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 |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
horses for courses
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote: For example, if there are 750 images and it takes 8 seconds to complete for each, that would have added 100 minutes to the time it would take if those operations were done interactively. With a single CPU the batch process would cut 100 minutes out of the interactive time (the user can do other work for that amount of time). And with the 8 CPU machine that I run the batch process on it reduces the total time the batch runs to 11 minutes or so. 8 seconds to convert a raw to a jpeg??? I don't think I specified outputting a JPEG image, did I? the exported file format is not a significant factor, especially when it's taking 8 seconds to process an image. For a low ISO shot (little noise reduction) and a web sized JPEG, less than 2 seconds per image. But lets talk about a professional production workflow intended primarily for large prints. And just for fun lets do throw in having to use a high ISO, and thus a high value for noise reduction. The batch time to make each conversion and output a TIFF image will run more like 35 to 50 seconds each. Higher times for an 8 bit TIFF than a 16 bit, and higher time for more noise reduction. something is very wrong if it takes 50 seconds to process one image. http://blog.phaseone.com/processing-...-gpus-capture- one-pro-8/ The speed advantage of using OpenCL is noticeable. When using both of the AMD D700 graphics cards in a Mac Pro (2013) computer, you can process a full 80 megapixel RAW file in less than 1.5 seconds. .... Performance for Mac Pro (2013), Dual D700 ATI cards, 12 core CPU: Capture One Pro 7: 28 IQ180 files: 2.23 min * end to end Capture One Pro 8: 28 IQ180 files: 1.34 min * end to end here's another test, where 128 36 mp images took just over 4 minutes: http://macperformanceguide.com/images/iMac5K/graph-CaptureOnePro.png For real fun and games, output a PNG! That will take over a minute per image! you need better software. Of course all of this is with 36MP images, and those with a 6 MP camera won't have the same numbers. obviously, but even with 80 mp images, it doesn't anywhere near that long. |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
horses for courses
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote: Sandman, of course, only agrees with himself. except when he contradicts himself. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
horses for courses
nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote: For example, if there are 750 images and it takes 8 seconds to complete for each, that would have added 100 minutes to the time it would take if those operations were done interactively. With a single CPU the batch process would cut 100 minutes out of the interactive time (the user can do other work for that amount of time). And with the 8 CPU machine that I run the batch process on it reduces the total time the batch runs to 11 minutes or so. 8 seconds to convert a raw to a jpeg??? I don't think I specified outputting a JPEG image, did I? the exported file format is not a significant factor, especially when it's taking 8 seconds to process an image. Well it very clearly is a *significant* factor! Roughly 1.25 times longer for a TIFF than a similar sized JPEG. And almost 1.5 times for a PNG as a JPEG. Not significant for one single web sized image the way you might work, but very significant for large images to be printed. For a low ISO shot (little noise reduction) and a web sized JPEG, less than 2 seconds per image. But lets talk about a professional production workflow intended primarily for large prints. And just for fun lets do throw in having to use a high ISO, and thus a high value for noise reduction. The batch time to make each conversion and output a TIFF image will run more like 35 to 50 seconds each. Higher times for an 8 bit TIFF than a 16 bit, and higher time for more noise reduction. something is very wrong if it takes 50 seconds to process one image. http://blog.phaseone.com/processing-...-gpus-capture- one-pro-8/ The speed advantage of using OpenCL is noticeable. When using both of the AMD D700 graphics cards in a Mac Pro (2013) computer, you can process a full 80 megapixel RAW file in less than 1.5 seconds. ... Performance for Mac Pro (2013), Dual D700 ATI cards, 12 core CPU: Capture One Pro 7: 28 IQ180 files: 2.23 min * end to end Capture One Pro 8: 28 IQ180 files: 1.34 min * end to end You didn't notice what they are measuring. They are not doing noise reduction on the raw sensor data, and all they are generating is an RGB screen image. It is essentially equivalent to what I stated took less than 2 seconds per image with my setup. They are getting slightly better times, but using 12 cores while I'm using 8. here's another test, where 128 36 mp images took just over 4 minutes: http://macperformanceguide.com/images/iMac5K/graph-CaptureOnePro.png For real fun and games, output a PNG! That will take over a minute per image! you need better software. Your data is about hardware, not about software. Your software literally adds hours to processing a large shoot compared to what I'm doing! Of course all of this is with 36MP images, and those with a 6 MP camera won't have the same numbers. obviously, but even with 80 mp images, it doesn't anywhere near that long. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
