If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Will a new computer help?
I have recently started editing digital files and it is very slow (RAW: 16
MP, 24 MB). (Slides were slow too, but now I end up with many more shots.) I have many hundreds of images to edit after a shoot. I use Canon software that came with the 1D Mk4 (ver. 3.8.1.0, 2010). It takes about 2 minutes to load 1000 images into the display when I click on the folder. This makes it impractical to go back and forth between different folders. To best evaluate images I display most of them full screen. It takes over 3 sec to load a single picture to full frame. That's about 1 hour just waiting, assuming I only want to look at each full frame once. Is my computer the slow part, the software, or what? And if hardware will help, should I worry more about processor speed or RAM? I also need another 2 TB of disk space and the same for backup, and I don't know if this computer will handle it, so I may need a new computer anyway. I have a Dell with Pentium 4 Processor, 2.8 GHz with 2 GB SDRAM, Win XP. -- Alan Justice http://home.earthlink.net/~wildlifepaparazzi/ |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Will a new computer help?
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 15:10:55 -0800, "Alan Justice"
wrote: I have recently started editing digital files and it is very slow (RAW: 16 MP, 24 MB). (Slides were slow too, but now I end up with many more shots.) I have many hundreds of images to edit after a shoot. I use Canon software that came with the 1D Mk4 (ver. 3.8.1.0, 2010). It takes about 2 minutes to load 1000 images into the display when I click on the folder. This makes it impractical to go back and forth between different folders. To best evaluate images I display most of them full screen. It takes over 3 sec to load a single picture to full frame. That's about 1 hour just waiting, assuming I only want to look at each full frame once. Is my computer the slow part, the software, or what? And if hardware will help, should I worry more about processor speed or RAM? I also need another 2 TB of disk space and the same for backup, and I don't know if this computer will handle it, so I may need a new computer anyway. I have a Dell with Pentium 4 Processor, 2.8 GHz with 2 GB SDRAM, Win XP. By modern standards your computer is V E R Y S L O W. I had a computer to your general specs about 10 years ago (except that it the faster DDR memory). I now have a Dell with a 2.9GHz -7 processor and 8Gb of DDR3 Ram. This is immeasurably faster than my old machine. Tasks which used to let me go and have lunch now happen in less than a second. You need a new computer. Regards, Eric Stevens |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Will a new computer help?
"Alan Justice" wrote in message m... I have recently started editing digital files and it is very slow (RAW: 16 MP, 24 MB). (Slides were slow too, but now I end up with many more shots.) I have many hundreds of images to edit after a shoot. I use Canon software that came with the 1D Mk4 (ver. 3.8.1.0, 2010). It takes about 2 minutes to load 1000 images into the display when I click on the folder. This makes it impractical to go back and forth between different folders. To best evaluate images I display most of them full screen. It takes over 3 sec to load a single picture to full frame. That's about 1 hour just waiting, assuming I only want to look at each full frame once. Is my computer the slow part, the software, or what? And if hardware will help, should I worry more about processor speed or RAM? I also need another 2 TB of disk space and the same for backup, and I don't know if this computer will handle it, so I may need a new computer anyway. I have a Dell with Pentium 4 Processor, 2.8 GHz with 2 GB SDRAM, Win XP. -- Alan Justice http://home.earthlink.net/~wildlifepaparazzi/ Generally, adding RAM improves speed. When the computer needs more RAM than it has, it uses the hard drive as virtual RAM. The hard drive is incredibly slower than actual RAM- relatively speaking. You could also bring up the Task Manager (CTRL+ALT+DEL) and see how many programs are running at the same time. If you have a bunch of background stuff running, that will slow down your computer. Along that line, here's a very risky possibility: turn off your anti-virus while editting. If you do this, I would physically disconnect the computer from the outside world. Anti-virus software looks at every file you open and compares the contents to a database of known problems. But, here's a really wild possible solution: take fewer photos by making sure that each photo will be good before you fire the shutter. Less time spent editting. If I had 100's of image after a shoot, it would have been a very long session. And a very long session ahead in the darkroom. -- Ken Hart |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Will a new computer help?
