1 2 3 4 5 6 Previous Next 200 Replies Latest reply on Aug 24, 2010 2:28 PM by areohbee Go to original post
      • 120. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
        dorin_nicolaescu Level 5

        Looking at the values reported for my Digital-Rebel XSi and kit lens, it is clear these values are very approximate, where during an indoor photoshoot I only have 1.45m and 3.49m reported for subject distance despite being various distances from my subjects.

        Eric Chan once wrote me about this in a private email (when we were debugging some lens correction issues in ACR 6):

        (Just FYI: Nikon cameras record two types of focus distance & position info. First, there is an indication of the general lens position, which is pretty coarse. There is a particular set of bits set to zero if it's infinity focus. Then there is another value that records the estimated focus distance. This is somewhat arbitrary in the case of infinity focus. exiftool is aware of both of these, but will still report a "meter" value for the focus distance, even if you have the lens at infinity focus.)

        That might be the case for Canon cameras too.

        • 121. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
          TK2142 Level 1

          JayS In CT wrote:

           

           

          There is a thread about the fuzzy image http://forums.adobe.com/thread/659107?tstart=30

           

           

          Thanks Jay, I was aware of that thread but (as always) am not sure if the team needs feedback as to whether an issue persists in LR3.2RC.

           

          @Dorin: Do you work for Adobe or did you just help debugging lens correction issues in ACR 6 voluntarily?

          • 122. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
            areohbee Level 6

            TK2142 wrote:

             

            Rob, are we using the same software?

             

            Nope.

             

            Back when I used to write embedded systems which included no 3rd party code of any kind, if the firmware behaved differently on two units then it was a hardware problem (or so the firmware people said - the hardware people still insisted it was a firmware problem...)

             

            But in modern PC systems, no two people are running the same software.

             

             

            Anyway, it sounds like you have a different problem than I did. Given what I think I know, I would think that the time to load an already cached image should be independent of the number of edits. It sounds like your software thinks it needs to re-render for some reason. Mine always displays sharp image after 2-3 seconds if its cached. That's all I know, I think, and I'm not even sure about that...

             

            Rob

            • 123. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
              dorin_nicolaescu Level 5

              @Dorin: Do you work for Adobe or did you just help debugging lens correction issues in ACR 6 voluntarily?

              No, I just reported some issues in the ACR forum and Eric asked me for sample files.

              • 124. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                areohbee Level 6

                Self censored - this post previously showed a total lack of good judgement.

                • 125. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                  TK2142 Level 1

                  dorin_nicolaescu wrote:

                   

                  No, I just reported some issues in the ACR forum and Eric asked me for sample files.

                  That's what I thought. I was just curious.

                   

                  The forum wouldn't be the same without your input.

                  • 126. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                    bob frost Level 3
                    function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}

                    function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}

                     

                     

                     

                    Now:

                     

                    Cached images take about 3 seconds to display in develop mode (accompanied by the "Loading" indicator) - and no new cache entry is written.

                     

                    Uncached images take about 10 seconds - only one new cache entry written.

                     

                     

                     

                     

                     

                     

                     

                     

                     

                     

                     

                     

                    Rob

                     

                    I'm surprised its taking so long to display your images. I get more or less instant display if the file is cached in the ACR cache (it does flash up 'loading', but its loaded before that goes), while if it is not in the cache it takes about a second. That is for nefs. Big PSDs take a second or two longer to render. That is with an 8800GT card.

                     

                    Bob Frost

                    • 127. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                      John_R_Smith

                      Bob

                       

                      What size are your NEFs? (in terms of megapixels)

                       

                      John

                      • 128. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                        thokra2

                        Unfortunately the annoying bug that has been discussed in http://forums.adobe.com/message/2914148 hasn't been solved in 3.2RC.

                        But if you follow the thread mentioned above you can see that it seems to be unclear what causes the crashes. 

                        The German support however has given up to find out what's going wrong.

