Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: Wolfman on June 22, 2013, 09:17:30 pm
-
I currently use PSCS6 and decided to download the trial version of PSCC because I wanted to try the new upsizing and improved sharpening. My main drive is solid state so my PSCS6 is pretty quick. In trying the upsizing and sharpening in PSCC I discovered that they are so slow that it's almost a deal breaker...especially smart sharpen. I upsized an image from my 5D Mkll straight out of camera raw to double it's size with the new choice of bicubic smoother preserve details and that too 1.5 minutes which is tolerable but I the applied the new smart sharpen and that took about 4 minutes. Smart sharpen in CS6 is pretty quick but this is snail pace.
Anybody have this problem? I'm on a mac pro desktop with Lion and 8 gigs of memory and ssd main drive.
-
I recommend you do some diagnostics. Download and install Photokit Sharpener 2 and see whether the sharpening is faster. It's the most capable sharpener on the market in any event. If it works much faster, then you know the problem is Photoshop and not your computer. A solid-state drive is most likely not the determinative factor in performance efficiency for such functions. Much more likely it depends on how much RAM you have, and whether the processing needs to reach into your scratch disk. You didn't mention how much RAM you have and whether you have your scratch on a bespoke disk - i.e. other than the system drive.
-
I upsized an image from my 5D Mkll straight out of camera raw to double [its] size with the new choice of bicubic smoother preserve details and that took 1.5 minutes which is tolerable but I the applied the new smart sharpen and that took about 4 minutes. Smart sharpen in CS6 is pretty quick but this is snail pace.
Sony RX1 image, slightly larger than your image. Dell T7500, Win 7 x64, Ps CC x64, 48GB, one processor, 6 cores, 3.33 GHz, AMD FirePro V4800: bicubic smoother preserve details: 14 seconds. Smart sharpen with defaults: 12 seconds.
Dell T7600, Win 7 x64, Ps CC x64, 192GB, two processors, 12 cores, 2.9 GHz, AMD FirePro V4900: bicubic smoother preserve details: 17 seconds. Smart sharpen with defaults: 9 seconds.
Jim
-
I recommend you do some diagnostics. Download and install Photokit Sharpener 2 and see whether the sharpening is faster. It's the most capable sharpener on the market in any event. If it works much faster, then you know the problem is Photoshop and not your computer. A solid-state drive is most likely not the determinative factor in performance efficiency for such functions. Much more likely it depends on how much RAM you have, and whether the processing needs to reach into your scratch disk. You didn't mention how much RAM you have and whether you have your scratch on a bespoke disk - i.e. other than the system drive.
I have PK sharpener but not installed in PSCC yet. I have a separate, empty SSD 60 GB scratch disk. I checked how much ram I have and it says 6GB but I had 8Gb when I was running Snow Leopard and now I'm on Lion and my system says 6GB...that is strange...have to do some investigating.
-
I recommend you do some diagnostics. Download and install Photokit Sharpener 2 and see whether the sharpening is faster. It's the most capable sharpener on the market in any event. If it works much faster, then you know the problem is Photoshop and not your computer. A solid-state drive is most likely not the determinative factor in performance efficiency for such functions. Much more likely it depends on how much RAM you have, and whether the processing needs to reach into your scratch disk. You didn't mention how much RAM you have and whether you have your scratch on a bespoke disk - i.e. other than the system drive.
I installed PK Sharpener in PSCC and it is very quick...no problem there.
-
I installed PK Sharpener in PSCC and it is very quick...no problem there.
Were it not for the contribution above from Jim Kasson, I would be inclined to think it is a Photoshop problem, but now looks less determinate. Plausibly a combination of Photoshop resource requirements and the amount of RAM on your computer, but I would be hard-put to say with any confidence.
-
I upsized an image from my 5D Mkll straight out of camera raw to double it's size with the new choice of bicubic smoother preserve details and that too 1.5 minutes which is tolerable but I the applied the new smart sharpen and that took about 4 minutes. Smart sharpen in CS6 is pretty quick but this is snail pace.
