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⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived.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. ⚠️

Performance of Capture One Pro 12.1

GEvans58
I've submitted the following to Support, but I wanted to drop it here as well to see if others users have similar issues???

Hello, I'm currently on day 5 of my 30 day trial of Capture One Pro 12... Before I buy, there are a few things I've noticed that makes me hesitate to take the plunge. I'm a Lightroom user, with a really huge catalog that contains quite a few offline photos that reside on external drives. I have created smaller Lightroom catalogs of photos that are on line, and have successfully imported these into Capture One Pro 12.1

Here is where things seem a bit wonky. When I exit Capture One, I have it setup to prompt me to backup the catalog before exit. This functions quite well, and notifies me when it's finished. I accept the notification, expecting Capture One to exit immediately, but instead it just sits there with no visible indication that it's doing anything (no hard drive activity) until literally 5 or 6 minutes later, when it finally "completes" and exits.

Another thing I've noticed, is that after a few Lightroom catalog imports, the "slower" the application becomes as the Capture One catalog gets bigger, and this is with a Capture One catalog of around 150,000 photos. I suspect that maybe there is an upper limit to how large of a catalog Capture One can reliably handle?

Working with User Collections, seems to be horribly slow. I tried deleting a User Collection that had around 1700 photos in it, and the application actually hung with a "Program not responding" warning from Windows. I let it go for a few minutes, and finally the Collection was deleted - but one really needs to not be in a hurry when doing this!!

My system is Windows 10 pro - 64bit
i7 processor
12 Gb of RAM
Nvidia FX3800 Graphics Card.

Is there something I'm "doing wrong" or something I should change? I'm now trying multiple Capture One Catalogs based on the year - I.E. a separate catalog each for 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, etc... Instead of one huge mega Catalog like I have in Lightroom.

Any help or suggestions to try would be greatly appreciated. I really want to like Capture One, but as I said before - currently I'm hesitant to purchase it.
0

コメント

20件のコメント

日付 投票
  • GrahamB3
    You have a very large catalog, and a slow computer (From Tech Power Up: Quadro FX 3800 was an enthusiast-class professional graphics card by NVIDIA, launched in March 2009).

    The problem is C1 needs to render a preview of each image. I suggest you allow the program to chug away on it's on, and render your complete catalog(s).

    I have >500k images distributed across several drives. C1 display of images is instantaneous.
    0
  • Ian Leslie
    [quote="GrahamB3" wrote:
    The problem is C1 needs to render a preview of each image. I suggest you allow the program to chug away on it's on, and render your complete catalog(s).


    There is more going on with this. I have let C1 do whatever it needs to do to display all my images. After that (takes about 15 minutes) filtering performance is fine. But close C1 down and restart it and it forgets something because I have to pay that 15 minute penalty again. I say "something" because I don't think it is a preview issue. Rendering of individual images is fine. Flipping to the next one in the current list is also fine - once they are in the list. The issue is finding the images I want.

    [quote="GrahamB3" wrote:
    I have >500k images distributed across several drives. C1 display of images is instantaneous.

    Wish I could get that kind of performance.

    I have a case on going and I hope I have provided them with enough information to show that they have work to do. Fingers crossed. I have tweaked my preferences as suggested. I did tell them that switching to an SSD drive was not an acceptable solution. Hey I'm all for faster hardware but other products don't have trouble filtering 60k of images like C1 does so there is more going on here than "I should move to faster hardware".
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    This has been a constant issue with Capture One in Windows. Instead of keeping all files "indexed", C1 instead re-reads all files in a folder/catalog and that takes ages. With OSX it's not an issue, files are displayed almost instantly.

    You can find dozens of other users with the same issue, having to wait for a very long time until all images are loaded and filtered and displayed - and if you're doing this on a network drive (NAS) it's even worse and close to unbearable.

    Best you can do is complain with tech support and ask them to file a request to finally fix this.
    0
  • GEvans58
    Just an update on my issues: For the most part, my issues (outlined in the original post) seem to have pretty much corrected themselves.

    Things that I did that may, or may not have played a part:

    • I opened Windows Device Manager and selected the Display Adapter, and had Windows check for an updated driver. It found one and installed it.

