Will a new computer help?

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.


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!


I can't tell in the Task Manager what should not be running.

You think upgrading to Win 7 Pro will give me more speed than XP?

On 20/02/2012 07:05, Alan Justice wrote:
"Eric wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 15:10:55 -0800, "Alan Justice"
wrote:

(...)
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?)


Processor performance is NOT measured in GHz, that's just marketing drivel.

Best performance for a Pentium 4 was 9,726 MIPS at 3.2 GHz. Best
performance for an i7 is currently AFAIK 177,730 MIPS at 3.33 GHz.

In other words: the i7 processor is roughly 20 times faster than a
Pentium 4 at roughly the same clock speed.

--
Illegitimi non carborundum

Alan Justice wrote,on my timestamp of 20/02/2012 5:05 PM:


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?)



DDR3 is a heck of a lot faster than SDRAM. And given you are procesing a lot of
very large images, the processor cache becomes almost immaterial, which makes
the memory speed the major determinant on hos fast things will go.
As well as disk access speed, of course. Although that one can be improved with
more cache, hence the 8GB. But be careful: going 8GB means you'll have to go
64-bit OS as well to take full advantage of them. 4GB is plenty if you stay
with 32-bit. And there is really no reason why you should need 64-bit for the
images you are processing.

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 22:05:45 -0800, "Alan Justice"
wrote:

"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?)

You have 1 processor core. I have 8 (all on the one chip).

SDRAM is slow compared to DDR which is slow compared to DDR2 which is
slow compared to DDR3.

See the diagram
http://regmedia.co.uk/2009/05/26/ddr..._data_rate.jpg SDRAM is
somewhere to the left, off the curve.

Your machine almost certainly doesn't have an internal PCI bus which
means the various circuit boards etc are slow to communicate with each
other by modern standards. Etc etc ...

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:46:33 +1100, Noons wrote:
: Alan Justice wrote,on my timestamp of 20/02/2012 5:05 PM:
:
: 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?)
:
: DDR3 is a heck of a lot faster than SDRAM. And given you are procesing a
: lot of very large images, the processor cache becomes almost immaterial,
: which makes the memory speed the major determinant on hos fast things will
: go. As well as disk access speed, of course. Although that one can be
: improved with more cache, hence the 8GB. But be careful: going 8GB means
: you'll have to go 64-bit OS as well to take full advantage of them. 4GB
: is plenty if you stay with 32-bit. And there is really no reason why you
: should need 64-bit for the images you are processing.

The 32-bit versions of Windows will not make use of any memory beyond the
first 3GB. And I've found DPP to be slightly flaky under the 64-bit OS. Not
flaky enough to keep me from using it on a 64-bit machine, but flaky enough to
keep me from recommending that others do it.

Bob

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:33:03 +0000, Bruce wrote:
: "Alan Justice" wrote:
:
: 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).
:
: Therein lies the problem.

Indeed. The OP needs to have a serious conversation with those animals,
regarding their reluctance to pose. If they're in a wildlife preserve, perhaps
he can threaten to have them kicked out. If not, possibly bringing them treats
(an antelope carcass for the lions, e.g.) will help him ingratiate himself and
ensure coöperation. The animals should be willing to see the photographer's
point of view; they have nothing to gain by making him have to take multiple
shots and do extra work in post-processing. And if one of them (a weasel,
perhaps?) could manage to negotiate a suitable royalty agreement, they might
see clearly that what helps the photographer helps them.

Bob

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 22:23:58 -0800, "Alan Justice"
wrote:
: You think upgrading to Win 7 Pro will give me more speed than XP?

In the abstract, yes. I've converted a lot of computers, some of them quite
old, from XP to Win 7 Pro, and in most cases the computer seemed to run a bit
faster after the conversion. But I can't imagine that the difference would be
great enough that you'd notice it in your application.

Bob

On 2012-02-19 23:10:55 +0000, Alan Justice said:

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.

I'm quite surprised that nobody has mentioned the Windows Performance
Monitor - this is the tool for diagnosing performance issues. It isn't
easy to use, but it enables one to identify performance bottlenecks in
the system. On XP, it's in Control Panel, Administrative Tools,
Performance. I'm not sure if XP Home edition has it installed by
default; XP Professional certainly does.

OK, that's a last resort, but I'm willing to spend many hours preparing
a settings file for you if necessary.

Canon and Nikon software give excellent results, but both are
well-known for being slow. Bruce hit the nail on the head so I have to
ask why you feel the need to bracket 3 or 5 sequences with your superb
camera, which is very capable of having exposure adjusted in
post-processing of its raw files. Personally, I've never needed
in-camera exposure bracketing during three decades of shooting slides,
negatives, and digital. I examine my images and iteratively learn how
to work with the camera metering system. For multiple shots I always
use either exposure lock or manual exposure because it makes post
processing much easier.

In conclusion, either get a very fast computer that includes a
solid-state drive or change your shooting technique. The former is more
fun; the latter will save you endless time and money.

Hope that helps.

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:56:02 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
: Alan Justice writes:
:
: I can't tell in the Task Manager what should not be running.
:
: It's best to look at the Task Manager periodically and get a feel for the
: processes that should be running. If you check it one day and there's a
: new process running, you can investigate. Whenever you install or update
: software, or install Windows updates, it pays to take a look at the Task
: Manager and see if anything new has found its way into the system.

Extracting useful information from the process list in the Task Manager is a
pretty specialized skill. I've used every version of Windows since 2.2, and
I'm still not particularly good at it. To expect a professional photographer
to save more time than he wastes in such an effort is a bit silly, IMO.

: You think upgrading to Win 7 Pro will give me more speed than XP?
:
: Not on the same hardware. Windows 7 runs much more slowly than XP on
: equivalent hardware. And it requires a lot more memory. But if you have very
: fast hardware with lots of memory, Windows 7 may run faster, because the
: memory can be used for things like disk cache and in other ways to reduce disk
: I/O. For most recent desktop computers, disk I/O is the primary source of
: delay and slowness (unless you are accessing the Internet, in which case
: network delay is also a substantial contributor).

Without getting into a prolonged argument over the relative speeds of the two
OSses, I'll just say that that contradicts my experience. I've found Windows 7
to run slightly faster than XP on almost all the machines I've converted, some
of them old, slow laptops, as long as they had at least 1.5 GB of RAM.

Windows 7's reputation as a resource hog stems mainly from the impact of the
elaborate graphics it tries to use. But it turns out to be pretty good at
recognizing a lame machine and throttling back on its most resource-intensive
behavior.

OTOH, Mxsmanic's point about the potential impact of a slow disk drive is a
good one. Photo editors do a lot of shuffling of data to and from disk; and if
the drive is too small, very slow, or in serious need of defragmentation, that
can make a noticeable difference.

Bob

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 10:53:13 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
: writes:
:
: As for XP, it can't even use the 2G ram you have so don't worry about that.
:
: Not true. XP will use up to 4 GB.

3 GB.