Skip to main content

Capture One Pro 7 Performance Problem!

Comments

87 comments

  • Joachim
    Hi Nelson,

    I had a similar problem with version 7.0.0 but with version 7.0.1 it was as good as with CO6.

    Joachim
    0
  • Nelson1
    [quote="Joachim" wrote:
    Hi Nelson,

    I had a similar problem with version 7.0.0 but with version 7.0.1 it was as good as with CO6.

    Joachim


    Hi Joachim,

    I am running 7.0.1 also. My initial test with 7.0.1 was positive but I only brought up old CO6 adjusted .CR2 files. Today I was processing a set new .CR2 files shot today. I was surprised that the performance was very sluggish.

    Making a change in exposure, shadow or highlight could take a few seconds to take effect. Switching from one photo to another takes a second or two for the image to change. All 8 CPU threads were at near top of CPU usage. All adjustment were done on a fairly recent SSD drive, an OCZ Agility 3, not super fast but not super slow either. The images files, Capture One 7.0.1 program itself, its cache and output files, all on the same SSD C: drive.

    What is your setup?
    0
  • Coach
    I also find 7.0.1 noticeably slower to update the previews when switching from image to image and after adjustments. The initial release of 7.0 was much quicker to redraw the screen. I've tried with and without OpenCL. Disappointing at this point.
    0
  • Jim MSP
    Add me to the list with about the same sluggish performance. I've taken to using sessions, with files to be worked on sent in by MediaPro. I only send in a handful of files or so at a time, so I can start in on them fairly quickly.
    But at least 7.01 is not crashing on me.
    0
  • Nelson1
    By the way I was using sessions, not catalogs. If the session mode is sluggish, I cannot imagine what the catalog mode would be like. But I don't want catalog anyway even if it was 100x faster than the session mode. 😊
    0
  • Jim MSP
    There has been some recent discussion in one of the Lightroom forums I visit that certain virus protection software can slow the new LR 4 down to a crawl. I wonder if there are any similarities in how CO 7 behaves? I may experiment a bit and turn off my Norton Internet Security and see if that makes a difference.

    Has anybody tried disabling their own protection software?

    Jim
    0
  • Nelson1
    I am using MSE which cannot be turned off or at least I have not found a way yet.

    The "focusing viewer" wheel is turning every time a change is made and can be a good 1 second or two later for the change to be visible.

    Phase One, please tune and optimize your code. The performance was much better in CO6!
    0
  • Encho
    I can also confirm that COPro 7.1 is slower than 6 version. It takes 1-2 sec to update the preview (I have tested it on 3 computers with high specs). Pls, optimize the performance.
    0
  • NN263996UL3
    ☹️ a general disappointment with hang ups happening in all areas for some reason and crashing, (just seizes up)
    I'm using a DELL XPS WITH 18 GIG OF RAM, A LITTLE UNDER A YEAR OLD. With 6 I have few problems, but 7 is like stepping back into history.
    For some reason I get the impression that Windows and it's users are treated as second class citizens. The preferences (understandably I guess) being given to Apple and it's high end camera users.
    The poorer amateur or professional using cheaper cameras and generic lenses is rather looked down on......
    0
  • Luke Miller
    I have not experienced performance issues with Capture One 7.0 (or 7.0.1) on my Windows 7 PC using either sessions or catalog mode. So the challenge for Phase One is to understand why some have issues while others do not. As a Lightroom user I recall that Adobe went through this same issue when Lightroom 4 was released. Adobe resolved it and I suspect Phase One will as well.
    0
  • Glenn101
    I also had a delay in showing adjustments until a day ago. I did several things including cleaning out some caches because they contained corrupted files I believe was caused by several CO7 crashes, installing a new AMD 7770 graphic card with 1G and activating OpenCL. This also activated DirectX 11. I don't know if any of these things eliminated the delay but if not then something else I'm not aware of happened.