    • I disabled Windows managing the Paging File (Virtual RAM) and instead set it manually to a fixed size of twice the amount of my system RAM


    For the moment anyway, it seems to at least work as "intended". Now I'm trying to figure out why they "intended" on some things working the way they do... Like, why can't you select a parent folder and automatically select all child folders and images? Why can't you select multiple folders? It would make working with User Collections, and selecting items for batch editing lightspeed faster. To me anyway, that's pretty much basic stuff to ask for!

    If Capture One could borrow Lightrooms organizing and cataloging abilities, and pair it up to Capture One's superior editing abilities - they would have a very solid and desirable product!! Just my $0.02
    0
  • Jim MSP
    [quote="NNN636959519703223779" wrote:

    .....
    If Capture One could borrow Lightroom's organizing and cataloging abilities, and pair it up to Capture One's superior editing abilities - they would have a very solid and desirable product!! Just my $0.02


    That is pretty much what I am currently doing. I am using LR as my DAM, and I import all my new photos onto my pc with it. There I cull, rate, and keyword. I am now using Bridge to just "drag & drop" the photos I want to post process with C1 onto a open window of C!. C1 then brings up the import screen, and off I go. Since I force LR to make a sidecar file for the metadata, all of the ratings and keywords come over to C1.
    There are two inefficiencies - C1 also has to make a preview of what it imports, and I have to sync LR to pick up any new photos that I create with an export from C1. I have to do the latter anyway with a C1 catalog if I export the photos into a new folder. The former isn't too bad, as I am tending to work on the higher rated photos first, so I do the C1 import in smaller chunks.
    I am currently using a small catalog in C1. I think this is better than sessions, but I may play with a session workflow sometime.
    I still haven't figured out the best way to use LR's collections yet - though admittedly I have not tried hard yet.
    I might have to go to another DAM like iMatch, but I don't know how they would handle a collection of C1 processed photos that have not been exported yet.
    0
  • Permanently deleted user
    In settings make sure your image preview size is is only slightly larger than your screens longest dimension, by default it's much larger than is necessary.
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="GEvans58" wrote:
    Why can't you select multiple folders? It would make working with User Collections, and selecting items for batch editing lightspeed faster. To me anyway, that's pretty much basic stuff to ask for!

    If Capture One could borrow Lightrooms organizing and cataloging abilities, and pair it up to Capture One's superior editing abilities - they would have a very solid and desirable product!! Just my $0.02


    Interesting difference on approach for different users.

    One of the reasons I chose NOT to stick with LR after version One was that it enforced the use of a catalogue - something I did not want and was not using in my then favoured editor (not C1 at that point but an application that allowed me to work in a similar way.)

    As a Sessions user in C1 I see the "select Multiple folders" requirement in a different way.

    The session structure allows for multiple folders to be selected at the same time via the "All Images" option but allows the user to identify which folders are to be included. It does not automatically assume that all sub-folders are viable targets. They should not be since for convenience the default session folder structure includes and Outputs folder and, speaking personally, I would not wish for all of the output files to be automatically included for editing in the session. I don't need them for editing purposes and I certainly would not relish the idea of duplicate previews, etc.

    In a session I can access all of the folders that are contained within the session folder structure AND any folder scattered round the system that have been specified as "Favourites" for the session. All of them will be used as sources of images using the "All Images" option.

    Alternatively one can create specific Albums that include all of the images from certain folders (but manually selected and managed) or Smart Albums that can be applied to have more selective criteria than the "All Images" option followed by filtering.

    So with a session I easily get the ability to keep things segregated in terms of managing by import batch of images (useful when shooting events over several days without a computer available to undertake daily 'management') and combined in any way I choose when I start work on them.

    Sessions can contain many thousands of images in my case. In some ways that is akin to having a structured multi-level folder structure but without the need to pick some folders from a very much large set of folders that one might wish to create in a Catalogue.

    The catalogue approach, in my opinion, is most effective after processing when naming conventions and metadata entries easily provide searching and grouping facilities that should be able to eliminate the need to structured folder storage while providing better, faster and more flexible image grouping options.