                        • 129. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                          HaraldOnline

                          In general I'm so pleased with 3.2 RC (64 Bit on Windows 7 Ultimate) that I use it for my production work. One issue very annoying for me hasn't been resolved yet: Like many I'm using keywords to organize my photos. Normally I work on a collection of photos with a given keyword like "event xyz" (so I filter my photos by this keyword). When I edit an image in Photoshop CS5 (64 Bit), save it and return to Lightroom the edited photo isn't shown (in Lightroom 2.x it was).

                          Two "workarounds": Exit Lightroom, Reopen it, Photo is there! Alternatively, deactivate Filter, locate edited image, remove keyword from image, add keyword to image ...

                          Please, Adobe, get this fixed for LR 3.2 Final!

                          • 130. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                            CanonRAW_Shooter Level 1

                            You are correct. Looks like they took it out. It was in the Beta and in 3.0. However, the values were bogus most of the time. Infinity was displayed as some redicilous number for example.

                             

                            BoKo

                            • 131. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                              CanonRAW_Shooter Level 1

                              Actaully the double cache file bug took me the longest time to figure out. On my system that is. LR 3.0 not only created a cache file when switching into Develop module the first time. After any type of adjustment, switching back to Libary created a second cache file.

                              That said, I am somewhat sure that LR3 waisted a good amount of time to figure out which cache file (of the two) is actually the correct one.

                               

                              BoKo

                              • 132. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                bob frost Level 3
                                function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}

                                John_R_Smith wrote:

                                 

                                Bob

                                 

                                What size are your NEFs? (in terms of megapixels)

                                 

                                John

                                 

                                12 MP

                                 

                                bob F

                                • 133. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                  john Nall

                                  Just downloaded (uploaded?) 3.2.  I'm using a 24" iMac, 4 gig ram, etc.  I tried just one 3.0 function that didn't work correctly for me: the brush.  Before, it took seconds to render adjustments I was trying to make.  NOW, with 3.2, the brush doesn't work at all.  I don't even get the funny gunsight cursor, just the normal one.  I've rebooted the program, and the machine, with no effect.  Hmmmm.

                                  • 134. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                    John Blair Level 3

                                    Hi John,

                                     

                                    Are you sure you launched LR 3.2RC?  On the Mac, it doesn't "upgrade" LR, it creates a new application.  If you are launching LR from the dock, you should instead, find LR 3.2RC in the Applications folder and launch it directly.

                                     

                                    John

                                    John G. Blair Studio

                                    Occidental, CA

                                    • 135. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                      john Nall Level 1

                                      Yes thanks John:  I launched 3.2 from the applications folder.  I think I now have three LR's in my applications folder:  2.7, 3.0 and 3.2.  I wonder where I put LR1?

                                      • 136. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                        John Blair Level 3

                                        Next things to try:

                                         

                                        -Set up a new test catalog using copies of some images and see if you still have problems.

                                         

                                        -If you do, set up a new user account on your computer (I call mine "Test") and try it.

                                         

                                        -Rename your LR 3.2RC and download a new copy from Adobe.  Rinse and repeat tests 1 and 2 above and see if any improvement.

                                         

                                        John

                                        John G. Blair Studio

                                        Occidental, CA

                                        • 137. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                          john Nall Level 1

                                          I found a better fix:  be sure a brush is selected (e.g. A, B, or erase)!  So now that I have a brush, I find that it's working much better than 3.0.  Score 1 for the update.

                                          • 138. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                            TK2142 Level 1

                                            CanonRAW_Shooter wrote:

                                             

                                            Actaully the double cache file bug took me the longest time to figure out. On my system that is. LR 3.0 not only created a cache file when switching into Develop module the first time. After any type of adjustment, switching back to Libary created a second cache file.


                                            I don't see that with LR3.2RC. Does the caching work for you now? Did you do anything in particular to make it work? Do you see "Loading..." delays that depend on the number of edits done to an image?

                                             

                                            The .dat cache files LR3.2RC creates on my system are always of the size 2,536KB. That doesn't seem to be enough to avoid recomputation of edits. My files are only 6MP files but still should require more space than the ACR cache .dat files require, if any considerable recomputation time is going to be saved.

