March 06, 2015, 03:36:42 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - iKenndac

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming March 9
« on: February 20, 2015, 10:14:34 AM »
No, they're a way to show you the Lightroom-generated rendering, instead of the camera-generated rendering.

You're missing my point - Lightroom could be a lot faster than it is using their own rendering engine. Hopefully the claimed improvements in LR6 will allow this to happen.

I don't really see how you can make absolute statements about how Photos works without having used it. If you get the opportunity, you should give Photos a try. It's incredibly fast.

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming March 9
« on: February 20, 2015, 09:18:44 AM »
What are your settings - especially the preview generation one, on import? Are you creating DNGs? Are you applying any development preset and/or metadata/keyword? LR can do less or more while you're importing images. And its speed depends on that. Especially generating standard or smart previews can take a far longer time.

You should perform a comparison using compatible parameters - otherwise it becomes an apple to orange comparison...

Well, with Photos I didn't have to generate any previews at all - it imported my 2,000 RAW files (referenced) in about a minute, and I was immediately able to scroll around and edit with no slowdown.

In my LR I generate 1:1 previews on import. I would've had to wait an age to have LR to generate 2,000 previews after import if I did the same test the other way around, something I didn't have to do with Photos. For all my other performance comparisons, I wait until LR has completely finished generating previews and whatnot before scrolling/editing/etc. Photos is still way faster.

Previews (with the exception of Smart Previews and the offlining benefits they provide) are basically a workaround for poor performance. This in itself isn't bad - many applications generate previews to improve performance. However, this should be a detail the user doesn't have to care about, and the number of "Should I generate 1:1 previews or smart previews of both?" articles online show that Adobe have failed in that regard.

I'm sure Photos generates previews as well, but it's not something the users notices or has to care about - as long as your imaging pipeline is fast enough, previews won't matter all that much.

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming March 9
« on: February 20, 2015, 07:58:05 AM »
I can't see how developers won't jump onto this and help make it bigger and better than Aperture (and possibly competition to LR once again) - what do you think?

I really hope so. As of right this moment, Photos doesn't support editing plugins but we're only at the first preview and Apple has said on-record that they'll be supporting them.

What neither Aperture or Lightroom have managed is having edit plugins that can slot into the native editing stack - you've always had to render a photo to TIFF or whatever for editing in the plugin, which destroys the ability to modify those edits later. I really hope the Photos system solves this.

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming March 9
« on: February 20, 2015, 06:25:00 AM »
Have I missed something? When was Photos for OSX released and where is it?

They released a developer preview — the combination of being a software developer by day and an amateur photographer by night finally paid off. General availability is later this spring.

Info here:

Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom 6 Coming March 9
« on: February 20, 2015, 03:47:20 AM »
Dear Adobe,

I've been hurt before. Every version of Lightroom since I started using it has promised performance upgrades. Every version of Lightroom has been disappointingly short on those goals. And yet I muddle through, taking a sip of my tea while you hang while applying a crop and rotate. I have a Mac Pro, damnit!

Then, a few weeks ago, Apple released the Photos app. It's more Elements than Pro, but I gave it a whirl. 2,000 RAW files imported, and it's fast. Not "Oh, it's simpler so of course it'll be faster" fast, but orders of magnitude faster. My photos scroll past in a buttery dream. Edits apply at 60fps as I drag the sliders. This is what modern, GPU-accelerated photo editing should be like!

Photos has a surprising number of tools buried in it, and other than brushing in edits and virtual grads it has everything I need. "That's it", I thought, "I'm going to switch to Photos for a while to see how I get on." Perhaps it'll force me to learn to use real grads properly.

I returned to Lightroom 5 to find more photos, its terrible performance all the more noticeable after using something actually fast.

Then, Lightroom 6 comes along. GPU accelerated editing! Editable book templates! Panoramas! Honestly, Adobe, if you come through with these promises I'll never have to use another photo editing tool ever again.

But, I'm skeptical. I've been promised performance improvements before.

Ignore all the bickering about subscriptions vs. up-front purchases. Both have been around for years and it looks like both will be around for a while. Those still arguing about it clearly have nothing better to do. The rest of us picked the thing best for us and got on with it. Nobody cares which one I chose, and rightly so.

I still love you Adobe, but my trust is thinning. Please come through with the promises you've made with Lightroom 6. I beg you.

That makes no sense - all these cards are standard ATI/nVidia cards. Adobe should make their software work with the hardware shipped in modern machines - at the moment LR isn't GPU accelerated at all on any platform. The fact that it's dog slow on Windows further shows how behind the curve they are.

Software & Accessories / Apple's Photos for Mac Developer Preview Released
« on: February 05, 2015, 03:13:07 PM »
I downloaded it and gave it a try.

First impressions: It's not going to replace Lightroom (or Aperture) for a while. There's some basic editing tools, but it's clearly designed for the typical consider in mind.

