12 Replies Latest reply on Mar 29, 2010 2:55 PM by Axel Rietschin

    DNG codec installed - SearchFilterHost.exe goes into overdrive?

    Level 1
      Hello

      I installed the codec yesterday and since then I am seeing the Searchindexer.exe/SearchFilterHost.exe process using up one full CPU core. Attached at the end is a piece from the stack backtrace obtained with Process Explorer.

      I guess the DNG files all get indexed now; or - their tags get indexed. This doesn't sound so bad, if it means that I will be able to search the tags in the DNG files using the Windows search mechanism. Is that true? Or should I reconfigure the indexer to leave DNG files alone?

      Thanks!

      kernel32.dll!Sleep+0xf
      DNGCodec.dll!CTJPEGLibTerminate+0x5d24
      DNGCodec.dll+0x242e0
      ole32.dll!CoCreateInstanceEx+0x252
      ole32.dll!CoCreateInstanceEx+0xd7
      ole32.dll!CoCreateInstanceEx+0x38
      ole32.dll!CoCreateInstance+0x34
      WindowsCodecs.dll!DllGetClassObject+0x47f0
      WindowsCodecs.dll!DllGetClassObject+0x12a6
      WindowsCodecs.dll+0x8b80
      WindowsCodecs.dll+0x87ec
      PhotoMetadataHandler.dll!DllRegisterServer+0x46a0
      DNGCodec.dll!DllRegisterServer+0x3fd0 <<<<---------------
      PROPSYS.dll!PSGetPropertyFromPropertyStorage+0xc1da
        • 1. Re: DNG codec installed - SearchFilterHost.exe goes into overdrive?
          Would love to know the answer to this.
          • 2. Re: DNG codec installed - SearchFilterHost.exe goes into overdrive?
            Unforunately, I had to uninstall the codec to solve this same issue with Vista. All was well after.
            • 3. Re: DNG codec installed - SearchFilterHost.exe goes into overdrive?
              Michi!
              I had the same problem. Why is there no answer!?
              • 4. Re: DNG codec installed - SearchFilterHost.exe goes into overdrive?
                Ramón G Castañeda Level 4
                >Why is there no answer!?

                Either because no one knows the answer or no one else is seeing this issue.

                You're not addressing Adobe here, just users like you, volunteering to help each other out when we can. No one has any obligation to answer questions here in these User to User Forums, but we're glad to do so when we have something useful to say.

                On the other hand, you guys with the problem have given no details here. We don't even know what your OS is, whether you might be on box with an AMD chip, etc. There are many smart people here, but no mind readers.
                • 5. Re: DNG codec installed - SearchFilterHost.exe goes into overdrive?
                  Level 1
                  Good point: my platform is a Intel E8400 running 16 bit Vista Ultimate.

                  Configuring the search indexer to not look at DNG files helped. I use LR to find images anyhow.
                  • 6. Re: DNG codec installed - SearchFilterHost.exe goes into overdrive?
                    Level 1
                    The hung indexer is a fairly common problem with this codec. Unfortunately, no update to the release candidate codec or solution from Adobe. Ardfry has a $30 DNG codec for Vista which doesn't have this issue.
                    • 7. Re: DNG codec installed - SearchFilterHost.exe goes into overdrive?
                      Same problem with the indexer drawing 50+ percent of CPU. This is on a Dell 410 with a Core2 and 4 GB of menory running 32 bit Vista Ultimate. After uninstalling the DNG codec, the system operates normally.

                      I wonder if Adobe and MS have had some disagreement.
                      • 8. Re: DNG codec installed - SearchFilterHost.exe goes into overdrive?
                        Vista Home Premium 32 bit
                        Intel Core Duo E6550 2.33 GHZ
                        6GB RAM

                        I installed the codec for DNG two days ago and all seemed okay, but I did not do anything intensive on the computer. Today I was building a slide-show on Lightroom 2.3 and using music from iTunes. I kept getting glitches in the music. I fired up the Resource Monitor and was topping out at 100% CPU occasionally.

                        Now, with iTunes off and nothing opened but Lightroom I have the same problem. 50% of my CPU is used up by SearchFilterHost.exe and a varying 5-40% used by WmiPrvSe.exe.

                        I have a few thousand .dng files.

