Ooooh... Gonna try that when I get home tonight. Thanks!
Paul Braun
Certified Music Junkie
"It's such a fine line between stupid, and clever." -- David St. Hubbins
"Music washes from the soul the dust of everyday life" - Harlan Howard
On May 2, 2013, at 14:54, Tina Manley <images@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|