Thanks!

I knew it works faster on a smaller area, but didn't know about the 1/2 tresholds. Now they have to make all those 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 zoom modes 1 pixel smaller. The error would be negligible, but the performance boost not!

Time to go out and buy a 17" display!

P.S. Nice font, Lee Jay.

Maybe the developers didn't know this tip...

Good one, Lee Jay.

I'll check whether slightly increasing panel width could make quite a difference in my case.

N.B., I wouldn't use a ruler as it will be hard to measure with better than 3-4 pixels accuracy.

I'll take a screen shoot of the display region and look at the captured image dimensions.

Really nice catch!

So Adobe might be able to improve perfomance quite a bit by also using 3x3 binning for the develop preview for people with 12MP or 10MP cameras and full HD screens. And that might be a great deal of shooters.. (considering no cropping).

I gut lucky and I'm just under below 1/4 with 16MP images.

But when I go full screen and narrow the slider panel a bit, well, I get that 386 feeling I had in the nineties. Now I know what LR4 can feel like...

No tricks will help the problem is in lightroom 4, we'll wait what adobe offer next??!!

I don't think so. LR4 is blazing fast for me, even faster than LR3. All slider movements and resulting effects are always instanteous, as is module switching, etc. Loupe view size doesn't make any difference, I can have 100+ spot removals on an image with no slowdown, adjustment brush is always sikly smooth no matter the size or number of edits, etc. etc.. (win764, i7 3.4, 16gb, 5d2 files, 50k catalog)

My point being... you can't say software is fundamentally broken when only some people have problems.

that's good, as that's not what I said, I said fundamentally broken, on purpose, because that's what many people are asserting by complaining about how slow it is for them. You can find the same threads for every release of Lightroom, Photoshop, etc., and rarely is it due to any major flaw in the software - video drivers, wrong settings, poor workflow, fragmented drives, insufficient ram, weak processors, not following best practices and excluding from antivirus, increasing camera raw cache, etc. etc. People are quick to blame the software, that's all I'm saying, and we all have the same piece of software. If it's horribly slow because it's fundmentally flawed then it would be horribly slow for every single user.

Loupe view size doesn't make any difference.

To be honest, I doubt that. What is your screen resolution?

I had heard of this tip back in LR 3 days.

BUT, the software is slow - big lag changing between modules (i7 core, 8gigs) - way slower than LR3.

Fix that first.

Loupe view size doesn't make any difference.

@ To be honest, I doubt that. What is your screen resolution?

1680x1050, no need to doubt it, I wouldn't have said it if it wasn't true. Module switching, sliders, etc. all are instant, as they were with LR3

Yes, only the cropped dimensions are important, as Lee Jay pointed out.

My comments my have been misleading. Still, most of the images will only receive a very small crop and thus the camera and screen resolution are of imortantance.