c1 memory usage

[orc73]

Hello

I just had to open Lightroom again and found, while they need a bit more time to display the raw in the first time you go through some images, the second time you click on the same image, it's instantly available(at 100% view). So somehow they do a better caching, or keep them in the memory.

When I work with C1, I have small catalogs at 20-30GB from a shooting, yet C1 would only use about 5Gb from my 24gb RAM.
It does not seem to keep images in the RAM. Is there a way to change this?
I'm on yosemite, 24gb ram on a macpro 2009.

best regards

[Paul Steunebrink]

Using 5GB of RAM means the program is caching. Do not compare the catalog size to amount of RAM utilized. CO8 uses proxy files, not the original raw files.

That said, CO8 is doing some sort of caching and it is not configurable apart from the preview (proxy file) size. You can set that in the preferences.

[orc73]

thanks for your answer Paul, so between the lines I read full sized previews could help in that case ?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

thanks for your answer Paul, so between the lines I read full sized previews could help in that case ?

Hi,

Just wondering what it is that you want to change / improve(?), by consuming more RAM?

Cheers,
Bart

[orc73]

speed.read my opening post
viewing a file at 100% "without waiting". It zooms in instantly but then needs time to calculate it full res.
I assume when the files would be in the RAM this would take less time. And it looks like they are not in the RAM if I see my activity monitor.

CPU, GPU and storage must be involved to this process, and in most cases the bottleneck is when the cpu/gpu need to wait for data.
Waiting for data from the RAM instead of having to load it from the disk first is a huge difference, even you have a super fast drive.

btw: Using the highest preview jpg setting did not help at all.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

speed.read my opening post
viewing a file at 100% "without waiting". It zooms in instantly but then needs time to calculate it full res.
I assume when the files would be in the RAM this would take less time. And it looks like they are not in the RAM if I see my activity monitor.

Correct, and I understand that, but what's so important about that fraction of a second (with GPU acceleration) update? Are you browsing through (back and forth) the images at a zoom scale larger than the preview size, or only zooming in/out (BTW a zoomed display is inaccurate anyway)? Display size also plays a role, maybe you use a 4K display? That would indeed require to process many more pixels, always. Reading from RAM probably would help there, although there are also some differences in preformance between Graphics display drivers (even between versions).

Cheers,
Bart

[Paul Steunebrink]

thanks for your answer Paul, so between the lines I read full sized previews could help in that case ?

If you zoom in a lot, larger previews can help. Please not that zooming in to 100% might always require the program to read the raw file again. I say might, because it theoretically depends on monitor pixels and image pixels. But now it is getter very theoretical. 

[orc73]

Who said fraction of a second? We are talking 2 seconds. Each time you go to 100%. I know for landscape that will maybe less of an issue. If you have A group of shots to compare for eyes in focus, facial expression or details in clothes it can get painfull. Unnecessary as adobe shows with lr.
LR in contrast might need 3 seconds for the first time, but the next time you zoom in its instantly there. So obviously that is possible with my hardware, even they are slower in rendering, a least they find a way to cache it. I know there are pro and cons for every software. Maybe somebody from p1 can put it on a list

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Who said fraction of a second? We are talking 2 seconds.

That sounds more like a hardware related issue, rather than a software only issue.

Cheers,
Bart

[orc73]

Read what I 'm writing please when answering

Even the LR engine seems to be slower initially, they at least cache it for the next access. On the same hardware.

Btw: same thing happens with i6700k at 4.4ghz and gtx 970 gpu, with macpro 3.3 ghz 6 core and 7970 gpu and with macpro 2013 6core and d500. Initial rendering of course benefits from faster hardware.

Point is c1 is not caching, neither on 16gb ram nor on 24gb ram. And also not if the library is significantly smaller then the free ram.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Read what I 'm writing please when answering

Maybe you should take your own advice. I told you that I know there is a difference between caching the full image at 100% zoom, and recalculating it afresh. But that still doesn't mean that a 2 second delay seems normal, IMHO. Maybe others can estimate the time it takes on their machine recalculating the image at 100% zoom preview when switching between images, after the initial first rendering.

When I zoom in on an image to 100%, then select another, it indeed takes a while to do the initial full render. But after that, switching between the images is instant, even on my dated notebook.

Point is c1 is not caching, neither on 16gb ram nor on 24gb ram. And also not if the library is significantly smaller then the free ram.

As explained before, that's by design. Library size is largely irrelevant, that is just a database. It's the Raw conversion of the actual image that takes a bit of time.

Cheers,
Bart