LR3 Tethered Shooting Transfer Speed

[RFPhotography]

I've got a project I'm going to be working on and I'll need to capture more images than I can fit on a card.  Changing cards partway through won't be possible.  This is an experiment and not knowing if it will succeed I don't really want to go out and buy new cards just for this.  I'm looking at shooting tethered through LR3.

Anyone have a sense of the image transfer speed doing this?  It's a timelapse project and I'm looking at capturing 1 frame/sec.  I'll be capturing through LR on WinXP Pro.  I'll minimise previews in LR to speed up the process and will likely capture in Large Fine JPEG rather than RAW.

Thanks.

[Steve Weldon]

Off-hand I think 2-3 secs per image from shutter release to image on the screen.. but if you don't need the image on the screen your machine has a huge buffer capability.  Make sure your interface is properly set up, if USB2 make sure it's a high speed USB2.. many have machines with USB2 but its only set up in the default USB1 mode.  And quality cables if more than a few meters in length.

Breeze DSLR Remote is a 'bit' faster.. but there is still the transfer of data and rendering involved with any type of tethering.  I'm hoping USB3 will make its way into the next crop of DSLR's and greatly improve this.

[RFPhotography]

Thanks, Steve.  That seems awfully slow.  But then again, you're talking from capture to view on screen so that may be more reasonable.  And for this exercise, I don't need the images on screen.  This is just a method to capture the large volume which will then be transferred to my desktop for processing. 

I'll be doing some testing beforehand to see how it might work but wanted to get some insights ahead of that.

[Steve Weldon]

It's not like I've ever timed it.. but I used to have a big monitor in my modest studio, the models loved instant feedback, and they came across fast enough to help them adjust their poses.  When I'd look (after adjusting light or some other change) I remember making the capture, immediately looking at the screen, and then waiting 1-2 secs for it to appear.  And I'm talking raw with a 1ds2 or 5d2.. I used a 1ds3 briefly and don't remember there being a difference.  Remember, a preview must also be generated in any viewer.. so processing power comes into play for that, and video card speed for rendering..

If you think about it, it takes almost as long on your cameras LCD.. press the display button and 1-2 seconds later its there.  An extra sec to the computer and screen sounds about right. 

Personally I don't think you need to worry about it, your computer will buffer as fast as your camera can take the pics.

[RFPhotography]

Sorry if I sounded critical, Steve.  That wasn't my intent.

I think you're right that between the buffer provided by the computer and the camera buffer it should't be an issue.

Thanks.

[sniper]

I suspect usb speeds will be a bigger factor than pc buffer.

[RFPhotography]

After doing an initial test, it seems like it will work but there are a couple problems. 

Shooting in RAW the transfer speed isn't fast enough and the camera buffer gets filled at 1 fps before the images offload to the computer.  Shooting even Large/Fine JPEG, the transfer speed seems plenty fast with no buffer issues.  I'm fine with shooting JPEG for this project given the intended use of the images in a timelapse video.

The bigger issue is that the interval shooting mode of the D700 isn't available in tethered shooting through Lightroom.  That's a big problem.  Reading Chris Breeze's site for his NKRemote, I'm not sure if interval shooting is available through it or not.  Will have to send him an email to find out.  If not, the tethered option will likely be off the table.  Don't know if Nikon's Camera Control Pro offers it either but there's no trial that I can find and I'm not spending $225 for what may be a one-off experiment.

If anyone's got some other ideas, happy to hear them.

[Bahi]

Don't know if Nikon's Camera Control Pro offers it either but there's no trial that I can find and I'm not spending $225 for what may be a one-off experiment.

There's a trial link here:

http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Imaging-Software/25366/Camera-Control-Pro-2.html

There's also a user guide (PDF) available for download. Last time I used NCCP (v1.x), it did offer its own interval shooting option.

I'm on the Mac and have used Sofortbild on the one or two occasions since then that I've needed something like this; like NCCP 1.x, it offers its own interval timer for tethered shooting, which worked with Lightroom's Auto Import settings last time I tried it. I imagine you could do exactly the same with Camera Control Pro on XP.

[RFPhotography]

Ah ha!  Thanks!  I was obviously looking in the wrong place on the Nikon website.  I'll give it a go.

[RFPhotography]

A quick 200 shot test shows me that the Nikon software isn't as quick as going through LR.  With LR I can capture at Large/Fine JPEG, 1 fps.  With Camera Control I have to drop back to Medium/Fine JPEG, 1 fps.  Not a big deal but it may limit some options in editing. 

[JRSmit]

Bob,

What computer are you using? I have both Windows and Mac, but i have not got the transfer time via usb down to much less than 3 seconds for a raw file (25mb) , more in the 2,5-2,7 sec. NKremote adds a few tenths of a second to this. LR-3 much more, another 4-6 seconds.

[RFPhotography]

I'm on an Acer Travelmate with 2GB of RAM and a 1.8GHz dual core processor running WinXP Pro. 

I also downloaded Chris Breeze's NKRemote.  It wasn't as fast as Camera Control.  In terms of speed, LR3 is fastest.  It can capture Large/Fine JPEG at 1 fps without missing any frames but without the interval shooting/timelapse functionality that the other two have.  Your speed for a RAW image is about the same as what I'm getting, JR.

Unless something else makes sense, I'll probably go with Camera Control and shoot Medium/Fine JPEG.