Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/08/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Might be the compression (14 bit) then, this is in LR4.1, may try some uncompressed..... john -----Original Message----- I have no problem on my Win7 machine with 16 GB RAM with uncompressed 14 bit D800E files (75-80MB). Cheers Jayanand On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Chris Crawford < chris at chriscrawfordphoto.com> wrote: > You've got your RAM maxed out, then. I wonder why D800 files are so > cumbersome when you find that 500mb Hasselblad scans aren't? That's weird. > I haven't got a D800 to try it with, but my Canon 5DmkII files process > fast enough. > > -- > Chris Crawford > > On 8/12/12 3:51 AM, "John McMaster" <john at mcmaster.co.nz> wrote: > > >I have dealt with 500MB 'blad scans with no issue. For those who care > >I have 32GB RAM, SSD and RAIDed eSATA so no slouch, D800E files are > >much slower to process.... > > > >How do you find them in the Windows space Jayanand? > > > >john > >________________________________________ > > > > > >I have a Mac Pro with dual quad-core processors. Mine are 2.8ghz. I > >work with scanned film, which gives much larger files than a 36mp > >camera. 16bit RGB scan of a 35mm neg is 128mb and a 6x6 neg is 470mb. > >That's with no editing or layers, which make the files a lot bigger. My machine is FAST. > >I have not looked at it to see the % of CPU being used, but I know it > >runs filters and stuff extremely fast. Almost instantly on 35mm and > >in a few seconds on the giant medium format scans. > > > >My processors are not that much faster than yours, but I do have 12GB > >of RAM. I wonder if more RAM would help you, it did speed mine up > >quite a bit when I upped it from 4 to 12 GB. > > > >-- > >Chris Crawford > > > >On 8/12/12 3:04 AM, "John McMaster" <john at chiaroscuro.co.nz> wrote: > > > >>It is far slower to work on D800E (lossless compressed) 40MB files > >>than > >>M9 > >>(uncompressed) 36MB files. > >> > >>I have a reasonably grunty machine so I went looking at what the > >>bottleneck is...... > >> > >>Mid-2009 Mac Pro (2x 2.26 quad-core Intel 5520 CPU) was running at > >>over 1300% CPU (16 threads available) briefly while doing minor > >>changes, be aware of this limitation if thinking of upping your > >>camera MP ;-) > >> > >>john > >>