While the LR and ACR teams are working to find and fix the performance issues some are having with LR 4, I thought I'd share a tip that can quadruple the performance of the sliders in the Develop module.
See attached image.
If you can get the number of horizontal pixels displayed below the next break point, with break points being at 1/2, 1/4, 1/8th and so on of the number of horizontal pixels in the as-cropped image, Develop slider performance will quadruple. You can do this by shrinking the window, opening additional panels, or expanding the panels that are already there.
So, for example, if the as-cropped image is 6000x4000 and you are currently displaying 1501 horizontal pixels, you are under the 1/2 break point (3000), but over the 1/4 break point (1500). So it'll perform the same as if you are displaying 3000 horizontal pixels. Decreasing the size of your displayed image to 1499 horizontal pixels will quadruple performance.
Maybe this can help some of you while the team works to find the problems and improve LR4's performance. This trick is not unique to whatever the problems are - this would always work and will work even when the problems get fixed.
Nice one, lee Jay!
But how do I know the amount of display pixels?
I can hold a ruler to the image and multiply the dimension in inch by my screen resolution.
But is there another method?
You can take a screen-shot and take it into PS and measure it.
I use the ruler approach. Measure image size, divide by screen horizontal size (my 24" is 20.5" horizontally) and multiply by horizontal resolution (my 24" is 1920 horizontal pixels).
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.
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.
Thanks. Yes, I've just had a play and there is a noticeable difference between my 'normal' setup and a significantly reduced image size. I guess it becomes an interesting trade-off between maximising the window to better judge the effects of develop edits, and minimising the window to have the edit effects shown more quickly.
But as you say, for those suffering serious slider lags, this could be very useful.
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.
i have done all you said, with no luck, what more we user must done ?? No One said Lightroom 4 is broken i said specificly that "Lightrom 4 Not Ready Yet" to be release as FINAL product for EVERYUSER.
I Love Lightroom, but version 4 is not yet For me.
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
I used Pixus to measure the horizontal dimension, which overlays a ruler on the screen (http://www.jpeg.cn/).
However the calculation (1/4 point) seems to work on the cropped dimensions and not the original image dimension.
Also, it is a bit disappointing to upgrade and end up with significantly poorer performance.
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.
Europe, Middle East and Africa