    It's very normal to think in human terms and see a computer's file system as a version of an office filing cabinet but that's not really now computers work best - just a visual representation left over from early attempts to generate a human interface to computing work and some limitations to early data storage management technologies that are mostly bypassed now and hidden for the user.

    All of that said for many people, especially us older ones, the traditional 'filing is good' training we have experienced for so many years is a difficult habit to break even for those of us who are not habitual filers by nature.

    The challenge for the the "give me all of the subfolders" approach for folder selection favoured by many is that you really need to know what you are likely to discover before going for it.

    For selective subfolders AND an active selection should they be updated with additional images or by deletions, one just needs a way to ID the images in them into a group to make them available for whatever the current purpose might be. Then make a smart album (to pick up any additions to the folders) and all should be well.

    However if you feel strongly that being able to, one way or another, creating a "list" of folders you wish to use as selection criteria is important I would suggest you add your voice to the requests that others may have made previously by creating an "Enhancement Request" Case in the Capture One Support Case system.

    HTH.


    Grant
    0
  • dee jjjaaaa
    [quote="SFA" wrote:

    One of the reasons I chose NOT to stick with LR after version One was that it enforced the use of a catalogue


    One of the reasons I still use Adobe's ACR is that it does not impose on me neither catalogs __NOR__ sessions concepts 🙄 ... there was a time with C1 though.
    0
  • dee jjjaaaa
    [quote="GrahamB3" wrote:
    C1 display of images is instantaneous.


    and then C1 does a stupid thing -- zoom to 100% & pan ... you will see that C1 recalculates the image all the time even there were not changes in conversion parameters, if you pan back to the prev. calculated image part C1 still recalculates ... Adobe does a proper thing and caches the whole image area, C1 does not... so damn irritating.
    0
  • SFA
    [quote="deejjjaaaa" wrote:
    [quote="GrahamB3" wrote:
    C1 display of images is instantaneous.


    ... Adobe does a proper thing and caches the whole image area, C1 does not... so damn irritating.


    Must have changed a lot since V1.

    Does it cache the entire image processed for every possible zoom level option?
    0
  • Robert Whetton
    [quote="deejjjaaaa" wrote:
    [quote="GrahamB3" wrote:
    C1 display of images is instantaneous.


    and then C1 does a stupid thing -- zoom to 100% & pan ... you will see that C1 recalculates the image all the time even there were not changes in conversion parameters, if you pan back to the prev. calculated image part C1 still recalculates ... Adobe does a proper thing and caches the whole image area, C1 does not... so damn irritating.

    I don't notice any redrawing going from fit to screen to 100% 😕
    0
  • GEvans58
    [quote="Bobtographer" wrote:
    [quote="deejjjaaaa" wrote:
    [quote="GrahamB3" wrote:
    C1 display of images is instantaneous.


    and then C1 does a stupid thing -- zoom to 100% & pan ... you will see that C1 recalculates the image all the time even there were not changes in conversion parameters, if you pan back to the prev. calculated image part C1 still recalculates ... Adobe does a proper thing and caches the whole image area, C1 does not... so damn irritating.

    I don't notice any redrawing going from fit to screen to 100% 😕


    I think it depends on the size of the preview images that were generated. If they're too small, when you zoom in to 100%, C1 needs to fetch the original file. Where as if the previews are of an adequate size, C1 can rely on just the preview image without loading anything further. I believe that's how it works any way....
    0
  • dee jjjaaaa
    [quote="GEvans58" wrote:
    when you zoom in to 100%, C1 needs to fetch the original file.

    it is not a problem - the problem is that when you pan the image w/o changing anything C1 still recalculates what was calculated already before , again and again... do a simple experiment: C1 v12.1 on Win10x64... preview size max 5120 (so that no one can blame small preview size), raw file 24mp... regenerate previews done just in case... open raw file, zoom to 100% (naturally not all image is viewed on my monitor)... now

    1) select "pan", press left mouse button and pan (left or right, up or down - anywhere to bring the part of the image that was not displayed @ 100% zoom) w/o releasing mouse button - as you can see the part of the image that was brought to be visible by panning is not recalculated yet to be properly displayed

    2) release the mouse button now - that part will be recalculated

    3) pan that part of the image out of the view and repeat (1)+ (2) to bring that old part of the image that was calculated & displayed before again into view - you will see that C1 again recalculates everything even no changes related to raw conversion were done...

    so C1 does not cache the whole image @ 100% zoom and recalculate parts brought into view by panning even no other changes were done - ACR/LR does cache ...

    my GPU is a desktop Nvidia GTX 1070 Ti, not the most powerful, but decent enough...