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 15:10:55 -0800, "Alan Justice"
wrote: : I have recently started editing digital files and it is very slow (RAW: 16 : MP, 24 MB). (Slides were slow too, but now I end up with many more shots.) : I have many hundreds of images to edit after a shoot. I use Canon software : that came with the 1D Mk4 (ver. 3.8.1.0, 2010). I assume you're talking about Digital Photo Professional. The current version is 3.11.4.10. You may want to get the latest "software updater" from the Canon site and install it. : It takes about 2 minutes to load 1000 images into the display when I click : on the folder. This makes it impractical to go back and forth between : different folders. I assume you're talking about folders in the computer and not folders on the CF card. Constantly referring to the card would slow you down considerably. I assume also that when you refer to the "display", you mean the "Edit Image Window". 1000 images is a pretty large number for DPP to handle that way, especially since your RAW files are pretty big. So don't try to bring them all up at the same time. One way to keep track of them more efficiently might be to create subfolders for different parts of the shoot. (You can create them from within DPP or in Windows Explorer.) : To best evaluate images I display most of them full screen. It takes over : 3 sec to load a single picture to full frame. That's about 1 hour just : waiting, assuming I only want to look at each full frame once. You won't notice it as much if you don't bring them into the Edit Image Window as full screen, but instead blow each one up as needed. (I think you may mean "100% view" instead of "full screen", but I think the effect is the same either way.) : Is my computer the slow part, the software, or what? And if hardware will : help, should I worry more about processor speed or RAM? RAM, I think, although 2GB should be enough if you're not running a lot of other software at the same time. A faster computer might help a little, but I really suspect that your problem is the time it takes DPP to establish the Edit Image Window, so try the suggestions above first. : I also need another 2 TB of disk space and the same for backup, and I don't : know if this computer will handle it, so I may need a new computer anyway. Depends on the hardware configuration and the availability of free slots in the case. Without seeing your machine, I can't advise you sensibly. If you do get a new (Windows) computer, it will be Windows 7, rather than XP. You may be tempted to get the 64-bit version, since that takes better advantage of the computer's CPU speed. But there's no 64-bit version of DPP, so it won't run any faster under the 64-bit OS than under the 32-bit version. Also, I've had some problems running DPP on one of my 64-bit computers. Without going into gory detail, I think it's unlikely that you'd encounter those problems, but AFAIK they never occur with the 32-bit OS. : I have a Dell with Pentium 4 Processor, 2.8 GHz with 2 GB SDRAM, Win XP. I guess that's pretty much what I use at home (an Optiplex GX-620), although I run Windows Server 2003 rather than XP. At work I have DPP installed on several computers of various speeds (I'm a computer system manager), but haven't noticed much of a performance difference among them. Bob |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Will a new computer help?
