Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

Raw to jpeg prosessing much slower in CS6

May 31, 2012 8:50 AM

I asked same question in general discussion but got no answer!

 

I´m tweeking my time lapse image sequence in ACR 7.0/7.1. After setting up the look I transfer all of them to jpegs.

 

In CS5 I could see in save status window that ACR was processing 2-4 pictures at the same time.

 

In CS6 its only processing one picture at a time. So it´s 2-4 time slower than CS5. Any one else noticed this behavior??

 

What is causing this?

 

My computer is Mac pro 3.1 8-core 2.8, 16 ram and quadro 4000

 

thanks,

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 11, 2012 4:04 AM   in reply to seetukka

    I have the same problem on a PC with i7 920 oc to 3.8GHz and gtx 570 and 24gb ram. maybe it's a problem of mercury playback engine? Furthermore, the control of white balance is much slower than that of cs5.
    Thanks

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,471 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 12, 2012 1:49 PM   in reply to seetukka

    Why do you feel that this is a problem?  You're going to want an excuse to upgrade your old, slow computer sooner or later, right? 

     

    But you're absolutely right, things are slowing down.  Big time.

     

    In general each new version appears to convert raw files more slowly than its predecessor, but the payback is that it's supposed to make better looking results.  It's a variant of the old saying "Everything costs more and takes longer."

     

    Plus, you haven't been quite specific enough, the relative timings are changing not just with every major release but also with point revisions as well as bitness.

     

    Here are relative timings I have measured with different versions of Camera Raw on my 8 core Windows 7 workstation using the same sample of 50 Canon EOS-40D files converted to 6144 x 4096 pixels, 16 bits/channel, and saved as 144 MB .PSD files:

     

    64 bit ACR 5.7:  82.2 seconds (1.64 seconds per conversion)

    32 bit ACR 5.7:  98.2 seconds (1.96 seconds per conversion)

     

    64 bit ACR 6.6:  98.8 seconds (1.98 seconds per conversion)

    32 bit ACR 6.6:  149.2 seconds (2.98 seconds per conversion)

     

    64 bit ACR 6.7:  138.2 seconds (2.76 seconds per conversion)

    32 bit ACR 6.7:  262.0 seconds (5.24 seconds per conversion)

     

    64 bit ACR 7.0:  172.4 seconds (3.45 seconds per conversion)

    32 bit ACR 7.0:  269.2 seconds (5.38 seconds per conversion)

     

    64 bit ACR 7.1:  209.6 seconds (4.19 seconds per conversion)

    32 bit ACR 7.1:  299.6 seconds (5.99 seconds per conversion)

     

    What's hard to explain is why the 32 bit code should produce its results so much more slowly, since these conversion activities aren't using more than 2 GB of RAM for anything, and the 64 bit instruction set is only 10% to 15% more efficient for graphics work.

     

    But beyond that, we will be so bold to ask: 

     

    Why is this activity still being done on the CPU, given the immensely powerful GPUs available in the video cards in virtually every system nowadays?  It's not unreasonable to expect a 5x to 10x improvement in speed through porting Camera Raw programming onto the GPU, and Adobe has shown (e.g., via the Liquify filter) that they know how to write GPU programs.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 12, 2012 9:54 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    The speed of raw to rendered image will depend a lot on the Process Version (PV 2012 is slower) the number of local adjustments applied and whether or not you've applied lens corrections (or other image adjustments that require image transforms). So, the above timings are not really useful unless all factors involved are exactly the same. Also note that LR and ACR have different threading and processing times for the exact same image adjustments...

     

    But yes, PV 2012 with spot healing, local adjustments (either brush or gradient) and lens corrections can be much slower than previous ACR/LR versions...the question you need to ask yourself is, is the extra processing (CPU clicks) worth it? It is to me...is it takes a second to two longer to get a better end result, I'm ok with that. But if it's taking 2x or 4x the time, something else is wrong...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 12, 2012 10:14 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Noel Carboni wrote:

     

    Why is this activity still being done on the CPU, given the immensely powerful GPUs available in the video cards in virtually every system nowadays?

