Under Library>Convert files to DNG, you can have LR4 convert raw files to
DNG (even if they are already DNGs) and click the box Embed Fast Load Data.
That makes the preview load instantly without waiting for the Pop. This is
a new feature in LR4.
Tina
On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> wrote:
> Just a very wild guess but I hypothesize that the 1/2 second delay is
> due to virtual memory paging activity. LR is trying to do something
> that requires more real memory than is available. It gets put on hold
> while the OS frees more memory by paging something else out to disk.
> Then LR suddenly has the processor back with the real memory it needs
> and can run at full speed... pop... it's suddenly on the screen. Sounds
> good to me because PhotoShop (and LR too?) has been known for many years
> to be a memory hog.
>
> Try doing the same thing with nothing but LR running. If still slow try
> a smaller set of images and see what happens. If the 1/2 second delay
> goes away you likely need more memory.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> On 5/2/2013 9:22 AM, philippe.amard wrote:
> > thanks Chuck but not only is the sensor not that of the x10 but your
> > message doesn't explain why the photo has to "pop" when the preview is
> > displayed :-(
> >
> > Thanks al the same :-)
> >
> > Ph
> >
> >
> > Le 2 mai 13 à 14:50, Chuck Norcutt a écrit :
> >
> >> From DPReview's review of the Xpro-1
> >> -----------------------------------------------------
> >> Sensor • 23.6mm x 15.6mm (APS-C) X-Trans CMOS sensor
> >> • 16.3 million *effective* pixels
> >> • Primary colour filter (RGB color filter array)
> >> ----------------------
> >> Image sizes 3:2
> >> • 4896 x 3264
> >> • 3456 x 2304
> >> • 2496 x 1664
> >> -----------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Note maximum image size occurs at 3:2 aspect ratio and is 4896 x 3264.
> >> Emphasis placed on *effective* is mine.
> >>
> >> Chuck Norcutt
> >>
> >>
> >> On 5/1/2013 6:35 AM, philippe.amard@xxxxxx wrote:
> >>> I also notice that loss in LR with the x10 - the previews suddenly
> >>> seem to "plop" as a cold slide would in the projector ...
> >>> I attributed it so far to a sort of hidden lens adjustment.
> >>> Yet Moose's explanation also makes much sense to me.
> >>> What I don't understand is the 0.5 sec delay for the conversion to
> >>> take place on screen
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Amitiés
> >>> Philippe
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ========================================
> >>>
> >>> Message du : 01/05/2013 00:47
> >>> De : "Moose " <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>> A : "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Copie à :
> >>> Sujet : [OM] LR vs. Aperture image sizes [was LR5 beta}
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 4/29/2013 4:47 AM, SwissPace wrote:
> >>>> I had a quick look at some of my Xpro-1 raw files ... quite a bit
> >>>> of border is missing from the
> >>>> LR files which I have just discovered from viewing the aperture
> >>>> version.
> >>>
> >>> Have you checked the image pixel sizes? I imagine you will find
> >>> that LR delivers all the camera claims.
> >>>
> >>> If I recall correctly, camera specs and most converters ignore a
> >>> few pixels along each edge. This is because they cannot
> >>> be fully converted for accurate color, as some of the other,
> >>> surrounding pixels needed for full decoding of the Bayer
> >>> array are not there.That little set of border pixels are used in
> >>> decoding color for those next further in, but not used
> >>> directly as part of the image.
> >>>
> >>> Soooo, they need to include them in the Raw files, for use by
> >>> converters, but they are not intended to be in converter
> >>> output.
> >>>
> >>> DCRaw offers the option to produce these extra, edge pixels, so any
> >>> GUI converter/editor using it underneath has that
> >>> option, if desired. It's not really many pixels. On the A650,
> >>> 3000x4000 becomes 3024x4032. I used DCRaw some time ago. I
> >>> couldn't see anything wrong with the color of the extra pixels, but
> >>> I only look closely at a very few images.
> >>>
> >>> I can see why the camera makers would not include them in their
> >>> specs and most converters don't include them in their
> >>> output. All it takes is one yahoo blogging about false colors at
> >>> the edge of the image to cause endless trouble.
> >>>
> >>> Assuming this is what you are seeing, I'm not sure why Apple would
> >>> include it.
> >>>
> >>> Edgy Moose
> >>>
> >> --
> >> _________________________________________________________________
> >> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> >> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> >> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
> >>
> >
> > One sees clearly only with the heart. What is essential is invisible
> > to the eye. Antoine de Saint Exupéry in Le Petit Prince.
> > NO ARCHIVE
> >
> >
> >
> >
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
>
--
Tina Manley, ASMP
www.tinamanley.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|