memory leaking bad!
Not new topic. I saw the thread about 9.0.1 leak. Supposedly there was a patch too. But this one is 9.0.3. Memory leaks must have been fixed already.
Still leaking, badly too... How to reproduce. Very easy. Load 1000 canon raw files. and go from the first one up, just reviewing, assigning stars. At the start the memory usage is about 3.5Gb, but when you reach the middle of the list, memory usage will be 15Gb.
At which point you will notice delays, visual delays, redrawing the picture when you zoom in and zoom out. Also, if you try to delete a file (Del key - move to trash), it will take 5-6 seconds for each file, and quite likely, you will see also, the preview generation process starting for no good reason (right after a file has been deleted), generating all the previews again.
Also, when at this point (in low memory), the database will get corrupted EVERY time (happened 3 times to me today)
Maybe this database corruption is related to how the low memory condition is handled in C1.
I am thinking about making the first pictures review and in PS bridge now as before, cut down to 30% there and then correct and convert using C1... Until C1 works with large sets. As it is now, it is basically not functional.
Still leaking, badly too... How to reproduce. Very easy. Load 1000 canon raw files. and go from the first one up, just reviewing, assigning stars. At the start the memory usage is about 3.5Gb, but when you reach the middle of the list, memory usage will be 15Gb.
At which point you will notice delays, visual delays, redrawing the picture when you zoom in and zoom out. Also, if you try to delete a file (Del key - move to trash), it will take 5-6 seconds for each file, and quite likely, you will see also, the preview generation process starting for no good reason (right after a file has been deleted), generating all the previews again.
Also, when at this point (in low memory), the database will get corrupted EVERY time (happened 3 times to me today)
Maybe this database corruption is related to how the low memory condition is handled in C1.
I am thinking about making the first pictures review and in PS bridge now as before, cut down to 30% there and then correct and convert using C1... Until C1 works with large sets. As it is now, it is basically not functional.
0
-
Please contact our Support right away. Sadly we cannot seem to reproduce this in-house, so investigating your setup would be very helpful in the effort to fix this issue. 0 -
Christian, this sounds very familiar.
I don't know enough about computing to comment directly on atelzzz's post, but I can tell you that doing almost anything with the catalogue on my iMac results in serious delays - minutes in most cases, while C1 works things out.
I'm a new user and I love what C1 does with my raw files, but it's bordering on unusable much of the time.0 -
Not the only leak. Here's another one:
When working with a number of catalogs (one at a time), I noticed that Capture one does not free up or re-use the previously used memory. After closing a catalog it just takes new memory when opening another catalog. This way, it eats up all memory, becomes unresponsive sooner or later, and finally crashes the system.
I verified this with a new, empty catalog on two different Macbooks. There never was a single image imported, therefore not related to the Canon specific issue. CO was freshly started. With each closing and opening of the empty catalog, CO uses 1.9GB more memory.
Support case filed, PO support verified it as a bug and reported to R&D.
For the time being, changing catalogs means close and re-open CO.
Regards,
Hans0 -
[quote="atelzzz" wrote:
Not new topic. I saw the thread about 9.0.1 leak. Supposedly there was a patch too. But this one is 9.0.3. Memory leaks must have been fixed already.
Memory leak would mean that the software never releases the memory again (until force quit). What I and others have seen AND reported is high memory usage on large batch operations (e.g. deleting a keyword from the library). But the memory usage goes down again, once the process has finished.[quote="atelzzz" wrote:
Still leaking, badly too... How to reproduce. Very easy. Load 1000 canon raw files. and go from the first one up, just reviewing, assigning stars. At the start the memory usage is about 3.5Gb, but when you reach the middle of the list, memory usage will be 15Gb.
So, you are importing 1000 canon raw files. Is Capture One done with generation of the previews when you start reviewing and rating? Activity monitor shows you that is working on the previews. That is probably the batch process that is eating memory. Wait until all previews have been generated. Does the memory usage go down then? If yes, then that is not a memory leak but still *** programming that needs to be fixed.
Try smaller batches and see how memory consumption is then.0 -
[quote="HansB" wrote:
After closing a catalog it just takes new memory when opening another catalog. This way, it eats up all memory, becomes unresponsive sooner or later, and finally crashes the system.
(...)
For the time being, changing catalogs means close and re-open CO.