horses for courses
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote: For example, if there are 750 images and it takes 8 seconds to complete for each, that would have added 100 minutes to the time it would take if those operations were done interactively. With a single CPU the batch process would cut 100 minutes out of the interactive time (the user can do other work for that amount of time). And with the 8 CPU machine that I run the batch process on it reduces the total time the batch runs to 11 minutes or so. 8 seconds to convert a raw to a jpeg??? I don't think I specified outputting a JPEG image, did I? the exported file format is not a significant factor, especially when it's taking 8 seconds to process an image. Well it very clearly is a *significant* factor! Roughly 1.25 times longer for a TIFF than a similar sized JPEG. And almost 1.5 times for a PNG as a JPEG. Not significant for one single web sized image the way you might work, but very significant for large images to be printed. the difference between writing a tiff or a jpeg is insignificant, which your numbers confirm. assume 1 second for a jpeg (which is long), then a tiff would be 1.25 seconds using your numbers. with an 8 second per image process, that would add 1/32 of the total time, or about 3% more. it's insignificant. For a low ISO shot (little noise reduction) and a web sized JPEG, less than 2 seconds per image. But lets talk about a professional production workflow intended primarily for large prints. And just for fun lets do throw in having to use a high ISO, and thus a high value for noise reduction. The batch time to make each conversion and output a TIFF image will run more like 35 to 50 seconds each. Higher times for an 8 bit TIFF than a 16 bit, and higher time for more noise reduction. something is very wrong if it takes 50 seconds to process one image. http://blog.phaseone.com/processing-...-gpus-capture- one-pro-8/ The speed advantage of using OpenCL is noticeable. When using both of the AMD D700 graphics cards in a Mac Pro (2013) computer, you can process a full 80 megapixel RAW file in less than 1.5 seconds. ... Performance for Mac Pro (2013), Dual D700 ATI cards, 12 core CPU: Capture One Pro 7: 28 IQ180 files: 2.23 min * end to end Capture One Pro 8: 28 IQ180 files: 1.34 min * end to end You didn't notice what they are measuring. They are not doing noise reduction on the raw sensor data, and all they are generating is an RGB screen image. nope. end to end means raw to final exported image. note that they claim processing one image is 1.5s while end to end of 28 images is about 3.3s/image. clearly there's more being done in the latter, which at a minimum is writing out files. they certainly aren't displaying 28 rgb images on the display. It is essentially equivalent to what I stated took less than 2 seconds per image with my setup. They are getting slightly better times, but using 12 cores while I'm using 8. how is it equivalent, if they're getting about 3s/image compared to you're 35-50s/image? that's an order of magnitude faster. here's another test, where 128 36 mp images took just over 4 minutes: http://macperformanceguide.com/images/iMac5K/graph-CaptureOnePro.png For real fun and games, output a PNG! That will take over a minute per image! you need better software. Your data is about hardware, not about software. nope. it's about software that can use a gpu to greatly accelerate processing. with v.7 (the previous version), there is a 3x improvement when using the gpu: https://phaseoneimageprofessor.files...6/benchmark.jp g Your software literally adds hours to processing a large shoot compared to what I'm doing! nope. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
horses for courses
nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote: For example, if there are 750 images and it takes 8 seconds to complete for each, that would have added 100 minutes to the time it would take if those operations were done interactively. With a single CPU the batch process would cut 100 minutes out of the interactive time (the user can do other work for that amount of time). And with the 8 CPU machine that I run the batch process on it reduces the total time the batch runs to 11 minutes or so. 8 seconds to convert a raw to a jpeg??? I don't think I specified outputting a JPEG image, did I? the exported file format is not a significant factor, especially when it's taking 8 seconds to process an image. Well it very clearly is a *significant* factor! Roughly 1.25 times longer for a TIFF than a similar sized JPEG. And almost 1.5 times for a PNG as a JPEG. Not significant for one single web sized image the way you might work, but very significant for large images to be printed. the difference between writing a tiff or a jpeg is insignificant, which your numbers confirm. assume 1 second for a jpeg (which is long), then a tiff would be 1.25 seconds using your numbers. with an 8 second per image process, that would add 1/32 of the total time, or about 3% more. it's insignificant. Pay attention to detail. It isn't just the write time, it's the time to generate the formatted data set that is to be written. It goes up progressively with the size of the image, and amounts to several seconds for full sized image. That amounts to hours of time for a large shoot. And that is significant if your software requires that you sit there twiddling your thumbs while the disk spins. For a low ISO shot (little noise reduction) and a web sized JPEG, less than 2 seconds per image. But lets talk about a professional production workflow intended primarily for large prints. And just for fun lets do throw in having to use a high ISO, and thus a high value for noise reduction. The batch time to make each conversion and output a TIFF image will run more like 35 to 50 seconds each. Higher times for an 8 bit TIFF than a 16 bit, and higher time for more noise reduction. something is very wrong if it takes 50 seconds to process one image. http://blog.phaseone.com/processing-...-gpus-capture- one-pro-8/ The speed advantage of using OpenCL is noticeable. When using both of the AMD D700 graphics cards in a Mac Pro (2013) computer, you can process a full 80 megapixel RAW file in less than 1.5 seconds. ... Performance for Mac Pro (2013), Dual D700 ATI cards, 12 core CPU: Capture One Pro 7: 28 IQ180 files: 2.23 min * end to end Capture One Pro 8: 28 IQ180 files: 1.34 min * end to end You didn't notice what they are measuring. They are not doing noise reduction on the raw sensor data, and all they are generating is an RGB screen image. nope. end to end means raw to final exported image. Read the article you cited. Stop mixing Apples and Prunes. note that they claim processing one image is 1.5s while end to end of 28 images is about 3.3s/image. clearly there's more being done in the latter, which at a minimum is writing out files. they certainly aren't displaying 28 rgb images on the display. It is essentially equivalent to what I stated took less than 2 seconds per image with my setup. They are getting slightly better times, but using 12 cores while I'm using 8. how is it equivalent, if they're getting about 3s/image compared to you're 35-50s/image? that's an order of magnitude faster. I'm doing the same thing in a measured 1.758 seconds per image. here's another test, where 128 36 mp images took just over 4 minutes: http://macperformanceguide.com/images/iMac5K/graph-CaptureOnePro.png For real fun and games, output a PNG! That will take over a minute per image! you need better software. Your data is about hardware, not about software. nope. it's about software that can use a gpu to greatly accelerate processing. Read the article you cited. Mixing Apples and Prunes is a waste of time. with v.7 (the previous version), there is a 3x improvement when using the gpu: https://phaseoneimageprofessor.files...6/benchmark.jp g Your software literally adds hours to processing a large shoot compared to what I'm doing! nope. Try it. So far as I can tell, because nobody has suggested a way to do it, there is no way using Lightroom that images can be batch processed with unique configurations per image. Batching only files that use the same configuration doesn't help at all. Your repeated "nope" is just confirmation of ignorance. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
horses for courses
On 5/19/15 PDT 1:54 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Tue, 19 May 2015 10:33:02 -0700, John McWilliams wrote: On 5/19/15 PDT 5:51 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote: nospam wrote: In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote: For example, if there are 750 images and it takes 8 seconds to complete for each, that would have added 100 minutes to the time it would take if those operations were done interactively. With a single CPU the batch process would cut 100 minutes out of the interactive time (the user can do other work for that amount of time). And with the 8 CPU machine that I run the batch process on it reduces the total time the batch runs to 11 minutes or so. 8 seconds to convert a raw to a jpeg??? I don't think I specified outputting a JPEG image, did I? For a low ISO shot (little noise reduction) and a web sized JPEG, less than 2 seconds per image. But lets talk about a professional production workflow intended primarily for large prints. And