Lightroom 3.3 Performance Feedback

[Tom Hogarty]

Please use this discussion topic for your feedback on Lightroom 3.3 RC and the final Lightroom 3.3 release when it becomes available.  The Lightroom team has tried very hard to extract useful feedback from the following discussion topic but due to the length and amount of chatter we need to start a new, more focused thread.  Please post specifics about your experience and be sure to include information about your hardware configuration.

Regards,

Tom Hogarty

Lightroom Product Manager

[Lee_Jay-ZyZk56]

Averil2 wrote:
It says performance feedback. That is what I was giving

Performance means speed and responsiveness in this context.

[camerahans]

for me working with keywords is really hopeless. Adding or deleting a keyword, assigning a keyword to one or more pics is slow and in the course of adding seems to get slower. I wonder if it has to do with requering and reindexing the whole keyword set after an action.

On a brand new MacPro, 16 Gb internal, 8 core, 8 Tb internal HD's. Catalogue, scratch disk on its own HD

[PhilBurness]

Tom,

It may be necessary (reading the trail below) to start another thread entitled - "Definition of a release candidate - discuss..."

I for one had terrible trouble running LR3.0 (the LR3.0RC was fine), so whatever changed between the LR3.0 and the LR3.0 final caused all measure of upset with my image processing on my machine.

I had -

     Video flickering - particularly when moving from library to develop with large tiff's (80MB) selected

     Very slow rendering

     Adjustment brush very slow to update, causing over runs while using it

     Random lock-ups and reboots

Since the upgrade to LR3.2 things are better, I get the occassional flicker, rendering is still slow, as is the adjustment brush but the occasional lock up's seem to have disappeared.

I'm running Windows 7 ultimate, 4GB Ram, AMD Athlon dual core and have lightroom loaded in 64 bit mode.

If you want to know anything about my hardware, drivers, set up or otherwise, just e-mail me. I have not updated to LR3.3RC yet as I believe it cannot run alongside LR3.2 on a windows machine.

Best Regards

Phil

[TK2142]

PhilBurness wrote:

I have not updated to LR3.3RC yet as I believe it cannot run alongside LR3.2 on a windows machine.

See Lee Jay's comment earlier in this thread.

I changed the LR3.2 folder name and installed LR3.3RC and now got two installations.

LR3.3RC is working great for me. At last images are rendered correctly in the Develop module without requiring a "zoom in" first. Downscaling might be improved overall and some operations feel a bit snappier. I haven't timed this as I don't want to go back to LR3.2 in order to avoid messing up things unecessarily. The good news: So far no reason at all to go back to LR3.2!

Thanks, Adobe for the good work!

P.S.: Scrolling in the grid view with the scroll bar is still stuttery. Sometimes the grid cannot keep up and pauses, resulting in a big jump, and overall the movement is not entirely smooth no matter how slow you move the scroll bar. Compare to the smooth scrolling when grabbing the grid with the mouse cursor "hand".

[Guest]

TK2142 wrote:

LR3.3RC is working great for me. At last images are rendered correctly in the Develop module without requiring a "zoom in" first. Downscaling might be improved overall and some operations feel a bit snappier. I haven't timed this as I don't want to go back to LR3.2 in order to avoid messing up things unecessarily. The good news: So far no reason at all to go back to LR3.2!

Thanks, Adobe for the good work!

P.S.: Scrolling in the grid view with the scroll bar is still stuttery. Sometimes the grid cannot keep up and pauses, resulting in a big jump, and overall the movement is not entirely smooth no matter how slow you move the scroll bar. Compare to the smooth scrolling when grabbing the grid with the mouse cursor "hand".

Pretty much the same experience here for me as well. 3.3RC is the best experience I've had since 2.7, although I miss how snappy that ran for me.

It slows down a bit for me when I use a brush, and the HD is still thrashing pretty good when I'm importing or exporting.

Here is what I'm running with. Let me know if you see anything I should change or adjust.

Lightroom version: 3.3 RC [704824]
Operating system: Microsoft Windows XP Professional Service Pack 3 (Build 2600)
Version: 5.1 [2600]
Application architecture: x86
System architecture: x86
Physical processor count: 4
Processor speed: 2.3 GHz
Built-in memory: 3326.1 MB
Real memory available to Lightroom: 716.8 MB
Real memory used by Lightroom: 478.5 MB (66.7%)
Virtual memory used by Lightroom: 484.6 MB
Memory cache size: 25.7 MB
System DPI setting: 96 DPI
Displays: 1) 1920x1200

Application folder: C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3.3 RC
Library Path: W:\Lightroom\2010 Events\2010 Events.lrcat
Settings Folder: C:\Documents and Settings\LydellPhoto\Application Data\Adobe\Lightroom

[Guest]

I've been using the same system since LR first came out and only experienced a significant performance drop with LR3.  My system in a Macbook Pro 2.33 dual core with 2g of ram with a cinema display attached running os 10.5.8.  I've been watching my activity monitor with LR3 & LR3.2 open and for a while it was using up all my available ram (1.5gb) and I had about 500mb in page outs. (The only apps open were activity monitor and LR3.2).   LR3.2 never dropped below 1.2gb of ram usage regardless of activity.  As a reference LR2.7 never went above 600mb of ram usage and normally operated at 300mb.