Didn't have a crashing system but since 9.0.3 C1 regularly crashed when switching (large) catalogs and the only workaround is to close and re-open CO as you wrote.0 -
[quote="ShaneB" wrote:
Christian, this sounds very familiar.
I don't know enough about computing to comment directly on atelzzz's post, but I can tell you that doing almost anything with the catalogue on my iMac results in serious delays - minutes in most cases, while C1 works things out.
I'm a new user and I love what C1 does with my raw files, but it's bordering on unusable much of the time.
How big are your catalog (images, type)?
Is it made by importing Aperture/LR catalogs?
What hardware?0 -
[quote="Christian Gruner" wrote:
[quote="ShaneB" wrote:
Christian, this sounds very familiar.
I don't know enough about computing to comment directly on atelzzz's post, but I can tell you that doing almost anything with the catalogue on my iMac results in serious delays - minutes in most cases, while C1 works things out.
I'm a new user and I love what C1 does with my raw files, but it's bordering on unusable much of the time.
How big are your catalog (images, type)?
Is it made by importing Aperture/LR catalogs?
What hardware?
Before I respond to your questions, I booted up LR and then C1 after starting my iMac this morning:
- LR was usable in 20 seconds and was using 555MB of memory (according to Activity Monitor)
- C1 took 5minutes 55 secs to be available, started using 6G of memory, peaked at around 18G before settling down to 8G when I could have started using it.
Now, to answer your questions:
. Catalogue is about 36k of images of varying types: mainly Nikon RAW, but also JPEGs, TIFFs and some Fuji RAW.
. I was shooting with a Nikon D300 (12MP) but moved to a D800 (36MP). Hard to say what the breakdown is - but I can investigate if needed.
. The catalogue was from importing my LR catalogue, and now has maybe 100 files added.
. Hardware is iMac: iMac (Retina 5K, 27-inch, Late 2014), i7 (4G), 24 G 1600 RAM, Graphics: AMD Radeon R9 M290X 2048 MB
Happy to provide anything else if it will get this software working!
Regards
Shane0 -
Typical symptoms of my experience with an iMac 5k (massive memory usage and not freeing when closing a catalog) - been reported and marked as a problem but no further feedback or fix 1 have to say I'm disappointed that this software performs so badly on such a powerful computer and may return to Lightroom if things don't improve and I can no longer rely on C1... 0 -
I am afraid that i have exactly the same experience, and on 2 different machines as well.
Memory usage was 13.5gb after culling through image import of (canon raw) of appx. 300 images.
It also took about 8 minutes to open the catalog with 21.000 images.0 -
[quote="ShaneB" wrote:
[quote="Christian Gruner" wrote:
[quote="ShaneB" wrote:
Christian, this sounds very familiar.
I don't know enough about computing to comment directly on atelzzz's post, but I can tell you that doing almost anything with the catalogue on my iMac results in serious delays - minutes in most cases, while C1 works things out.
I'm a new user and I love what C1 does with my raw files, but it's bordering on unusable much of the time.
How big are your catalog (images, type)?
Is it made by importing Aperture/LR catalogs?
What hardware?
Before I respond to your questions, I booted up LR and then C1 after starting my iMac this morning:
- LR was usable in 20 seconds and was using 555MB of memory (according to Activity Monitor)
- C1 took 5minutes 55 secs to be available, started using 6G of memory, peaked at around 18G before settling down to 8G when I could have started using it.
Now, to answer your questions:
. Catalogue is about 36k of images of varying types: mainly Nikon RAW, but also JPEGs, TIFFs and some Fuji RAW.
. I was shooting with a Nikon D300 (12MP) but moved to a D800 (36MP). Hard to say what the breakdown is - but I can investigate if needed.
. The catalogue was from importing my LR catalogue, and now has maybe 100 files added.
. Hardware is iMac: iMac (Retina 5K, 27-inch, Late 2014), i7 (4G), 24 G 1600 RAM, Graphics: AMD Radeon R9 M290X 2048 MB
Happy to provide anything else if it will get this software working!
Regards
Shane
Thank you for the information, it is very useful when trying to reproduce this in-house.0 -
[quote="NN635837921732586454UL" wrote:
Typical symptoms of my experience with an iMac 5k (massive memory usage and not freeing when closing a catalog) - been reported and marked as a problem but no further feedback or fix 1 have to say I'm disappointed that this software performs so badly on such a powerful computer and may return to Lightroom if things don't improve and I can no longer rely on C1...
