I just returned from Africa after 2 weeks, shooting only 5047 frames. The slow conversion speed is killing me, about 27 hours for straight 24-bit 16.6 megapixel images. Ugh! I hope the computer does not explode, after 18 hours the CPU is up to 56° C. Why does RAW file conversion have to be so slow; what goes on with the file?
RAW Conversion
- Thread starter LunarMist
- Start date
Onomatopoeic
Learning Storage Performance
Depending on how sophisticated your software is, there could be noise removal, gamma correction, and interpolation from 10, 11, 12, or 16 bits per pixel down to 8 bits per pixel. Of course, the there is the creation of the Red and/or Green and/or Blue bands in every pixel that the sensor never actually acquired in the first place and is calculating using the nearest neighbour interpolation algorithm.
A significant culprit is also the bloated code that many of these conversion utilities have been written in -- meaning the use of vanilla C code instead of tight optimised assembly language coding. The skillful use of registers over the heavy reliance of primary memory (RAM) to temporarily store data during conversion and interpolation can make such code run a hell of a lot faster as well. Many of the people that write these routines create something that does require a lot of initial coding time, something that'll compile without errors, something that'll satisfy their contract with the vendor, and something that'll be easy to update to add new camera models when needed.
Gilbo
Storage is cool
What converter are you using Lunarmist? ACR, C1, Bibble? I can't recall if I've heard you mention it in any of your other posts.
It's the interpolation that is the most CPU intensive part of the conversion. ACR's converter is very fast, so if speed is a big concern you may want to use it, but I don't think it's multithreaded. On a dual CPU machine like a G5 the Bibble or C1 converters should run faster. I haven't seen any tests lately on this, but I'm pretty sure I'm not out of date. I lurk around a fair number of places where I would have heard about any significant changes.
Personally, a screening process is probably the best way to speed the process up, although it requires attention. Both Bibble and C1 offer interfaces that streamline such a process tremendously, and could save you a lot of time. They will process in the background as you add the standouts to the queues or make any changes you need to, and both are very fast at generating good preview images. For streamlining a workflow involving a lot of shots, one or the other is indispensible IMO.
Personally, I'm a Bibble fan. Eric Hyman, its author, has done tremendous work with that piece of software, and he spends a great deal of time interacting with photographers both to recieve feedback (which he listens to very carefully) and to help out his users. Tech support is excellent, but the most impressive thing is that I've never seen a piece of software change so responsively to the needs of its users in such a short time. His attitude is rare in software development --the user's complaint is always legitimate. When he says the software is designed for photographers after careful consideration for their needs, it's not marketing -- I've seen the process in action in the Bibble forums, or over at Rob Galbraith's. Even if it cost as much as C1, I'd take it instead any day of the week.
In terms of interface, some people find Capture One more intuitive out of the box, although I had no preference, having little experience with what to expect, but Bibble is certainly more customizable, which, when you're streamlining a workflow, is crucial. The latest versions of both pieces of software support your 1DsMkII, so that isn't an issue.
Bibble 4.0
Capture One 3.6
It's the interpolation that is the most CPU intensive part of the conversion. ACR's converter is very fast, so if speed is a big concern you may want to use it, but I don't think it's multithreaded. On a dual CPU machine like a G5 the Bibble or C1 converters should run faster. I haven't seen any tests lately on this, but I'm pretty sure I'm not out of date. I lurk around a fair number of places where I would have heard about any significant changes.
Personally, a screening process is probably the best way to speed the process up, although it requires attention. Both Bibble and C1 offer interfaces that streamline such a process tremendously, and could save you a lot of time. They will process in the background as you add the standouts to the queues or make any changes you need to, and both are very fast at generating good preview images. For streamlining a workflow involving a lot of shots, one or the other is indispensible IMO.
Personally, I'm a Bibble fan. Eric Hyman, its author, has done tremendous work with that piece of software, and he spends a great deal of time interacting with photographers both to recieve feedback (which he listens to very carefully) and to help out his users. Tech support is excellent, but the most impressive thing is that I've never seen a piece of software change so responsively to the needs of its users in such a short time. His attitude is rare in software development --the user's complaint is always legitimate. When he says the software is designed for photographers after careful consideration for their needs, it's not marketing -- I've seen the process in action in the Bibble forums, or over at Rob Galbraith's. Even if it cost as much as C1, I'd take it instead any day of the week.
In terms of interface, some people find Capture One more intuitive out of the box, although I had no preference, having little experience with what to expect, but Bibble is certainly more customizable, which, when you're streamlining a workflow, is crucial. The latest versions of both pieces of software support your 1DsMkII, so that isn't an issue.
Bibble 4.0
Capture One 3.6