When I moved the location of my camera raw cache settings from the default location to an external hard drive (lacie d2 firewire 800), LR3.2 ram usage dropped to 480mb.  It increases to 740mb when I open an image in the develop module (if its my first time opening that image during the session otherwise 500mb).  The only time ram usage goes back up to 1.2gb is when I use the adjustment brush/spot removal tools or navigate to an image in dv module that has had an adjustment brush applied.  When I navigate to a previously viewed image the ram usage drops.  Prior to moving the location of the camera raw cache my ram usage never went below 1.2gb regardless of what I was doing or what module I was in.  At least now there is some movement.

Other issues: 

I was seeing color shifts when using the adjustment brush in LR3 & LR3.2 (not in LR2.7).  When I set the cinema display as the default display this issue stopped.

Sometimes in develop module when I hit the previous(sync) button the history will show the step but no actual changes will be applied to the active image.  It may be related to image still loading or having just loaded.  Sometimes I have jump back to the previous image and do it again.

Exporting 100 images to a jpg (resized down) has taken an hour in LR3.2

[JayS_In_CT]

Mark Byron wrote:

<snip>

Other issues: 

I was seeing color shifts when using the adjustment brush in LR3 & LR3.2 (not in LR2.7).  When I set the cinema display as the default display this issue stopped.

Sometimes in develop module when I hit the previous(sync) button the history will show the step but no actual changes will be applied to the active image.  It may be related to image still loading or having just loaded.  Sometimes I have jump back to the previous image and do it again.

Exporting 100 images to a jpg (resized down) has taken an hour in LR3.2

Tom,

I've likewise reported an issue with export timing on JPEGs through the formal process. Becky S. has picked that one up and said she was forwarding the information (timings) I has supplied.  It is a significant difference over 2.7 for the same 7D image.  I have tried it with both 2003 and 2010 models.

Jay S.

[Rancher53]

Wow I am really glad to have checked this performance issue with LR 3.3 as I was a tester in the jump from 2.0- to 3.0 I was real pleased with the speed,

though at the time it was not for me, as the pricing would of LR would of been 300 bucks now I am going to install the 3.2 since reading these post its allot more stable and its faster in reading these feedbacks. I do hope Adobe polishes up the software for release and does not discriminate from a PC or a Mac in useage. Yes some might ask why I posted, having utilized hundreds of programs in the past it is not uncommon for a new release to not work as well as an older release. Hope this is not how Adobe hopes to add a few new cameras in its raw engine. This ia a Proffesional software which should be treated as such. Thanks

[Gordon Cahill]

I'm using modest specs compared to many. Sony Vaio AW series laptop. Win 7 64 bit. Core 2 duo 2.53. 8GB ram. The catalogue and images are stored on an external esata drive and internal drives have been upgraded to 7200 RPM.

The only "slow" thing is the generation of 1:1 previews. Definitely slower than 2.x. Export is also slower but I dont tend to process out on an urgent basis. Grid mode is definately faster than 2.x. I have no issues with spot tool, gradients or brushes.No issues with keywording, collections or searching for images. In the develop module with 5D2 files it takes about 1.5 seconds till the sliders are available and 5-6 seconds until the image is fully rendered.

I have 170K images in my catalogue and often work on collections of 1500-2500 in one session. Have had no memory issues in ant of the 3.x versions including the RC. LR also runs well with CS5 open. Some of my plug ins are slow but that's not LR's fault.

Gordon

p.s. the only "bug" I get is that in develop module the image is not re-rendered and goes blurry after making a change, until/unless the mouse is over the image and then it happens.

[J453]

Lightroom 3.3 update now available.Details here:http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2010/12/lightroom-3-3-and-came ra-raw-6-3-now-available.html

[Agnus1]

Wow will you look at all the new lenses being supported! That is a nice addition as there was no Pentax support at all before. That makes me want to download the update right this minute. I am cautiously excited.

[GaryRowe-gcvt07]

Just upgraded to 3.3 from the RC on my laptop, and the first thing I did was to move a folder with its pictures onto a USB drive ... it CRAWLED ... 6-7 seconds per picture. This was maybe one picture a second with the 3.3 RC ... not a good start!

[ChBr02]

Gary,

Your post creates more questions than answers.

1) When you were getting one picture per second, on what device was the folder with pictures?

2) Was the USB drive a hard drive, and if so was it 5400RPM or 7200RPM?

3) If it is a USB flash drive, what is the exact model. USB Flash Drive performance can vary by a factor of 3, and in some cases as much as 8.

Please, also understand, that contrary to popular belief, a USB connection is very slow. If the drive you were getting 1 photo per second was an internal HD at 7200 or 10,000 RPM, I would expect a much slower speed with the USB. If you are using an external drive for Lr, may I suggest an eSATA connected drive rated at least 7200RPM.

