30s to update develop view after WB change; 1:40 minutes to calm CPU

[phototrek]

This "performance focused" update is turning out to be quite fun so far. I made the mistake of updating my iMac 5K i7 4GHz and now adjusting the white balance on a 5DSR image with three gradients and five brushes takes 30s for the view to change at all, and then more than another minute for the CPU to calm down. In comparison, my much older RMBP i7 can do the same operation on the same image in almost-realtime in LR CC 6.12. ACR in PS CC 2018 can't do it quite in realtime either but is much much faster.

This is pretty awful, especially for an update that was aimed at performance...

Any idea how I can downgrade to 6.12 again?

For anyone wishing to reproduce:

Dropbox - glacial.zip

- Stan

[Abambo]

Install 6.12 again and load your old catalog.

I, however, experience performance improvement with those operations that took time. But my images are 20M, not the 50M you have.

[phototrek]

Well, I did download to 6.12, but that's hardly the way we should be going.

It's happening without fancy adjustment brushes as well, as I have documented in this 10s video:

LR6 vs LR7 performance - Lightroom Classic poor development performance - YouTube

It's great that library improvements have been made. Too bad it was at the expense of adjustments...

[Abambo]

I see an overall improvement with 3 computers in different configurations.

[phototrek]

Can you try my photo (+XMP file) that I linked in my original post and see if it works? Would be good to see if it's a configuration issue.

[Bob Somrak]

I also have an I7 5k 4ghz iMac with SSD and your file takes 20 to30 seconds to update a TEMP slider adjustment with the fan coming on.  If I reset the adjustments than the TEMP slider adjustments are almost realtime.  Adobe needs to look at this file with the adjustments you have made and see what is going on.  This is definitely unacceptable performance.

[phototrek]

I also made this movie comparing a vanilla image, exposure adjustment:

LR6 vs LR7 performance - Lightroom Classic poor development performance - YouTube

It's pretty sad...

[Ian Lyons]

Stan,

Can you check attached version of your image and let me know if you see any improvement. It would be helpful if others also checked it on their hardware.

Thanks

Dropbox - glacial_ILyons.zip

[Bob Somrak]

I would be happy to try your version When I get back to my computer.   What did you do differently?  If yours works better than what is wrong with the OP’s File?

[Ian Lyons]

Bob,

I would rather wait until we have some feedback on my version before providing a full explanation.

[Bob Somrak]

I understand. Will try your edit later today.

[Ian Lyons]

Please, don't spend time trying to understand what's different. The exercise is simply one of determining whether my version, which isn't intended to be identical to the original, addressed the WB slider behaviour.

[Bob Somrak]

As an additional note, using the OP's photo the temp slider takes only about 2/3s the time with Graphics Processor off than Graphics Processor on.  My GP only has 2gb and I am using a 5k monitor and the System Requirements has a note about using LARGE RAW files with 5k monitors and only 2gb of Graphics RAM as they recommend 4gb.  I leave GP on for my Canon 5d3 files and they work ok.

[phototrek]

It's ... less sad, but still unusable. It reminds me of CaptureOne circa 2003:

LR7LR6 4K - YouTube

You can try a single image, no adjustments whatsoever, and check what white balance or exposure does. In LR6 it's real time, 60fps. In LR7 it's pathetically jumpy, circa 2003 as I mentioned.

LR6 vs LR7 performance - Lightroom Classic poor development performance - YouTube

- Stan

[Bob Somrak]

The temp and exposure sliders with no adjustments is smooth for me but that is not a real world scenario and it should work WAY better than it does with a few grads and brushes.  My system is apparently very close to yours so our tests should be similar.

[phototrek]

Watch my movie and you'll see that it's not even in the same league (on a naked image).

[phototrek]

One more thing you should try: open my (or your) image in PS CC (2017), and you will see that it's ... fluid. Not as fluid as the old version, but not the disaster that LR7 is. Given that the develop module in LR is pretty much the same as ACR, I think something went hopelessly wrong when LR Classic and LR CC 2017 got separated from their ancestor.

[Bob Somrak]

There is definitely something wrong in Lightroom when you open the SAME photo in ACR and it takes less than a couple seconds to update a temp adjustment and it takes more than 20 to update in Lightroom.  This can't be just attributed to a 5k monitor.   ACR is moving just as many pixels to the screen but 15 times or so faster apparently.

[Abambo]

Access to the screen can be made differently (and then the Adobe engineers are lucky, because the ACR team can show them how to do it the efficient way).

[phototrek]

... or they just could get the LR6 version out of the git repository because that one shows them how to do it even faster.

[Ian Lyons · Accepted solution]

Stan,

I have submitted an internal bug report on your behalf. Your image and a link to this thread was included in my report.

FWIW, the omission of noise reduction (local and global) means that the WB temperature slider behaviour returns to something resembling what can be expected when 'Range Masks' have been applied. I also checked how your original image behaved in ACR 10 and found that the issue described above is largely gone. This would suggest that what you're seeing (others have reported variations of same) is related to noise reduction.

Thanks for reporting the issue and providing a sample image.

[phototrek]

Thank you, Ian. Always happy to break new software.

[Bob Somrak]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Ian+Lyons  wrote

Stan,

Can you check attached version of your image and let me know if you see any improvement. It would be helpful if others also checked it on their hardware.

Thanks

Dropbox - glacial_ILyons.zip

Ian,

I checked your version of the image and the temp sliders are improved but still take 4 seconds or so to see the temp adjustment.  I see that you just got rid of the local brush adjustments.  I had done this in my original tests.  This is still not good.  If you get rid of ALL the local adjustments (brush and grad) the temp slider is almost real time.  I fully understand local adjustments slow things down but this is an enormous slowdown.   For equipment I have a 2015 I7 5k 4ghz iMac with SSD and 16Gb and am using a 2gb graphics card.    It should be noted that even with with previous versions of Lr and now Classic I have been satisfied with the speed from my Canon 5d2 and 5d3 RAWs.  I mean I always want more speed but it has been acceptable

[phototrek]

I would also like to point  out the difference in LR6 and LR7 when the CPU is all settled in the Develop module: the noise in the road is absurdly bad in LR7, while it's pretty smooth in LR6. This would suggest to me that in LR7 they're taking some shortcuts in the develop preview with the goal of improving performance. Clearly that didn't quite pan out.

Also, on the topic of the preview being very laggy even with "vanilla" images: looks to me like in LR6 the sliders were synchronous to the image preview, while in LR7 they moved to be asynchronous, the preview catching up whenever it can. That makes the slider itself smoother, but the problem is that the preview is laggy because of overall lower performance. How simple exposure adjustment wasn't used as a benchmark is beyond me...

[Bob Somrak]

I've seen other posts about the noise in Fit view in Classic being worse than noise in Lr6 Fit view.  I know you have to judge noise at 1:1 but if this is the case that lower noise is not simulated in Fit view than it is a step backwards,  especially if there is no performance gain.