.  The RC and any subsequent Lightroom releases will be named Lightroom.exe.  They simply install over the top of the old one, and your serial number and your user settings will remain in place.  If you want the RC, go ahead and try it.  If you don't, just wait for the official release.

Jim, thanks for you reply.  Please understand that for those of us who are not familiar with the whole process, things like this probably do look more difficult than they are.  Thanks for your insight.

WesternGuy

Jasonized wrote:

 

Typically, a "release candiate" is a release that if they dont' find things wrong, will be promoted to a release.  Not the same as a beta product.

 

3.2 will be an update from3.0 (they skipped 3.1 for numbering synchronization reasons) when it comes out.  This is 3.2RC_1, which means they could come out with 3.2RC_2, 3, 4, etc... until they get it right "enough" to be an actual release.  Then they would just drop off the RC and make it a release.

 

So waiting doesn't make sense, other than waiting to get rid of bugs.

 

If I had been reading the board before i installed 3.0, I would have waited.  The updates (like 2010 processing) wouldn't have been enough to make me upgrade in the middle of a project.  But I didn't, so now I'm stuck.  3.2RC_1 is a much better release than 3.0 (from my point of view, and particular work flow habits).  Your options may vary.  If you already have 3.0 installed, 3.2RC is a good upgrade.  If you still have 2.7, I'd have waited...

 

Bottom line: doesn't matter that it's an RC or not.  Don't make your choice based on that.

 

If you are on a mac, then LR3.0RC installs next to 3.0; on a pc, it replaces 3.0.  But as it says in the notes: you can reinstall 3.0 anytime you want.

 

Cheers!

Jasonized, thanks for your reply.   Your indication that this is a good upgrade tells me then that this is something I should probably want to upgrade my LR3.0 and not to make my choice based on the fact that it is an RC.  Thanks for that insight and the explanation of possible future upgrades to the RC.

Regards,

WesternGuy

I also want to thank the developers for the release candidate --the flickr publishing is so nice and works great --the whole program works much more quickly.

I can't see the Subject Distance field in the exif of raw files from both Nikon and Canon cameras. Anybody else has this problem ?

JayS In CT wrote:

 

You may want to add your voice so it gets corrected (perhaps before 3.2 official release) in an update.

 

https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=wishform

 

Thanks, Jay, I appreciate your initiative.

I've got that URL bookmarked. I used it frequently in the past.

I currently have no intentions to resubmit all the bugs I found in LR3.0 that are still in LR3.2RC.

If the LR team had a public bug database I'd be happy to click a "I'm seeing this bug too" button or help provide info in a response to a "We need more input for this one" request. But I won't be shooting bug reports for known bugs into the dark not knowing whether it is worth my time or not.

areohbee wrote:

 

... and it seems to be influenced by previous edit stack - e.g. it can be speeded up by making a virtual copy then resetting all adjustments.

I haven't tried to replicate what you observed, but I know something is wrong with the history.

Take a heavily tweaked image where you've already notice some slowing down of the adjustment brush. Add a stroke. Even if that works quickly (e.g., because you have reduced the display size of the image) it takes a looong time till the operation is shown in the history panel. Worse, the Undo operation takes ages.

Try undoing 5 edits of such an image in quick succession (enjoy your cuppa and watch the history panel to the left showing funky selections->The selection will typically end up on the wrong operation.).

LR once crashed when I undid a number of operations very quickly.

Just now the history panel showed me everything had been undone but the image still showed the additional strokes (even when I navigated away from and back to the image). Admittedly, I had too many other applications running since I just wanted to verify the LR behaviour before I write something incorrect, but still. It should have been slow (Windows swapping) but not leave the image uncorrected. I had to explicitly select a history step to bring the image back to normal.

Hope they can fill that advertised "Sr. Computer Scientist" position for the LR team soon...

Lee Jay wrote:

 

If you submitted it once for a major version to that form, that should be sufficient.  Those bug reports go directly to the team.

Thanks for the info.

We don't know whether they think they've provided a fix, though. Hence, ideally users should let the team know what still doesn't work for them. Hope someone from the team follows this thread. It's not that high-traffic.

JayS In CT wrote:

 

hamish niven wrote:

 

okay what is AVCHD?

 

Advanced Video Coding HIgh Defintion.  Basically a Video coding format, compatible with BluRay and used in Camcorders which can record 1920x1080 HD video.  A follow on to DV and MiniDV formats.

 

Jay S.

And a format that seems to be very popular on many camera models, hence the number of complaints that LR does not support it.

Not to minimize your plight, and please ignore if you already know all this - but have you tried rebuilding all the 1:1 previews?

6-9 seconds sounds more like a "raw rendering time" than an "already rendered load time".

If you render all the previews ahead of time, they should load in the library in 2-3 seconds or less instead of 6-9 - which may still be too slow for culling large shoots and is why some of us sometimes use a different tool for that (ones that just display the embedded jpeg as fast as possible) before even importing in Lightroom. (I use ViewNX, but I've heard of IrfanView and there's another for mac).

win7-64.

An articulate, well constructed comment, conveying your thoughts on a minor feature you would like to be included in a photography app.

Well done, I am sure the team will fall over to put this in for you now.

hpmoon wrote:

 

Still no AVCHD = FAIL

Lee Jay wrote:

 

Tom's blog has the fixed bug list, as does the lab site.

I know, thanks.

However, I think we all know that more was fixed than has been documented.