     

    Because, in reality, the GPU is STILL not a real stable platform with platform agnostic APIs that Adobe can rely on using...there is a ton of custom programing needed for the various vid card makers and various Cuda/Open GL specs.

     

    It ain't easy to deal with and is not yet a broad-based standard that 3rd party software can rely on. Ps CS4 started the drive to GPU...it pretty much sucked. CS5 and CS6 have advanced the art (with a ton of engineers hours required and supporting only the most recent vid cards reliably).

     

    Also note that not EVERYTHING you might want to process regarding raw images are suitable for GPU acceleration…it all depends on the scalability and the optimizations that can be custom coded. Extracting the max performance from raw processing in ACR/LR is a much larger task than you are stating (and if you thought about it, you would realize the ends don't always really justify the results).

     

    Yes, it will come but not until the vid card makers get their shyte together…(and you know that, right Noel?) Be honest, you know this stuff ain't "easy" right? Be honest bud…and consider carefully the cross=platform implications because Adobe ain't gonna do a Win only solution, it has to work cross platform...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,471 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 13, 2012 8:41 AM   in reply to Jeff Schewe

    I'm just offering a solution to a USER-REPORTED PROBLEM here.  The fact is that conversions ARE 2x or more slower than recent releases.

     

    I hate to point out that a competitor (Capture 1) has offered OpenCL acceleration of their raw conversions for quite a long time now.

     

    Sure, it's not easy, but this is why Adobe gets big bucks.  And as you point out, Jeff, it's not like they haven't started down the road of GPU programming already (Blur Gallery uses OpenCL, Liquify uses OpenGL shader programming).

     

    If GPU support is not something that can be relied upon, make it an option - maybe even through the registry.  The software already has a CPU implementation.  Those with good hardware and solid drivers can use the GPU to great benefit, those whose systems are not yet stable can fall back on the speed they have today.

     

    Jeff, is it your opinion that we users/customers shouldn't challenge Adobe to do better?

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,471 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 13, 2012 8:56 AM   in reply to Jeff Schewe

    Jeff Schewe wrote:

     


    So, the above timings are not really useful unless all factors involved are exactly the same

     

    Not really useful?  Gee thanks.  Where are your numbers from a controlled test?

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 13, 2012 10:05 AM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Noel Carboni wrote:

     

    Not really useful?  Gee thanks.  Where are your numbers from a controlled test?

     

    You don't indicate whether or not the images had spot healing, local adjustments and lens corrections applied-which all will impact the timing. And while you indicate the ACR version you don't confirm what PV you were using in each. All of which makes your timing results less useful...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 13, 2012 10:11 AM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Noel Carboni wrote:

     

    I hate to point out that a competitor (Capture 1) has offered OpenCL acceleration of their raw conversions for quite a long time now.

     

    Yep, and it crashed C1 so much most users had to turn it off...it's better now (doesn't crash as much) but only speeds up a smallish set of functions.

     

    Noel Carboni wrote:

     

    Jeff, is it your opinion that we users/customers shouldn't challenge Adobe to do better?

     

    Nope...I wish ACR/LR did take advantage of the GPU. I'm pushing around 80MP Phase One IQ 180 files and GPU would help. I know that the engineers have worked on it and at this stage the problems that engineering would have to overcome for the benefits that would be provided, there has not been enough traction to do it...yet. I suspect it will happen but I don't know when.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,471 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 13, 2012 10:39 AM   in reply to Jeff Schewe

    Jeff Schewe wrote:

     

    Noel Carboni wrote:

     

    Not really useful?  Gee thanks.  Where are your numbers from a controlled test?

     

    You don't indicate whether or not the images had spot healing, local adjustments and lens corrections applied-which all will impact the timing. And while you indicate the ACR version you don't confirm what PV you were using in each. All of which makes your timing results less useful...

