It is getting impossible to work with CO10
I have started an import process more than 12 hours ago for 3750 images and I still couldn't get to work with them as CO10 ether crashing, or freezing or busy wth generating previews. If you try to choose an image to work, it gives a beach ball which at the end you have to force quit.
Sorry for to say this, but instead of not so useful tangent or Eizo monitor support, PO team should sort out this software if they want to be a key competitor against LR.
Sorry for to say this, but instead of not so useful tangent or Eizo monitor support, PO team should sort out this software if they want to be a key competitor against LR.
0
-
[quote="fatihayoglu" wrote:
PO team should sort out this software if they want to be a key competitor against LR.
It is a key competitor for Lightroom. The fact that you happen to be having a problem with it doesn't suddenly stop this from being the case.
You haven't provided any information about your computer's spec or about the camera you're using - without which you're just ranting, and that's a breach of forum rules.
Are you importing into a session? Or a catalogue?
Was this on a freshly rebooted machine?
And what happens if (say) you half the size of the import batch?0 -
Looks like the computer and camera are in the original poster's sig, but agree a bit more information would be useful! 0 -
[quote="Keith Reeder" wrote:
[quote="fatihayoglu" wrote:
PO team should sort out this software if they want to be a key competitor against LR.
It is a key competitor for Lightroom. The fact that you happen to be having a problem with it doesn't suddenly stop this from being the case.
Maybe CO is a key competitor if you only compare image quality. In all other categories CO fails (workflow, DAM). And when I read all the performance problems here of CO10 I'm glad that I didn't upgrade from CO9 to 10. Right now I'm still doing the majority of my work in LR...0 -
[quote="enkaytee" wrote:
Looks like the computer and camera are in the original poster's sig, but agree a bit more information would be useful!
Yep, I saw that - but it's not our job to decode a rant, it's the poster's job to properly explain his problem.0 -
[quote="NN635299624516976000UL" wrote:
Maybe CO is a key competitor if you only compare image quality. In all other categories CO fails (workflow, DAM)...
Ah, the sound of goalposts being moved - the OP didn't complain about any of that.
Like it or not, we all have different requirements of converters, and for one individual to decide that Capture One is a failure in comparison to Lr just because he has a particular problem, is - frankly - both arrogant and tedious.0 -
Alright just for some clarification; I'm not ranting just expressing my thoughts and feelings. I'm a beta tester for CO when I have a chance and when they give me the option. I like CO, feel comfortable to use it.
My camera and computer specs are listed on my post, you don't need to look to deeply.
It is a freshly rebooted, NVRAM and SMC resettled machine. It has originally 13k images as a catalogue, shot with Nikon, no Tiffs or anythinelse only NEF files.
The apps are a package, the minute you put a new feature in it, you'll be a competitor, whether you like it or not. So if CO ha a DAM feature in it, it is my right to compare it to LR. Both apps have positive and negative sides and it is my right to say which feauture is more important to me. I like to colours, masking of CO but really dislike to DAM side as it makes really hard to work on. At the end of the day, I can t work on a image if opening or choosing it takes ages, right?
I have clearly expressed my problem, the situation and given you the specs of everything. If you see this as a rant, with that my friend, I can't help you.
Many thanks,
Fatih0 -
One of the things I find rather puzzling is that this apparent performance problem only seems to be severe on MACs and then by no means all of them.
No doubt we all expect to hear about problems in forums and rarely about successes.
Taking that into account we see a number of regular posters having a very poor reported experience but quite a few finding no problem or who had a problem that seems to have been overcome.
It occurs to me that, so far, I have not seen very much, other than some suggestions about certain types of TIFF files and whether or not filters are applied when a catalogue is opened, that describes a common problem and even less that attempts to identify what is common ground between those who have problems and what is different for those who do not have problems.
In the wild world of Windows where almost anything can be thrown together and called a "configuration" one might expect havoc to rule ... but so far as I can tell things are pretty much OK.
On the other hand the highly defined Apple world with it more rigid specification options seems to generate more challenges than one would expect.
So what are the common criteria that indicate that problems are likely or problems are unlikely? Do we yet know?
If not, why not? It's been a while now, if there are patterns to be found they should be appearing. Are they?
Grant0 -
I have/had three problems:
1) TIFFs with layers causing CO to hang for many minutes when they were selected. This was thankfully fixed in 10.0.2.
2) Random drop-outs for OpenCL, which results in a fairly dire image editing performance on my machine. When CO10 starts it runs some tests on OpenCL performance/behaviour, and sometimes - seemingly randomly - these fail on my machine. Since macOS 10.12.3 it seems to be a lot better behaved. These problems are likely very machine/OS specific, and from my experience PhaseOne are likely fighting Apple's currently less than stellar OpenCL support and implementation.