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 15:10:55 -0800, "Alan Justice"
wrote: I have recently started editing digital files and it is very slow (RAW: 16 MP, 24 MB). (Slides were slow too, but now I end up with many more shots.) I have many hundreds of images to edit after a shoot. I use Canon software that came with the 1D Mk4 (ver. 3.8.1.0, 2010). It takes about 2 minutes to load 1000 images into the display when I click on the folder. This makes it impractical to go back and forth between different folders. To best evaluate images I display most of them full screen. It takes over 3 sec to load a single picture to full frame. That's about 1 hour just waiting, assuming I only want to look at each full frame once. Is my computer the slow part, the software, or what? And if hardware will help, should I worry more about processor speed or RAM? I also need another 2 TB of disk space and the same for backup, and I don't know if this computer will handle it, so I may need a new computer anyway. I have a Dell with Pentium 4 Processor, 2.8 GHz with 2 GB SDRAM, Win XP. At the present time, your biggest problem is the software, and the way you use your (slow) machine. One of my computers is almost the exact same as yours, and in order to speed things up, I don't use "camera software" to review images, since it is very slow. I also either shoot in RAW + JPEG, or create JPEGs of my RAW files, and use them as "models". I keep the jpegs in one set of folders, and the raw in another. I also limit folders to about 300 or less RAW files since Windows XP gets bogged down by them.. To look through my jpeg photos, I use irfanview, and I also use that to create thumnails of all of my photos. I also use Centico Photo Album to keep track of things. (but I'm way behind!) With folders of jpegs and Irfanview, I can review full screen shots at 1 per second or faster. With another computer I usually use, I can review 10 per second. Once I determine what is a possible 'good' photo, I load its raw version (or DNG) into my edit software. (I also create Adobe Negatives) I have several cameras (Nikons Panasonics, Sonys and others) and several editing programs (Micrografx, Adobe CS, Elements, Nikonview, Sony, RawTheropy and lots of others.) With all of this 'confusion' I find it best to use Windows views of jpegs and irfanview to find things. OK... when you get a new computer, remember desktops are faster than laptops. I plan on getting an Intel i7 CPU machine. Also get a good graphics card since modern cards can support the CPU in processing graphics. Don't worry about ram, machines today come with oodles of it! Some have 12 G and I can't see a possible use for it! (at least for still photography) For backup drives, I use external drives rated for travel, and limited to 500G or 1T each, I feel this is more reliable. I keep everything on 2 or more external drives and on 2 or more internal different computers, plus DVDRs. I also have a DVDR set off site. Sometimes I have 5T plugged into one machine! As for XP, it can't even use the 2G ram you have so don't worry about that. (Use ctrl-alt-del to check on your ram use.) Your new machine should have Win 7 Pro. (Or get an Apple!) Compared to what you have now, a new machine is going to be lightning fast! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Will a new computer help?
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 20:00:32 -0500, Robert Coe wrote:
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 15:10:55 -0800, "Alan Justice" wrote: : I have recently started editing digital files and it is very slow (RAW: 16 : MP, 24 MB). (Slides were slow too, but now I end up with many more shots.) : I have many hundreds of images to edit after a shoot. I use Canon software : that came with the 1D Mk4 (ver. 3.8.1.0, 2010). I assume you're talking about Digital Photo Professional. The current version is 3.11.4.10. You may want to get the latest "software updater" from the Canon site and install it. : It takes about 2 minutes to load 1000 images into the display when I click : on the folder. This makes it impractical to go back and forth between : different folders. I assume you're talking about folders in the computer and not folders on the CF card. Constantly referring to the card would slow you down considerably. I assume also that when you refer to the "display", you mean the "Edit Image Window". 1000 images is a pretty large number for DPP to handle that way, especially since your RAW files are pretty big. So don't try to bring them all up at the same time. One way to keep track of them more efficiently might be to create subfolders for different parts of the shoot. (You can create them from within DPP or in Windows Explorer.) : To best evaluate images I display most of them full screen. It takes over : 3 sec to load a single picture to full frame. That's about 1 hour just : waiting, assuming I only want to look at each full frame once. You won't notice it as much if you don't bring them into the Edit Image Window as full screen, but instead blow each one up as needed. (I think you may mean "100% view" instead of "full screen", but I think the effect is the same either way.) : Is my computer the slow part, the software, or what? And if hardware will : help, should I worry more about processor speed or RAM? RAM, I think, although 2GB should be enough if you're not running a lot of other software at the same time. A faster computer might help a little, but I really suspect that your problem is the time it takes DPP to establish the Edit Image Window, so try the suggestions above first. : I also need another 2 TB of disk space and the same for backup, and I don't : know if this computer will handle it, so I may need a new computer anyway. Depends on the hardware configuration and the availability of free slots in the case. Without seeing your machine, I can't advise you sensibly. If you do get a new (Windows) computer, it will be Windows 7, rather than XP. You may be tempted to get the 64-bit version, since that takes better advantage of the computer's CPU speed. But there's no 64-bit version of DPP, so it won't run any faster under the 64-bit OS than under the 32-bit version. Also, I've had some problems running DPP on one of my 64-bit computers. Without going into gory detail, I think it's unlikely that you'd encounter those problems, but AFAIK they never occur with the 32-bit OS. : I have a Dell with Pentium 4 Processor, 2.8 GHz with 2 GB SDRAM, Win XP. I guess that's pretty much what I use at home (an Optiplex GX-620), although I run Windows Server 2003 rather than XP. At work I have DPP installed on several computers of various speeds (I'm a computer system manager), but haven't noticed much of a performance difference among them. Bob Are you really running SDRAM? Regards, Eric Stevens |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Will a new computer help?