just for fun lets do throw in having to use a high ISO, and thus a high value for noise reduction. The batch time to make each conversion and output a TIFF image will run more like 35 to 50 seconds each. Higher times for an 8 bit TIFF than a 16 bit, and higher time for more noise reduction. For real fun and games, output a PNG! That will take over a minute per image! Of course all of this is with 36MP images, and those with a 6 MP camera won't have the same numbers. I agree with this post. What's going on today? I just agreed with nospam on something, and you are agreeing with Floyd on something. Red letter day. Sandman, of course, only agrees with himself. Do you need to take pot shots at him so frequently? You do know, don't you, that that's a rhetorical question? |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
horses for courses
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote: Roughly 1.25 times longer for a TIFF than a similar sized JPEG. And almost 1.5 times for a PNG as a JPEG. Not significant for one single web sized image the way you might work, but very significant for large images to be printed. the difference between writing a tiff or a jpeg is insignificant, which your numbers confirm. assume 1 second for a jpeg (which is long), then a tiff would be 1.25 seconds using your numbers. with an 8 second per image process, that would add 1/32 of the total time, or about 3% more. it's insignificant. Pay attention to detail. It isn't just the write time, it's the time to generate the formatted data set that is to be written. It goes up progressively with the size of the image, and amounts to several seconds for full sized image. That amounts to hours of time for a large shoot. And that is significant if your software requires that you sit there twiddling your thumbs while the disk spins. nobody said anything about twiddling thumbs. For a low ISO shot (little noise reduction) and a web sized JPEG, less than 2 seconds per image. But lets talk about a professional production workflow intended primarily for large prints. And just for fun lets do throw in having to use a high ISO, and thus a high value for noise reduction. The batch time to make each conversion and output a TIFF image will run more like 35 to 50 seconds each. Higher times for an 8 bit TIFF than a 16 bit, and higher time for more noise reduction. something is very wrong if it takes 50 seconds to process one image. http://blog.phaseone.com/processing-...-gpus-capture- one-pro-8/ The speed advantage of using OpenCL is noticeable. When using both of the AMD D700 graphics cards in a Mac Pro (2013) computer, you can process a full 80 megapixel RAW file in less than 1.5 seconds. ... Performance for Mac Pro (2013), Dual D700 ATI cards, 12 core CPU: Capture One Pro 7: 28 IQ180 files: 2.23 min * end to end Capture One Pro 8: 28 IQ180 files: 1.34 min * end to end You didn't notice what they are measuring. They are not doing noise reduction on the raw sensor data, and all they are generating is an RGB screen image. nope. end to end means raw to final exported image. Read the article you cited. Stop mixing Apples and Prunes. i did read it. did you? nowhere does it say it's only an rgb image. it also states: In Capture One Pro 8, we have carefully optimized the processing pipeline to become as parallel as possible, resulting in the fastest processing of any Capture One version * and any current current RAW processor. note that they claim processing one image is 1.5s while end to end of 28 images is about 3.3s/image. clearly there's more being done in the latter, which at a minimum is writing out files. they certainly aren't displaying 28 rgb images on the display. It is essentially equivalent to what I stated took less than 2 seconds per image with my setup. They are getting slightly better times, but using 12 cores while I'm using 8. how is it equivalent, if they're getting about 3s/image compared to you're 35-50s/image? that's an order of magnitude faster. I'm doing the same thing in a measured 1.758 seconds per image. you wrote: The batch time to make each conversion and output a TIFF image will run more like 35 to 50 seconds each. Higher times for an 8 bit TIFF than a 16 bit, and higher time for more noise reduction. now you're claiming 1.8s/image? both can't be true. here's another test, where 128 36 mp images took just over 4 minutes: http://macperformanceguide.com/images/iMac5K/graph-CaptureOnePro.png For real fun and games, output a PNG! That will take over a minute per image! you need better software. Your data is about hardware, not about software. nope. it's about software that can use a gpu to greatly accelerate processing. Read the article you cited. Mixing Apples and Prunes is a waste of time. nobody is mixing anything. with v.7 (the previous version), there is a 3x improvement when using the gpu: https://phaseoneimageprofessor.files...6/benchmark.jp g Your software literally adds hours to processing a large shoot compared to what I'm doing! nope. Try it. So far as I can tell, because nobody has suggested a way to do it, there is no way using Lightroom that images can be batch processed with unique configurations per image. Batching only files that use the same configuration doesn't help at all. that's exactly what lightroom excels at. Your repeated "nope" is just confirmation of ignorance. nope. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