     

    I made the test use the same basic functions throughout - basic stuff, no spot stuff, no special adjustments.  And each version used the "current" PV for that version.  Basically, my own defaults that I set up for each version of Photoshop, CS4, CS5, and CS6.  The settings were what I have chosen as defaults for each version of Photoshop over time. 

     

    Looking at the output PSD files, there are no visible differences in the output PSDs from all the conversions, except that PV2012 might have recovered slightly more highlight information in bright clouds.  Would you like to see a sample of one each of the results?

     

    In short, there were no fundamental differences in settings.

     

    Did you think I would just turn on bunches of different stuff in each version and try to pass off the comparison as meaningful?

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 13, 2012 11:15 AM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Noel Carboni wrote:

     

    Did you think I would just turn on bunches of different stuff in each version and try to pass off the comparison as meaningful?

     

    I don't know since you didn't say...

     

    PV 2012 is slower than PV 2010. Adding spot healing, lens corrections and local adjustments slows things down further. But this doesn't address the OP's finding that ACR 7.1 is only processing a single raw image at a time, which is worth looking into...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,471 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 13, 2012 1:30 PM   in reply to Jeff Schewe

    Jeff Schewe wrote:

     


    I don't know since you didn't say...

     

    Specifically, you made the comment, "So, the above timings are not really useful unless all factors involved are exactly the same."

     

    "All factors exactly the same" is impossible to achieve in context, because the different ACR versions sport different features.  So I strove to make the output match as closely as possible.

     

    So, the above comments are not really useful unless you use technically accurate terms. 

     

    ACRComparisonSmall.jpg

     

    Regarding seeing multiple conversions happening at once...

     

    Whether we're seeing improvement or degradation from from past versions isn't clear here...

     

     

    ACR 5.7 x64 - only appears to process one image at a time.

    MultithreadingACR57.jpg

     

     

    ACR 6.7 x64 - processes two images at a time and busies the CPU resources almost fully:

    MultithreadingACR67.jpg

     

     

    ACR 7.0 x64 - is back to processing one at a time, but seems to busy more CPU resources overall than ACR 5.7:

    MultithreadingACR70.jpg

     

     

    ACR 7.1 x64 - seems to load the system up somewhat less aggressively, which could help explain why it's slower...

    MultithreadingACR71.jpg

     

     

    Might it be that Adobe has changed the way the task is broken up, so that now more multithreading is done in an individual image, and thus it's not needed as much during the group conversion?  This would have the advantage of making a single individual image open more quickly.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 13, 2012 4:09 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Noel Carboni wrote:

     

    Might it be that Adobe has changed the way the task is broken up, so that now more multithreading is done in an individual image, and thus it's not needed as much during the group conversion?

     

    Don't know...that's an Eric question...I tested ACR 6.7 and ACR 7.1 on a dual-quad Mac Pro with 1DsMIII raws (set to ACR Default)...ACR 6.7 was processing 3 images at a time and took 3.25 sec/image. ACR 7.1 with PV 2010 took 3.83 sec/image and only processed a single image at a time and PV2012 took 4.42 sec/image again only showing 1 image being processed. Both ACR 6.7 and 7.1 peaked somewhere above 650% on all cores. What I'm not sure about is how the ACR progress dlog is showing the processing...while ACR 6.7 showed three images "processing" and ACR 7.1 only showed a single image, I'm not sure that ACR 6.7 actually WAS processing three images at a time. And it's really hard to tell in the Mac Activity app...

     

    So, to the OP, yes, ACR 7.1 is slower than ACR 6.7 (but not by much) and PV 2012 is slower than PV 2010 but not by a whole lot–course if you were batching 1000 images, it would be the difference between 64 minutes vs 74 minutes in ACR 7.1. Not a huge difference, but not 2-4x slower as mentioned in the OP...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,471 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 14, 2012 8:25 AM   in reply to Jeff Schewe

    Jeff, you tested 6.7, which is slower than 6.6.