5D MkIII image.
Win 8 laptop, 24GB RAM, NVidia 660m, SSD scratch drive, 2.4GHz i7 (actually runs at about 3.2 GHz in normal use):
Upsize 15 sec, Smart Sharpen @ defaults 31 sec.
CS6 on same machine, running the same operations (the old algorithms, obviously), upsize 1 sec., Smart Sharpen 11 sec.
Win 7 x64 desktop, 8GB RAM, NVidia 500 Ti, non-SSD scratch drive (Ps runs from an SSD), 3.0 GHz i7:
Upsize 20 sec., Smart Sharpen @ defaults 38 sec.
CS6 upsize <1 sec., Smart Sharpen 14 sec.
I also compared the old "Bicubic Smoother" algorithm, and it runs in the same time in CC as in CS6. So, yes, the new algorithms are considerably more compute-intensive than the old ones. All cores are running close to maximum on the CC operations, which they aren't in CS6, so number of cores definitely makes a difference, as Jim's results indicate.
-
Thanks for the feedback with your experiences....I have uninstalled it because it just seemed to be causing strange behavior. I have a Mac Pro Version 1.1 2006 and I have OS Lion and 8 gigs of ram. After installing PSCC trial my system showed I had only 6 gigs of ram...weird....my cursors stopped having the ability to change size and hardness by dragging the mouse as in CS6 and I couldn't type anymore....restarted my computer and those things were restored for a while and then later in the day they stopped working again so I became frustrated and uninstalled and went back to CS6 which is great and my system showed I have 8 gigs of ram again. I could investigate more but I'm happy with CS6 and don't think PSCC is worth the change.
-
Thanks for the feedback with your experiences....I have uninstalled it because it just seemed to be causing strange behavior. I have a Mac Pro Version 1.1 2006 and I have OS Lion and 8 gigs of ram. After installing PSCC trial my system showed I had only 6 gigs of ram...weird....my cursors stopped having the ability to change size and hardness by dragging the mouse as in CS6 and I couldn't type anymore....restarted my computer and those things were restored for a while and then later in the day they stopped working again so I became frustrated and uninstalled and went back to CS6 which is great and my system showed I have 8 gigs of ram again. I could investigate more but I'm happy with CS6 and don't think PSCC is worth the change.
Is CC in fact just a very expensive... and addictive... virus? ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Is CC in fact just a very expensive... and addictive... virus? ;D
Really, is that what you think or are you engaging in hyperbole? Photoshop CC is working as fast (if not faster) on my system as CS6. And...that's not hyperbole, that's just the facts.
Ya know bud, I get it, you're pissed...but at what point does your anger become irrational? I think it already has...take a chill pill doode, you're gonna pop a blood vessel...do you have anything to add to the OP's question? Got any useful troubleshooting advice? Got anything at all useful to add? If not, I think you know what you can do with yourself...
-
Really, is that what you think or are you engaging in hyperbole? Photoshop CC is working as fast (if not faster) on my system as CS6. And...that's not hyperbole, that's just the facts.
Ya know bud, I get it, you're pissed...but at what point does your anger become irrational? I think it already has...take a chill pill doode, you're gonna pop a blood vessel...do you have anything to add to the OP's question? Got any useful troubleshooting advice? Got anything at all useful to add? If not, I think you know what you can do with yourself...
Jeff,
I am the one needing to chill? :D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Jeeez, Jeff.. relax, take a deep breath and close your eyes and try to remember lounging on the beach in Hawaii. Ahhhhh. Don't you feel better now?
Seriously, you really didn't have to bite his head off.
-
Seriously, you really didn't have to bite his head off.
So, what was the use of Bernard posting: "Is CC in fact just a very expensive... and addictive... virus?"
Did it advance the topic of this thread in the least or is Bernard simply injecting his hatred of Adobe in yet another thread? Is he going to keep spreading his hate in every Photoshop topic for the rest of time? To what goal? What was the point of that comment Bernard?