                        Once they are all indexed will the CPU usage drop?
                        Will this be an issue whenever I download new RAW files and convert them to DNG on Import?
                        • 9. Re: DNG codec installed - SearchFilterHost.exe goes into overdrive?
                          Mark McGillveray

                          I had the same problem with SearchFilterHost.exe going into overdrive after installing DNG codec. I installed it to both my PC and laptop. Worked fine for a couple of days and after a few changes things went wild with CPU load. I changed monitor configuration on my PC and my CPU idle load went up from 1-2% to 25-30% for at least 2 hrs until I got impatient. Even after rebooting. Did a google search and other people had the same problem with DNG codec and SearchFilterHoast. Uninstalled DNG codec and CPU idle back to normal. I updated a couple of memory card controller drivers on my Acer laptop and CPU idle load went up from 5-8% to 20 to 25% for at least an hr. Uninstalled DNG codec and load dropped. To bad but I am sure Adobe will figure it out.

                           

                          Thanks

                           

                          Mark

                          • 10. Re: DNG codec installed - SearchFilterHost.exe goes into overdrive?
                            CSATS_WebDev_PSU

                            First:  With many Users having mentioned  a desire for a proper OEM codec-- or, whatever so many individuals seemed to want-- the OS to see DNG (or other photographic digital media) meta data as well as to preview a DNG embedded (presumably) thumbnail, I find it mildly amusing to read such frustration from so many Users eagerly awaiting some response to this perceived need, have turned around to complain about it, so much as to remove it altogether (i.e. assuming the software was provided by the OEM [Adobe / Microsoft] at no additional cost, easily obtained and installed, and ultimately satisfied the desired requirements as to afford some shell-integrated decoder to enhance the capability of the OS filesystem GUI, such that both thumbnail and meta-data preview/ maintenance are clearly established and functional, as evidenced when meta became available to the system indexing Service [i.e. searchfilterhost, etc], all in an intuitive, clink-n-go manner).

                             

                             

                            Having read no User complaints-- whereby some special configuration of the OS file browser might have been required to achieve the previously desired functionality; no horror-stories of Users forced to endure several advanced system dialogues, for re-programming the OS filesystem indexing facility to recognize the DNG meta, I tend to question: if this was not it, what then did you expect?

                             

                             

                            Second: Considering the general disappointment in the inability to preview DNG (and PSD) in the OS file explorer (i.e. Windows Explorer... whatever it's named in Vista/ Win 7), I reflect upon the years of PSD as a major imaging format in use under Windows, predating even Win XP [right?]. I realize that the advent of the HQ Digital SLR (and, inversely, the demise of film) has spawned an increasing number of users subject to handling a RAW or DNG format, yet I'm still unnerved to read so many circumstantial complaints.

                             

                             

                            Is this a sign of the times? It seems to me that the public at large is capable of interfacing with highly advanced technolgoy-- and they are skilled, and work quite well in the environment of it-- yet something seems to be breaking-down at the level of expectation. For example, a decade ago we had much the same technology-- only about 10% of it-- 40GB instead of 4TB HDD storage, and 256MB instead of 2GB of RAM-- you get the idea. But we had XP, and Photoshop, and Mozilla, and experience-- perhaps with DOS-- or, whatever.

                             

                             

                            I don't wish to stir-up fiery dissent amongst the readers, but I imagine some misdirected replies which my text might incite. Do any other Readers / Users share my opinion? Do these complaints have merit? Are they warranted, or fickle? I didn't mean for this text to become so lengthy, but so it goes-- I wanted to do my best to open up a rhetorical discussion on the matter-- to see what others might have on their minds. I hope some 30-40-something'ss as well as some 18-30-something's might reply. What do you think? (dare I put ideas in your head, but...) Do I read as an asinine "old-dude", or what?

                            • 11. Re: DNG codec installed - SearchFilterHost.exe goes into overdrive?
                              ThomasAO

                              OK, after testing and wasting a lot of time I confirm that this *IS* an issue with the Adobe DNG codec. It even produces delays (100% usage of one kernel) when other RAW inage files like .PEF, .NEF, .TIF or the like get indexed.

                               

                              After uninstalling the Adobe DNG codec and installing the Fast Picture Viewer codec pack (http://www.fastpictureviewer.com/codecs/) the system indexes smooth and fast.

                               

                              Thomas

                              • 12. Re: DNG codec installed - SearchFilterHost.exe goes into overdrive?
                                Axel Rietschin Level 1

                                >Do any other Readers / Users share my opinion?

                                 

                                No, we don't. The Adobe codec is simply a small piece of bogous preliminary software and should be fixed (or retired altogether), as it does more harm than good.