⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived.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

6.4.3 vs 7.0.2

Paul Guarente

January 19, 2013 22:46

Hi All,
I thought I would share some results of some tests that I just ran.

I ran a few tests on both C1 6.4.3 and C1 7.0.2 tethered to both a Canon 5D mark2 and mark3.
The camera shot the same scene, all settings remained the same.
I shot raw images.
I started the timer when I started shooting and stopped it when the last image snapped into focus.
I quit and restarted the software between each test.
I did each test twice.
I ran the test on my MacBook Pro, OS 10.7.5, 2.66Ghz, Core 2 Duo, 4 GB ram.
I found that C1 7.0.2 was much slower and the processing times were a little inconsistent.

I first shot 15 exposures, one second between each capture:
Mark 2: C1 6 - 34sec/34s C1 7 - 1:11/1:34
Mark 3: C1 6 - 37s/36s C1 7 - 2:01/1:12

I next shot 30 exposures, two seconds between each capture:
Mark 2: C1 6 - 1:05/1:04 C1 7 - 2:26/3:12
Mark 3: C1 6 - 1:13/1:14 C1 7 - 1:57/3:01

I did the workaround of installing the specific Canon Utility files into each of the C1 programs.

I have not run a test of what will happen on Mac OS 10.8.2.
I'd love to hear anyones and everyones thoughts.

Comments

9 comments

Rick Allen

January 20, 2013 02:27
Have you tried setting the preview size to the same size in 7 as 6?
0
SFA

January 20, 2013 12:17
It would be interesting to see the same comparison for, say, an i5 or i7 based machine with 8Gb RAM (or more).

One of the potential problems of redeveloping applications to take advantage of new and apparently more powerful architectures is that the nature of the processing stream is forced to change, along with other aspects of software design, to take advantage of the newly available increased processing power. This can have adverse results for older systems that are unable to make use of the new processing abilities and indeed may struggle with them.

The most obvious result of that update for V7 is the (quite logical) loss of a 32bit version for Windows. That sent a nessage to Windows users that Mac users may not be aware of being already 64 bit for any form of compatibility.

There's a trade off between absolute performance and "doing more stuff because we can" within the application development philosophy. The results are not guaranteed to be entirely obvious - or so I have found when testing business applications on windows platforms!

The main reason I think an equivalent test with a higher spec. system would be a great idea is that it would allow people to make some sort of judgement about the benefit of a hardware upgrade if they are using kit that is at the lower and of the acceptable compatibility range at the moment.

For instance I have a laptop with a Core Duo processor and 2Gb RAM. It runs 32bit V6 well enough for my purposes as a laptop. Bulk processing I do on a desktop (albeit a P4 based system so that needs to be replaced!)

I could upgrade the laptop to go to 4Gb and 64bit Windows but would that make any sense? The machine is 5, maybe 6 years old. Something major is likely to fail soon. So do I update or upgrade? Now? There are rumours of lots of interesting enhancements being prepared for 2013 releases.

If the performance differential for a WIndows based machine is much the same as in your Mac test an upgrade look like a very sensible idea. But if that V6 to V7 difference is still a factor for a higher specification machine a more careful assessment of what to buy would make sense. Fine tuning the spec. may be appropriate rather than just throwing resource (and money) at the decision.

So, if anyone can repeat the test I, for one, would be very interested.

Grant Perkins
0
Marcin Klaban

January 20, 2013 13:57
Well. Im using both versions. Mac and PC. All I can say now, that mac version is crashing frequently.. Last friday I was shooting all day. I've got 12 crashes...
Im running 10.6.8.. Maybe thats the problem.. Support case sent.. I didn't get so much crashes on 6.x.x.

I don't have such problems on my PC ( i7, 12 GB ram, Win8 ), but it feels slower than 6.x.x Also, I have problem with OpenCl acceleration when processing.. I'm getting black images..
0
Paul Steunebrink

January 20, 2013 15:46
[quote="Kodakdog" wrote:
...
I did the workaround of installing the specific Canon Utility files into each of the C1 programs.

Just for the record, CO 7.0.2 now contains the newest Canon SDK as of today, and you should not (need to) do the workaround with EOS Utility files as described elsewhere on the forum.
0
Paul Guarente

January 21, 2013 04:46
H
[quote="Paul_Steunebrink" wrote:
[quote="Kodakdog" wrote:
...
I did the workaround of installing the specific Canon Utility files into each of the C1 programs.

Just for the record, CO 7.0.2 now contains the newest Canon SDK as of today, and you should not (need to) do the workaround with EOS Utility files as described elsewhere on the forum.

Hi Paul,
That's what I thought, but it didn't work. I tried it on my i7 iMac but it didn't want to play ball. I'll try it again when I get back from a shoot just to make sure I didn't have the Canon Utility files already installed, as I believe that use to make a difference and the camera wouldn't connect to the software if that file was installed.

I will also run the same test on my iMac but it will be under 10.8.2, it should be interesting.

I'll be in touch.....
0
Paul Guarente

January 28, 2013 22:45
update to previous tests.........
I installed CO 7 onto my iMac i7 2.93 12GB ram
As long as you wait for the file to upload, it seemed fine. As soon as I started shooting at one exposure per second, it would crash at either the 5th exposure or the 9th exposure.
I then installed CO 6 with the work-around, the capture was much faster but it repeatedly crashed at the 11th exposure.
I then installed the Canon EOS Utility as well as CO 6 and now it would crash at the 5th exposure.
Not sure what to do next, I suppose I'll install the Canon DPP with the Canon Utility and shoot to that......
0
MidWestTech

January 28, 2013 22:51
[quote="klabton" wrote:
I have problem with OpenCl acceleration when processing.. I'm getting black images..

What happens when you turn off Open CL? Not all graphics cards are created equal when it comes to open CL... Just because a card supports it that by no means is an indication of how well it supports it. Personally, I have it turned off on every machine I use.
0
MidWestTech

January 28, 2013 22:52
[quote="Kodakdog" wrote:
update to previous tests.........
I installed CO 7 onto my iMac i7 2.93 12GB ram
As long as you wait for the file to upload, it seemed fine. As soon as I started shooting at one exposure per second, it would crash at either the 5th exposure or the 9th exposure.
I then installed CO 6 with the work-around, the capture was much faster but it repeatedly crashed at the 11th exposure.
I then installed the Canon EOS Utility as well as CO 6 and now it would crash at the 5th exposure.
Not sure what to do next, I suppose I'll install the Canon DPP with the Canon Utility and shoot to that......

Just out of curiosity, what else are you running at the same time as C1Pro?

Have you opened up activity monitor or console to see if you notice any patterns there?
0
Paul Guarente

January 29, 2013 00:01
Nothing was running, but I have not looked at the activity monitor.

I installed the Canon DPP software and ran the same test.

It took 28 seconds before the last frame snapped into focus on the 15 exposure test.

I was then able to use CO 7 for three tests before it crashed.

the 15 exposure test, one every second, took 48, then 62 seconds, then it crashed on the third attempt.
the 30 exposure test, one every two seconds, took 2:17s, then crashed on the second attempt.
0

Post is closed for comments.