-
So, what was the use of Bernard posting: "Is CC in fact just a very expensive... and addictive... virus?"
Did it advance the topic of this thread in the least or is Bernard simply injecting his hatred of Adobe in yet another thread? Is he going to keep spreading his hate in every Photoshop topic for the rest of time? To what goal? What was the point of that comment Bernard?
Levity...you should try some sometime.
-
Oh, well, that's just because you also need to buy the Apple Mac CC subscription, giving you the latest new MacPro for just $450/mos with a 1 year commitment :) Can't have Adobe CC without it!
-
So, what was the use of Bernard posting: "Is CC in fact just a very expensive... and addictive... virus?"
Did it advance the topic of this thread in the least or is Bernard simply injecting his hatred of Adobe in yet another thread? Is he going to keep spreading his hate in every Photoshop topic for the rest of time? To what goal? What was the point of that comment Bernard?
Jeff,
I have a lot of respect for you as a photographer and educator, but as long as...
- this isn't Adobe's customer support's forum,
- your lack of sense of humor isn't set as the standart of communication in this forum
...I have zero intention to let you shut me up.
Hatred is your word and it doesn't match my feelings nor the way I have expressed them.
I am not sure to understand your reaction btw. You wrote in this very forum that you didn't care and were planning to stop involving yourself in these discussions. It seemed like a reasonnable thing to do since you apparently find it hard to keep your cools.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I am not sure to understand your reaction btw. You wrote in this very forum that you didn't care and were planning to stop involving yourself in these discussions. It seemed like a reasonnable thing to do since you apparently find it hard to keep your cools.
That was for the other threads relating to CC subscription vs perpetual licenses and I have stopped being involved...this thread is supposed to be about Photoshop CC performance...and since I'm pretty sure you don't have Photoshop CC, I found your post useless hyperbole.
Do you have anything to contribute relating to Photoshop CC performance? If so, post away...but if your agenda is to keep spreading discontent through all topics relating to Adobe, then I think you need to reconsider your approach.
-
...and since I'm pretty sure you don't have Photoshop CC, I found your post useless hyperbole.
My post was nothing but a joke Jeff, I am not sure how you could fail to recognize that.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
My post was nothing but a joke Jeff, I am not sure how you could fail to recognize that.
Cheers,
Bernard
Maybe someone should write an explanatory book, perhaps called "The Digital Smiley." ;D ::) :D
Cheers and smiles,
Eric M.
P.S. The useful content of this message = 0, although it does not knowingly contain nudity. It may, however, not be suitable for reading in some workplaces.
-
My post was nothing but a joke Jeff, I am not sure how you could fail to recognize that.
A joke with an agenda is not simply a joke...you chose to bring the whole CC subscription/perpetual license controversy into a topic about Photoshop CC performance. Sorry if I fail to see any humor in that...perhaps you might consider choosing your jokes a bit more wisely?
-
After installing PSCC trial my system showed I had only 6 gigs of ram...weird....my cursors stopped having the ability to change size and hardness by dragging the mouse as in CS6 and I couldn't type anymore....restarted my computer and those things were restored for a while and then later in the day they stopped working again so I became frustrated and uninstalled and went back to CS6 which is great and my system showed I have 8 gigs of ram again.
So, exactly how did you get 10.7.x (you haven't indicated the exact version you are running) onto your system? Was it a fresh install or an upgrade from 10.6.8? I've heard of some issues with older non-64bit MacIntel systems having certain issues with 10.7.x. The fact that after installing Photoshop CC your system is reporting less than the full installed ram is troubling...installing an app should not have any impact on what your system is reporting. I suspect you have some low level system issues that might be something to work on and troubleshoot...
-
So, what was the use of Bernard posting: "Is CC in fact just a very expensive... and addictive... virus?"
Ummm. Bernard did put a smiley after the comment, and I, for one thought it was pretty funny (but then my wife says I have a wierd sense of humor). Are we having a bad day at the office or something?