    PS: and C1 does that not only @ 100%, at lower zoom levels too...
    0
  • dee jjjaaaa
    [quote="Bobtographer" wrote:
    [quote="deejjjaaaa" wrote:
    [quote="GrahamB3" wrote:
    C1 display of images is instantaneous.


    and then C1 does a stupid thing -- zoom to 100% & pan ... you will see that C1 recalculates the image all the time even there were not changes in conversion parameters, if you pan back to the prev. calculated image part C1 still recalculates ... Adobe does a proper thing and caches the whole image area, C1 does not... so damn irritating.

    I don't notice any redrawing going from fit to screen to 100% 😕

    you did not notice the word "pan", which tells something about the attention to the details 🙄
    0
  • dee jjjaaaa
    [quote="SFA" wrote:


    Does it cache the entire image processed for every possible zoom level option?


    it does not cache everything that needs to be displayed when panning @ any zoom level ... ACR/LR do calculate & cache everything at any zoom level (visble or not) and when you pan invisible parts into view Adobe code simply displays them (recalculates once for each raw conversion /or zoom change/ related change done)... C1 does calculate prev. invisible parts again and again and again w/o any need (because nothing else was changed - just panning around)... is it a bid deal ? no - just poor code writing and irritating because I am not going to buy some two Nvidia TITAN RTX GPU cards to run them in a dual configuration (and a new motheboard and a new case too btw) to try to make it less noticeable...
    0
  • SFA
    Interesting.

    Back at LR V1 and with the hardware I had then together with a completely different (but similar to C1) RAW editor I was impressed that LR was so much faster at on screen rendering at all times but wondered why the time from committing a change until the next time I could continue editing was more or less the same for the same type of edit.

    I set up an edit that would take about 3 seconds with my regular editor and, visibly, about 0.3 seconds in LR. So it was reasonably measurable with a stop watch for my purpose

    On repeated testing both took about 3 seconds to complete the processing and re-open the opportunity to continue working.

    On closer inspection it was evident that my favoured application was completing all of its processing and presenting the entire result to screen in one go (more or less - all screen writing of images tends to be processed in blocks.)

    LR, on the other hand, wrote significant changes to screen immediately - especially large changes to the main colour areas where block processing of a value had an effect on the most screen area or instant sharpening values, both of which have significant visual impact. It then spent the rest of the time taken to refine the calculations bit by bit around the image in a way that was, mostly, not very evident to the eye unless one looked very closely and knew what to expect.

    Hence the similarity of time from committing the change to returning control.

    I have no idea if LR still works that way but it would be interesting to find out. It would probably be best if a test was observed on a very slow system.

    Now one could suggest that the 'other' application was probably badly written but the driving force behind the business and a number of the other developers involved had, in earlier work, won awards for what were then unique and clever ways of processing very large data sets efficiently and effectively - something that would seem to have clear parallels with the typical data size of a digital image.

    No doubt the need to constantly interface with a human via a screen and input devices would introduce some limitations to absolute performance focused coding but one would have to assume that whatever they were doing was unlikely to be really poor code.

    That said if the constantly evolving development tools happened to introduce some sub-optimal processes I would guess that that might be a little problematic. But that's just one challenge of many that developer face over which they have reduced levels of control.


    Grant
    0
  • GEvans58
    [quote="deejjjaaaa" wrote:
    [quote="GrahamB3" wrote:
    C1 display of images is instantaneous.


    and then C1 does a stupid thing -- zoom to 100% & pan ... you will see that C1 recalculates the image all the time even there were not changes in conversion parameters, if you pan back to the prev. calculated image part C1 still recalculates ... Adobe does a proper thing and caches the whole image area, C1 does not... so damn irritating.