     

    Noting my numbers, there IS a 2x difference between ACR 6.6 and 7.1.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,471 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 28, 2012 5:29 AM   in reply to seetukka

    Your timings seem to be in line with what I'm seeing, seetukka.

     

    A new dual Xeon E5-2687W workstation would cut those times by two-thirds.  You know you want one.    I know I want one. 

     

    If you're waiting literally hours for large computing tasks to complete, what's your time worth?  Could you make more money by having results for your customers sooner?  It's not impossible to develop a business justification for a computer upgrade.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Calculating status...
    Jul 19, 2012 9:35 PM   in reply to seetukka

    I am right there with seetukka. I'm a wedding photographer and have to process in the neighborhood of 500-600 images per job. I have a 2010 mac dual 6core 2.66 gz (not the smartest buy so no comment on speed please,) 32gb ram and ssd drives. I bought photoshop cs6 because I heard wonderful things about the new version of ACR, and I agree, the image quality is slightly better, but not worth the extra couple of hours per job I have to spend on processing them. Not to mention while in ACR 7.1, redraw times and switching between tools show a slight lag that is not present in previous versions, compounding the slowness. So now my cs6 is just a decorative Icon on my launcher and I am back to using cs5.1.  Really adobe, these images are just d3s files. When I start trying to process my d800 images, things get worse. I have 12 cores. Can you use them? Image sensor megapixle values climb, and according to the above thread, ACR slows down with each new version?!@?  So by ACR 8.1, we will all be shooting with 30Mpx cameras and waiting 20 mintues per image to process? I expect more from Adobe and I hope they fix this so I can start using cs6 again!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,471 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 2, 2012 10:44 AM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Noel Carboni wrote:

     


    Here are relative timings I have measured with different versions of Camera Raw on my 8 core Windows 7 workstation using the same sample of 50 Canon EOS-40D files converted to 6144 x 4096 pixels, 16 bits/channel, and saved as 144 MB .PSD files:

     

    64 bit ACR 5.7:  82.2 seconds (1.64 seconds per conversion)

    32 bit ACR 5.7:  98.2 seconds (1.96 seconds per conversion)

     

    64 bit ACR 6.6:  98.8 seconds (1.98 seconds per conversion)

    32 bit ACR 6.6:  149.2 seconds (2.98 seconds per conversion)

     

    64 bit ACR 6.7:  138.2 seconds (2.76 seconds per conversion)

    32 bit ACR 6.7:  262.0 seconds (5.24 seconds per conversion)

     

    64 bit ACR 7.0:  172.4 seconds (3.45 seconds per conversion)

    32 bit ACR 7.0:  269.2 seconds (5.38 seconds per conversion)

     

    64 bit ACR 7.1:  209.6 seconds (4.19 seconds per conversion)

    32 bit ACR 7.1:  299.6 seconds (5.99 seconds per conversion)

     

     

    FYI:

     

    Here are two sets of measurements with the exact same set of files on the same system using Camera Raw 7.2 RC:

     

    64 bit ACR 7.2RC:  215.6 seconds (4.31 seconds per conversion)

    32 bit ACR 7.2RC:  345.6 seconds (6.91 seconds per conversion)

     

    Looks like quite a bit more instructions are being executed per pixel.  The change in 64 bit operation wasn't bad, but for 32 bit operation it's quite a bit slower.

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,471 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 20, 2012 9:33 AM   in reply to tahoelight

    I've just done some more testing with the same 50 images, above, on a new 12 core system with Hyperthreading.

     

    64 bit ACR 7.2RC: 141.6 seconds (2.83 seconds per conversion)

    32 bit ACR 7.2RC: 229.4 seconds (4.59 seconds per conversion)

     

    I have an SSD array and 24 logical processors (considering the Hyperthreading), yet notably the conversion used only about 5% of my system's gargantuan I/O capability, and about 25% of the processing capacity according to Resource Monitor and Task Manager, implying:

     

    Camera Raw is not doing anywhere near the amount of multi-threading it could be.