-
A joke with an agenda is not simply a joke...you chose to bring the whole CC subscription/perpetual license controversy into a topic about Photoshop CC performance.
No Jeff, you are the one doing just that by reacting the way you are reacting.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
So, exactly how did you get 10.7.x (you haven't indicated the exact version you are running) onto your system? Was it a fresh install or an upgrade from 10.6.8? I've heard of some issues with older non-64bit MacIntel systems having certain issues with 10.7.x. The fact that after installing Photoshop CC your system is reporting less than the full installed ram is troubling...installing an app should not have any impact on what your system is reporting. I suspect you have some low level system issues that might be something to work on and troubleshoot...
It was a fresh install of 10.7.5 that I downloaded from the App. Store.
-
It was a fresh install of 10.7.5 that I downloaded from the App. Store.
What sort of graphics card do you have? Do you have more than one card? Are they matched? Did you try checking your Preferences for Graphic Processor Settings in the Photoshop CC Performance preferences? The reason I ask is that that Photoshop CC has extended the use of GPU in a lot of areas...one are is in Image Size and in Smart Sharpen. As far as I know, the GPU is used to speed the results if the card supports it. In a 2006 MacPro, that card is ancient by comparison with more recent computers...It would be useful to compare the GPU settings between Photoshop CS6 (which is less reliant on GPU) to the settings in Photoshop CC.
I'm running Photoshop CS6 and CC on a 2009 MacPro with a pair of matched NVIDEA GeForce GT 120 cards (not very powerful by today's standards) and I'm running the GPU with set to "Normal" in both CC and CS6, I'm getting the same sort of speed between CC & CS6.
in fact, it would be useful to make sure ALL the prefs between CS6 and CC were set the same. 8 gigs of ram isn't a lot and you should think about increasing the ram. Also, where is the scratch disk set to in CS6 and CC? By default CC would be using your boot drive unless you changed it after the install.
But none of this would explain why your system was reporting less installed ram after you installed Photoshop CC–which should have no impact on the system's installed ram.
-
...Photoshop CC has extended the use of GPU in a lot of areas...one are is in Image Size and in Smart Sharpen. As far as I know, the GPU is used to speed the results if the card supports it.
I don't know if a similar situation exists on a Mac, but when I tried to run tests on a Win 7 machine from another using Remote Desktop, Photoshop said:
(http://www.kasson.com/ll/Psdisplaydriverproblem.PNG)
So, in order for the tests to be fair, they have to be run from a local console.
-
What sort of graphics card do you have? Do you have more than one card? Are they matched? Did you try checking your Preferences for Graphic Processor Settings in the Photoshop CC Performance preferences? The reason I ask is that that Photoshop CC has extended the use of GPU in a lot of areas...one are is in Image Size and in Smart Sharpen. As far as I know, the GPU is used to speed the results if the card supports it. In a 2006 MacPro, that card is ancient by comparison with more recent computers...It would be useful to compare the GPU settings between Photoshop CS6 (which is less reliant on GPU) to the settings in Photoshop CC.
I'm running Photoshop CS6 and CC on a 2009 MacPro with a pair of matched NVIDEA GeForce GT 120 cards (not very powerful by today's standards) and I'm running the GPU with set to "Normal" in both CC and CS6, I'm getting the same sort of speed between CC & CS6.
in fact, it would be useful to make sure ALL the prefs between CS6 and CC were set the same. 8 gigs of ram isn't a lot and you should think about increasing the ram. Also, where is the scratch disk set to in CS6 and CC? By default CC would be using your boot drive unless you changed it after the install.
But none of this would explain why your system was reporting less installed ram after you installed Photoshop CC–which should have no impact on the system's installed ram.
The card is a NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256 MB and I had the scratch set to my empty 60 gig SSD as I do in CS6. I know I should install more ram even sticking to CS6.
I'm actually anticipating the new Mac Pro if it isn't too expensive.