So you are on a similar setup, 5k imac and LR imported catalog?0 -
Apart from the imported catalog - yes. I created a brand new catalog initially, then split it into 2 but with the issues with memory I merged them together again. I've proven the memory isn't being freed when the catalog is closed, but C1 remains open, but I also regularly get issues with the memory (and CPU) use escalating to the point that the program is unusable (spinning beach ball) for minutes at a time. I've seen other reports on similar issues with this particular type of iMac so I know I'm not alone... 0 -
On Mac, import a big Lr catalog (>20k pictures).
Run C1
Open the catalog. log memory consumption
Close it (keep C1 running), log memory consumption
Could you reproduce that ?[quote="Christian Gruner" wrote:
Please contact our Support right away. Sadly we cannot seem to reproduce this in-house, so investigating your setup would be very helpful in the effort to fix this issue.0 -
I don't think the PhaseOne crew has to look for specific machines or configurations. C1 is simply slow and a memory hog.
Agreed, it's not the most powerful machine anymore, but on a 2011 MacbookPro 15", editing a picture in a small catalog (100 images) and having 1 or 2 adjustment layers becomes really painful. Dragging a slider starts the spinner, and 10 seconds later I see the result. Brushing in an Adjustment layer takes 30 seconds or more. In short, editing is becoming less and less fun... I haven't tried much editing on my 27" 4K iMac at work, but opening a larger catalog (60K images) was no joy either. Memory consumption: 20GB and more!
I'm really considering going back to LR (Aperture is a joy to use but sadly shows its age in the Image processing department!). On the same MBP where C1 crawls in a 100 image catalog, LR moves reasonably fast through a 60K catalog and remains responsive when editing, even with many local adjustments.
I'm sticking a bit longer with C1 and hope they release a "real good" update pretty soon. And preferably not next year in 10.x which we all will have to pay for. I'm also waiting for Apple to update the 15" MBPr, but when I see the comments from people with beefier macs than mine, it may not matter much…
I wonder if the Windows version has the same problems?
Cheers,
Peter.0 -
[quote="peter.f" wrote:
On the same MBP where C1 crawls in a 100 image catalog, LR moves reasonably fast through a 60K catalog and remains responsive when editing, even with many local adjustments.
I am not sure I can contribute anything really helpful (I do not use really large catalogs as I create a new catalog for every day's shooting) but I can say that my system (which is only a Mini with 16GB of RAM, a dual-core i7 and with raw images on an external ssd) works well with no noticeable delays with catalogs of several hundred raw images.
Of course I do not have my catalogs import a second copy of the raws (Store Files in Current Location) so they only point to the originals and that may make a difference, but your machine is probably faster than mine. Have you tried not storing the raws in the catalog?0 -
[quote="peter.f" wrote:
I don't think the PhaseOne crew has to look for specific machines or configurations. C1 is simply slow and a memory hog.
Agreed, it's not the most powerful machine anymore, but on a 2011 MacbookPro 15", editing a picture in a small catalog (100 images) and having 1 or 2 adjustment layers becomes really painful. Dragging a slider starts the spinner, and 10 seconds later I see the result. Brushing in an Adjustment layer takes 30 seconds or more. In short, editing is becoming less and less fun... I haven't tried much editing on my 27" 4K iMac at work, but opening a larger catalog (60K images) was no joy either. Memory consumption: 20GB and more!
I'm really considering going back to LR (Aperture is a joy to use but sadly shows its age in the Image processing department!). On the same MBP where C1 crawls in a 100 image catalog, LR moves reasonably fast through a 60K catalog and remains responsive when editing, even with many local adjustments.
I'm sticking a bit longer with C1 and hope they release a "real good" update pretty soon. And preferably not next year in 10.x which we all will have to pay for. I'm also waiting for Apple to update the 15" MBPr, but when I see the comments from people with beefier macs than mine, it may not matter much…
I wonder if the Windows version has the same problems?
Cheers,
Peter.
Does your MBP have SSD?
I put in SSD and 16GB RAM for my 15" 2011 MBP (2.2 i7 / 512MB video card) and not getting any painful speeds or beachballs.
But I'm using sessions, each around 300-600 pics.
Just scrolling through browser is a bit sluggish.0 -
It's really weird you should experience speed issues with such a small catalog. My catalog contains 660 RAW files from my RX100 and I have no complain about speed.