    Intel i7-running OC@3.6Mhz (very stable)
    12GB Triple Channel RAM
    OS drive 256GB SSD
    CO7 installed on SSD
    Image working directory on 2T HD, Backup 1T HD and 2T external HD
    New AMD Radeon HD7770 with 1GB memory
    OpenCL enabled (new)
    Windows 7 Pro x64
    Running Microsoft Security Essentials virus protection
    0
  • John7
    I also have an i7 on an Asus MB, 12GB of tri-channel memory. I just installed a new AMD HD7850 2GB memory. Open CL did speed up the conversion process dramatically, one test folder with about 30 5DmkII raw files took over 2 minutes for conversion without open CL, 47 seconds with it turned on. My problem is the delay going from image to image, Open CL has done nothing for that, I get an average of 3 to 7 seconds delay which is a real killer when you have hundreds of photos to go through. I don't have the time in my day to use Capture One for most of what I do. Right now 80% of my work is done in AfterShot Pro. I do have the latest LR but I just don't get along with it at all. I still upgraded to Pro 7 because I love what I get...I tried not too after my trial ran out but there were just some things that need what 7 is able to do, I love what it does with high ISO for the first time...just slow in my case. I'm sure once Phase One optimizes the code, I will be back to using it near the 100% level, their driving me nuts in the mean time.
    0
  • Glenn101
    I also have AfterShot Pro but with most images I can't quite get the image quality I get with Capture One Pro 7. I haven't used it all that much but if it can give near CO7 quality I'll work with more. Capture One gives me so much color without over saturation and such an increase dynamic range and noise control it's difficult not to use it. I just wish it functioned more reliably.
    0
  • Tolga Yurdaer
    Ok same problem here, I use c1 7 for my phase1 p45+ pics, and it is terrible to work with it. U have to wait a few seconds between pics, also a few seconds if u want to check something on 100%. I tried to install new graphic drivers nothing changed. at end I buy a new ssd and do a clean installation but still same problems.

    System
    2 x Xeon E5320
    Asus DSGC-DW workstation board
    14 gb FB Ram
    Win 8 pro 64bit on 240 GB Corsair Neutron SSD
    2x 750gb WD on RAID0 (total 1,5 TB)
    2x 2 TB Seagate on Raid0 (total 4 TB)
    Graphic Card:
    Ati radeon HD 4870 (1024mb GDDR5, Core clock 850 Mhz, memory clock 975 mhz)
    Catalyst 13.1

    I don't know what else I need to run c1 faster.
    0
  • NNN634487619466059669
    So far I can’t complain to much with the latest version. Did have some major problems with the first release of Ver 7 but Phase One fixed those with first update. Running on a Toshiba Satellite P850 laptop. Adjustments happen as fast as I can change them when viewed at 100% or more. My biggest problem is with initial start up. I only work in sessions with files exported from media pro. If it was a large session of 100 or more files it takes on average of about 45 seconds for C1 to load. Once loaded everything is pretty snappy at that point. Files are from a 5D mkIII so I feel these are a good test for the system. Maybe files from a P180 back would slow things up. Some day maybe.

    The laptop does run two graphics cards. A integrated Intel HD 4000 chip and a Nvidia Geforce GT 630M. I thought for sure this would be a recipe for disaster. But setting C1 to only use the Nvidia chip with OpenCL enabled from the beginning has not created any problems yet. The Nvidia chip does have 2G onboard memory.

    I have no virus software running and have windows 7 tweeked for Video editing Performance. I also use EnditAll to shut down all none essential services when working to give C1 full reign of the system. Other than the slow initial startup that I have with the latest version of C1 7, I am quite happy. I have been using C1 since ver 3 and never had the slow startup problem until Ver 7. But it gives me time to pour some coffee before the fun begins.


    Mark.

    Toshiba satellite P850
    Windows 7 Home
    Intel i7-3610QM
    Ram 16G
    Intel HD 4000 Graphics
    Nvidia Geforce GT 630M 2G ram OpenCL enabled
    720G HD (always work from this system drive)
    0
  • Cuong1
    I liked the photo quality of v7 but am very unhappy with its terribly slow performance. Adjusting anything burns up 100% CPU for a seconds. The response was sluggish. My drives are all SSD. CPU is i7 2.6 GHz (Dell 435MT). Video card is Qadro FX-1700. Performance is quite spontaneous with v6. I am not doing video editing and this HW should suffice for most or any photo editing needs.
    0
  • Paul Topol
    So I am persevering. Takes ages to process a wedding. Tried to split 600 raw into separate directories of about 100 files each. That seemed to help a bit.
    I love the results but SO SLOW!!

    I was wondering if anybody has tried using "virtual disk drives"? How?
    My machine has 16gb. Can I use some of it for Virtual? Would it help?