    What you describe I see as well - but the redraw takes like a millisecond to complete for me? Obviously, I can't actually time it, but it's less than a second. I agree it would be nice if it was "all there" as you pan around, but maybe they decided to compromise to save processing resources??? I have no idea of course...

    Contrast this however with Lightroom (I have the latest standalone version before Adobe forced everyone to go Adobe Creative Cloud. Version 6.5 I think... Something like that - it IS the latest version whatever that is...) where just going to 1:1 scale can sometimes seem like it takes forever (probably 2 or 3 seconds). Then head over to the Development Module and activate the crop tool, and wait another 2~4 seconds for the crop overlay to become active... Performance wise, C1 is like the SR71 and Lightroom (my version anyway) is like the Wright Bro's Flyer...

    Don't get me wrong, over the past week or so, I've discovered plenty of annoyances with C1, mostly to do with import limitations into catalogs, but most of that I've since "figured out" (Basically, if you're importing legacy data, do it in reasonable chunks so that C1 and your computer have the proper resources and time to process everything into the catalog)
    0
  • dee jjjaaaa
    [quote="GEvans58" wrote:
    [quote="deejjjaaaa" wrote:
    [quote="GrahamB3" wrote:
    C1 display of images is instantaneous.


    and then C1 does a stupid thing -- zoom to 100% & pan ... you will see that C1 recalculates the image all the time even there were not changes in conversion parameters, if you pan back to the prev. calculated image part C1 still recalculates ... Adobe does a proper thing and caches the whole image area, C1 does not... so damn irritating.


    What you describe I see as well - but the redraw takes like a millisecond to complete for me? Obviously, I can't actually time it, but it's less than a second.


    with all due respect if you see it it is not a millisecond... it is fraction of a second and hence noticeable... humans when see 24 fps can't distinguish frames, right ? so this redraw one might assume takes > 1/20 sec on your configuration ?

    I run 24mp X-Trans CFA raw file on desktop Nvidia GTX 1070 Ti 8Gb GPU + i9700K with all 8 cores actually clocked to have base freq @ 4900 Mhz as I have a decent cooling for CPU and it is a single raw file placed on __RAM__ disk (so a magnitude faster than any NVM or whatever SSD drive) - I believe I can have expectations of a smooth panning experience with that hardware with that raw file and ACR and FRV (Fast Raw Viewer) deliver that to me... but C1 - does not (GPUs are detected and used based on the logs)... drivers are what MS installs - I am not using some beta whatever from NVidia site.



    [quote="GEvans58" wrote:


    Contrast this however with Lightroom (I have the latest standalone version before Adobe forced everyone to go Adobe Creative Cloud. Version 6.5 I think... Something like that - it IS the latest version whatever that is...) where just going to 1:1 scale can sometimes seem like it takes forever (probably 2 or 3 seconds). Then head over to the Development Module and activate the crop tool, and wait another 2~4 seconds for the crop overlay to become active... Performance wise, C1 is like the SR71 and Lightroom (my version anyway) is like the Wright Bro's Flyer...



    I use ACR and on the same raw file, even placed on HDD (vs RAM disk) and GPU switched off ACR beats C1 in such usability experience... panning w/o any recalculations as it is clearly calculates once, caches and then simply displays the parts of the image when you pan why C1 as it is clearly visible brings into view some blurred image part when you pan, then does something and the displays properly calculated image part... so something is very wrong with how C1 code is written... come on I have enough RAM on GPU card and system RAM to cache - why in the world I shall be subject to recalculations when nothing else was changed, just panning ?
    0
  • GEvans58
    [quote="deejjjaaaa" wrote:

    with all due respect if you see it it is not a millisecond... it is fraction of a second and hence noticeable... humans when see 24 fps can't distinguish frames, right ? so this redraw one might assume takes > 1/20 sec on your configuration ?


    Obviously.. It was a figure of speech.. Good luck in your quest for what works best for you...
    0
  • Robert Whetton
    [quote="deejjjaaaa" wrote:
    humans when see 24 fps can't distinguish frames

    Not sure where you get the idea that we can only see 24 fps? Some tested fighter pilots could see an image flashed at 250 fps, average humans see closer to 200 fps
    0

投稿コメントは受け付けていません。