Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

How to quadruple Develop slider performance

Mar 20, 2012 8:04 AM

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.

 

Performance.jpg

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 20, 2012 8:29 AM   in reply to Lee Jay

    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?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 20, 2012 8:41 AM   in reply to Lee Jay

    Thanks, Lee Jay.

    I like the idea of of taking a screen shot into PS.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 20, 2012 8:52 AM   in reply to Lee Jay

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 20, 2012 8:59 AM   in reply to Lee Jay

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

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 20, 2012 10:05 AM   in reply to web-weaver

    Another way would be to simply take a screenshot of the loupe image in develop, save as jpg/png and look at the file in explorer/finder to read off the dimensions.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • TK2142
    407 posts
    Jan 20, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 20, 2012 12:47 PM   in reply to 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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 20, 2012 1:30 PM   in reply to Lee Jay

    Lee Jay, can I ask what "Develop slider performance will quadruple" actually means, and how is it measured?

     

    I'm not doubting, I'm just curious....

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 20, 2012 2:44 PM   in reply to Lee Jay

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 20, 2012 3:52 PM   in reply to Jim Wilde

    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...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 20, 2012 8:09 PM   in reply to Lee Jay

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

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 20, 2012 8:36 PM   in reply to kiddid

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • TK2142
    407 posts
    Jan 20, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 20, 2012 9:07 PM   in reply to Scooby007

    B r e t t wrote:

     

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

    You cannot say software is not broken if it only works for some people.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 20, 2012 10:21 PM   in reply to TK2142

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 20, 2012 10:53 PM   in reply to Scooby007

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 21, 2012 2:35 AM   in reply to Scooby007

    Loupe view size doesn't make any difference.

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

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 21, 2012 3:10 AM   in reply to Lee Jay

    hm... change your resolution to 800x600 and your lightroom will be fast as never... but I want to use LR and to limit the visible screen...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 21, 2012 8:03 AM   in reply to Lee Jay

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 21, 2012 8:37 AM   in reply to Dorin Nicolaescu-Musteață

    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

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 22, 2012 3:54 AM   in reply to Lee Jay

    Thanks Lee,

     

    I used Pixus to measure the horizontal dimension, which overlays a ruler on the screen (http://www.jpeg.cn/).

     

    Pixus.png

     

    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.

     

    Niall

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 22, 2012 4:36 AM   in reply to Niall O\'Donovan

    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.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 22, 2012 7:05 AM   in reply to slarti3

    Thanks,

     

    I have reread it and I see Lee's point. What threw me was the screen shot highlighted 5014px but the calculation was based on 6000px.

     

    Niall

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)