Skip navigation
This discussion is archived
Currently Being Moderated

will be made more fast zooming and moving the sliders in camera raw 7?

May 15, 2012 12:40 AM

Tags: #lag

Hi

 

i'm using photoshop cs5 under windows 7 32 bit

 

and i did not on a monitor of 24 inch, that camera raw 7 is slow in zooming and moving the sliders (i mean there is a lag)

 

 

i'm thinking to updagrade and camera raw 7 is one of the more wanted feature

 

is there a hope ?

 

for example 2003 is amazing fast , 2010 is just more slow but 2012 i hate the lag

 

thanks

cheers    

 
Replies
  • Noel Carboni
    23,510 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    May 15, 2012 4:34 AM   in reply to mantralightroom

    Just saying there is a "lag" doesn't, unfortunately, quantify the problem very well.

     

    Camera Raw 7.1 seems slightly slower to me at some things - such as doing actual conversions to open a file - but actually seems more responsive for other things.  When I move the sliders for me the screen is updated immediately and interactively.

     

    Thus I wonder if you may be seeing different behavior than I am.

     

    Can you please try to be more specific, and perhaps put some numbers to your observations?  For example:

     

    • How long does Camera Raw take to start after you File - Open a raw file?
    • Do the sliders move smoothly, or do they jump?
    • How long (estimate) between moving a slider and seeing an update on the screen?
    • Which sliders are you moving?  Is the speed the same with all of them?
    • Do you see the same lag when zooming?
    • Do you have the profile-based lens corrections enabled?
    • Do you have noise reduction enabled?

     

    Unfortunately, to directly answer your first question, and assuming you don't have a specific problem making your Camera Raw particularly slow on your computer alone, I'd have to guess that the increased functionality and image quality from Camera Raw 7 probably is coming at the price of more computation, and thus slower operation.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,510 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    May 15, 2012 8:28 AM   in reply to mantralightroom

    Something's wrong with your system - possibly in the display driver.  As I mentioned, my screen updates are instantaneous - very smooth and quick.  That says that something's not right in your display driver, since however fast my computer is by comparison it still couldn't account for a tiny fraction of a second vs. 2 second update time.

     

    You're on XP, right?  Can you describe your system hardware a bit?  What video card do you have?  What driver version?

     

    I know that Photoshop in general can't use GPU features on XP...  I wonder if that extends to Camera Raw, and could explain the delays you're seeing.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,510 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    May 15, 2012 9:16 AM   in reply to mantralightroom

    My computer is decent but it's not state of the art.  I would say that the difference between imperceptible delay and 2 seconds is at least 10x, and I don't think my machine is THAT much more powerful than yours.

     

    I'm not trying to play "who has the better computer" here.  I do think that the delay may be solvable for you.

     

    Is your display driver up to date with the software available from amd.com?  I have recently installed the Catalyst 12.4 driver, and I've found it to be stable.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,510 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    May 15, 2012 11:11 AM   in reply to mantralightroom

    If it's any consolation, there are some Lightroom 4 users experiencing the same kinds of problems.

     

    What's not clear is how much of the GPU the Camera Raw software uses, or whether there are choices to use GPU vs. CPU under the covers that we're not seeing.

     

    But we seem to need input from Adobe engineers to take this much further...  I can only say keep the faith - it can work very well when it works.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 15, 2012 1:59 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Noel Carboni wrote:

     

    What's not clear is how much of the GPU the Camera Raw software uses, or whether there are choices to use GPU vs. CPU under the covers that we're not seeing.

     

    As far as I know, ACR doesn't use any GPU at this time...might change in the future (one can hope).

     

    There are several issues here though; first, when you run ACR un full screen mode on a parge display, the amount of preview data for the image increases a lot. Also note that PV 2012 is much more processor intensive than PV 2010. So if you combine increade preview data with more processor clicks for PV 2012, I think on slower machines, that combo is the reason for slower preview updates. If you add multiple local brush adjustments plus noise reduction and lens forrections you can start to hit a hard wall of slowness.

     

    I tend to not work in ACR full screen since I'm using 30" displays largely because ACR's UI wastes so much space that way. So I find a window size that is an optimal compromise for size and fast preview updates.