-
Wolfman,
I have a Mac Pro similar to yours. Early 2008 Harpertown, Eight cores, 8mb ram, Radeon HD2600 Graphics card and a Accelsior SSD drive.
My timings using a raw file from a Nikon D7000(16mp).
CS6 Smart Sharpen about 2 seconds
PSCC Smart sharpen 15 seconds
PSCC doubling the size using Bicubic about 1-2 seconds
PSCC Smart sharpen took 60 seconds after doubling the size
It looks like Smart Sharpen is doing a lot more work and the time to process is proportional to the square of the size difference. There doesn't seem to be anything unusual with my RAM usage with CC vs CS. So there might be something fishy with your PSCC installation and your MacPro. Did you use the system monitor to observe CPU usage during the Smart Sharpen processing? Also probe around in the Performance preferences.
-
I decided to reinstall PSCC and give it a 2nd try. This time around my system shows I do have 8 gigs of ram. I set everything in performance as Jeff suggested.
5D Mk2 raw:
CS6 Smart Sharpen native size: 11sec
PSCC Smart Sharpen native size 15sec
CS6 enlarge double size bicubic smoother 2.5sec
PSCC enlarge double size preserve details 32sec
CS6 Smart Sharpen double size 50sec
PSCC Smart Sharpen double size 60sec
-
CS6 enlarge double size bicubic smoother 2.5sec
PSCC enlarge double size preserve details 32sec
Well, it doesn't surprise me that "preserve details" would take more time because it's more processor intensive...a more accurate apples/apples test would be Bicubic Smoother in both CS6 and CC...I also think that the that the amount of Reduct Noise setting in Preserve Detail would play a role...did you turn that on? If so, that would kick in a different algorithm which would I suspect, add to the processing time.
-
Well, it doesn't surprise me that "preserve details" would take more time because it's more processor intensive...a more accurate apples/apples test would be Bicubic Smoother in both CS6 and CC...I also think that the that the amount of Reduct Noise setting in Preserve Detail would play a role...did you turn that on? If so, that would kick in a different algorithm which would I suspect, add to the processing time.
Yes, I turn noise reduction down.
Using bicubic smoother in both and doubling the size of a 5D2 file it is about the same...2sec
-
Is CC in fact just a very expensive... and addictive... virus? ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
It's a pity there's not an ignore function here at LL. I agree with JS, you add nothing to the discussion but a continuation of your petulant jibes.
Everyone gets it. You don't like Adobe. There's noting remotely funny bringing it up in every thread.
If you're not happy with Adobe's policies, write letters to the CEO. Picket the annual stockholders meeting. For pity's sake, give it a rest on users forum. We have no say in Adobe policy, and we shouldn't have to suffer your barbs and ill will with every thread.
Graham
-
It's a pity there's not an ignore function here at LL. I agree with JS, you add nothing to the discussion but a continuation of your petulant jibes.
Everyone gets it. You don't like Adobe. There's noting remotely funny bringing it up in every thread.
If you're not happy with Adobe's policies, write letters to the CEO. Picket the annual stockholders meeting. For pity's sake, give it a rest on users forum. We have no say in Adobe policy, and we shouldn't have to suffer your barbs and ill will with every thread.
Hello Graham,
There is in fact an ignore function built in most LL readers which consists in moving to the next post.
There is also a "highlight this post an give it most visibility by quoting it one month later" function that you have just used. ;)
By the way, congratulation on your selection as a representative of "everybody"!
And for the record, I do not "not like Adobe". I have spent more money on their products than I have with any other photographic equipment provider but Nikon.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
For what it's worth, I have a significant performance gain after upgrading to CC. I use PhotoShop from LR to use the Nik plugins as smart filters. In CS6, saving the file took about 30 seconds. With CC, that is down to a few seconds. I am on Windows.
-
For what it's worth, I have a significant performance gain after upgrading to CC.... In CS6, saving the file took about 30 seconds. With CC, that is down to a few seconds. I am on Windows.