3) database hangs, most obviously when selecting "all images" in a large catalogue. All of my catalogues on Mac are affected by this, seemingly in proportion to the size/complexity of the catalogue. This is a design issue or bug in CO - I have Lightroom catalogues (which are also an SQL database) that are 5 to 10x larger and more complex, yet all catalogue operations such as collections and searching are essentially instantaneous. On a catalogue of 10k images stored on SSD, I get a hang of 30-60 seconds when selecting All Images for the first time. There are also problems when trying to select multiple images, where for example CMD-Clicking an image to add a second selected image takes 5 to 10 seconds before the UI responds.
If you are lucky with you Mac hardware (video card and driver, more than CPU) and do not use large or complex catalogues, you probably will not see any of these issues...0 -
I had seen 1) and see 2) but far more cumbersome is 3) as it basically prevents working with larger catalogs which is something beyond 2000 images on my machine.
There is also a
4) Memory is not properly released when closing a catalog. So when working with several large catalogs one should close the program itself when switching (larger) catalogs.
When browsing through the posts from people reporting problems most of the people providing details on the equipment seem to use Nikon DLSRs; same for me. I wonder whether there are any users observing the "slowness" of V10 that only use other camera types, i.e. have no NEF images in their catalogs.
Frank0 -
[quote="FL" wrote:
There is also a
4) Memory is not properly released when closing a catalog. So when working with several large catalogs one should close the program itself when switching (larger) catalogs.
Using Sessions on Windows I see that when closing C1 the process still exists for a few seconds after a session has been closed. However this is not normally any sort of problem and having 3 or 4 sessions open, along with several other applications, is only an issue of Firefox is struggling with something thrown at it across the internet.
So I wonder ... is there something going on as a post close activity when using a catalogue - a backup perhaps? - that takes inherently longer then anything remotely similar for a session might take? I can have several thousand files related to a session but I suspect many people will have much larger catalogues.
Memory management, as part of an overall "user experience" strategy is not always about freeing things up unless the system is running short of free memory. I would assume that at least in part and possibly in total freeing memory may be something managed via OS provided processes or influences and as such may vary between OS types and even versions. But unless the system is desperately short of free usable memory I would not expect it to have a really bad effect on performance in isolation from other possible influences.
I might be wrong though. It's certainly something about which to compare notes.
Grant0 -
[quote="FL" wrote:
...
4) Memory is not properly released when closing a catalog. So when working with several large catalogs one should close the program itself when switching (larger) catalogs.
...
I noticed this, too. It happens on catalogs and sessions. In both cases the amount of memory loss varies. The more images used/viewed/adjusted in a session, the bigger the loss. Similar for catalog sizes. After a number of sessions or catalogs, RAM is eaten up, compressed memory has grown dramatically. CO becomes slower and slower, hangs and finally crashes. Finally, in the worst case, OS X reboots.
Closing and re-opening CO on every session and catalog change is the only workaround I currently know.
I filed a support case a while ago. It was confirmed and reproducible.
Regards,
Hans0 -
Hans,
indeed, this is exactly what I observe and I can consistently crash macOS with this. I filed the corresponding bug report in December and also during the Beta phase. This bug was also in V9 till V9.2 and finally solved in V9.3.
For GPU memory a similar bug exists on some graphics cards. This slows down for example exporting of JPG or TIFF over time but at least it does not lead to a crash. Disabling GPU is the only known work around.
For me bug 3) is much worse than everything else as there is no work around.
Best
Frank0 -
Interesting to see clear common experiences on bug 3.
Have any Mac users found that they do not see that situation and/or cannot reproduce the symptoms?
Grant0 -
I have not seen any report saying "I do not see bug 3)" but on the other hand people not having an issue might not read these posts anyway. You also need to work with catalogs of at least a few thousand images.
Interesting is that all that have commented to see the bug and provide their technical details use Nikon cameras (NEF files).0 -
Grant,
It might be that a lot of people stopped complaining about the DAM functionality because they found a workaround, be it thru LR or MediaPro or any other kind of workflow. I was firmly in the MediaPro camp, having found a working solution with that and C1 in sessions mode, until the people at PhaseOne decided to upgrade the one and not the other. Now my whole workflow is broken as my edits won't show up in MediaPro. That's a whole different complaint, let's not go into that 😊
Anyway, for me the catalogue part of C1 is completely unworkable (startup time north of three minutes even with a small 10.000 images catalog; computer hangs for 15 minutes trying to find an image by keyword etc. - its an old Macbook Pro from 2010 but a LR catalog with 50K images has none of these problems), but as long as workarounds exists I've found better use of my time than keep on complaining in a forum. I've done that and filed my bug reports; time to move on, no need for negative energy. Even with its flaws on the DAM side of things, C1 still beats the competition for me because of the accuracy of its colors. I do think however, that Phase One could be earning a lot more money if they fixed this, but that's their call to make.