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:22:04 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote: : On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 20:00:32 -0500, Robert Coe wrote: : : On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 15:10:55 -0800, "Alan Justice" : wrote: : : I have recently started editing digital files and it is very slow (RAW: 16 : : MP, 24 MB). (Slides were slow too, but now I end up with many more shots.) : : I have many hundreds of images to edit after a shoot. I use Canon software : : that came with the 1D Mk4 (ver. 3.8.1.0, 2010). : : I assume you're talking about Digital Photo Professional. The current version : is 3.11.4.10. You may want to get the latest "software updater" from the Canon : site and install it. : : : It takes about 2 minutes to load 1000 images into the display when I click : : on the folder. This makes it impractical to go back and forth between : : different folders. : : I assume you're talking about folders in the computer and not folders on the : CF card. Constantly referring to the card would slow you down considerably. : : I assume also that when you refer to the "display", you mean the "Edit Image : Window". 1000 images is a pretty large number for DPP to handle that way, : especially since your RAW files are pretty big. So don't try to bring them all : up at the same time. One way to keep track of them more efficiently might be : to create subfolders for different parts of the shoot. (You can create them : from within DPP or in Windows Explorer.) : : : To best evaluate images I display most of them full screen. It takes over : : 3 sec to load a single picture to full frame. That's about 1 hour just : : waiting, assuming I only want to look at each full frame once. : : You won't notice it as much if you don't bring them into the Edit Image Window : as full screen, but instead blow each one up as needed. (I think you may mean : "100% view" instead of "full screen", but I think the effect is the same : either way.) : : : Is my computer the slow part, the software, or what? And if hardware will : : help, should I worry more about processor speed or RAM? : : RAM, I think, although 2GB should be enough if you're not running a lot of : other software at the same time. A faster computer might help a little, but I : really suspect that your problem is the time it takes DPP to establish the : Edit Image Window, so try the suggestions above first. : : : I also need another 2 TB of disk space and the same for backup, and I don't : : know if this computer will handle it, so I may need a new computer anyway. : : Depends on the hardware configuration and the availability of free slots in : the case. Without seeing your machine, I can't advise you sensibly. : : If you do get a new (Windows) computer, it will be Windows 7, rather than XP. : You may be tempted to get the 64-bit version, since that takes better : advantage of the computer's CPU speed. But there's no 64-bit version of DPP, : so it won't run any faster under the 64-bit OS than under the 32-bit version. : Also, I've had some problems running DPP on one of my 64-bit computers. : Without going into gory detail, I think it's unlikely that you'd encounter : those problems, but AFAIK they never occur with the 32-bit OS. : : : I have a Dell with Pentium 4 Processor, 2.8 GHz with 2 GB SDRAM, Win XP. : : I guess that's pretty much what I use at home (an Optiplex GX-620), although I : run Windows Server 2003 rather than XP. At work I have DPP installed on : several computers of various speeds (I'm a computer system manager), but : haven't noticed much of a performance difference among them. : : Bob : : Are you really running SDRAM? No, I don't think so; my home computer is pretty old. In fact, I've got a brand new one waiting to be installed as soon as I can find the time. At work I have a couple of Optiplex 755's and an assortment of older machines. I'm not much hung up on speed, since most of what I do doesn't require it. So more than half of my computers are old machines that I resurrected and nobody else really wanted. You may recall from another thread that the most recent new equipment the company bought me was a Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II telephoto lens. ;^) But the bottom line of may article is that I suspect that the OP's problems probably stem from the sub-optimal way he's using the DPP photo editor and not, as one or two responders apparently think, that his computer isn't fast enough. Bob |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Will a new computer help?
