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

[gerblo]

I tried turning off the Aero theme and went to a basic win 7 theme. I have found siginificant improvements in app launch time, switching between LRM modules and rendering thumb nails. I do have a relatively low spec graphics card so you mileage may vary. (Nvidia Geforce 6800 GTS w 256MB).

[Guest]

Iv'e read a whole bunch of this now,

holy crap people are having LR3  trouble with equiptment I drool for.

Check this out;

Duo cor 2 runs at what 1.8 maybe

2G ddr3

win xp 32

8800 GTX - thats one of 'em - not 2

36,000 images in catalogue

full framer - Canon EOS 1Ds Mark lll - all RAW plus JPG

ya the $'s in the camera

upgraded from 2.7 to 3, and I swear its same or faster all round.

I know, I know, the numbers not supporting that statement, but ...

the catalogue loads about the same as before,

no brush issues, menu lag or nothing.

and more toys.

And I just checked - Im running 2 multi tag (way too many actually) browser windows,

call of duty, trackmania, PS CS5 and L3 ... as we speak,

ok, ya ...I will have to shut off a game to reload 200 images back in from PS

or it'll slow down a bit ... and I mean a bit.

I'm also balancing a latt'e on the mousepad, listening to a usb mp3 and petting the cat.

Ok, ok the latte and the cats an exageration, but I am really one of the rare who is not finding performance issues between 2.7 and 3

with a year and a half old machine.

The secret ... if I knew I'd tell you,

Be sure to build a new catalogue after upgrading

I usually reboot and reload everything once a day

takes 5 min (maybe 7)

If it gets crunchy, shut off the browsers

Tweek the start up so its bone empty

turn off any leaky software

workflow at a steady pace, dont throw too much at once at it.

I'm a happy camper,

Nows wheres that coffee?

[csaager]

When I find some time I will install Lr on a virtual XP32 running on 1 core

/2GB. I really expect to run smoother than on the 4 core 64-bit host. I

suspect that more CPUs cause contention unless you provide extremely fast

media. Well, I'll see - if I only had time...

[mac_gabe]

I have very big libraries with very big files and a relatively old computer, so I wasn't that surprised to find LR3 slower than LR2. I still upgraded though after the trial because the develop controls are better. It was a price worth paying for me. I sell relatively few photos, so can afford to take time preparing them (although I'm pushing the limit here).

However I don't buy the argument that is always trotted out when users complain about slowness: it's your own fault for not having a high end computer or employing a full time IT professional. So we should buy a new $4000 computer so we can use a $100 upgrade? That is nuts plain and simple.

It's obvious from the global recession that the upgrade cycle has lengthened as people delay their purchases. My guess is that most photographers write off their IT spend against taxes anyway, so if sales drop by 50%, you may not be able to upgrade your computer as soon as you would like.

At the same time file sizes, even for amateur point and shoots, are getting much bigger, and will become more so, so this should have been factored into the rendering time equation for the product designers. The person who buys a $400 18 megapixel point and shoot is probably not the same person who buys a top of the range $7000 computer system.

IMHO, Adobe has a tendency to build bloated software, just like Microsoft. Personally, I never use Slideshow, Print or Web modules and I don't really need a Flickr uploader either. How about thinking about how to make apps leaner, not bigger? With modules that can be uninstalled for example.

Finally though, in terms of speed, it's not all bad. Rendering, previews and exports are slower, yes. But some other things seems to be dramatically faster: some text input, searching, the importing file window - a lot of the file system machinery.

[Jasonized-nfnCsn]

I have just updated from LR2.7 to LR3... and found several things that are rather anoying.  Speed issues: lots of them.  Underpowered system?  Highly unlikely!  I have an 8 core MacPro with a SCSI raid file system, 8 gigs of ram.  LR2.7 was much faster...  LR3 does okay for a bit, if a bit slow displaying pre-rendered images, then suddenly I get the magic beach ball..  when moving from one image to another, in the library module!  Never happened with previous LR's... so something must have changed.

