Experiencing performance related issues in Lightroom 3.x

[laurencec]

Hi

I just upgraded from lightroom 2.7 to lightroom 3. I then proceeded to import my old catalog. this all went fine but lightroom is so slow, the thumbnail previews take forever to load if I manage to have the patience to wait  for them.

is there a quick solution?? How can it be sped up?

thanks

Laurence

Message title was edited by: Brett N

[BSC_PHOTO]

After a quick test, that seems to fix all my problems. I will delve deeper into it later when I get back to editing but the default cache was actually 4GB. I set it to 50GB and the program took off.

[David Ayars]

Keep in mind that if you're using a 32-bit Windows OS including Windows 7, the OS can only use about 3 GB or maybe 3.5 GB of RAM, no matter how much you load onto the PC.  So if LR3 is slow on your system with 2 GB of RAM,and that wouldn't be a huge surprise especially if you have a large catalog and a 2+ year old PC, it may not be much better even if you upgrade your RAM to 8 GB, unless you also do a reformat and reinstall to a 64-bit Windows OS.  Doing that may cause other issues with other software.  For example, I also use Adobe Audition, and comments on the Adobe support forum for those who have tried Audition with 64-bit Win7 seem divided between those who run it fine and those who can't run it well at all. Your hardware drivers also may or may not support 64-bit Windows.A 64-bit OS is great with hardware and software that can run it, likely including LR3 and PS CS5, but YMMV with your other apps and your gear.

[Brian Noppe]

Hi!

My images are taking 10 seconds to load going from one image to the next  in Develop mode. I'm using LR3 with the existing reviews from Beta2,  which was much faster. Macbook Pro 2.16 GHz 2GB 667MHz, running OSX 5.8.

Should I delete the preview cache and Re-render, or is my computer just  too slow for LR3?

Cheers!

[Mikkasa]

I haven't loaded LR3 onto my macbook (same spec as yours) yet but if LR2 was anything to go by, and you're talking about 1:1 rendering in Develop, 10 seconds probably is a bit slow but not horrendously so.

I'm still not sure what aspect of the i5 iMac makes it so much quicker (quad-core/4Gb notwithstanding) but it is... consensus here seems to be that more RAM helps, but it's not the end of the story. Are you running it in 64-bit mode? I believe RAM needs to be a little beefier than 2gigs to make the most of 64bit, but it might help.

I do remember getting better macbook performance with LR on its own, ie quitting other stuff (esp browsers) that can be RAM-hungry.

[thewhitedog]

You can't run Lightroom 3 in 64 bit mode in OS X 10.5.8. It requires Snow Leopard - OS X 10.6.x. That said, I am using OS X 10.6.4 on a three year old 3GHz quad core Mac Pro with 8 GB of RAM. And, despite plenty of RAM and 64 bit operation, Lightroom 3 renders images and just generally runs more slowly than Lightroom 2. I guess I'll have to live with it, though, unless Adobe can find a way to optimize performance somehow, because the new Mac Pros are way out of my league price-wise.

On another note, at the risk of being labelled a Mac fanboy, one of the advantages of Snow Leopard (on a late model Intel Mac, of course) is that even when the OS is running in 32 bit mode (the default, because most apps are not yet 64 bit capable), you can run applications in 64 bit. I guess I'll have to try running 10.6 in 64 bit mode to see if that gives Lightroom a boost. And you don't have to buy a separate version of OS X to get the 64 version. It's something you can turn on and off at will - with a restart, of course.

At any rate, I'm glad to know I'm not the only one experiencing Lightroom 3 slowdowns, and that the problem does not appear to be platform specific.

[tbob22]

thewhitedog wrote:

You can't run Lightroom 3 in 64 bit mode in OS X 10.5.8. It requires Snow Leopard - OS X 10.6.x. That said, I am using OS X 10.6.4 on a three year old 3GHz quad core Mac Pro with 8 GB of RAM. And, despite plenty of RAM and 64 bit operation, Lightroom 3 renders images and just generally runs more slowly than Lightroom 2. I guess I'll have to live with it, though, unless Adobe can find a way to optimize performance somehow, because the new Mac Pros are way out of my league price-wise.

On another note, at the risk of being labelled a Mac fanboy, one of the advantages of Snow Leopard (on a late model Intel Mac, of course) is that even when the OS is running in 32 bit mode (the default, because most apps are not yet 64 bit capable), you can run applications in 64 bit. I guess I'll have to try running 10.6 in 64 bit mode to see if that gives Lightroom a boost. And you don't have to buy a separate version of OS X to get the 64 version. It's something you can turn on and off at will - with a restart, of course.

At any rate, I'm glad to know I'm not the only one experiencing Lightroom 3 slowdowns, and that the problem does not appear to be platform specific.

Just to point out, the upgrade and retail versions of Windows 7 come with both 32 and 64 bit install discs. But the rest of what you said seems accurate enough.

You might also want to try to upgrade your video drivers, make sure to have time machine running before you try just in case something goes wrong.

For nVidia: http://www.nvidia.com/object/geforce-macosx-19.5.8f03-driver.html (made for Mac Pro's and the GTX 285, but should work on any nVidia card according to reports)

For ATI/nVidia: http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1065 (made for the new iMacs, find more info in this thread: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=985610)

I am not sure which driver is faster, but you can try for yourself if you like.

Also, leaving the history pane open in develop seems to affect the speed on my friends Macbook Pro as well.

[Jasonized]

thewhitedog wrote:

You can't run Lightroom 3 in 64 bit mode in OS X 10.5.8. It requires Snow Leopard - OS X 10.6.x.