                                             

                                            What is the file size of .dat files in the ACR cache for others?

                                            • 139. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                              areohbee Level 6

                                              About 5MB per 12MP - same as you. And, now that you mention it, that does seem too scant for a full-size image. Hmmm...

                                              • 140. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                                TK2142 Level 1

                                                If I switch between an image and its virtual copy the "Loading..." delay is very short compared to switching between different images.

                                                 

                                                Should I be seeing "Loading..." delays that depend on the number of edits done to an image if the image has been cached in the ACR cache?

                                                 

                                                P.S.: I thought I found a set of images for which the caching worked for a pair of them but I found out that the pair was an original and its virtual copy.

                                                • 141. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                                  areohbee Level 6

                                                  Hey Bob,

                                                   

                                                  bob frost wrote:

                                                   

                                                  I'm surprised its taking so long to display your images. I get more or less instant display if the file is cached in the ACR cache (it does flash up 'loading', but its loaded before that goes), while if it is not in the cache it takes about a second. That is for nefs.

                                                   

                                                  If its not in the ACR cache, it has to be re-rendered from scratch for the Develop mode - I think, unless the image you're seeing has been borrowed from the Library previews (which sounds like a good idea now that I think about it, but that's certainly not how it is working for me). Its hard to imagine a from-scratch raw rendering being accomplished in only a second. On most machines it takes at least a few if not several seconds, depending on size and edits applied.

                                                   

                                                  Regarding already cached display times - how long does it say "Loading"? I mean, I get "something" displayed right away, its just not a final fully loaded fully rendered one until the "Loading" indicator is extinquished.

                                                   

                                                  Anybody else?

                                                   

                                                  PS - I just re-tested: Develop mode photo switching time does depend on screen size - If itty-bitty its less than a second (pre-cached). At 1920x1200 its a good 2-3 seconds. The develop panels presence doesn't seem to make a noticeable difference.

                                                   

                                                  Rob

                                                  • 142. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                                    areohbee Level 6

                                                    I have not been able to reproduce your symptoms, although switching delays are not consistent for me (usually 2-3 seconds, but sometimes 4-5 develop-mode pre-cached) - can you make a video of it? (DT said that videos really help sometimes).

                                                    • 143. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                                      Lee Jay-ZyZk56 Level 4

                                                      JayS In CT wrote:


                                                      I am still experiencing a signficant difference in export times between LR 2.7 and LR 3.x.  Timings are consistently double for the exact same images, exported exactly the same way, to exactly the same location.  I have attempted to match all settings as much as possible (given 2003 vs. 2010 process model).

                                                       

                                                      The new sharpening and NR are the likely cause.  Better = more CPU time.

                                                      • 144. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                                        imajez Level 1

                                                        JayS In CT wrote:

                                                        Imajez,

                                                         

                                                        Are you on 10.6.4 or 10.6.3?  I rolled back to 10.6.3 pretty quickly after 10.6.4, and have been avoiding the update since because I thought it added even more headaches to LR 3.  When I get a chance I'll copy the boot drive to an external and try applying it again there on the 3.2RC, but again, I was very underwhelmed with 10.6.4.  I'm not sure if others are running the latest Snow Leopard without issue.

                                                         

                                                        Jay S.

                                                        Laptop still on 10.6.3. Desktop was upgraded to 10.6.4 and immediately returned to 10.6.3 as 10.6.4 was so awful. But SLis generally underwhelming.

                                                        • 145. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                                          CanonRAW_Shooter Level 1

                                                          TK2142 wrote:

                                                           

                                                          CanonRAW_Shooter wrote:

                                                           

                                                          Actaully the double cache file bug took me the longest time to figure out. On my system that is. LR 3.0 not only created a cache file when switching into Develop module the first time. After any type of adjustment, switching back to Libary created a second cache file.


                                                          I don't see that with LR3.2RC. Does the caching work for you now? Did you do anything in particular to make it work? Do you see "Loading..." delays that depend on the number of edits done to an image?