Importing files seems especially slow.  I now (when importing only a couple of hundred images) have to take a break, because if I don't, after the first dozen or so images, I just see gray boxes instead of thumbnails.  So instead of being able to start browsing and rating my photos, I have to take a break while it imports and generates the 1:1 previews.  Yes, I know.  But LR2.7 did this magically fast without the slowdown...  time for a process change, I guess.

Let's see.. what else is mildly anoying...  Oh, import won't remember my working directories. :}  Lr2.7 did just fine, but that seems to have gone away, along with keeping previous keywords as the default.  Like I said, only mildly anoying.  yes, I know, select the "preset" for import to get the keywords back, but that doesn't remember directories, either.  And keeping the last preset used as the current one wouldn't be that hard, would it?  Why always convert back to "none"?

Good things? Sure, the new processing does reduce noise, I like that.  I like having the noise reduction in Lr, reduces the number of times I have to pop out to PS and back.  That's good.  I Haven't compared the two functions yet (Lr noise reduction vs. Noiseware Pro), as I've only needed light noise reduction lately.  So I will have to try that when I have some time.

Hmm...  Right now, that's about all that I've noticed with LR3, or rather, what I've been using.  So far, that is.

Ciao!

jason

[Lou_Gonza]

I agree with the idea that something may be up with the 64 bit version. See my detailed post about it here (including screen shots). Since experiencing this issue I have installed the 32bit version (which does not hijack my machine). 2.7 ran beautifully on this same PC.

[JayS_In_CT]

Lou Gonza wrote:

I agree with the idea that something may be up with the 64 bit version. See my detailed post about it here (including screen shots). Since experiencing this issue I have installed the 32bit version (which does not hijack my machine). 2.7 ran beautifully on this same PC.

Lou,

I looked at your other post see the same issue as you on the thumbnails during import.  It seems to take a lot longer than it used to for them to become clear.  It almost appears (to a somewhat uneducated eye) that the path that function had in 2.7 is now different in 3.0, meaning less cycles to those becoming clear, and more to the import.  That said, if I just click on one to highlight it (not make it full screen), it will clear up almost immediately.  Just seems those are not getting the focus they used to.

Jay S.

[Lou_Gonza]

Jay,

My thumbnails nerver clear up (even if I click on them). That's the problem. They always look fuzzy. So it's completely unusable for me. Very frustrating.

[Gavin Farrington]

Just to clarify and separate the issues:

I have the memory consumption issue, but don't have a laggy interface (until all my RAM is gone, then everything lags, haha.)  I agree with Dan that in general the interface is significantly more responsive in LR3.  Sliders don't stutter and hop while I move them the way they did in LR2.  While the 2010 process version is taking a little more time to render, in general I feel it's a worthwhile trade off for the significant increase in image quality.  The responsive UI takes a lot of sting out of the increased render times by making the software feel snappier.

So um... yeah.  From where I'm sitting it seems the "performance improvements" to the UI are real and not marketing wishful-thinking.  Hope this info is useful to someone in their pursuit of a blissful LR experience.

Good call on starting discrete threads, Dan.  This one has gotten to the point where there are so many different issues, it's collapsing under it's own weight.

[SteverinoJohnson]

http://www.nvidia.com/object/macosx-cuda-3.1-driver.html

I've been experiencing serious performance issues in LR3 and Mac OS 10.6.4 especially with brushes.

I downloaded the Nvidia update and immediately the brushes worked fine again.

[JayS_In_CT]

SteverinoJohnson wrote:

http://www.nvidia.com/object/macosx-cuda-3.1-driver.html

I've been experiencing serious performance issues in LR3 and Mac OS 10.6.4 especially with brushes.

I downloaded the Nvidia update and immediately the brushes worked fine again.

Good to hear.. nothing similar for ATI based on MBP though...   You may want to post this as a separate item so folks with similar config see it.  I'm not sure how many are still viewing this thread.

Jay S.

