Skip to main content
Inspiring
May 22, 2011
Released

P: Better Develop Module Performance

  • May 22, 2011
  • 45 replies
  • 1032 views

On my machine (DELL E6400) adjusting the exposure of an image in the Develop module is more difficult than it should be because of the time lag between moving the slider and the image update.

I suggest a different strategy for generating visual feedback that yields better immediate performance, possibly trading in slight inaccuracies at first, but within a scheme that resolves the latter as soon as possible. Please see the end of this FR for the actual suggestion; I'd like to motivate it first.

It appears that the fixed order in which image operations are applied in the LR pipeline causes some adjustments to result in worse interactivity than necessary. Adjusting the exposure with no other (not even default) image adjustment settings is quick.

With some other image adjustments in place, however -- in particular when using the "Details" panel -- adjusting exposure results in jerky image updates that make it hard to find the correct level accurately and quickly.

I'm assuming that the LR image pipeline mandates that exposure updates happen relatively early, so that sharpening etc. always has to be recomputed after an exposure update. This is why updating the exposure is quick when no other adjustments have to be performed but slow otherwise.

Just to make sure that I'm making the correct assumptions, here's how I arrived at my conclusions:

My initial issue was that updates to the image in the Develop modules seemed to be slow and jerky in full screen mode whereas they were quick and led to smooth updates when I used LR in window mode. It turned out that the deciding factor is the size of the image. Images in portrait orientation are naturally displayed smaller and are less affected by the performance problems. Even images in landscape orientation can show smooth updates in full screen mode, if one artificially decreases their size by making the left hand side panels as wide as possible.

So it seems to me that:
a) LR struggles to deliver a decent image update frequency in the Develop module when the image is above a certain size (at least on my hardware).
b) This performance issue is a problem not only for computation intensive operations, like lens correction, but for simple ones like "exposure" because apparently potentially computation intensive operations, e.g., sharpening/noise reduction, come after exposure in the pipeline and have to be redone after each exposure update.
c) This is a big problem since I'd like to be able to apply some default sharpening on import (or even lens correction for some lenses) and not delay such settings after I have done other image adjustments in the Develop module.

It is clear to me that the user should not be forced to perform edits in a certain order (in addition to the aforementioned problems there is also a common advice to put off spot removals or lens corrections till the end) in order to address LR performance issues.

Here's the actual suggestion:

Could LR not cache all previous adjustments and apply the current image adjustment (e.g., exposure) as the last update in a relative manner?

I realise that this goes against the fixed ordering of the pipeline, but the latter is the problem causing the performance issues. When image operations are commutative they should be applied in the order which provides the best performance (with the use of caching, of course).

I also realise that some image operations (e.g., sharpening and exposure) only seem commutative but may not be completely commutative. It may matter (slightly) whether sharpening or exposure adjustments is performed first. Nevertheless, for the initial visual feedback, it should suffice in most cases to perform the current adjustment as the last and thus be able to capitalise on prior image caching.

Once the user stopped doing the adjustment, i.e., once there is no need to provide immediate visual feedback anymore, LR could recompute the current image using the standard image pipeline ordering. This may in some cases cause a subsequent, subtle change to the image after a short while, but I strongly believe I would prefer that if it meant that my current adjustments would just be a small delta to previous adjustments causing smooth updates rather than causing (almost?) the whole pipeline to be re-triggered.

Note that the proposed scheme would address the concerns regarding inaccurate image renderings in the Develop module. Noise reduction could always be performed, at all magnification levels, if it only impeded the speed of the final rendering -- after direct interactivity is no longer needed -- but would not impact on the interactivity of image adjustments that become before noise reduction in the image pipeline.

The proposed approach may even mean that using the adjustment brush on images with a high number of edits (including a multitude of previous brush strokes) may become more interactive. Currently, the lag between moving the mouse cursor and seeing the effect of the brush, becomes larger the more edits an image has. This may just point to caching potential regarding brushes (I hope not all strokes are always redrawn), but may also be related to the pipeline issue.

45 replies

Sean H [Seattle branch]
Known Participant
October 9, 2012
Along the same lines, Dan, is it possible to speed up the initial view in the Development Module? In the Library module, I can step through 1:1 prerendered images quite fast, yet when you move to the Dev module, there's a severe reload/rerender penalty. (3-5 seconds on my 6-core 3.33 xeon, SSD, 24GB ram). Extrapolate that delay over tens of thousands of images per year and you can see how this very point is the bottleneck in my image processing workflow. Is there a reason the 1:1 isn't pulled up for the initial view in the Development module prior to any slider adjustments? Why aren't the sliders immediately available?
[ ◉"]
Known Participant
January 18, 2012
Thanks! And I shall try!
Participating Frequently
January 17, 2012
I'll do what I can. In the meantime, encourage those of like minds to cast their votes to push this topic higher on the leaderboard. 🐵
Known Participant
January 17, 2012
Thanks for your reply Dan, the focus on new stuff is understandable but of course it's rather disappointing that LR4 is likely to end up slower overall rather than faster... is there any chance you could make a case internally for devoting significant attention to performance optimizing the LR4.1/4.2 releases?
Participating Frequently
January 17, 2012
Unfortunately, no. This release was eaten by a pack of hungry features. I think there were a couple of performance tweaks put into 4.0 that weren't also put into 3.x to tune things up, but nothing that'd be easy to call out.

Also, the 2012 process version still has some kinks to work out and overall will probably be a little more CPU hungry in order to do its magic on photos.
Known Participant
January 17, 2012
Any news for us regarding performance optimizing the Develop and/or Library modules, Dan? 🙂
Known Participant
January 17, 2012
+1 for (perceived) performance optimizing the Develop module
Inspiring
May 26, 2011
Yes, at least there should be an option not to have it on the image.
areohbee
Legend
May 23, 2011
I tend to agree that colors might be a bit distracting. Whatever the indicator is, I hope it's not put on the image itself.
Inspiring
May 23, 2011
I guess the indicator could also be a progress bar. It would have a more positive connotation (things are in progress) compared to a signal going through colour states (which has more a touch of a warning).

Whatever the indicator might take, I think it should be visually insignificant. It should provide information for those who want to check, but shouldn't distract for those who are focusing on the image. I therefore think that colours should probably be avoided; I like that the LR UI provides very little distractions and any colours are very subdued.

AFAIC, the indicator part is optional, i.e., I don't think it is essential and if it is provided, it should be possible to turn off, just like the "Image Loading..." messages. It has more value than the "Image Loading..." message so ideally it would be possible to choose between "off" and "visually insignificant" (e.g., a very thin progress bar), but on the whole I wouldn't terribly mind if it weren't provided at all.

I work on a laptop so often the harddisk LED is an ever present "work in progress" indicator. 🙂