Charlie

[thewhitedog]

Thanks Jeffery for the update notice. The list of bug fixes seems to include most of the problems reported on these forums (and then some). It remains to be seen if they are, indeed, fixed, but hope springs eternal. It will take a few days, at least, of testing to know for sure.

In the meantime, I've been downloading, applying and archiving the updates for Lightroom 3.3, Photoshop CS5 12.2, Camera RAW 6.3 and DNG Converter 6.3. I'm sure glad I have a fast Internet connection. 😉

[Rancher53]

--

Good Luck and Enjoy

tric3imagery.com

[Rancher53]

Thanks for the info, and feedback , I love these mass Beta test, which is

a great step for Adobe moving forward with stable products, it seem by

Gordons account it would not be a misstep and just start off with 3.3 as I

downloaded both last night. First my impressions is this will not need a

clean install like the upgrade from 3.0 Beta LR to the

released candidate 3.0 update, correct? You would just need to enter your

serial number

along with the normal updates.I sure wish I had a fast internet connection,

every download is painful as we have the slowest DSL

allowed, being I am out in the plains with 130 folks sharing a service which

spans 15 miles from one source. Progress. Sorry about the above mis-send

message.

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Charles Clinton Clark <

[joseluisnt69]

I have noticed that there is a diference in color rendering between Develop and Library modules (mainly the reds). I corrected a photo in Develop module and then when I go to Loupe the colors are somehow different (it is also happening in Print module).

Do any of you have noticed that?

Environment:

MacBook Pro 17", 2010

NEC MultiSync LCD2690WUXi²

[Lee_Jay-ZyZk56]

joseluisnt69 wrote:

I have noticed that there is a diference in color rendering between Develop and Library modules (mainly the reds). I corrected a photo in Develop module and then when I go to Loupe the colors are somehow different (it is also happening in Print module).

Do any of you have noticed that?

Environment:

MacBook Pro 17", 2010

NEC MultiSync LCD2690WUXi²

That's not unexpected.  The Develop module uses the raw data and the ProPhoto color space, the Library module runs on JPEGs in Adobe RGB.

[joseluisnt69]

I was going krazy re-installing, re-calibrating the display, etc.

Lee, it is AdobeRGB for the Library module or sRGB? I have some pretty intense reds that fit into AdobeRGB but are outside sRGB and those are the ones that came to my attention.

The external NEC is AdobeRGB, and it is quite noticeable. Of course it doesn't occur in the MacBook Pro Display itself (less than sRGB gamut).

Thanks for your promptly reply.

[Lee_Jay-ZyZk56]

joseluisnt69 wrote:

Lee, it is AdobeRGB for the Library module or sRGB?

I'm about 95% sure it's aRGB.

[joseluisnt69]

WOW!, I just compared the NEC MultiSync LCD2690WUXi² gamut to AdobeRGB (in ColorSync) and NEC is richer in the reds. That explains everything.

Thanks Lee.

[nebosphere]

This is counter to their statement and I think should be considered unacceptable performance, no? 

http://help.adobe.com/en_US/Lightroom/3.0/Using/WSB5EF6E7A-CA74-43a5-9137-37202D8EC28A.html

[nebosphere]

I just noticed this myself too.  I have a picture that has tons of red information (and very little else) and it turns out most if is outside the argb or srgb color spaces.  I was going insane trying to figure out why the loupe view shows it so much differently.  If the loupe and library views really use a different color space, that should really be documented somewhere!

I would also appreciate an out-of-gamut warning in the develop module.  I ended up with a photo I love in the develop view (deep, rich saturated reds - lovely), but can't stand in any other color space.  I can't imagine this picture would even print this way either.  sigh.  it will have to remain a phantom color, I guess. Science fiction.  if there had been a gamut warning, i never would have gotten this attached to it!

[Lee_Jay-ZyZk56]

nebosphere wrote:

I just noticed this myself too.  I have a picture that has tons of red information (and very little else) and it turns out most if is outside the argb or srgb color spaces.  I was going insane trying to figure out why the loupe view shows it so much differently.  If the loupe and library views really use a different color space, that should really be documented somewhere!

I would also appreciate an out-of-gamut warning in the develop module.  I ended up with a photo I love in the develop view (deep, rich saturated reds - lovely), but can't stand in any other color space.  I can't imagine this picture would even print this way either.  sigh.  it will have to remain a phantom color, I guess. Science fiction.  if there had been a gamut warning, i never would have gotten this attached to it!

If you can see it on your monitor, chances are you can print it since the monitor likely has a smaller gamut than many available print sources.  Of course, with LR currently lacking soft proofing, you might have some trouble editing it to get it to look like you want it after printing.

[Samoreen]

Hi,

Lee Jay wrote:

If you can see it on your monitor, chances are you can print it since the monitor likely has a smaller gamut than many available print sources.  Of course, with LR currently lacking soft proofing, you might have some trouble editing it to get it to look like you want it after printing.

I'm using this plugin : http://www.lightroom-plugins.com/ProofIndex.php

So far, I'm very satisified with it.

--

Patrick