[areohbee]

A related comment: If the newest driver isn't working well on your system (with Lightroom), consider using successively older versions until you find one that works better (on your system, with Lightroom - and hope it works well enough with your other software...). I've had to use this technique in the past as temporary remedy to get other graphic intensive applications working.

Rob

[SteverinoJohnson]

Update:

After 20 minutes of bliss, the adjustment brushes went back to being glacially slow. But then I restarted Lightroom and they were fast again.

[areohbee]

My adjustment brushes are sometimes fast, sometimes slow - I have no idea what conditions bring it on or make it go away...

[JayS_In_CT]

All,

I've been able to get a dramatic improvement in load time on at least one side of my coin.  I updated my previews preference to 1024 and medium, then renamed the Previews LRData entry for LR 3.  I went back and rebuilt standard previews (now at 1024) for all the images in my LR3 catalog.

In Library mode, load time from image selection to final resolution first time through are still 3x what they are in 2.7.  In Develop module though, my image load times have dropped to that of 2.7..  Can't explain that one.

Also, does anyone know how LR 3 caches up the previews in Library mode.  It seems I can go three or four images ahead in the filmstrip with no "loading" messages, but after that, the load comes back into play.  Also, if I go to another part of a folder (in Library) work there for a few images and come back, I start getting the load messages again.  I've got my cache set at 60GB.

Jay S.

[Gavin Farrington]

Good tip, JayS.

Anyone using a really big screen though should go with the large previews.  On my 30" display, limiting the preview resolution to 1024 would trigger a larger render every time I click an image resulting in an overall slowdown.  The take home message is efficiency.  Render as much as you need, but no more.

[JayS_In_CT]

Digihotaru wrote:

Good tip, JayS.

Anyone using a really big screen though should go with the large previews.  On my 30" display, limiting the preview resolution to 1024 would trigger a larger render every time I click an image resulting in an overall slowdown.  The take home message is efficiency.  Render as much as you need, but no more.

Digihotaru,

So based on what you're saying should I pick a larger preview size?  1024 is the smallest and was thinking it would help.  I was using 1440.  I've got a 24" Dell Ultrasharp (love it)...  I'd love to get these load times down in Library mode..  I was figuring smaller previews shorter loads..

Jay S.

[Ian Lyons]

JayS In CT wrote:

So based on what you're saying should I pick a larger preview size?  1024 is the smallest and was thinking it would help.  I was using 1440.  I've got a 24" Dell Ultrasharp (love it)...  I'd love to get these load times down in Library mode..  I was figuring smaller previews shorter loads..

Your standard-sized preview setting should be as close as you can get to your actual monitor resolution. For those using a display with long side equal or greater than 1920 pixels that means you need to go with 2048 pixels. You choose as setting less than this and Lr will build the larger preview as soon as you view the image in the Library/Develop module content area.

BTw: the cache you mention earlier is for the Develop module only. It has zero benefit in Library module.

[areohbee]

I always assumed the preview dimension was height, not width - oops: I've been rendering 1440 for a 1920x1200 display. So, it sounds like the optimal value is one that is equal to or greater than largest monitor dimension - even one pixel shy of what's needed will cause a preview re-rendering - or do I still have it wrong?

I'm not sure why Adobe doesn't just pick a size for the user based on largest monitor dimension, but assuming there is a reason, they really need to make it clear to the user how to pick correctly.

Similar things could be said for the Render Previews field in the Import Dialog Box - I would guess the vast minority of Lightroom users really knows what they should set that to - I think I once knew but I couldn't say today...

Rob

[goodlux7]

My guess was that preview dimension was "long side"...so when you pick 1440,

you are picking either 1440 wide or 1440 high, depending on whichever was

longer for the image in question.

I think the reason that they don't pick monitor size is that the preview

size are catalog based settings...so there might be a case where a user

wants to create a catalog on their desktop, but they want to actually use

the catalog on their laptop.

