Skip navigation
Larry Lilac
Larry Lilac Calculating status...
Currently Being Moderated

Anyone else find that LR 4 web galleries are very slow to build?

Mar 9, 2012 10:50 AM

Using LR4 (not the Beta) processing JPEGS in the web gallery module seems to be taking about 5-TIMES as long as in LR 3 (or processing the same set of JPEGS to the same size and quality in Develop module in LR4).

 

Anyone else getting this problem?

 

I'm not a software engineer, but I would have thought that processing a large set of images using the same spec would be an excellent opportunity to utilise multi-core processors, and that doesn't seem to be happening on my system:

 

Mac Pro 2 X 2.66 Ghz - 20GB RAM - OS 10.6.8.

ATI Radeon HD 5870

Canon 5DII RAW files

 

Colin Thomas

1242 Views   12 Replies   Latest reply: hamish niven, Mar 13, 2012 2:15 AM
 
Replies
  • hamish niven
    Currently Being Moderated
    1. hamish niven,
    Mar 9, 2012 11:37 AM   in reply to Larry Lilac
    Report

    Will try it over the weekend. Will have to make a gallery of about 200 images for a client from the Kruger National Park, using the Client Response from Turning Gate. That will be an interesting test. Will time the process of exporting and report back

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • b_gossweiler
    Currently Being Moderated
    2. b_gossweiler,
    Mar 9, 2012 5:48 PM   in reply to hamish niven
    Report

    My findings on a test with:

    • Win7 64-Bit
    • Intel i7-980x
    • 24GB Memory
    • Fast disks
    • HTML gallery with 451 images
    • Vast majority is CR2's from Canon 5D MkII and 1Ds MkII (approx. 15-25MB each)
    • Detail image settings: 70% quality, 1024 px

     

    WebGallery export took 87.5 minutes (approx. 5.2 images/minute or 11.5" per image).

     

    I'll run the same test on LR3.6 tomorrow to compare.

     

    Beat

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • JG_Coleman
    Currently Being Moderated
    3. JG_Coleman,
    Mar 9, 2012 9:19 PM   in reply to Larry Lilac
    Report

    Larry Lilac wrote:

     

    ...processing a large set of images using the same spec would be an excellent opportunity to utilise multi-core processors, and that doesn't seem to be happening on my system...

     

    This tends to be a common complaint with all kinds of software.  "Why doesn't [fill in the blank] use all of my cores?"  The impression is that a "properly-constructed" piece of software ought to be "utilizing every core" for every intensive operation in order to maximize speed.

     

    In reality, it's just not that simple.  There are a variety of factors that can influence the usage of multiple cores (or lack thereof) for certain procedures, functions or processing tasks.  The complexity that underlies the utilization of multiple cores is just not as simple as people seem to think.

     

    I'm not trying to negate your observations that the LR4 web gallery is slow (personally, I almost never use it).  I'm just saying that, unless you are a hardware or software engineer, your better off not trying to draw conclusions about the underlying efficiency of software by monitoring core activity and expecting full-time utilization of every core... there's a lot more to it than the simplified perception that "tasks get divvied up to every core to make things go faster."

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noelb99
    Currently Being Moderated
    4. Noelb99,
    Mar 9, 2012 9:52 PM   in reply to Larry Lilac
    Report

    I too am having problems with a slow gallery build in Lightroom. 

     

    My problem is not limited to v4 but v3.6 as well.  I haven't got specific times to compare to what my pc used to do, but anecdotally, these days it is painfully slow to build galleries in Lightroom.  I thought it may have been a problem with the plug-in I was using for gallery building but the in-built HTML Gallery (which I haven't used previously) is as slow as the proverbial wet weekend as well.

     

    Hopefull someone has experienced this problem as well and can share a brilliant solution with us.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • b_gossweiler
    Currently Being Moderated
    5. b_gossweiler,
    Mar 10, 2012 6:36 AM   in reply to Larry Lilac
    Report

    Larry Lilac wrote:

     

    I'm not a software engineer, but I would have thought that processing a large set of images using the same spec would be an excellent opportunity to utilise multi-core processors, and that doesn't seem to be happening on my system:

     

    I noticed all cores being busy during the export.

     

    Beat

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • b_gossweiler
    Currently Being Moderated
    6. b_gossweiler,
    Mar 11, 2012 4:32 PM   in reply to b_gossweiler
    Report

    b_gossweiler wrote:

     

    My findings on a test with:

    • Win7 64-Bit
    • Intel i7-980x
    • 24GB Memory
    • Fast disks
    • HTML gallery with 451 images
    • Vast majority is CR2's from Canon 5D MkII and 1Ds MkII (approx. 15-25MB each)
    • Detail image settings: 70% quality, 1024 px

     

    WebGallery export took 87.5 minutes (approx. 5.2 images/minute or 11.5" per image).

     

    I'll run the same test on LR3.6 tomorrow to compare.

     

    Beat

    I've now run the same export on LR3.6. I don't know if the results really are comparable, as I didn't empty the ACR cache before the second export (so some demosaicing might have taken place in the first export, but not in the second).

     

    The result is that LR3.6 only took about 20 minutes, compared to 87.5 in LR4.0. I also noticed that LR3.6 used less memory per exported image than LR4.0.

     

    Beat

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Scooby007
    Currently Being Moderated
    7. Scooby007,
    Mar 11, 2012 4:58 PM   in reply to b_gossweiler
    Report

    @Beat

     

    1024 is huge for an html gallery

     

    I did the same test here, 500 pics from a 5d2 at 1024px, and it took about 18 minutes in LR4

     

    at 550px wide it only took 3 minutes

     

    i7 3.4, 16gb, win7-64, LR4

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • b_gossweiler
    Currently Being Moderated
    8. b_gossweiler,
    Mar 11, 2012 4:59 PM   in reply to Scooby007
    Report

    I'm just comparing, without questioning size/quality/number of images. Result is LR4 took 400% of LR3's time.

     

    Beat

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Scooby007
    Currently Being Moderated
    9. Scooby007,
    Mar 11, 2012 5:56 PM   in reply to b_gossweiler
    Report

    IDK, my LR4 time was the same as your LR3 time, something must be wrong

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • b_gossweiler
    Currently Being Moderated
    10. b_gossweiler,
    Mar 11, 2012 6:02 PM   in reply to Scooby007
    Report

    Now that's interesting. Other test results would be useful.

     

    Beat

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • David Lingard
    Currently Being Moderated
    11. David Lingard,
    Mar 12, 2012 2:42 AM   in reply to b_gossweiler
    Report

    Without timing it accurately I would agree that v4 seems about 3 to 4 times skower than v3.5. Vista 32 bit 4 core Intel.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • hamish niven
    Currently Being Moderated
    12. hamish niven,
    Mar 13, 2012 2:15 AM   in reply to Larry Lilac
    Report

    Just exported 89 images into a gallery with 89 thumbnails and various other folders etc as part of a Turning Gate Client Response gallery. The export time was 14 minutes, and I was also using LR4 in develop mode

     

    OSX Lion 10.7.3, MacbookPro 8Gb 2.2 Ghz i7.

     

    I'm not seeing the issue with  OSX, but then I'm finding that LR4 is nippy.

     

    I'm exporting from 8bit TIFFs at Canon 5Dii size  images, 99% around full frame.

     

     

     

    did the same test with the same files and exactly the same web gallery but using LR3.5 - 4 mins.

    That is a 3.5 speed increase using LR4.zzz

     

    Here is a bug report link that someone called Tony has set up, feel free to comment on there as well so the Adobe lot can take note.

     
    |
    Mark as:
Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points