     

    I also tendto do lens corrections last after I've done global corrections first followed by efficient local corrections. By efficient I mean where possible, combine multiple adjustment parameters in a single adjustment pin (mask). I try hard not to do multiple pins/masks for similar adjustments. I much perfer to work with lower flow settings on a single pin/mask and sneak up on the adjustments while having the control settings a bit high. This allows multiple additions of a stronger settingbut at a lower flow.

     

    All told, ACR 7 with PV 2012 is going to be slower than ACR 6 with PV 2010. There's no question of that fact. And there's not much you can do about it except to try to work efficiently and at smaller preview sizes :~(

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,510 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    May 15, 2012 3:27 PM   in reply to Jeff Schewe

    Yeah, but I run Camera Raw covering most of a 1600 x 1200 monitor, and my control response is near instantaneous.  When I move the Exposure slider it's like turning the Brightness knob on an analog TV.  It's smooth.  And I do have lens corrections enabled.

     

    I have a decent 8 core workstation but the processors have less than half the power of state-of-the-art systems today.  I just don't think processor throughput differences can explain a 10x or more difference between my system and someone else's.  I do have a lot of RAM though... Is it possible that when Camera Raw is allowed to stretch out that it caches more stuff, speeding up operation?

     

    Honestly, shooting from the hip I'd say that it sure looks like on some systems - but not others - some parts of the process may be getting farmed out to the GPU.  That's the only other thing I can think of that could legitimately make an order of magnitude difference in what we're seeing. 

     

    The alternative is a bug that's causing an unexpected processing delay on some systems.

     

    Like I said, this very same problem is being seen by some folks in LightRoom 4 as well.  A friend of mine has a computer with similar performance characteristics to mine, and he see several second delays in LR4.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,510 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    May 15, 2012 3:32 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Hm, I may have just stumbled on the answer you proposed earlier, mantralightroom...  I went to see if Camera Raw uses all the cores simultaneously, and it looks like it does, leaving just a little reserve...  I put Task Manager up on one monitor and opened Camera Raw on the other, then dragged the Exposure slider repeatedly back and forth.  It busied all 8 cores to 83% or so pretty consistently.

     

    How many cores do you have in your system?

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 15, 2012 11:42 PM   in reply to mantralightroom

    While ACR does not use (at this time) the GPU for any image adjustments speed ups, it's not unexpected that display refresh rates would have an impact on percieved speed. You prolly should have mentionedthe basics of your setup like OS, CPU, displays and graphics cards, etc...I'm running Photoshop cS6 with 3 displays and two cards. On one card I've got a 30" running at 2560x1600 and a second display at 1920x1200 and the second 30" display and a second 30" display on a seperate card at 2560x1600. I still don't run ACR 7 full screen (although I do run LR4 full screen on my middle display). I'm running OSX 10.6.8 with 32gigs on really fast drives on a 2009 Mac Pro with dual quad core at 2.93 GHz. Nothing seems "slow", just not quite as fast as PV 2010 was.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 16, 2012 4:03 AM   in reply to Jeff Schewe

    Jeff Schewe wrote:

     

     

    There are several issues here though; first, when you run ACR un full screen mode on a parge display, the amount of preview data for the image increases a lot. Also note that PV 2012 is much more processor intensive than PV 2010. So if you combine increade preview data with more processor clicks for PV 2012, I think on slower machines, that combo is the reason for slower preview updates. If you add multiple local brush adjustments plus noise reduction and lens forrections you can start to hit a hard wall of slowness.

     

    I think it cannot be emphasized enough that there are two different things going on here:

     

    1. PV 2012 is a bit slower than PV 2010. Fair enough. If you have a really underpowered machine that matters.

     

    2. On some systems, regardless of system performance, some unknown problem strangles the whole process to the point where it's basically useless.

     

    I've seen the difference between these two, because I had one affected and one unaffected machine. Those with unacceptable lag are not experiencing performance problems. There is something broken, although god knows where.