    Paul
    0
  • Cuong1
    The performance problem is not caused by slow disk and thus using RAM disk or SSD does not help. Any single edit caused all of my cores i7 2.6 GHz to work 100%. Thus either I upgrade my computer or pray that PhaseOne has a solution.
    0
  • Christian Gruner
    [quote="Cuong1" wrote:
    The performance problem is not caused by slow disk and thus using RAM disk or SSD does not help. Any single edit caused all of my cores i7 2.6 GHz to work 100%. Thus either I upgrade my computer or pray that PhaseOne has a solution.


    As far as I can tell the Dell 435MT is quite "old" in the world of computing. If you are using the stock CPU, you will find that newer generations of the i7 has a lot more power. Also, your Quadro 1700 is slow compared to the newer mid-range cards.
    Your addition of an SSD is spot on. It can really boost performance compared to a slow, rotational disc. However, it will not help on computing times.

    This is a good source to see what hardware will generate faster performance:
    GPU: http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/directCompute.html
    CPU: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
    HDD: http://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/ssd.html

    CO7 is more computing intensive than v6, because we are doing even better quality, and because more features are added to the pipeline.
    0
  • Cuong1
    Something is absolutely VERY wrong if i7 quad core on SSD and 16 GB cannot meet C1 v7 resource requirement. I was tempted to upgrade to 3930K but decided against it. Pass Mark CPU perforamnce rating for 3930K is only 2x faster than my current machine. That brings the wait time down from 2 sec to 1 sec per adjustment. Still not acceptable at all. LOL.

    Oh well. I just checked C1 update and saw C1 7.1 release. This version is much better and I am so glad that I don't upgrade. Thumbs up so far.
    0
  • Christian Gruner
    [quote="Cuong1" wrote:
    Something is absolutely VERY wrong if i7 quad core on SSD and 16 GB cannot meet C1 v7 resource requirement. I was tempted to upgrade to 3930K but decided against it. Pass Mark CPU perforamnce rating for 3930K is only 2x faster than my current machine. That brings the wait time down from 2 sec to 1 sec per adjustment. Still not acceptable at all. LOL.

    Oh well. I just checked C1 update and saw C1 7.1 release. This version is much better and I am so glad that I don't upgrade. Thumbs up so far.


    Have you tried with a higher end graphics card than your quadro 1700 ? Try with a gtx670/680 and you'll see instantaneous updates when changing a hardware accelerated parameter.
    0
  • Cuong1
    [quote="Christian Gr" wrote:


    Have you tried with a higher end graphics card than your quadro 1700 ? Try with a gtx670/680 and you'll see instantaneous updates when changing a hardware accelerated parameter.


    Just looked up gtx670/680 and it costs $400-500. Seems like high-end card for 3D graphics but I don't play computer games. Given such cost, I might as well upgrade to 3930K.

    Some adjustments like Hi Dynamic Range or Curve or zoom are instataneous. WB change is faster but still slow. Does gtx670/680 improve response time of WB adjusment?
    0
  • Christian Gruner
    [quote="Cuong1" wrote:
    [quote="Christian Gr" wrote:


    Have you tried with a higher end graphics card than your quadro 1700 ? Try with a gtx670/680 and you'll see instantaneous updates when changing a hardware accelerated parameter.


    Just looked up gtx670/680 and it costs $400-500. Seems like high-end card for 3D graphics but I don't play computer games. Given such cost, I might as well upgrade to 3930K.

    Some adjustments like Hi Dynamic Range or Curve or zoom are instataneous. WB change is faster but still slow. Does gtx670/680 improve response time of WB adjusment?


    I have access to computer with a 3930k cpu and a gtx680. Processing cpu vs gpu, the GPU is around 2 times faster (though CPU is still very fast on its own).

    Using the GFX for display, it's more a matter of how many FPS, and not so much about how much time you have to wait.
    0
  • Cuong1
    [quote="Christian Gr" wrote:


    I have access to computer with a 3930k cpu and a gtx680. Processing cpu vs gpu, the GPU is around 2 times faster (though CPU is still very fast on its own).

    Using the GFX for display, it's more a matter of how many FPS, and not so much about how much time you have to wait.


    Thanks for your response. Do you have recommendation on minimal HW configuration for V7 -- response time say is 100 msec for each adjustment. $400 for a graphic card is beyond my budget now. What would be minimal graphics card I should get? (I prefer Quadro as I like its color better than the gaming card -- may be that's no longer true).