horses for courses
nospam wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson wrote: shoot. And that is significant if your software requires that you sit there twiddling your thumbs while the disk spins. nobody said anything about twiddling thumbs. Yes you have! .... You didn't notice what they are measuring. They are not doing noise reduction on the raw sensor data, and all they are generating is an RGB screen image. nope. end to end means raw to final exported image. Read the article you cited. Stop mixing Apples and Prunes. i did read it. did you? nowhere does it say it's only an rgb image. And nowhere does it say anything about writing a file, but it does talk about the video card used, and parallel processing of GDU's. it also states: In Capture One Pro 8, we have carefully optimized the processing pipeline to become as parallel as possible, resulting in the fastest processing of any Capture One version * and any current current RAW processor. Which of course supports my point, and makes your discussion absurd. how is it equivalent, if they're getting about 3s/image compared to you're 35-50s/image? that's an order of magnitude faster. I'm doing the same thing in a measured 1.758 seconds per image. you wrote: The batch time to make each conversion and output a TIFF image will run more like 35 to 50 seconds each. Higher times for an 8 bit TIFF than a 16 bit, and higher time for more noise reduction. now you're claiming 1.8s/image? both can't be true. Pay attention to the details! They *never* suggest they are timing the production of a TIFF file including noise reduction. What they are timing is putting an image through the video card onto the monitor. As I noted previously, that takes less than 2 seconds for the hardware and software that I use, except I'm timing writing it to a JPEG file rather than to the screen. (The screen probably takes less time, but I view everything remotely via ethernet, and the box with the monitors on it is not particularly fast either.) here's another test, where 128 36 mp images took just over 4 minutes: http://macperformanceguide.com/images/iMac5K/graph-CaptureOnePro.png For real fun and games, output a PNG! That will take over a minute per image! you need better software. Your data is about hardware, not about software. nope. it's about software that can use a gpu to greatly accelerate processing. Read the article you cited. Mixing Apples and Prunes is a waste of time. nobody is mixing anything. Get off it nospam. You can't keep anything straight. I can't tell if it is due to confusion or if you are just making an effort at contortion. Either way, the effect is the same: your discussion is worthless. with v.7 (the previous version), there is a 3x improvement when using the gpu: https://phaseoneimageprofessor.files...6/benchmark.jp g Your software literally adds hours to processing a large shoot compared to what I'm doing! nope. Try it. So far as I can tell, because nobody has suggested a way to do it, there is no way using Lightroom that images can be batch processed with unique configurations per image. Batching only files that use the same configuration doesn't help at all. that's exactly what lightroom excels at. Really? Why hasn't anyone described how to do it? Batching only files that use the same configuration is one thing. Generating, without excess tedium, a separate configuration per image and then doing the conversions as one massive batch process is very different. What has been done so far just takes a single configuration, and adds images files to a list of those processed with that one configuration. I have no doubt that it can be done, the question is only one of whether the interactive part of the process is smooth and efficient, or time consuming. It seems not, as no one is interested in using that... Your repeated "nope" is just confirmation of ignorance. nope. More of that ignorance nospam. You are famous, or infamous, for it. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/ Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
They Shoot Horses, Don't They | ASAAR | Digital SLR Cameras | 9 | October 19th 08 04:03 AM |
Bullfight horses of Portugal | Focus[_2_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 6 | July 30th 08 11:14 PM |
Changing horses in mid-stream | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 24 | April 13th 07 05:12 PM |
Horses, feed and careing there of | pyotr filipivich | Digital Photography | 0 | March 7th 06 07:46 AM |