Skip to main content

⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived. The information contained here may no longer be accurate or up-to-date. ⚠️

Capture One nightmare!!!!

Comments

9 comments

  • H. Cremers
    Well, external drives are not CO's forte, so this is going to give some "pain". But, think of what the system has to do when importing into the catalog, it has to access each and every file, render a preview and harvest the keywords. This could take a while, even if it would be on your local hard disk. Whether or not it should take 80 hours, i don't know, but i do know more systems than CO struggle with the fact that they should enter thousands and thousands of images at once, let alone that it takes long.

    Perhaps you could do this in batches, for example per year, or per number of images (say 5000 each time). Sure, total throughput time will be longer, but each batch will finish faster and perhaps you won't be so annoyed 😊
    0
  • ettore.causa
    [quote="HCS" wrote:
    Well, external drives are not CO's forte, so this is going to give some "pain". But, think of what the system has to do when importing into the catalog, it has to access each and every file, render a preview and harvest the keywords. This could take a while, even if it would be on your local hard disk



    well then please explain me why when I have tried to import the same folders stored on the same external drive with Lr 5.... it was completely a different story...
    To scan the number of files took less than e minute
    to import all of them less then an hour....

    Thanks
    Ettore
    0
  • H. Cremers
    Well, i can't and i don't. I am not on trial for the well and wrong doings of certain software.

    I hear often that LR is slow, #5 more so. I don't know whether that is true, because i have never tried it.

    If you like LR better, why not continue using it? If it works for you then it's OK, right?
    0
  • ettore.causa
    [quote="HCS" wrote:
    Well, i can't and i don't. I am not on trial for the well and wrong doings of certain software.

    I hear often that LR is slow, #5 more so. I don't know whether that is true, because i have never tried it.

    If you like LR better, why not continue using it? If it works for you then it's OK, right?



    I didn't intend to offend you!... sorry!
    its just the frustration I am feeling those days.... that drives me mad
    the reason I switched is that Capture One 7 delivers the best IQ on the market....
    0
  • H. Cremers
    OK, no problem.

    If you like the quality of the conversions better, then there isn't really more you can do than wait and hope it gets better over time.

    For what it's worth, i am not seeing the problems you're seeing. But, then again (like said before), i'm not using the catalog function of CO7 like you are (if i use them, only small ones for temporary use).
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    Have you checked the drivers for your external drive to make sure you have the latest. It's possible the LR and CO7 access the drive differently and that could cause part of the performance difference you see. I'm using an external WD Firewire 800 drive and saw significant improvement when I loaded their add-on driver.

    I have both CO7 and LR5 loaded and running against the same files on my external drive. CO7 is significantly faster for me when building previews and when when browsing files. But, I tend to still use sessions for CO7 rather than the catalog. This doesn't negate the issue you are seeing, but maybe there are other variables to check such as drivers for your external storage.
    0
  • Paul Steunebrink
    I understand you have your images on an external drive and have imported them as referenced images (store in current location).

    Question is where is the catalog stored, on the internal drive?

    Other question is the size of your previews. The default 2560 px puts a heavy load on the system.

    And, have you done a verify of the catalog which might optimize the database?
    0
  • ettore.causa
    [quote="Paul_Steunebrink" wrote:
    I understand you have your images on an external drive and have imported them as referenced images (store in current location).

    Question is where is the catalog stored, on the internal drive?

    Other question is the size of your previews. The default 2560 px puts a heavy load on the system.

    And, have you done a verify of the catalog which might optimize the database?



    Yes,the catalog is on the internal flash drive and it was optimized several times
    i will try and see if using an smaller preview size helps

    Thanks
    Ettore
    0
  • ettore.causa
    [quote="nusbaum" wrote:
    Have you checked the drivers for your external drive to make sure you have the latest. It's possible the LR and CO7 access the drive differently and that could cause part of the performance difference you see. I'm using an external WD Firewire 800 drive and saw significant improvement when I loaded their add-on driver.



    I have the latest firmware and the latest turbo drive
    but thanks for the suggestion!
    0

Post is closed for comments.