Puzzling…0 -
[quote="Wesley" wrote:
Does your MBP have SSD?
I put in SSD and 16GB RAM for my 15" 2011 MBP (2.2 i7 / 512MB video card) and not getting any painful speeds or beachballs.
But I'm using sessions, each around 300-600 pics.
Just scrolling through browser is a bit sluggish.
The catalog is on an SSD, the RAW images are on an external WD Elements 2TB HD. The CPU is a 2.66GHz i7, but I only have 8GB of RAM. The graphics card normally switches to the faster Nvidia GeForce GT 330M 512MB, but I'm not sure whether C1 uses it. (it seems that C1 uses 2 GPUs if it finds 2 cards, but the slowest card pulls down the total speed. Not sure whether that is the case for the MBPs with the integrated and discrete cards). I'll fix it to use the faster discrete CPU only; maybe the helps.
Maybe the issue is the 8GB of RAM, but that really shouldn't be a problem.
I'll check whether using a session makes a difference, but a catalog of 90 images shouldn't really have an impact on the editing, should it?
Thanks for the suggestions, I appreciate the help!
Peter.0 -
Peter,
according to what I've read the gfx card would only be used if VRAM is 2 GB or more (only Grant reported that with v9 it seems that his lower specced card seems to be used).
So it is (very likly) all up to your CPU, RAM and drive speed.
You might possibly find this helpful
And no, I don't think the size of the catalog matters when it comes to editing an image.
cheers0 -
[quote="peter.f" wrote:
[quote="Wesley" wrote:
Does your MBP have SSD?
I put in SSD and 16GB RAM for my 15" 2011 MBP (2.2 i7 / 512MB video card) and not getting any painful speeds or beachballs.
But I'm using sessions, each around 300-600 pics.
Just scrolling through browser is a bit sluggish.
The catalog is on an SSD, the RAW images are on an external WD Elements 2TB HD. The CPU is a 2.66GHz i7, but I only have 8GB of RAM. The graphics card normally switches to the faster Nvidia GeForce GT 330M 512MB, but I'm not sure whether C1 uses it. (it seems that C1 uses 2 GPUs if it finds 2 cards, but the slowest card pulls down the total speed. Not sure whether that is the case for the MBPs with the integrated and discrete cards). I'll fix it to use the faster discrete CPU only; maybe the helps.
Maybe the issue is the 8GB of RAM, but that really shouldn't be a problem.
I'll check whether using a session makes a difference, but a catalog of 90 images shouldn't really have an impact on the editing, should it?
Thanks for the suggestions, I appreciate the help!
Peter.
If you have just 90 images in a catalogue would that allow you to put them on the SSD temporarily in order assess the performance with only internal drive?
What size is the SSD?
What are its rated performance inputs and ouputs?
I think you might find a notable difference if you had more that 8Gb RAM. Whether it would be all you would want I cold not possibly guess.
As BeO mentioned my lowly Quadro is now, seemingly, used by C1.
Older entries in the log files suggest that it was being ignored possibly because of an old assessment from first installation 3 years ago that indicated the K1000M was a waste of time at that stage. I don't think it was actually re-assessed (C1 skipped the performance check?) until V9 arrived - or maybe my NVidia driver update did the trick.
Anyway, it's not powerful in processing terms BUT does have a reported (GPU Monitor gadget ion Windows) 2GB of memory. General use shows 3% allocated to stuff but if I start C1 that goes to 25 to 27% as a baseline and may head to around 34% when busily processing. Maybe more - I don't watch it all the time.
I am not usually working with very large files. Whether that or some other factors would imply even more memory usage I have no idea. Most of my RAW files are either up to 14MB or 24MB. I don't normally generate any (especially not large TIFF) intermediate files.
Grant0 -
Something odd...
I usually work with the app window maximised (not full screen, but maximal window size). I just made it smaller (1/2 the screen width) so I could keep an eye on the activity monitor. Brushes are now instantaneously; showing and hiding the mask is immediate. When I make the window bigger again, hiding and showing the mask takes 10 seconds with the CPU load at 310%. When I make it smaller again its snappy again. Go figure!? If I make the editor window smaller (enlarge tools and browser), it's fast. When I make it "big", it's slow. So, keyhole editing seems to be the solution…
I've noticed in the log the following entry:
22/02/16 23:38:59,529 Capture One 9[8917]: Failed to set -rw-rw-rw permission of /Users/Shared/Capture One/ImageCore/ICOCL.bin : Error Domain=NSCocoaErrorDomain Code=4 "The file “ICOCL.bin†doesn’t exist." UserInfo={NSFilePath=/Users/Shared/Capture One/ImageCore/ICOCL.bin, NSUnderlyingError=0x7fdd7e2d93f0 {Error Domain=NSPOSIXErrorDomain Code=2 "No such file or directory"}}
I've read somewhere that this might have something to do with OpenCL? Maybe herein lies the problem?