                                                           

                                                          The .dat cache files LR3.2RC creates on my system are always of the size 2,536KB. That doesn't seem to be enough to avoid recomputation of edits. My files are only 6MP files but still should require more space than the ACR cache .dat files require, if any considerable recomputation time is going to be saved.

                                                           

                                                          What is the file size of .dat files in the ACR cache for others?

                                                          Please note: My statement refers to LR 3.0 not LR 3.2RC

                                                           

                                                          Cache behaves now as it should. Also, in my software development experience a single cache file represents the last iteration of whatever is supposed to be cached. Creating or keeping cached history in a single file ... I don't consider that a good practice.

                                                          Virtual copies seems to be rerendered and using the same cache file as the original.

                                                           

                                                          My Cache files are 8.8MB based on 15MB RAW - this makes sense to me. The cache does not represent a copy of the RAW file. I think I would store a pixel copy based on the algorithm used.

                                                           

                                                          I cannot figure out what is causing the time differences. I see them too. The only thing I can think of that additional data must be retrieved from the database files causing additional delay.

                                                           

                                                          BoKo

                                                          • 146. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                                            CanonRAW_Shooter Level 1

                                                            TK2142 wrote:

                                                             

                                                            ....

                                                             

                                                            The only issue that might have gone worse is the jerkiness of scrolling through the grid mode with the scroll bar. ...

                                                             

                                                             

                                                            I see the same effect. The most puzzeling thing I see is this: Open picture in Library and pick 3:1 magnification. Once rendered grab the picture and drag it around. On my PC this is pretty smooth. If I do the same in the Develop module the picture jerks all over the place.

                                                             

                                                            Now, I am not a Photoshop expert, I really started using this when CS4 came out and had the same jerking around problem in magnified views. Until some helpful soul pointed out to turn on OpenGL Drawing. Lightroom does not have that. The $60 million question here is: Why not?

                                                             

                                                            Anybody?

                                                             

                                                            BoKo

                                                            • 147. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                                              JayS In CT Level 1

                                                              Lee Jay wrote:

                                                               

                                                              JayS In CT wrote:


                                                              I am still experiencing a signficant difference in export times between LR 2.7 and LR 3.x.  Timings are consistently double for the exact same images, exported exactly the same way, to exactly the same location.  I have attempted to match all settings as much as possible (given 2003 vs. 2010 process model).

                                                               

                                                              The new sharpening and NR are the likely cause.  Better = more CPU time.

                                                               

                                                              Lee Jay,

                                                               

                                                              Not double though (at least according to Adobe)...  As I said in the post, it isn't as much of the extra items in 2010.. The bigger impact came from the Lens Correction being on or off.

                                                               

                                                              Jay S.

                                                              • 148. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                                                bob frost Level 3
                                                                function(){return A.apply(null,[this].concat($A(arguments)))}

                                                                 

                                                                 

                                                                 

                                                                 

                                                                If its not in the ACR cache, it has to be re-rendered from scratch for the Develop mode - I think, unless the image you're seeing has been borrowed from the Library previews (which sounds like a good idea now that I think about it, but that's certainly not how it is working for me). Its hard to imagine a from-scratch raw rendering being accomplished in only a second. On most machines it takes at least a few if not several seconds, depending on size and edits applied.

                                                                 

                                                                Regarding already cached display times - how long does it say "Loading"? I mean, I get "something" displayed right away, its just not a final fully loaded fully rendered one until the "Loading" indicator is extinquished.

                                                                 

                                                                Anybody else?

                                                                 

                                                                PS - I just re-tested: Develop mode photo switching time does depend on screen size - If itty-bitty its less than a second (pre-cached). At 1920x1200 its a good 2-3 seconds. The develop panels presence doesn't seem to make a noticeable difference.

                                                                 

                                                                Rob


                                                                It's a fairly nippy computer - 7.5 on Win performance. Using twin 1600x1200 21" Eizos and a GTX 460 card (slightly faster than my old 8800GT).

                                                                 

                                                                bob F.

