Will Lightroom 6 write CRAW for new 6d2?

[Khalai]

This bothers me more than anything. No matter how fast my PC is (and believe me, overclocked six-core from Intel, 32 GB RAM, GTX 1070 and PCIe SSD are far from being slow), LR is sometimes slow, laggy and I can't fathom why...

As I understand it, LR can only use 2 cores, so no matter how many you have it doesn't matter.

Seriously? Adobe? There are affordable eight-core procesors available (Ryzen R7 1700 or Intel i7-7820K), and LR can't use more than two cores as of now? This only strengthens my argument why would even Adobe deserve more money than I already paid them. I am still willing to upgrade to another standalone version for another 75 €, but moving to CC means that I'll find either other software or use Adobe DNG Convertor and use older LR version with DNG files.

Dammit, this infuriates me more than it should. Imagine buying the newest Mac Pro with eighteen core Xeon for thousands of dollars, only to use a small fraction of that power output...

Do you have any sources nearby at hand about that two core usage maximum for Lightroom? Thanks in advance...

Nevermind, found it: https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Lightroom-CC-6-Multi-Core-Performance-649/

Seems like six and eight cores are optimal for good performance, any more than that and no significant difference can be perceived...

1.Lightoom does not work well with multiple physical CPUs. When exporting photos, you do see a benefit from having a second physical CPU, but the efficiency drops like a rock. In most other cases you simply do not get a benefit from having multiple physical CPUs and for some actions like creating HDR and panorama photos you may actually see a small (~5%) drop in performance. This isn't as bad as we have seen in other applications like Photoshop where saw a 30-50% drop in performance with multiple CPUs, but we can safely say that multiple-CPU configurations are not ideal for Lightroom.

2.Lightroom has a mix of single, light, and heavily threaded components. The parallel efficiency of the actions we tested ranged from nonexistent, to moderate, to fairly good. This makes it very difficult to determine a single CPU that will give you the best overall performance in Lightroom.

Action Parallel Efficiency
(higher is better - 1 is perfect)
Importing images from USB	.00
Exporting images to disk	.97
Convert from RAW to DNG	.69
Generate 1:1 Previews	.77
Generate Smart Previews	.51
Create HDR image	.60
Create Panorama image	.44
Facial Recognition	.20

There is even quite recent test with brand new procesors such as Skylake-X, Kabylake-X or Ryzen:
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Lightroom-CC-2015-10-1-CPU-Comparison-Skylake-X-Kaby-Lake-X-Broadwell-E-Skylake-Ryzen-7-973/

 

[LDS]

Seriously? Adobe? There are affordable eight-core procesors available (Ryzen R7 1700 or Intel i7-7820K), and LR can't use more than two cores as of now?

Users have to understand that adding cores can't magically improve performance. More cores improve performance only of tasks that can be execute in parallel (or performing different tasks at the same time) - but the task needs to be rewritten for parallel execution, it can't happen "automagically".

Tasks that may execute in parallel needs to be "orchestrated", and that adds an overhead too. There could be other reasons that can lead to bottlenecks when many cores are used concurrently for the same task. Scaling across multiple cores may not be linear, and sometimes using less cores may lead to better performance.

If a task can't be parallelized, you need a faster CPU (and faster memory), not more cores.

There may be other technical reasons. For example a lot of LR is still developed in Lua, a language and execution environment, that may not be able to exploit fully multicore capabilities. Adobe could switch to a different technology which could allow for better exploiting of multiple cores, but this would be a deep rewrite of the product. Hope we didn't see an LR7 yet because of that.

 

[Khalai]

Seriously? Adobe? There are affordable eight-core procesors available (Ryzen R7 1700 or Intel i7-7820K), and LR can't use more than two cores as of now?

Users have to understand that adding cores can't magically improve performance. More cores improve performance only of tasks that can be execute in parallel (or performing different tasks at the same time) - but the task needs to be rewritten for parallel execution, it can't happen "automagically".

Tasks that may execute in parallel needs to be "orchestrated", and that adds an overhead too. There could be other reasons that can lead to bottlenecks when many cores are used concurrently for the same task. Scaling across multiple cores may not be linear, and sometimes using less cores may lead to better performance.

If a task can't be parallelized, you need a faster CPU (and faster memory), not more cores.

There may be other technical reasons. For example a lot of LR is still developed in Lua, a language and execution environment, that may not be able to exploit fully multicore capabilities. Adobe could switch to a different technology which could allow for better exploiting of multiple cores, but this would be a deep rewrite of the product. Hope we didn't see an LR7 yet because of that.

You are of course correct, I was a little in a "rant mode". I am of course full aware of Amdahl's law and problems linked to parallelization. No magic bullet. What actually infuriated me was the mention, that Lightroom utilizes only two cores. Which would be sad, given that Intel is providing affordable Core i7 processors since Sandy Bridge, which was really really really long time ago (IT-wise).