Err.. .uh.. What?  Why do you say that? According to everything I've read on the Adobe site, 10.5 is supported for 64 bit...  And I was running 2.7 as 64 bit as well.  :}

[Butch_M]

Jasonized wrote:

thewhitedog wrote:

You can't run Lightroom 3 in 64 bit mode in OS X 10.5.8. It requires Snow Leopard - OS X 10.6.x.

Err.. .uh.. What?  Why do you say that? According to everything I've read on the Adobe site, 10.5 is supported for 64 bit...  And I was running 2.7 as 64 bit as well.  :}

yep ... 10.5 runs LR in 64 bit mode just fine .....

[Mikkasa]

Should I delete the preview cache and Re-render, or is my computer just  too slow for LR3?

IME delete the preview cache and it will take a looong time to rebuild a decent sized catalog for no discernible improvement.

You could try optimising the catalog (in the file menu) - takes less time, no harm in trying.

[Brian Noppe]

Hi Mikkasa,

Thanks, I did optimise with no change.

Merci!

Brian

[Bob_Peters]

Brian Noppe wrote:

Hi!

My images are taking 10 seconds to load going from one image to the next  in Develop mode. I'm using LR3 with the existing reviews from Beta2,  which was much faster. Macbook Pro 2.16 GHz 2GB 667MHz, running OSX 5.8.

Should I delete the preview cache and Re-render, or is my computer just  too slow for LR3?

Cheers!

Switching from one (non-cached) Nikon D700 NEF image to another takes about 3 seconds on my MacPro:

  Model Identifier: MacPro1,1

  Processor Name: Dual-Core Intel Xeon

  Processor Speed: 2.66 GHz

  Number Of Processors: 2

  Total Number Of Cores: 4

  L2 Cache (per processor): 4 MB

  Memory: 5 GB

  Bus Speed: 1.33 GHz

Switching from one (non-cached) Nikon D300 NEF (same size images as the D700) image to another takes about 5 seconds on my MacBook Pro:

Model Identifier: MacBookPro5,1

Processor Name: Intel Core 2 Duo

Processor Speed: 2.4 GHz

Number Of Processors: 1

Total Number Of Cores: 2

L2 Cache: 3 MB

Memory: 2 GB

Bus Speed: 1.07 GHz

[Brian Noppe]

Thanks, Bob, for the benchmark.

Doesn't that seem slow to you? i.e. a folder of 1500 images would take 2 hours of rendering time alone at 5 seconds per image.

Cheers!

Brian

[Bob_Peters]

D70 NEF files render in about 1/2 the time as the D700.

[areohbee]

It takes my win7/64 box (modest build) about 5-10 seconds to render a virgin (14-bit D300) image, probably more like 15 seconds on the average - depending mostly on how much I've been brushing on it. Could be up to a half minute if I've gone crazy with the locals...

[arnelg]

I have also been experiencing slow processing with Lightroom 3.0 compared to Lightroom 2.7.

Here is a comparative table of observation in memory process usage:

Description          LR 2.7               LR 3.0                                        Remarks

Start-up

No processing

Browsing only     300-320  MB            300 -320 MB                         Basically the same

Develop Export

to Jpeg Quality

100                     450-570 MB            1.74 to 1.94 GB                     LR 3.0 uses double the memory compared to LR 2.7

Time to process

same 7 RAW files

of an EOS 40D          30.42 seconds     1 minute & 3.13 seconds      LR 3.0 almost takes double the time to process same files in the same machine

(using a digital stopwatch)

At Rest-Idle no

processing

being done               448-532 MB               1.786 - 1.85 GB                LR 3.0 uses more than double the memory even in idle or rest.

Both versions are in the same Mac, so I think  the configuration should not matter but I wrote  it anyway. In fact, my LR 2.7 has 4,182 images on the catalog that I tested and the LR 3.0 only has 691 images on its catalog.  I noticed LR 3's sluggishness when I was processing the images so I measured the processing time using a digital stopwatch in order to mathematically express the slow processing that I have observed. Both versions and catalogs were optimized and have the same preferences.

iMac 2.4 GHz Duo Core 4GB (667 MHz)

I hope an Adobe Engineer would read this. Your prompt response and solution is needed and greatly appreciated.

[areohbee]

Does sound like you've been bitten by the Lr3-sloooooooooow bug.

I'd like to point you to the online Adobe bug database which gives a complete list of all bugs identified so far so you can check status..., but there isn't one.

Rob

[Guest]

Thanks Rob. Useless as usual but your post count continues to climb!

[areohbee]

Photo_op8 wrote:

Thanks Rob. Useless as usual but your post count continues to climb!

And I thank you for keeping me honest. I go flying off the deep end - get all cocky and stuff if somebody doesn't chain me in the basement once in a while.

+1 post.

Rob

[F. McLion]

Actually, there is at https://bugs.adobe.com/

.. but the LR team obviously does not participate.

[areohbee]

F. McLion,

Well, I find that very interesting indeed - Sorta begs the question why the Lightroom Team doesn't participate. I guess you have to be an insider to get that kind of information.

Thanks for the education.

Rob

[DavePinMinn]

As far as the LR folks participating in this forum..........

If you're talking about the folks in St. Paul, the last time I spoke to several of them at a meeting, I ASKED how often they go into these forums.  The answer from the entire group was - NEVER.  When asked to elaborte (and I'm not kidding) I was told "Have you BEEN IN THERE.  The people in those forums are MEAN!".............

Oh.

Which I"m guessing is why on the THIRD major version of the tool we STILL don't have things like a

full filespec displaying on the loupe view

sequence number that increments on import and persists across sessions

and many of the OTHER things requested here.....

[Guest]

Maybe people are mean because of the lack of Adobe participation in this forum.

[MelissaJ.G.]

At least some of us are here. We read lots, say some. But, we don't

get into discussions on what's coming next (by policy), and we don't

try to defend the choices we made.

-melissa

Sent from my iPhone