                                                                • 149. +1 where is the AVCHD support ?
                                                                  Maiaibing Level 1

                                                                  Come on Adobe!

                                                                  • 150. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                                                    JayS In CT Level 1

                                                                    areohbee wrote:

                                                                     

                                                                    Hey Bob,

                                                                     

                                                                    bob frost wrote:

                                                                     

                                                                    I'm surprised its taking so long to display your images. I get more or less instant display if the file is cached in the ACR cache (it does flash up 'loading', but its loaded before that goes), while if it is not in the cache it takes about a second. That is for nefs.

                                                                     

                                                                    If its not in the ACR cache, it has to be re-rendered from scratch for the Develop mode - I think, unless the image you're seeing has been borrowed from the Library previews (which sounds like a good idea now that I think about it, but that's certainly not how it is working for me). Its hard to imagine a from-scratch raw rendering being accomplished in only a second. On most machines it takes at least a few if not several seconds, depending on size and edits applied.

                                                                     

                                                                    Regarding already cached display times - how long does it say "Loading"? I mean, I get "something" displayed right away, its just not a final fully loaded fully rendered one until the "Loading" indicator is extinquished.

                                                                     

                                                                    Anybody else?

                                                                     

                                                                    PS - I just re-tested: Develop mode photo switching time does depend on screen size - If itty-bitty its less than a second (pre-cached). At 1920x1200 its a good 2-3 seconds. The develop panels presence doesn't seem to make a noticeable difference.

                                                                     

                                                                    Rob

                                                                     

                                                                    Rob,

                                                                     

                                                                    So in the "I don't know category" ...  I loaded up a group of about 300 7D images last night, to which I had already applied a preset for sharpening.  I went to bed, but left the computer on ..  This morning, I can go from just about any image to any image in about 3 seconds.  I'm running LR 3.2 at 1920x1200 with the Left/Bottom panels in hide mode, picture size set to fit.  The reason I bring this up, is that if I do it shortly after loading the images the screen to screen time is longer.  I just don't know how long and in what priority LR loads the cache (60GB)..

                                                                     

                                                                    My definition is of "timing" is the time from it appearing on screen to the time it is fully rendered.  Another major difference.  When first loaded, the develop "panel" always seems to look like it is loading as well.  After letting it sit till this morning, the Develop panel is almost instantly ready now.

                                                                     

                                                                    Jay S.

                                                                    • 151. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                                                      areohbee Level 6

                                                                      Hi Jay,

                                                                       

                                                                      Hmm... I'm not sure what you meant by "Loaded Up" but if I get the gist of what you are saying, Lr3.2RC did some magic as it sat overnight that speeded things up in develop mode switching for you.

                                                                       

                                                                      I think I'm getting more confused instead of less confused .

                                                                       

                                                                      But it sounds like you are getting similar times as me for cached image switching.

                                                                       

                                                                      How long for non-cached?

                                                                       

                                                                      Rob

                                                                      • 152. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                                                        JayS In CT Level 1

                                                                        areohbee wrote:

                                                                         

                                                                        Hi Jay,

                                                                         

                                                                        Hmm... I'm not sure what you meant by "Loaded Up" but if I get the gist of what you are saying, Lr3.2RC did some magic as it sat overnight that speeded things up in develop mode switching for you.

                                                                         

                                                                        I think I'm getting more confused instead of less confused .

                                                                         

                                                                        But it sounds like you are getting similar times as me for cached image switching.

                                                                         

                                                                        How long for non-cached?

                                                                         

                                                                        Rob

                                                                         

                                                                        Rob,

                                                                         

                                                                        "Loaded up" - The act of taking one's photo's from a storage device, such as a memory card, and importing the images stored there in LR 

                                                                         

                                                                        As for magic, I don't know, but having it sit there made the image to image exchange faster.  I'm getting ready to "load up" another batch of images that I'll put in a separate catalog with cache set to some very low amount to get a timing (hate to give up the magic  )  but like you, I'm not sure I understand totally how the develop cache is loaded.  If you're in a particular catalog event (say a wedding or sporting event you shot the day before), and do nothing, does LR put as many images of that event into cache?  If I'm in Develop and I'm pointed at an image somewhere in the middle, does it load images before and after that one into cache?  Perhaps I should, but I don't know that I've ever seen that documented anywhere.