However! It is so fast. I imported 1000 RAW images from my 6D (20MP) and it *flies* compared to Lightroom. The UI is silky smooth, scrolling is a dream and live adjustments are crazy fast. It's clearly using my GPUs for rendering, and I'm having so much fun flipping between all my photos.

Seriously, Adobe should take a look at this and feel ashamed. This is how fast Lightroom should be. If Apple can do it, so can you!

EOS Bodies / Re: Full Specifications of the EOS Rebel 760D
« on: February 05, 2015, 07:55:57 AM »
Connect to allow remote control and

What does that mean?! Is Maybe the WiFi on the 750D is gimped like it is in the EOS M2?

Never mind, visiting the original source and translating from Japanese, that line says:

Allows remote control in connection with the smartphone and tablet

For the 750D it says:

Remote operation by smartphone tablet

Hopefully the features are the same on both cameras. It'd be sad to see it gimped on the 750D.

EOS Bodies / Re: Full Specifications of the EOS Rebel 760D
« on: February 05, 2015, 07:52:03 AM »
Connect to allow remote control and

What does that mean?! Is Maybe the WiFi on the 750D is gimped like it is in the EOS M2?

I thought, but have not checked, that Canon UK refurbs on Ebay have a years' warranty. I appreciate they are matching their refurb to yours, but I would check to see what Canon in your country do and perhaps politely ask (if there is a difference) why they are not providing the same.

This (in the EU) is typically because it's a warranty replacement rather than a new purchase - the warranty is essentially timed from the money exchange between the two parties. So, if you buy a refurb you get a new warranty, but if Canon replace your camera with a refurb it stays on the old warranty. This would be true even if they gave you a brand new one.

...when it is possible to utilize more than 1500 processors on latest NVIDA cards for processing instead of just 4 or 8 cores on main CPU.

Just to level expectations - just because modern GPUs have 1500+ cores doesn't mean that you'll gain a 375x increase in performance over a quad core machine by utilising them.

GPU cores are highly specialised in the things they do well. Additionally, there's quite a large overhead in getting your data into the GPU for them to work on it to begin with, then getting it out again at the other side. It's not just a case of enabling CUDA or OpenCL in your app and watching the numbers fly.

Of course, Adobe can and should be using these technologies for both RAW decoding and their entire pipeline. Remember, RAW decoding is only part of it — they decode the RAWs, then they individually apply every edit you've done to get the final output. This likely means paging data in and out of the GPU multiple times, and you need to do a lot of work to ensure you're taking the most efficient path — perhaps one adjustment is actually really fast on the CPU already and the overhead of getting everything into the GPU isn't worth it in that instance.

LR does a good job of faking speed by creating previews, but the main performance problems are while you're modifying edits. Doing this well is a big task, and I really hope the delays are because they're taking the time to do it right. Bash Apple's Aperture all you want, but their imaging pipeline absolutely screams since it's a mature GPU-accelerated API.

I've been using lightroom for several years and whilst it's a very useful and increasingly advanced's as slow as molasses and needs GPU support urgently!  When you're ploughing through a 20K image edit, every second counts and the rendering times are very laggy when applying filters and retouching, even on the most advanced systems.

If LR6 is nothing but LR5 optimised for performance and GPU rendering I will be so happy.

Software & Accessories / Re: Photo Editing Laptop Recommendations
« on: January 13, 2015, 05:09:00 PM »
The last week I bough a new laptop Asus G751. Specs are the following:

1) Monitor - 17.3'' IPS FHD 1920 x 1080 anti-glare

Such a large display with such a tiny resolution makes me so sad. One very huge benefit of the modern Apple laptops is the displays — the 15" Retina Macbook Pro has a 2880x1800 display. Even the 13" has 2560x1600. They're absolutely beautiful — you see so much detail when working with photos, it's amazing. The pixels on a 17" 1920x1080 display are like LEGO bricks in comparison.

I'd argue that the display is one of the most important aspects of a modern photo editing rig. Any sufficiently modern, non bargain-basement machine will have enough CPU and GPU and RAM to run LR5 just fine.

The statement above that Lightroom is the same depending on the OS you run is very true. That's also a plus — you'll be able to use LR5 on a Mac just fine if you're used to Windows and you get to use that beautiful display.

Canon General / Re: new 70d, wrong manual, no plastic wrap
« on: October 23, 2014, 07:32:16 AM »
I have never used a shutter count service.  Do all brand new cameras have zero shutter counts?

I very much doubt it. Just like a new car comes with a small number of miles on it, I'd like to think they test the shutter at least a few times at the factory. I'd actually be a bit suspicious of a zero shutter-count camera.

I've been using Yosemite for a few months as the Developer Previews progressed, and by and large things work well - considering the magnitude of the UI changes, it's pretty impressive. Lightroom and Photoshop CC 2014 work perfectly fine.

That said, if you use EOS Utility you'll want to hang back for a bit until it's updated:

Pages: [1] 2 3 4