The (partial) performance improvements I'm experiencing are not the result of the published fixes.

imajez wrote:

 

I've just installed 3.2RC on laptop and so far seems identical to 3.0 in it's sluggishness.

But how much of that is due to crappy Apple software I do not know, as 10.6 is more Slug Leopard than Snow Leopard.

Bridge was faster on my 7yr old single core XP PC than it is on my 1 yr 17"  dual core MBP with twice the RAM.

I'l try later on desktop, but to say I'm a bit fed up with lacklustre software is a vast understatement. I have a huge project to finish off with over three months of photographing 15hrs a day and there is no way I'm going to even start on this when I cannot even go through the  images to shortlist without seeing the dreaded loading icon whirl around for 6-9 secs if zooming in to 100% in Library.

Imajez,

Are you on 10.6.4 or 10.6.3?  I rolled back to 10.6.3 pretty quickly after 10.6.4, and have been avoiding the update since because I thought it added even more headaches to LR 3.  When I get a chance I'll copy the boot drive to an external and try applying it again there on the 3.2RC, but again, I was very underwhelmed with 10.6.4.  I'm not sure if others are running the latest Snow Leopard without issue.

Jay S.

John_R_Smith wrote:

 

I have been running the 3.2 RC for a couple of evenings now. On my Win 7 64-bit PC it seems to be stable and with no obvious bugs. In particular, using the before/after view is faster than before. However, with the same files and on the same PC it is still noticeably a bit slower than LR 2.7 on a lot of operations, such as simply switching between modules. There is often a little gulp while the application seems to think about what to do next. Where I am still experiencing real problems is with the Perspective Control. Actually applying the PC is fine, and totally interactive, but once I have used it on an image any further editing with the adjustment brush or spot removal is virtually impossible, as the change in the image lags many seconds behind the brush all the time. Gradient fill is also slow to respond, but usable.

 

John

Hello John,

Looks like you're new to the forum, so welcome..  Good first post.  Here's the link for bug reporting.  It's the most direct line we have to letting the Adobe team know what's going on.

https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/mmform/index.cfm?name=wishform

Again, welcome to the group.

Jay S.

Mountdrago1 wrote:

 

I have tried several times to install the release candidate.  However, I do not think it is actually being installed. I see no publishing option for facebook and the version still says 3.0.

 

Any thoughts on how I can know for certain and if it is not installing, what I may be able to do?

 

Running on Mac, in case it matters.

 

Thanks

Since you're on a Mac you should see the two (3.0 and 3.2) side by side in your applications folder.

Jay S.

SSwayze wrote:

 

Error when adding Date/Time to filename on import: This is a frequently reported bug in LR3 but is not mentioned as a fix in 3.2. When will this be addressed?? I sent a report several weeks ago and I know others have as well. When renaming on import, the time in the filename is shifted back by 4 hours. Problem occurs on both the desktop and laptop installations. I now import without renaming and need to remember to rename all files AFTER import to get an accurate time in the filename. My son, also on 2 computers, on a separate license in a distant city has the same bug. Others have complained as well. This is a big pain in the neck and seems like it should be a pretty simple fix. Please help us out!

I've come across this bug too. For me it was only one hours difference. Someone told me it has to do with which time zone you're in.

Now I've rethought my file naming scheme. I just do a letter (designating the camera used) and a serial number.

The bug was in 3.0, but I didn’t see the fix listed in the 3.2 release

notes. I haven’t downloaded 3.2 yet, but I will if, as you say, the bug is

gone. If renaming in the Library is broken, that’s less of a problem for me,

but it should be reported. Thanks for the tip!

From: Dorin Nicolaescu-Musteață <forums@adobe.com>

Reply-To: <clearspace-1455141511-698312-2-3047809@mail.forums.adobe.com>

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 08:49:53 -0600

To: Sam Swayze <sswayze1@rochester.rr.com>

Subject: Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on

Adobe Labs

Are you sure this is 3.2RC?

My tests show that rename on import works ok now, but instead renaming in

Library is broken. http://forums.adobe.com/thread/698913?tstart=0

dorin_nicolaescu wrote:

 

Are you sure this is 3.2RC?

 

My tests show that rename on import works ok now, but instead renaming in Library is broken. http://forums.adobe.com/thread/698913?tstart=0

No, I had the import bug in 3.0. Haven't tried it in 3.2 RC.    

John_R_Smith wrote:

 

I have been running the 3.2 RC for a couple of evenings now. On my Win 7 64-bit PC it seems to be stable and with no obvious bugs. In particular, using the before/after view is faster than before. However, with the same files and on the same PC it is still noticeably a bit slower than LR 2.7 on a lot of operations, such as simply switching between modules. There is often a little gulp while the application seems to think about what to do next. Where I am still experiencing real problems is with the Perspective Control. Actually applying the PC is fine, and totally interactive, but once I have used it on an image any further editing with the adjustment brush or spot removal is virtually impossible, as the change in the image lags many seconds behind the brush all the time. Gradient fill is also slow to respond, but usable.

 

John

I just wanted to chime in and say that this is the same problem I am having.  I have traced all of my Develop mode issues to the use of manual Lens Corrections (horizontal, vertical, and rotate).  Editing an image after Lens Corrections have been applied is near impossible (tools take 10-20 seconds to respond).  If I turn lens corrections off, editing becomes quick again.  So for now, my workaround is to turn off lens corrections until I am ready to export.  Hopefully this is something that can be resolved in a later release.