     

    Now, I saw this in Lightroom 4, not ACR (still using CS5.5), but this looks very much like the same thing. As it happens, changing the video card in the "bad" machine (from NVidia to ATI) fixed it and brought the speed up to what it is on the "good" machine. That in itself doesn't prove anything, it can still be any number of reasons, but it does show that it is not system performance per se.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,510 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    May 16, 2012 5:01 AM   in reply to mantralightroom

    mantralightroom wrote:

     

     

    I did plug a second monitor and i moved the camera raw window on the second monitor , full view mode and i did notice no slow down at all!

     

    That could be an incredibly helpful bit of information for those trying to get to the bottom of this problem in the software.

     

    What color profiles do you have associated with your monitors?

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,510 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    May 17, 2012 11:44 AM   in reply to mantralightroom

    And I in turn don't fully understand your comment.

     

    You set the ppi metadata that you want Camera Raw to deliver to Photoshop yourself, via the little link near the bottom of the Camera Raw dialog (near where you set the color profile for the document and the number of pixels it should contain).

     

    CameraRawSizing.jpg

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 17, 2012 10:49 PM   in reply to mantralightroom

    Mantra,

     

    Please read this whole page carefully:

     

    http://www.scantips.com/basics01.html

     

    It explains ppi and dpi.

     

    Images have ppi, prints have dpi.  But read that page to understand it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 18, 2012 12:23 AM   in reply to mantralightroom

    mantralightroom wrote:

     

    because i can't get calibrated both

    i mean i used colormunki and spyder , but they don't look the same

    It's not easy. I just went to a two display system, and it didn't turn out as expected, and I thought I understood CM pretty well.

    In my case, the problem was that I am running both displays off one graphics card, and it only supports one look-up table (LUT), so, if you correct the LUT for one display, it updates both. Eventually, I used my calibrator to adjust both screens, but only calibrate/profile the primary. There's a definite gamma/WB shift in the secondary, but I'm stuck with it.

     

    Apparently the best way to do it is to use a true dual-display card (not just a card with two outputs), or to use two cards.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 18, 2012 3:54 AM   in reply to Yammer

    Yammer P wrote:

     

    I am running both displays off one graphics card, and it only supports one look-up table (LUT), so, if you correct the LUT for one display, it updates both.

     

    I doubt there are any video cards left on the market that don't support dual LUTs. I rather suspect it's the calibrator. Some, like the Spyder (X) Express, lack multi-monitor support and will load the same LUT and the same monitor profile to all connected monitors. The giveaway is that you cannot name profiles individually. It doesn't even help to go in and rename the profile yourself, becuse profiles have internal and external names and you can't get to the one that matters.

     

    There's not much you can do in that case, except calibrate one and adjust the other by eye. Although you could try something like the free eyeball calibrator Calibrize.

     

    All that said: Unless you have monitors of the same model and the same production run, getting two different monitors to match exactly is an exercise in futility, even with the best calibrators. If you get the white point to match, the colors will be a little off, and vice versa and so on. As long as you have one good reference display, manually adjusting the other to match is probably as good as it gets.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 18, 2012 5:15 AM   in reply to twenty_one

    D Fosse wrote:

    I doubt there are any video cards left on the market that don't support dual LUTs. I rather suspect it's the calibrator. Some, like the Spyder (X) Express, lack multi-monitor support and will load the same LUT and the same monitor profile to all connected monitors. The giveaway is that you cannot name profiles individually. It doesn't even help to go in and rename the profile yourself, becuse profiles have internal and external names and you can't get to the one that matters.

    That's very useful to know. I stopped trying to fix it when I read about 2-output cards having only 1 LUT because it explained what was happening. I've got an ATI5670-based card with one DVI-D and one VGA output, and the VGA display looks fine until the LUT adjustment kicks in. I calibrated/profiled with the latest X-Rite i1DisplayPro & i1Profiler software, which actually lists two displays in the software. I'll have to have another bash at this.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,510 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    May 18, 2012 6:57 AM   in reply to Yammer

    You have a software problem, because I can calibrate each monitor independently on my 5670.  And I'm using my second monitor from the VGA port.  The two monitors look nothing like one another until the calibration kicks in.

     

    Both monitors DO match perfectly*, but that's aided by the fact that they're the same model.