                                                                         

                                                                        Anyone?  (since cache seems to be a topic of interest right now)...

                                                                         

                                                                        Jay S.

                                                                        • 153. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                                                          Ian Lyons MVP & Adobe Community Professional

                                                                          JayS In CT wrote:

                                                                           

                                                                           

                                                                          Anyone?  (since cache seems to be a topic of interest right now)...

                                                                           

                                                                           

                                                                           

                                                                          So far as I know there is no prefetching from the Camera Raw cache, which is disk based. When folk see very quick load times it's usually because the image has been cached in memory (i.e. it had been viewed very recently in Develop module) or they're reading from a CR cache located on an SSD drive. Also, switching off the Loading bezel (View menu > View Options) will give the perception of faster loading time because you will see the UI and adjustment sliders become active before the image is truly fully rendered. Depending on the nature of any existing edits the Loading bezel may disappear fairly soon after the sliders become active, but on others it can take many seconds more. It's obvious that Lr is still processing the file in the background when Loading bezel is visible, but switching it off means you've no idea whether file is fully rendered or not. Often this is the reason that folk see slider lag.

                                                                           

                                                                          Note that when the initial view in Develop module is blurry it is because the Library preview is stale (not up to date) or missing. For the avoidance of doubt, the preview process in Develop module is - first load Library preview (only visible for a second or so), next the CR cache preview then the fully rendered view.

                                                                          • 154. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                                                            JayS In CT Level 1

                                                                            Ian Lyons wrote:

                                                                             

                                                                            JayS In CT wrote:

                                                                             

                                                                             

                                                                            Anyone?  (since cache seems to be a topic of interest right now)...

                                                                             

                                                                             

                                                                             

                                                                            So far as I know there is no prefetching from the Camera Raw cache, which is disk based. When folk see very quick load times it's usually because the image has been cached in memory (i.e. it had been viewed very recently in Develop module) or they're reading from a CR cache located on an SSD drive. Also, switching off the Loading bezel (View menu > View Options) will give the perception of faster loading time because you will see the UI and adjustment sliders become active before the image is truly fully rendered. Depending on the nature of any existing edits the Loading bezel may disappear fairly soon after the sliders become active, but on others it can take many seconds more. It's obvious that Lr is still processing the file in the background when Loading bezel is visible, but switching it off means you've no idea whether file is fully rendered or not. Often this is the reason that folk see slider lag.

                                                                             

                                                                            Note that when the initial view in Develop module is blurry it is because the Library preview is stale (not up to date) or missing. For the avoidance of doubt, the preview process in Develop module is - first load Library preview (only visible for a second or so), next the CR cache preview then the fully rendered view.

                                                                            Ian,

                                                                             

                                                                            Thanks.  I remember the turning off the bezel and my "subliminal fastness" comment.    I don't know that experience is telling that there isn't some pre-fetch involved, or it least seems that way.  Perhaps I'm thinking of images that have been already cached, but I'd have to go back and be more observant of what's happening.  I interested in your comments about the bezel taking "many seconds more".  In 2.7 there was never anything I could put into an edit that took several seconds to give me that slider panel.  If this is all related to the process 2010 and Lens correction, etc.  I don't know that ALL that overhead isn't going to start to become problematic for mere mortal folks that aren't throwing 8 cores and 16GB of memory at LR.

                                                                             

                                                                            I'm totally vested in LR, but even I have to recognize that other packages are doing similar (certainly not an exact match) of functions in LR and doing it far faster.  I'm not trying to start a debate, but perhaps Adobe still needs to look at those new processes and see if there isn't ways to shorten path lengths in code, reduce perhaps redundancy, etc.