In that particular case, the user would want to pick a preview size that is

smaller than the optimal size for their desktop...or vice versa...the user

might want to create a catalog on their laptop that they are later going to

use on their desktop; in this case the user would want to create larger

previews that they could use later. Perhaps there is also a use case if the

user has two monitors.

So I think that is Adobe's logic behind letting the user pick the preview

size in the first place. In theory it makes sense for more flexible usage of

Lightroom.

If this is the case though, they really should add this to the list of

fixes/changes, and find a way for LR to pick the best default settings, and

only allow the user to pick different settings when they acutally need to do

the 1% use case.

For 99% of the cases, the user just wants to have the most optimal settings

for the computer they are actually creating the catalog on.

Since Lightroom has the ability (internally) to "know" what the resolution

of the monitor is, and also it "knows" how much of the sceen space that the

Lightroom application actually takes up (with tabs, panels, etc)...the

Lightroom application is in a better position than the user to "know" what

settings the user actually needs to make optimal rendering happen. I surely

have no idea what that setting should be.

One thing that might be really helpful to all of us that are trying to

diagnose the problem is some actual data in the application that tells us

what size preview we are actually looking at. If I build a catalog with

previews at 1440, then later decide to rebuild previews at a larger

size....but the previews don't complete for whatever reason, my catalog will

have some of both. There is no way for me to actually tell when I'm looking

at an image what size/compression the preview is. This would be very helpful

feedback for the user that wants to tweak these settings and optimize their

catalog.

Is this what "optimize catalog" is supposed to do?

[areohbee]

I think catalog optimization is more like a database indexing thing - has nothing to do with previews.

As far as having the same catalog being used on different machines with different monitors, it seems like Lightroom could just detect the monitor difference and prompt the user and/or have a setting for whether user wants previews automatically created when larger monitor detected, or downscale when smaller monitor detected... - as you said, that way its right 99% of the time and leaves the user out of it, but still provides an escape valve for the few. As it stands, its wrong most of the time, since it defaults to 1440 which is smaller than the average Lightroom user's monitor.

Rob

[Jim Stamates]

Preview size is for image size, not program UI. In other words, if i am always using the side panels then the image size is much smaller than my full screen size.

Adjust accordingly. Flexibility for all our individual needs.

[areohbee]

Jim Stamates wrote:

Preview size is for image size, not program UI. In other words, if i am always using the side panels then the image size is much smaller than my full screen size.

You don't turn the side panels off sometimes for a bigger view? I would think having a little extra in case you turn off your side panels would not be so bad, but --->

Jim Stamates wrote:

Adjust accordingly. Flexibility for all our individual needs.

I object to the incorrect / non-optimal default, and lack of screen-size detection - not the ability to override it.

Rob

[Ian Lyons]

areohbee wrote:

I always assumed the preview dimension was height, not width - oops: I've been rendering 1440 for a 1920x1200 display. So, it sounds like the optimal value is one that is equal to or greater than largest monitor dimension - even one pixel shy of what's needed will cause a preview re-rendering - or do I still have it wrong?

With the big beast 27 inch or 30 inch displays (i.e. 2560 by 1600 pixel) you're looking at 2048 pixels minimum. There's also a good chance that once you render the 1:1 previews they'll be there for the duration.

I posted the following two FAQs a few years back. The basic principles remain unchanged, but some tweaks have been implented to help users with larger displays. At some point I'll update them, but for now they're good enough for most purposes

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/358026?tstart=0

http://forums.adobe.com/thread/358039?tstart=0

This screen shot the data base entry for two images shows the full preview pyramid for images from a Canon 7D

[Gavin Farrington]

FWIW I find LR's responsiveness improves dramatically for my workflow by pre-rendering 1:1 previews for the set of images I'm about to work on, so for people who work this way bothering with the other previews isn't much use anyway.  Personally I turn all preview rendering off during import because there's always a few blocks of images for which I want to tweak the white balance.  After getting through that step I select everything, render 1:1's, get coffee, then come back to work on a snappy system.