Emile0 -
[quote="FL" wrote:
?..
Interesting is that all that have commented to see the bug and provide their technical details use Nikon cameras (NEF files).
No, I've got Canon cr2 files.[quote="FL" wrote:
I have not seen any report saying "I do not see bug 3)" but on the other hand people not having an issue might not read these posts anyway. You also need to work with catalogs of at least a few thousand images.
...
I created 1-image catalog for testing and used a 1-image session, too. Memory loss is still there, but only 60MB per open/close.
Many users seem to work on a single, full lifetime catalog or a single session. They'll never notice it.
Regards,
Hans0 -
[quote="SFA" wrote:
Interesting to see clear common experiences on bug 3.
Have any Mac users found that they do not see that situation and/or cannot reproduce the symptoms?
Grant
I haven't seen any of this. I'm on an iMac (late 2013), i7 3.5 GHz, 32 GB ram, 1 TB SSD. I have only 8600 images in my catalog, the vast majority of which are NEF's. Open CL is set to auto for both display and processing. Just now I selected all 8600 images & it was virtually instantaneous. Haven't seen any other slowdowns. The only thing that bothers me occasionally is Smart Folders or searches giving wonky results.0 -
[quote="FL" wrote:
I have not seen any report saying "I do not see bug 3)" but on the other hand people not having an issue might not read these posts anyway. You also need to work with catalogs of at least a few thousand images.
Interesting is that all that have commented to see the bug and provide their technical details use Nikon cameras (NEF files).
Frank,
A good observation.
I was going to suggest that this probably indicated that Nikon users all use Macs and Canon user all use Windows machines - it seemed like an instant and elegant logical conclusion until Hans disproved the idea. (At least to some extent he disproved the idea...) 😂
Grant0 -
[quote="Emile1" wrote:
Grant,
It might be that a lot of people stopped complaining about the DAM functionality because they found a workaround, be it thru LR or MediaPro or any other kind of workflow. I was firmly in the MediaPro camp, having found a working solution with that and C1 in sessions mode, until the people at PhaseOne decided to upgrade the one and not the other. Now my whole workflow is broken as my edits won't show up in MediaPro. That's a whole different complaint, let's not go into that 😊
Anyway, for me the catalogue part of C1 is completely unworkable (startup time north of three minutes even with a small 10.000 images catalog; computer hangs for 15 minutes trying to find an image by keyword etc. - its an old Macbook Pro from 2010 but a LR catalog with 50K images has none of these problems), but as long as workarounds exists I've found better use of my time than keep on complaining in a forum. I've done that and filed my bug reports; time to move on, no need for negative energy. Even with its flaws on the DAM side of things, C1 still beats the competition for me because of the accuracy of its colors. I do think however, that Phase One could be earning a lot more money if they fixed this, but that's their call to make.
Emile
Emile, interesting observations once again.
I don't doubt that Phase would prefer to not have these problems affecting some users.
I would assume they are extremely keen to fix the problem for those experiencing it but that it is either proving elusive to fully diagnose or to find a fix that works for the way C1 is designed to work.
However, if there are indeed users out there with Macs who do not have the problem even with very large catalogues (several tens of thousands of images or even more), working out the source of the problem may be tricky. It would be good to monitor for it in the (ever changing) log files ... bit of course first you have to have some clue as to where and what to monitor before you can put a watch on it and write out the events records.
Whether any part of the system, Phase's or Apple's or some third party's code and associated activity logs, offers any clues may not be easy to assess.
It's a frustrating situation, certainly, but in some ways a fascinating challenge although perhaps only if one is not personally suffering the consequences.
Let's hope the source of the problem becomes evident soon and that it is readily solvable.
Grant0 -
[quote="NN634867799481371016UL" wrote:
[quote="SFA" wrote:
Interesting to see clear common experiences on bug 3.
Have any Mac users found that they do not see that situation and/or cannot reproduce the symptoms?
Grant
I haven't seen any of this. I'm on an iMac (late 2013), i7 3.5 GHz, 32 GB ram, 1 TB SSD. I have only 8600 images in my catalog, the vast majority of which are NEF's. Open CL is set to auto for both display and processing. Just now I selected all 8600 images & it was virtually instantaneous. Haven't seen any other slowdowns. The only thing that bothers me occasionally is Smart Folders or searches giving wonky results.
Thanks for taking the time to provide this information.
I too have seen some slightly odd results on selections when working with a few thousand files - in a session in my case and using Windows.
I have no idea why they seemed odd. I think, possibly, it may be to do with trying to offer something to work with ASAP - maybe before the full selection is prepped ready to display. In my case it seemed to be mostly field missing from a sequence - but they appeared a little later.
What happened was not especially relevant to what I was doing at the time so I did not attempt a detailed investigation.
Grant0
Post is closed for comments.
Comments
20 comments