Fortunately, I found (and linked in my post) sources that LR is able to utilize as many as 6-8 without too much diminishing returns. See my post above with links to PugetSystems.

 

[Mikehit]

Thanks for posting the link, Khalai. It is certainly good to see that LR has advanced on the multi-core/CPU side.

One other thing I have found after much digging is that using GPU acceleration can slow things down but for reasons I have been unable to fathom this is not consistent.

 

[derekmccoy]

Probably not. They've stopped selling the standalone software so it's hardly in their interests to keep supporting it with updates for new cameras.

So, you have five options.

1) Convert 6DII RAW to DNG before importing into Lightroom 6.
2) Use different software instead of Lightroom 6.
3) Buy an Adobe Cloud subscription and use Lightroom CC which will support the 6DII for sure.
4) Don't buy a 6DII.
5) Shoot JPEG.

Don't like the options? Well, that's about all you've got.

Well there is a 6th option, but I'm not sure it can't be discussed here.

 

[LDS]

Fortunately, I found (and linked in my post) sources that LR is able to utilize as many as 6-8 without too much diminishing returns. See my post above with links to PugetSystems.

That post exactly suggest that higher clock CPUs perform better - and it's no surprise. While task that can be performed in batch/parallel mode (i.e. import, export) can take advantage of more cores more easily.

I'm quite sure Adobe can't ignore the need to improve performance - when possible - through the exploitation of available CPU and GPU cores, but it may mean complex changes to the product, and the need to cope with more variables - i.e CPUs from 2 to 10 or more cores (I guess not every customer is using an i7 or equivalent), and different GPUs.

Set too strict requirements, and you may lose customers. Broaden them too much, and the product may require too many compromises. Move the product upmarket, and its price will increase.

There are many drivers, not all of them pure technical ones.

 

[awair]

I see that quite differently.

Yep, I'm sure you do.

But it really isn't meaningfully different in any significant way.

In all cases, you've only got the "service" you're paying for while you continue paying for it.

Exactly the same as Creative Cloud.

Just because others "see it differently” doesn't invalidate their opinion.

Your comparison is ”invalid”... on a couple of points:
If you don't consume gas, electricity, water etc, you don't pay. So it's not a subscription. Also these services are necessities, and may not have an option for outright purchase.

CC, on the other hand, sits on your computer and regardless as to whether you use it or not, is billed - a fixed cost, every month.

When it comes to choosing how to spend, whether for leisure, business or life, we all have different criteria as to whether something is "worth it".

I would reconsider my "last lifetime camera purchase" (6D2/5D4), if it meant paying $100+ per year for supporting software.

 

[jolyonralph]

I'm curious why we're even having this discussion here.

The best place to ask about Adobe's intentions are on their own forums.

https://forums.adobe.com/community/lightroom

and of course, someone has already asked

https://forums.adobe.com/message/9419972#9419972

 

[LDS]

If you don't consume gas, electricity, water etc, you don't pay. So it's not a subscription. Also these services are necessities, and may not have an option for outright purchase.

Actually, more and more utilities are moving to "flat" payments as well - it's better for them, it ensures a steady cash flow instead of those pesky seasonal variations... especially when users have little or no choice.

 

[Orangutan]

If you don't consume gas, electricity, water etc, you don't pay. So it's not a subscription. Also these services are necessities, and may not have an option for outright purchase.

Actually, more and more utilities are moving to "flat" payments as well

Citation?

A flat electric bill would encourage waste. Some utilities do have levelized payments, where there is a flat monthly payment; however, it's reconciled over time to cover exact usage. This makes auto-payment easier, but does not affect the annual cost per unit energy.

 

[jolyonralph]

Your comparison is ”invalid”... on a couple of points:
If you don't consume gas, electricity, water etc, you don't pay.

Well I've never had a zero bill. There's always some kind of 'service maintenance charge' for a minimum monthly payment.

This whole argument is ludicrous though. Adobe are a commercial company. Of course they want you to pay more!

You either pay the Adobe tax or you go use something else. Complaining about it does nothing.

 

[LonelyBoy]

Your comparison is ”invalid”... on a couple of points:
If you don't consume gas, electricity, water etc, you don't pay.

Well I've never had a zero bill. There's always some kind of 'service maintenance charge' for a minimum monthly payment.

This whole argument is ludicrous though. Adobe are a commercial company. Of course they want you to pay more!

You either pay the Adobe tax or you go use something else. Complaining about it does nothing.

We can always complain and go use something else. I like LR as long as it's purchasable, but the moment it goes subscription-only is the time I'll be investigating other options.

What are these forums about if not for arguing about things that are, in the greater sense, completely meaningless?