                                                                             

                                                                            An example might be lens correction.  I submitted a problem where LR Image Exif got the combination of a 70-200 2.8 Canon with a 1.4 TC on it.  However, when I went to the lens correction module, it picked a completely wrong lens.  So the question is why do some form of calculation to try and determine a lens when the lens information is already present right in the EXIF.  I can see a back up path that says if for some reason EXIF is missing try and calculate a lens, but if it's there why not use it?

                                                                             

                                                                            Jay S.

                                                                            • 155. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                                                              Ian Lyons MVP & Adobe Community Professional

                                                                              JayS In CT wrote:

                                                                               

                                                                               

                                                                              I interested in your comments about the bezel taking "many seconds more".  In 2.7 there was never anything I could put into an edit that took several seconds to give me that slider panel.  If this is all related to the process 2010 and Lens correction, etc.


                                                                               

                                                                               

                                                                              The sliders were and still are available fairly soon after the image is selected in Develop module. However,the Loading bezel can hang around for a while after sliders have become active. For example,  Spot Removal, i.e. many spots and adjustment brushes, again many of them http://forums.adobe.com/thread/700551?tstart=0 will result in 5, 10 or even more seconds passing before the Loading bezel disappears.The same edits in Lr2.7 resulted in near enough the same delay, and yes I have checked, MANY times.

                                                                               

                                                                              Process 2010 and Lens Corrections are being blamed for lots of things, but in the vast majority of situations their impact amounts to no more than 1 or 2 seconds, sometimes closer to 0.

                                                                              An example might be lens correction.  I submitted a problem where LR Image Exif got the combination of a 70-200 2.8 Canon with a 1.4 TC on it.  However, when I went to the lens correction module, it picked a completely wrong lens.  So the question is why do some form of calculation to try and determine a lens when the lens information is already present right in the EXIF.  I can see a back up path that says if for some reason EXIF is missing try and calculate a lens, but if it's there why not use it?

                                                                               

                                                                               

                                                                               

                                                                              I can't comment on specifics, but the engineers are aware of some issues whereby the wrong lens is selected. To date, the majority of these are due to the camera telling "pork pies". While not necessarily about the lens, the info is sufficiently erroneous to cause Lr and CR to get things badly screwed up.

                                                                              • 156. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                                                                JayS In CT Level 1

                                                                                Ian Lyons wrote:

                                                                                 

                                                                                JayS In CT wrote:

                                                                                 

                                                                                 

                                                                                I interested in your comments about the bezel taking "many seconds more".  In 2.7 there was never anything I could put into an edit that took several seconds to give me that slider panel.  If this is all related to the process 2010 and Lens correction, etc.


                                                                                 

                                                                                 

                                                                                The sliders were and still are available fairly soon after the image is selected in Develop module. However,the Loading bezel can hang around for a while after sliders have become active. For example,  Spot Removal, i.e. many spots and adjustment brushes, again many of them http://forums.adobe.com/thread/700551?tstart=0 will result in 5, 10 or even more seconds passing before the Loading bezel disappears.The same edits in Lr2.7 resulted in near enough the same delay, and yes I have checked, MANY times.

                                                                                 

                                                                                Process 2010 and Lens Corrections are being blamed for lots of things, but in the vast majority of situations their impact amounts to no more than 1 or 2 seconds, sometimes closer to 0.

                                                                                An example might be lens correction.  I submitted a problem where LR Image Exif got the combination of a 70-200 2.8 Canon with a 1.4 TC on it.  However, when I went to the lens correction module, it picked a completely wrong lens.  So the question is why do some form of calculation to try and determine a lens when the lens information is already present right in the EXIF.  I can see a back up path that says if for some reason EXIF is missing try and calculate a lens, but if it's there why not use it?

                                                                                 

                                                                                 

                                                                                 

                                                                                I can't comment on specifics, but the engineers are aware of some issues whereby the wrong lens is selected. To date, the majority of these are due to the camera telling "pork pies". While not necessarily about the lens, the info is sufficiently erroneous to cause Lr and CR to get things badly screwed up.