Grant,
I'll try putting some images onto the SSD (Samsung 840 EVO 500GB), but with what I've now seen I doubt whether that will make a difference. The RAW files are from a Fuji X-T1 and X100s, approximately 30MB in size.
Anyhow, bedtime for now!
Thanks!
Peter.0 -
Fuji x-trans files don't have GPU support with C1 even if the gfx card would have higher speed/RAM.
What is your preview size? This seems to matter, and a smaller viewer being faster is also a good thing.
good night
BeO0 -
What is obvious here is that we're all trying to help each other which is great but no-one from PhaseOne is actually providing clear information about how they've designed their software and why it potentially has these issues - it feels like we're part of a beta test. I really feel that someone from the company should take responsibility this and work with us to understand the issues and deal with them without us having to 'guess' what size our previews should be, how many images can our catalogs hold and whether or not to use open CL... 0 -
Well, this is a user to user forum. Occasionally Phase One staff also helps in this forum. Both is great imo. It is an additional source of information (and help, as you mentioned).
But the official way for single users problems, suggestions and feature requests is the support system, not the forum. I would find it rather difficult and unusual for a company to solve each users issues in a forum.
For explanation how the software works and "best practices" there is a lot of information like the help pages, the professors blog, the live webinars - which are also recorded and published on youtube.
Why do you feel we are part of a beta test? Is it because of the problems reported in this forum, then consider that the forum is not representative for the customer base which is said to be 90k+. If you by yourself have so many issues that you feel you are part of a beta test than it is a different story of course.
I agree in an ideal world there could be more official information/statements regarding one or the other topic, e.g. 4k displays and performance, graphics cards benchmarks, specific hardware (PC/MAC) recommendations, best practices how to deal and work with larger catalogs
or simply a better catalog performance 😉0 -
Peter,
have you set your preview size to the resolution of your monitor (or at least as big as your viewer)? If the preview size is smaller than the viewer window then the preview will be regenerated from the raw file if loaded into the viewer, instead of just being loaded from the drive. I don't know if the same is true when you use the brush though.0 -
Hi BeO
Thanks for response (and your efforts to help others). Yes, this is a user to user forum, but I'm sure PhaseOne monitor it - they certainly should be - I know Christian provides some responses from time to time, and I've certainly been looking at all the resources you mention, but some of them haven't yet been updated for C1 9. However, they don't really seem to be providing core information as to what was in the minds of the developers when adding some of the preferences and how they typically affect performance on a modern Mac with 5K display - as users it looks like we've been guessing a lot of the time - 'try changing preview size' or 'switch off open CL and see what happens' are valid suggestions but I'd really like to understand more so I can make informed decisions regarding possible trade-offs between performance and accuracy of display (for example).
Maybe feeling like a beta tester is a little strong, but sometimes for me, the performance problems outweigh the usefulness of the software and I'm left frustrated and angry.0 -
yep, understood and appreciated. 0 -
[quote="BeO" wrote:
Peter,
have you set your preview size to the resolution of your monitor (or at least as big as your viewer)? If the preview size is smaller than the viewer window then the preview will be regenerated from the raw file if loaded into the viewer, instead of just being loaded from the drive. I don't know if the same is true when you use the brush though.
Also when you are working at full size the system is having to deal with many more pixels both to calculate for and to display. The working files in memory will be a lot bigger and all of that takes more effort - potentially stretching total memory requirement far enough that swapping out to disk and back again becomes part of the process.
Each layer (particularly brush areas) represents, probably, another pass through the data for each step in the process.
One way to deal with this, in terms of perceived performance, is to work to apply the adjustments just to the preview it possible. This, basically, is what I assume catalog users see when editing files that are off-line. I'm fairly sure that many other editor products do exactly that and then apply the changes when you hit the "Done" button or equivalent. The hang over from the old "destructive editing" days. Typically there will be some limitations to this approach for some adjustment types where access to the full original data is a requirement.