    I am sure V7 is much more sophisticated and that shows in picture quality it generates. Just curious why the WB adjustment does not seem to benefit from my GPU as well as say dynamic range adjustment. Does WB balance adjustment uses GPU extensively too?
    0
  • Christian Gruner
    [quote="Cuong1" wrote:
    [quote="Christian Gr" wrote:


    I have access to computer with a 3930k cpu and a gtx680. Processing cpu vs gpu, the GPU is around 2 times faster (though CPU is still very fast on its own).

    Using the GFX for display, it's more a matter of how many FPS, and not so much about how much time you have to wait.


    Thanks for your response. Do you have recommendation on minimal HW configuration for V7 -- response time say is 100 msec for each adjustment. $400 for a graphic card is beyond my budget now. What would be minimal graphics card I should get? (I prefer Quadro as I like its color better than the gaming card -- may be that's no longer true).

    I am sure V7 is much more sophisticated and that shows in picture quality it generates. Just curious why the WB adjustment does not seem to benefit from my GPU as well as say dynamic range adjustment. Does WB balance adjustment uses GPU extensively too?


    We don't have any concrete pr adjustment latency measurement nor do we have a pr card benchmark. It would simply take up too many resources to do such a list.
    You best option would be to take a look at this list http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/directCompute.html and see what fits your budget and need.

    With regards to the Quadros, then there there's is no benefit from a Quadro card in CO. The gaming cards are much faster nowadays (which is also very obvious when looking at the list). Color is something you should hardware-calibrate anyway, so I wouldn't use that for a selling point for Quadro's.

    Regarding HDR and WB, HDR is not supported by OpenCL just yet, so using this feature will disable hardware acceleration for that specific picture.
    The reason why WB changes go though slower, it not because WB itself is processing intensive, but because WB is one of the first things to be calculated in the conversion, and so CO have the recalculate the entire conversion each time you change the WB. Different story with the HDR, as this is applied later in the chain, and thus all the underlying data does not have to be re-calculated.
    0
  • Cuong1
    I see. Just want to confirm that CO uses GPU when recalculating WB.
    0
  • Christian Gruner
    [quote="Cuong1" wrote:
    I see. Just want to confirm that CO uses GPU when recalculating WB.


    WB is hardware accelerated, yep.
    0
  • Alain
    Christian

    Thanks for the info.

    I have a question: Gives opencl a really noticeable speed improvement when culling pictures?

    More specific I mean choosing between different pictures that where made in a row (for example 5 images from a specific model/pose), where there's a fast switching between pictures and zooming in and out to 100% (or more).

    I do understand that opencl is disabled when a local adjustment is used in a picture.

    Second question: What is the speed improvement when going from a i5 to a comparable i7 (same Mhz). The pure CPU power is about 50% more, but that's not the only factor.

    Alain
    0
  • SFA
    It would be really interesting and potentially very useful to have some sort of decision tree graphic available to help with deciding how best to tune workflow processes and machines and where best to make investments for different types of workflow.

    For example in a studio environment where one migh expect, normally, to get an image 'right' in camera I would assume that initial RAW conversion and basic tweaking may, for most people, be a relatively simple activity that could well make excellent use of a powerful graphics card and decent CPU.

    On the other hand much of my activity is ooutdoors in variable lighting conditions and I tend to use the HDR adjustments a lot to re-map the DR. In which case most of my images will likely be CPU influenced but (currently) not use the GPU at all. In that case most, but perhaps not all, of my stuff may not really benefit in any way fomr the efficiciencies a powerful GPU and OpenCL might offer. My investement might be best made in the CPU and memory (? endless benefit from adding memory?) and perhaps SSD capacity. (I am assuming thet the motherboard and other machine characteristics would be OK but even there some good guidance would be useful.)

    What might work well is for P1 to offer a guidance document against which we users on the forum (et al) could offer some comments about how their personal experiences match up to the suggestions ... that sort of thing.

    I'm not really thinking about a full scientific test - far too many variables for that IMO. Just something that allows people to observe, for their confiogurations, what seemed to work to a worthwhile extent and what did not.

    What do people think about the suggestion?



    Grant Perkins.
    0
  • Cuong1
    [quote="Christian Gr" wrote:
    [quote="Cuong1" wrote:
    I see. Just want to confirm that CO uses GPU when recalculating WB.


    WB is hardware accelerated, yep.


    Thanks. Bought GTX 660TI. Hope this fixes the woes of performance problems.
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.