Problems with how CO generates thumbnails
As the subject implies, I've noticed a couple of problems with how CO renders thumbnails:
1. Initial thumbnails look bad
When I first open a new folder in CO 3.7.1 LE it generates absolutely terrible looking thumbnails for my Canon 1D Mark II. Here is what I mean:
http://www.grog.net/~derek/co_thumbs.jpg
The quick initial thumbnail (left) is way off compared to the final high-quality thumbnail (right) that appears later. This example is from my Mark II, but RAW files from other Canon DSLRs are the same. What makes it worse is when I use third-party profiles (here I'm using the ETC 1D Mark II Hi-Sat profile).
2. High-quality thumbnails render slowly and in poorly-chosen order
The previous problem would be less of an issue if it wasn't for the second problem, which is that CO takes about 1 second per image to generate the final high-quality thumbnail (on an AMD 2400+ with plenty of RAM).
What makes it even worse is that CO generates high-quality thumbnails in last-to-first order, i.e., starting with the last image shot and working toward the first image. Most photographers I know process their images in normal chronological order, so CO generates thumbnails last for the images that are most likely to be worked on, which is completely backward IMHO. In short, while I'm staring at screwed up thumbnails, CO is busy generating beautiful ones for images that aren't even on my screen.
Other RAW viewers (like BreezeBrowser and RSE) generate thumbnails extremely quickly on the same machine, so I know that it can be done much more efficiently than CO. But even if thumbnail generation can't be accelerated, CO should take a lesson from BreezeBrowser and create high-quality thumbnails for images that are currently on screen instead of the last-to-first order CO currently uses. Or even simpler, reverse the order and process the images in the order they are displayed.
I hope this is addressed in the next release. Even the pros that praise CO often suggest doing something else while CO generates thumbnails. IMO this is not acceptable in an application of this caliber that's main selling point is a fast workflow.
1. Initial thumbnails look bad
When I first open a new folder in CO 3.7.1 LE it generates absolutely terrible looking thumbnails for my Canon 1D Mark II. Here is what I mean:
http://www.grog.net/~derek/co_thumbs.jpg
The quick initial thumbnail (left) is way off compared to the final high-quality thumbnail (right) that appears later. This example is from my Mark II, but RAW files from other Canon DSLRs are the same. What makes it worse is when I use third-party profiles (here I'm using the ETC 1D Mark II Hi-Sat profile).
2. High-quality thumbnails render slowly and in poorly-chosen order
The previous problem would be less of an issue if it wasn't for the second problem, which is that CO takes about 1 second per image to generate the final high-quality thumbnail (on an AMD 2400+ with plenty of RAM).
What makes it even worse is that CO generates high-quality thumbnails in last-to-first order, i.e., starting with the last image shot and working toward the first image. Most photographers I know process their images in normal chronological order, so CO generates thumbnails last for the images that are most likely to be worked on, which is completely backward IMHO. In short, while I'm staring at screwed up thumbnails, CO is busy generating beautiful ones for images that aren't even on my screen.
Other RAW viewers (like BreezeBrowser and RSE) generate thumbnails extremely quickly on the same machine, so I know that it can be done much more efficiently than CO. But even if thumbnail generation can't be accelerated, CO should take a lesson from BreezeBrowser and create high-quality thumbnails for images that are currently on screen instead of the last-to-first order CO currently uses. Or even simpler, reverse the order and process the images in the order they are displayed.
I hope this is addressed in the next release. Even the pros that praise CO often suggest doing something else while CO generates thumbnails. IMO this is not acceptable in an application of this caliber that's main selling point is a fast workflow.
0
-
I've had similar issues with D2X images... and not with custom white balance. 0 -
Same here but patience is a virtue 😄
Just wait for all the previews & thumbs to be generated.
Comparing with BB is apples & oranges as BB does not offer the workflow nor Q of CO. Not to mention the fact that BB locks up the computer completely during the actual conversion. BB doesn't adjust preview & thumbnail with new settings neither.0 -
On the surface it seems anoying, but in practice no big deal.
The only real wait is waiting for the images to load, not the thumbnails to be generated.
The reason in practice it is no big deal is because when you click on an image, it prioritized to generate the final thumbnail for it. So after all images are loaded you can click on the first image, a thumbnail will be immediately generated, then you work on that image and move to the next. If you have several hundred images, by the time you work on the first few image, all remaining thumbnails will be done.
Al0
投稿コメントは受け付けていません。
コメント
3件のコメント