メインコンテンツへスキップ

⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived.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

Where do previews improve speed?

Jerry C
This topic was previously mentioned, but the the usefulness of preview size on speed was not clear to me. On my iMac Pro (64GB memory, 3 GHz Intel Xeon X, and Radeon Pro Vega 64 graphics), changing previews size from the maximum to the minimum has no effect on any task. Specifically, I cannot detect an effect on display latency as I scroll through images, processing, exporting, resolution of the image in the display, export, or response to masking or slider adjustments or speed of regeneration of a full resolution image (just under to just over a second), regardless of the preview preference selected.

I thought my selection of image size in the preferences might not be actually changing image size, but in checking the resulting preview size after selecting minimum, versus maximum size preference and regenerating some images, it is clear that those images file size change from a minimum of KB to a maximum of MB. So, the preferences I chose are actually determining the preview file size.

Changing preview preferences should have some effect. Why can't I reproduce this? Does preview size only affect off line viewing/editing of images?
0

コメント

7件のコメント

日付 投票
  • photo by FA
    So, when the preview sizes are small, CO reads the original RAW file and create an adequate preview to show you on your screen, depending the size of the window. If the preview size is big enough, it skips the calculation and shows you the preview. I guess your system is fast enough so you don't see any difference as reading from internal SSD on an iMac Pro should be really quick since it is actually a Raid 0 setup by 2x SSD drives.

    You can test if it affects the system by keeping the previews small and putting the original RAW files on a network attached drive. As it will take time to get the RAW from NAS and do calculations to show them on the screen, CO should be slower.
    0
  • Jerry C
    Thanks. Indeed, generation of the preview from the RAW file is virtually unaffected by preview size or location of the catalog or referenced files on my system. I have my catalog on the iMac Pro SSD and the referenced files on an external 4 GB G-Technology USB 3.1 Gen 1 Drive.

    I have also evaluated speed with the catalog and referenced files both on the external drive, and also with the catalog and referenced files on the SSD. No matter the location of the catalog and referenced files, the speed of the system in calculating an image seems to mask any differences in selection of preview size.

    Given the speed of a fast computer, the need for previews seems minimal unless one needs to edit images without access to the referenced files, the referenced files are on a NAS or on a cloud server. With the ever decreasing costs of local storage, the need to travel without access on an attached HD/SSD to referenced files is diminishing.

    In my case, the preview size set for 3840 px takes up 82 GB of space and the rest of the catalog takes up 1 GB. This vastly increases the time for backup and storage for no apparent gain.

    Is it time to request the option for a catalog without previews or am I missing something?
    0
  • SFA
    You would give up the possibility of doing basic editing (things that do not require access to the source file) when on the road if not taking the source images with you.

    This may not matter to you at all.

    If your system really is that fast that you don't feel a need have any previews the most obvious things you can do today is make the preview size as small as allowed and re-generate all of them. That should reduce the size on disk.

    Then create a Support Case to make an enhancement suggestion to the Capture One development team for an option to not create previews on import nor save any after editing. See what they say.

    My concern would be that many people with less powerful systems (assuming that is the main factor) would decide to turn off the preview options, if such a things was offered, and then spend much of their life moanng in this forum about poor performance ... but I guess that would just be a normal part of forum life! 😉

    Grant
    0
  • Jerry C
    Grant raises some good points.

    I did report this in more detail in a case to the support folks, but they have not responded.

    Turning off or reducing the size of previews should be accompanied by a notice about the consequences for older systems and also for editing when the original images are not accessible. If images are stored remotely, or must be shared on a NAS, previews are essential.

    As Moore's law affects computer and network speed, mass storage size, and price, strategies for optimizing the software will change. Right now a robust iMac Pro is a pricy way to avoid the need for previews, but in a few years when one replaces hardware, previews may just be superfluous bulk for most users.

    Jerry C
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="NN635680879799322049UL" wrote:
    Grant raises some good points.

    I did report this in more detail in a case to the support folks, but they have not responded.

    Turning off or reducing the size of previews should be accompanied by a notice about the consequences for older systems and also for editing when the original images are not accessible. If images are stored remotely, or must be shared on a NAS, previews are essential.

    As Moore's law affects computer and network speed, mass storage size, and price, strategies for optimizing the software will change. Right now a robust iMac Pro is a pricy way to avoid the need for previews, but in a few years when one replaces hardware, previews may just be superfluous bulk for most users.

    Jerry C



    Indeed - though one might also wonder about image sizes from new cameras and the expectations of larger screens, etc.

    But mostly that is likely to be at the very high end of the professional photography field. For practical purposes for most people the extremely high resolution image files are probably not really necessary (though they may be desired!) for 99% of images that are shot AND USED.

    I guess if one really wanted to do some deep cropping before posting to Instagram some different thinking may apply but for regular shots shared on social media or even for printing purposes in a 'normal' house, most cameras have been offering more than enough file dimensions and quality for some years.

    In terms of file sizes - original or preview - improvement in OOC noise reduction treatments may offer the greatest gains for storage capacity reduction AND therefore, image processing speed enhancements.



    Grant
    0
  • Jerry C
    I was thinking, for the moment, of those of us who are using Nikon or Canon SLRs in the 20-30ish Mpx range. Capture One has to support the Phase One cameras, which are more demanding of resources. As we get more software bells and whistles and larger camera sensors and video displays, we will continue to need faster computers and more storage to keep pace.

    Still, I think the days of bulking up the software faster than computers can keep up is shifting in favor of the hardware. Software continues to improve, including operating systems, without code becoming more bloated. Slow download speed discourages bloat. If fiberoptic becomes standard and cheap for internet service, all bets on code size are off.

    Jerry C
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="NN635680879799322049UL" wrote:
    If fiberoptic becomes standard and cheap for internet service, all bets on code size are off.

    Jerry C


    And/Or 5G for mobile devices.

    I suspect mobile app bloat has some way to go still. It would probably be almost impossible to use my old LG smart phone these days - not enough RAM. Though in its time it was a well respected specification and that was not so long ago.

    Some mobile apps seem to be under control in terms of download size. Others are expanding with every new update.

    One aspect of digital images is that if the noise (from the electronics) is better suppressed the files when processed can be smaller since compression, even at low compression levels, may be more efficient.


    Grant
    0

投稿コメントは受け付けていません。