C1 is somewhat intensive in that, so far as I can tell, it always prefers to calculate from the base data. No compromise - except where the files are off line. That means that as file sizes grow with sensors and "de-mosaicing" complexity perhaps increases the amount of processing undertaken grows non-linearly placing ever greater demands on the systems. We expect not to notice this of course. I'm not sure why. All data processing faces the same challenges.
I'm not at all sure why there is a rush to 4k and 5k screens.
I can see the attraction and desirability but mainly for Video and TV and very large screens. For the bulk of day to day work at normal viewing distance - where's the real benefit? Would working at a lower resolution for bulk activity and higher resolution for final finishing be a solution to potential performance issue that MAY be related to driving high resolution displays?
The other possible performance killer seems likely to be the way Metadata is shared via XMP files. I could imagine there are some situations where that functionality might be compromised by unidentifiable external activity leaving C1 to either wait or abort or simply with very slow access opportunity to the data it is tasked to check.
Maybe that is another area the people with seemingly severe performance issues could benefit from checking. Turning off XMP loads is easy enough so it should be relatively simple to assess whether doing so changes the performance profile. Knowing that would be a step towards working out a best practise using what is available or suggesting a new approach or two that users might find more suitable.
As for memory leaking - hmm.
Firstly the use of a lot of memory is not a bad thing in itself. There is not much point to having a lot of memory and then not using it. On the other hand grabbing memory and not sharing it with other applications when they need it would be a bad thing. I have not seen any sign of that from C1 (using Windows).
Secondly as a process ends in terms of what is presented on screen there are still activities going on in the background to sort out the internal memory buffers, file cache and, potentially, various other updates depending on what actions have been taken. It may take the system a little time to re-register the new usage or, indeed, the system may not bother to empty memory buffers until it receives a new demand for their use.
Closing C1 could well be an interesting example of extended tidy up - especially for Catalogues where the system is set to generate a backup for the catalogue.
Until people are confident that they understand the effects of each stage in the process and how it modifies over all performance all that will happen is that headlines like "memory leaking bad" will be picked up and repeated in other threads where it is very likely "signs" will be misinterpreted (it's what happens in the world if computers) and everyone heads off down blind alleys achieving very little.
Certainly there are aspects of the ways that some process work that could be better described (without giving away too many "trade secrets") and might allow users to make more informed decisions about their own situations. However, in my experience of such matters and depending in the user involved, this may be beneficial or outright dangerous!
So I have some reservations about trying to offer too much information.
Moreover the internet has a tendency to make "information", good, bad and indifferent, readily available and quickly distributed but rarely does anyone tidy up as things change or correct outright mistake or misinterpretation.
Hundred of people may report "I have this problem..." How many of them will report "I have this fix ...."?
Grant0 -
Good post, Grant. [quote="SFA" wrote:
I'm not at all sure why there is a rush to 4k and 5k screens.
Just a guess, but if Apple (not limited to Apple of course) offers an iMac with such high resolution people think this must be something good and need to have. Which might be true for one or the other use case, but I have seen a video "testing" several peoples ability to distinguish an image on a high-res iMac vs. a non-high-res iMac side by side and they were not able to. The moderator of that video told that after a while he was able to "distinguish" it, but it did not really make a big difference.
Indeed, 4k or 5k pixels need to be computed and it seems obvious that this needs more resources & time than computing an image with a lower resolution.
cheers
BeO0 -
[quote="BeO" wrote:
Good post, Grant.
Just a guess, but if Apple (not limited to Apple of course) offers an iMac with such high resolution people think this must be something good and need to have. Which might be true for one or the other use case, but I have seen a video "testing" several peoples ability to distinguish an image on a high-res iMac vs. a non-high-res iMac side by side and they were not able to. The moderator of that video told that after a while he was able to "distinguish" it, but it did not really make a big difference.
Indeed, 4k or 5k pixels need to be computed and it seems obvious that this needs more resources & time than computing an image with a lower resolution.
cheers
BeO
In the end it doesn't matter if Retina iMacs make sense or not - fact is that they are available and apple more and more replaces non Retina iMacs with new Retina iMacs. And in fact they are available with really good specs.
Another thing to mention is, that Apples Photos app is screaming fast on the same machine with a 200GB Library, while C1 lags even with smaller catalogues or sessions. So it has to do something with the used database and/or the code of the Application.0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
61 comments