Out of interest how big is the file ?
-
I am not at home, but I am talking about D800 files, with the RAW as a smart object.
-
Levity...you should try some sometime.
Totally agree. Maybe Jeff, Doode of doodes, himself King of acerbic hyperbole, just can't tolerate anyone dissing his meal ticket. Really, contributions similar to Bernard's are common on most threads without such emotionally charged, bully responses.
-
Totally agree. Maybe Jeff, Doode of doodes, himself King of acerbic hyperbole, just can't tolerate anyone dissing his meal ticket. Really, contributions similar to Bernard's are common on most threads without such emotionally charged, bully responses.
And your post adds to the thread how?
Got anything useful about Photoshop CC performance?
-
Bout as much as your over-the-top original response to Bernard, ie: not much that's genuinely useful ;)
-
Bout as much as your over-the-top original response to Bernard, ie: not much that's genuinely useful ;)
Where you been all these years Luminous Landscape's been around, JhnMhn, and why are you posting just to this topic now?
10 posts in as a newbie here and you act like you own the place. Learn some manners because you really aren't starting off on a good foot nor are your points on good footing.
Do you actually see your internet personna you've now established here as a reliable source of information to be taken seriously? I don't. You act as if you're a legend in your own mind to quote a line from a Dirty Harry movie.
Use your own name for Christ sake so you can stand behind what you say, you coward.
-
Quoting a guy that makes a fool of himself talking to empty chairs, saying such enlightening things as "for Christ sake" (I seriously doubt he cares about these forums), and ending with "you coward"... such a sterling example of "manners" and "internet personna".
Not that I owe you anything or feel compelled to genuflect to your seemingly self-important post count (I haven't found any correlation between numbers of posts and quality of same, your response is a case in point), but here are some answers to your mistaken assumptions:
I've followed LL for many years and have more than nine posts, but a screw up with LL's system made my name no longer accepted so I simply reregistered and took out the vowels in my name…problem solved.
My activity re: Adobe is because of the seismic changes they have made so callously. No more need be said about that except that the dismissive acerbic hyperbole used against Bernard invites the same in response. What's sauce for us mere forum schlubs is sauce for His Supreme Doodeness.
I wasn't giving information, merely commenting on the way-over-the-top and dismissive response to Bernard's benign and brief little jibe at Adobe, kind of like the way you gave no useful info. I will give you this, Bernard did defend himself just fine and I probably should have left it at that. Although Jeff went on to lecture Bernard about choosing his jokes more wisely, how ironic coming from the dismissive/, bordering on abusive, joke king.
My name is John Mahan, which you would have known if you had actuality read the small number of posts that bother you so much. Also, since when is a person's name required? Are all the others on these forums not using their actual names also cowards? Since you invoke Christ's name, perhaps you should look to the log in your own eye before gauging out the speck in someone else's eye. And yes, that lesson is one for me to pay more attention to also.
In Forest Gump's words (much prefer him to Dirty Harry), "…that's about all I have to say about that.
Peace
-
In Forest Gump's words (much prefer him to Dirty Harry), "…that's about all I have to say about that.
OK...so do you have anything constructive to add to help the OP regarding Photoshop CC performance? Jim and I posted a few posts that seemed to have helped...neither you nor Bernard have. You want a knockdown drag out fight? I'm willing...but the odds of you winning are somewhere between slim and none...
-
You want a knockdown drag out fight? I'm willing...but the odds of you winning are somewhere between slim and none...
Really? Do you ever listen to yourself?
-
Really? Do you ever listen to yourself?
Yep...all the time...how about you? You ain't doing yourself any favors...nothing you've posted is in the least bit useful or beneficial to the thread. Bernard knows exactly what he was doing...and so do you (and so do I). I suspect the moderators will too...
-
I'm closing this topic because it's becoming about personalities not helpful discussion or debate.
If the topic warrants please restart it, but personal jibes won't be tolerated.
Michael