                                                                                 

                                                                                Ian,

                                                                                 

                                                                                Just a couple of points to add to...  regarding 2010 Process and Lens Correction.  Both are adding a substantive amount to export (Lens correction more so) and I filed a report and the Adobe team is looking at that one.

                                                                                 

                                                                                Since you do have some insight into the lens correction issues (and I'm not familiar with "pork pies") I'll again just suggest that it would seem significantly more efficient to use the data it already has in EXIF read.  Why both doing any subjective figuring at all?

                                                                                 

                                                                                Thanks again.

                                                                                Jay S.

                                                                                • 157. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                                                                  Ian Lyons MVP & Adobe Community Professional

                                                                                  JayS In CT wrote:

                                                                                   

                                                                                   

                                                                                  Ian,

                                                                                   

                                                                                  Just a couple of points to add to...  regarding 2010 Process and Lens Correction.  Both are adding a substantive amount to export (Lens correction more so) and I filed a report and the Adobe team is looking at that one.

                                                                                   

                                                                                  Since you do have some insight into the lens correction issues (and I'm not familiar with "pork pies") I'll again just suggest that it would seem significantly more efficient to use the data it already has in EXIF read.  Why both doing any subjective figuring at all?

                                                                                   

                                                                                   

                                                                                   

                                                                                  My response was specifically to your questions on cache.

                                                                                   

                                                                                  "Pork Pies"  = lies

                                                                                   

                                                                                  The lens info by itself is meaningless, the lens correction system requires additional information and it is here that the problem lies. I can't comment further on what or why.

                                                                                  • 158. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                                                                    bob frost Level 3

                                                                                    JayS In CT wrote:

                                                                                     

                                                                                     

                                                                                     

                                                                                     

                                                                                    As for magic, I don't know, but having it sit there made the image to image exchange faster.  I'm getting ready to "load up" another batch of images that I'll put in a separate catalog with cache set to some very low amount to get a timing (hate to give up the magic  )  but like you, I'm not sure I understand totally how the develop cache is loaded.  If you're in a particular catalog event (say a wedding or sporting event you shot the day before), and do nothing, does LR put as many images of that event into cache?  If I'm in Develop and I'm pointed at an image somewhere in the middle, does it load images before and after that one into cache?  Perhaps I should, but I don't know that I've ever seen that documented anywhere.

                                                                                     

                                                                                    Anyone?  (since cache seems to be a topic of interest right now)...

                                                                                     

                                                                                    Jay S.

                                                                                    ....................................

                                                                                     

                                                                                    If you are using Windows, don't forget that Windows hates leaving empty RAM sitting idle, so Superfetch is always filling it up with things it thinks you might need, based on your previous usage.

                                                                                     

                                                                                    Bob Frost

                                                                                    • 159. Re: Lightroom 3.2 Release Candidate Available on Adobe Labs
                                                                                      TK2142 Level 1

                                                                                      Ian, thank you very much for shedding some light on the ACR cache issue.

                                                                                       

                                                                                       

                                                                                      Ian Lyons wrote:

                                                                                       


                                                                                      The same edits in Lr2.7 resulted in near enough the same delay, and yes I have checked, MANY times.

                                                                                       

                                                                                      Given this information and the fact (as I learned in the "LR3.2 Raw Cache Behavior" thread you referenced) that the ACR cache only contains a partially demosaiced version of the original, I no longer think that there is a problem with the ACR cache on my system. I believe it works as intended (I say "believe" because I see disk activity when switching images but haven't checked what part of the disk is accessed).

                                                                                       

                                                                                      I wonder, though, why LR doesn't keep cached versions of the final renderings. The time required to redo the partial demosaicing seems to pale in comparison to the time that is needed to perform edits to an image. If people don't edit their images, they'll see some speed up due to saving the partial demosaicing. However, if they edit, I wonder whether it is worth investing the hard drive space for a seemingly negligible speed up.

                                                                                       

                                                                                      When I develop images, I sometimes go back and forth between a few images between edits to one image. Wouldn't it be nice if for a low number of images the switching time could be minimised by not re-running all the edits for each switch?