     

    Adobe:  Why aren't you maxing out the computing and I/O resources on a modern system with your software, which just gets slower and slower with each new version?

     

    The most irritating thing is that you've already shown that you can do multithreading with past versions.

     

    Adobe engineers: Don't you have any powerful multi-core computers? Would you like to buy one? Don't you find this embarrassing?

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,471 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Sep 29, 2012 7:43 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Since I've dropped back to Camera Raw 7.0, I did this same test as above on the same files with my 12 core system.  As you can see, the speed is significantly better.

     

    64 bit ACR 7.0: 110.6 seconds (2.21 seconds per conversion)

    32 bit ACR 7.0: 191.2 seconds (3.82 seconds per conversion)

     

    The 64 bit version seemed busied all 24 logical processors, with the average CPU usage around 50%:

     

    64BitBlockConversion.png

     

     

    The 32 bit version used only about half the logical processors, which likely explains why it is slower.

     

    32BitBlockConversion.png

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,471 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Oct 3, 2012 5:37 AM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    FYI, the 7.2 Release code conversion speed for multiple images.  Compare to my 12 core results above.

     

    64 bit ACR 7.2: 138.8 seconds (2.78 seconds per conversion)

    32 bit ACR 7.2: 275.2 seconds (5.50 seconds per conversion)

     

    Watching the Task Manager, it's not really clear to see why it should now take fully twice as long for 32 bit conversions.  Now both appear to be creating one thread per physical core (plus one or two more in the 64 bit case).

     

    64 Bit:

    64BitConversions.png

     

     

    32 Bit:

    32BitConversions.png

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Noel Carboni
    23,471 posts
    Dec 23, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 11, 2013 10:44 AM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Just for reference, I revived this test with Camera Raw 8.1.0.43.  Same input files, same conversion parameters.

     

    • 64 bit ACR 8.1 run in Photoshop CS6 13.1.2:  125 seconds (2.5 seconds per conversion)
    • 32 bit ACR 8.1 run in Photoshop CS6 13.1.2:  176 seconds (3.52 seconds per conversion)

     

    I did screen grabs of Task Manager, and overall processor usage with the 64 bit software was less than 30%, with the 32 bit software busying it even less.  6 of the 24 logical processors went completely idle.

     

    CameraRaw8.1CPUUsage.png

     

    For fun I ran the same test with Camera Raw 8.1 hosted by Photsohop CC 14.0 (prerelease).  There was no difference in speed (not surprising).

     

    Just as a reminder Camera Raw 7.0 run on these same files today gets the job done in 111 seconds (2.22 seconds per conversion).  I'd say the Adobe folks have been busy making sure the newest software doesn't slow down too much more (especially as compared to some of the intervening versions).  Nice job, guys!

     

    -Noel

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 18, 2013 11:52 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Absolutely agree. For me it looks like I purchase downgrade from CS5 to CS6 for my own money. I have G510 keyboard with screen and performance monitor during saving raw shows that

    18 - 60% performance busy

    and just 22% of 32 Gb RAM - and 28Gb allowed CS6 to use in settings. So 2000 RAW files conversion took HOURS - 2 may be even 3 - now I start the process mostly at night.

     

    On CS5 there was 4 files saved simultaneously, not 1 like now - and system was 98% busy until process is finished. Now I even can play World of Tanks during saving without problems. This so boring, that I will not upgrade from 6 to 7 . (P.S. And Lightroom interface is too alien for me - so I purchased Photoshop for just RAW conversion) But now looks like Phase One will got my money, not Adobe.

     

    P.S. 4770K 32 Gb RAM SSD for system and 600Gb 10K RPM HDD for Adobe cache - and it looks like Ferrari driving on LagunaSeca not faster than 30 mph. I am very disappointed with this situation.

     

    And last version of RAW - no speed,  no healing brush in ACR directly, no manual red eye correction. Just new icon in child style.

     

    Message was edited by: AlexOzerov

     
    |
    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