"Eric Stevens" wrote in message
... On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 15:10:55 -0800, "Alan Justice" wrote: I have recently started editing digital files and it is very slow (RAW: 16 MP, 24 MB). (Slides were slow too, but now I end up with many more shots.) I have many hundreds of images to edit after a shoot. I use Canon software that came with the 1D Mk4 (ver. 3.8.1.0, 2010). It takes about 2 minutes to load 1000 images into the display when I click on the folder. This makes it impractical to go back and forth between different folders. To best evaluate images I display most of them full screen. It takes over 3 sec to load a single picture to full frame. That's about 1 hour just waiting, assuming I only want to look at each full frame once. Is my computer the slow part, the software, or what? And if hardware will help, should I worry more about processor speed or RAM? I also need another 2 TB of disk space and the same for backup, and I don't know if this computer will handle it, so I may need a new computer anyway. I have a Dell with Pentium 4 Processor, 2.8 GHz with 2 GB SDRAM, Win XP. By modern standards your computer is V E R Y S L O W. I had a computer to your general specs about 10 years ago (except that it the faster DDR memory). I now have a Dell with a 2.9GHz -7 processor and 8Gb of DDR3 Ram. This is immeasurably faster than my old machine. Tasks which used to let me go and have lunch now happen in less than a second. You need a new computer. Regards, Eric Stevens So why is your 2.9 GHz much faster than my 2.8? Is it the additional RAM (8 GB vs 2), or is it the type of RAM? (SDRAM vs DDR3 - what's the difference?) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Will a new computer help?
"K W Hart" wrote in message
... "Alan Justice" wrote in message m... I have recently started editing digital files and it is very slow (RAW: 16 MP, 24 MB). (Slides were slow too, but now I end up with many more shots.) I have many hundreds of images to edit after a shoot. I use Canon software that came with the 1D Mk4 (ver. 3.8.1.0, 2010). It takes about 2 minutes to load 1000 images into the display when I click on the folder. This makes it impractical to go back and forth between different folders. To best evaluate images I display most of them full screen. It takes over 3 sec to load a single picture to full frame. That's about 1 hour just waiting, assuming I only want to look at each full frame once. Is my computer the slow part, the software, or what? And if hardware will help, should I worry more about processor speed or RAM? I also need another 2 TB of disk space and the same for backup, and I don't know if this computer will handle it, so I may need a new computer anyway. I have a Dell with Pentium 4 Processor, 2.8 GHz with 2 GB SDRAM, Win XP. -- Alan Justice http://home.earthlink.net/~wildlifepaparazzi/ Generally, adding RAM improves speed. When the computer needs more RAM than it has, it uses the hard drive as virtual RAM. The hard drive is incredibly slower than actual RAM- relatively speaking. You could also bring up the Task Manager (CTRL+ALT+DEL) and see how many programs are running at the same time. If you have a bunch of background stuff running, that will slow down your computer. Along that line, here's a very risky possibility: turn off your anti-virus while editting. If you do this, I would physically disconnect the computer from the outside world. Anti-virus software looks at every file you open and compares the contents to a database of known problems. But, here's a really wild possible solution: take fewer photos by making sure that each photo will be good before you fire the shutter. Less time spent editting. If I had 100's of image after a shoot, it would have been a very long session. And a very long session ahead in the darkroom. -- Ken Hart In the Task Manager there are 40 Processes running. I have no idea what most of them are, so I don't know if I can turn them off. PhotoShop takes up 10x more mamory than any other one listed. I have not seen a difference in DPP when I shut it down. This computer is not online, so I trust anti-virus software is not running. Most of those 100's of shots are wildlife in action. I have to just hold down the shutter button and hope that one of them is a winner. And with shifting light, I bracket (3 or 5). I'd rather spend more time editing if it means getting the shot. Thanks for your comments. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Will a new computer help?