     

    -Noel

     

     

    *I say "perfectly"...  Point in fact, there's more variation between center and edge on either monitor than there is between the same spot on each of the two

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 18, 2012 7:44 AM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Thanks, Noel. I had another go at profiling both monitors. They're still not perfectly matched, but they are much closer than they were, so I assume it worked this time. I have no idea what I did differently, although I suspect it was something to do with opting out of using ADC to manually calibrate, and/or using Windows' built-in Display Calibration system instead of the XRGamma loader, and/or a new version of i1Profiler. I won't waste too many calories worrying about it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 19, 2012 4:34 AM   in reply to Yammer

    Hi Jeff and others,

     

    I'm a long time Camea Raw user. Recently I've been using Photoshop CS6 beta and ACR 7.1 rc

    I'm on a MacPro (1.1) dual core 2.66ghz intel xeon. 9gb ram.

     

    Last week I upgraded my graphics card to ATI Radeon HD 5770.

     

    I have this time lag problem and it's driving me nuts! To be exact my problem occures with the use (extensive) of the adjustment brush, and there can be a 1+ second before anything happens.

     

    This is new from CS5 and ARC 6.x (I have no problems whatsoever usung CS5)

     

    I really want to get to the bottom of this... is it a bug, is it a RAM issue, how can I fix it, I want to move on to CS6 but cant if this isn't cured. I dont know where to turn and this thread is the only one I can find... I'm not a lightroom user.

     

    Help!

     

    Peter Moloney

    Dublin

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,510 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    May 19, 2012 5:59 AM   in reply to P Moloney

    Something to check:  Does the act of "waggling" a control back and forth continuously result in high CPU usage across all your CPU cores?

     

    My intent with this question is to try to characterize whether it's more likely a CPU issue or something where the system is waiting on something it shouldn't be.

     

    With about 1/10 second update times, when I move a control (such as Exposure) back and forth continuously, I see Camera Raw busy all my cores pretty well - to the 80%+ range - implying its using all the cores to prepare the image for display.

     

    It might also be a good idea to describe what monitor color profile you're using.  It's not hard to imagine how color-management activity could take more or less CPU time depending on the profile.

     

    I have heard of LightRoom users having this same issue as well - one to several seconds lag before control activity changes the preview on the screen - which is WAY different from other users who see almost intstantaneous updates.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 19, 2012 6:20 AM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Hi Noel,

     

    Waggling controls shows  High useage 200+ % as shown in activity monitor Bridge (cant see ACR)

     

    Monitor profile is Spyder4 Pro cereated custom profile.

     

    However, as Jeff mentioned earlier, brush performance improves if I deselect "correct chromatic arberation" Almost ok to use!

    I'm going to try "non Full Screen Operation" now!

     

    Still dont understand why or how!!!

     

    Peter

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 30, 2012 1:21 AM   in reply to mantralightroom

    OK what I've found so far is as follows....

     

    Good News:

    ACR 7.1rc

     

    Un Checking the "remove chromatic arberation" check box gives a significant improvement in performance.

    I have also set the noise reduction to default to 0

     

    Now I make all my in dividual corrections first, and then before "processing & saving" I remove Chromatic Arberation.

     

    Bad News:

    I mostly shoot buildings and interiors using the Canon 24mm TS II. Setting ACR to remove Chromatic Arberation as a "Camera Raw Default" would be my ideal workflow, as well as a very small ammount of noise reduction.

    With ACR 7.x I can't work like this....

     

    More Bad News:

    Not using full screen made no difference.

    I have now purchased Photoshop CS6 and installed it after un-installing the beta, and for 24hrs I had all sorts of wierd issues such as a processed image not reflecting the adjustments in Camera Raw! However this has all settled down and I suspect that this was a Cache issue of some sort.

    Another problem has been the importation of Actions, (from CS5), which simply hasn't worked. I'm re making all my actions, when you import them and try to run them it says " script missing"

     

    Advice:

    Upgrade if you are prepared for a little work, and if (for you) there are feature benefits (very much so for me).

     

    I provide workflow training to several government photographic departments and my advice to them is wait a bit!

     

    I STILL really want to know what's happening under the hood!

     

    Regards,

    Peter

     
    |
    Mark as:

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