"Robert Coe" wrote in message
news On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 15:10:55 -0800, "Alan Justice" wrote: : I have recently started editing digital files and it is very slow (RAW: 16 : MP, 24 MB). (Slides were slow too, but now I end up with many more shots.) : I have many hundreds of images to edit after a shoot. I use Canon software : that came with the 1D Mk4 (ver. 3.8.1.0, 2010). I assume you're talking about Digital Photo Professional. The current version is 3.11.4.10. You may want to get the latest "software updater" from the Canon site and install it. : It takes about 2 minutes to load 1000 images into the display when I click : on the folder. This makes it impractical to go back and forth between : different folders. I assume you're talking about folders in the computer and not folders on the CF card. Constantly referring to the card would slow you down considerably. I assume also that when you refer to the "display", you mean the "Edit Image Window". 1000 images is a pretty large number for DPP to handle that way, especially since your RAW files are pretty big. So don't try to bring them all up at the same time. One way to keep track of them more efficiently might be to create subfolders for different parts of the shoot. (You can create them from within DPP or in Windows Explorer.) : To best evaluate images I display most of them full screen. It takes over : 3 sec to load a single picture to full frame. That's about 1 hour just : waiting, assuming I only want to look at each full frame once. You won't notice it as much if you don't bring them into the Edit Image Window as full screen, but instead blow each one up as needed. (I think you may mean "100% view" instead of "full screen", but I think the effect is the same either way.) : Is my computer the slow part, the software, or what? And if hardware will : help, should I worry more about processor speed or RAM? RAM, I think, although 2GB should be enough if you're not running a lot of other software at the same time. A faster computer might help a little, but I really suspect that your problem is the time it takes DPP to establish the Edit Image Window, so try the suggestions above first. : I also need another 2 TB of disk space and the same for backup, and I don't : know if this computer will handle it, so I may need a new computer anyway. Depends on the hardware configuration and the availability of free slots in the case. Without seeing your machine, I can't advise you sensibly. If you do get a new (Windows) computer, it will be Windows 7, rather than XP. You may be tempted to get the 64-bit version, since that takes better advantage of the computer's CPU speed. But there's no 64-bit version of DPP, so it won't run any faster under the 64-bit OS than under the 32-bit version. Also, I've had some problems running DPP on one of my 64-bit computers. Without going into gory detail, I think it's unlikely that you'd encounter those problems, but AFAIK they never occur with the 32-bit OS. : I have a Dell with Pentium 4 Processor, 2.8 GHz with 2 GB SDRAM, Win XP. I guess that's pretty much what I use at home (an Optiplex GX-620), although I run Windows Server 2003 rather than XP. At work I have DPP installed on several computers of various speeds (I'm a computer system manager), but haven't noticed much of a performance difference among them. Bob I found that whether I have 1 or 1000 images in a folder, it still takes over 3 sec to load a single one at full frame. I double click the thumbnail and it's full frame. Then I will CTRL-1 or CTRL-2 to see it closer up when needed. The latter part is not as slow as the initial full frame. Thanks for comments. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Computer | Irby | Digital Photography | 194 | March 19th 07 12:38 PM |
Computer?? | jd | Digital Photography | 46 | October 23rd 06 10:58 AM |
For the computer geeks.... | secheese | Digital Photography | 1 | January 12th 05 03:05 AM |
2 Scanners To One Computer | HRosita | Digital Photography | 5 | January 10th 05 09:38 PM |
2 Scanners To One Computer | Tim Forehand | Digital Photography | 16 | January 10th 05 02:23 PM |