VERY long save times with NC 4.3.2

Discussion in 'General Technical Discussion' started by Gordon Large, Oct 7, 2005.

  1. Gordon Large

    Gordon Large Guest

    Hi folks -

    I've found 4.3.2 to be a bit faster processing files, but if anything it takes LONGER to save files to either my internal or external drives. I mean saves are REALLY slow. Is anybody else having this problem? Any ideas what might be going on or how to fix it? If I can't get faster saves, I'm going to have to switch to ACR, RSE or something else.

    FYI, I'm using a brand new Dell Latitude D810 laptop which is loaded. (I also had very long save times on my previous laptop.) The D810 has a 2.13Mh Pentium M processor, 2MB of RAM, a 80GB 5400RPM hard drive, and a fast internal bus speed. It rips through other apps including PS CS2 and saves big files quickly.

    Thanks for your ideas and help!

    Gordon
     
  2. Gale

    Gale

    978
    Jan 26, 2005
    Viera Fl
    Yes Gordon,
    Seems to process a bit faster.. Saving my tif files takes forever...:>))

    (get back at at adobe...hahahha.. j/k)

    They just haven't got it worked out yet. I do find processing in NC gives me better quality to my eye anyway..Do process some in ACR...
     
  3. bpetterson

    bpetterson Guest

    Gordon;
    There are two things that you can do.
    First in PS- under prefeernces select the smallest amount of ram to PS'
    Something like 12 or 18 mb.
    Second- after you have done your thing in NC, transfer the file as a tif to another folder, not PS. then open in PS.

    I understand that Nik will be coming out with the new NC next year for Nikon.

    I have esentially the same Thinkpad T43P and it seems to go quite well.

    However I like a good shot jpg worked in NC prior to transfer to PS.

    Birger
     
  4. MontyDog

    MontyDog

    Jan 30, 2005
    #1064 - You have an error in your SQL syntax;
     
  5. general

    general

    Apr 30, 2005
    Nebraska
    2 Mb Ram

    I presume you meant some other number. That isn't enough RAM for anything. I run my desktop with a 3.63 GB CPU and 4 GB RAM. Naturally I don't have any speed problems.
     
  6. Gordon Large

    Gordon Large Guest

    Hi Gale -

    It is said that misery loves company. Sorry you are seeing the same problems. If you haven't already, check out Birger's suggestions in the next post and Paul's theory about what is going on in the following one.

    Gordon
     
  7. Gordon Large

    Gordon Large Guest

    Hi Birger -

    Thanks for your suggestions. By limiting the ram for PS to 12 or 18MK, I assume that you are freeing up ram for nc. Is this right? Do you then increase the ram available for ps when you start processing in ps?

    It will be interesting to see what Nik can do. I like their products and they certainly know how to write software a lot better than Nikon.

    Gordon
     
  8. Gordon Large

    Gordon Large Guest

    Hi Don -

    Yup, a typo. I have 2 GB of RAM.

    I've never seen a GB spec for a CPU. What does 3.63 GB mean?

    Thanks -

    Gordon
     
  9. heiko

    heiko

    May 15, 2005
    Israel
    Have done some picture processing on NC 4.3.2 and didn't notice significant differences. I use an AMD 2.4 GHz PC with 768 MB memory, so it's definitely state of the art, but just about OK. When working in NC, I don't have other applications running (just the normal stuff like firewall etc.).

    What I did find out is that NC sometimes gets stuck (even a simple change in Tone comp. can cause it). When it gets stuck, it doesn't clean up the cache memory on disk, and that can cause problems. You can check your c:/Documents and Settings/????/Local Settings/Temp folder (or whatever folder NC uses - check under Tools / Options / Temporary Files) to see if there are any large and/or plenty of Nk???.tmp files around, AFTER you closed NC. If yes, delete them.

    I had the same issue with NikonView, even worse. For some reason it often didn't clear up the temp files and dozens or hundred of files were left, slowing the whole PC to a near standstill.

    I think Birger's suggestion regarding lowering PSCS memory is working in the way that it increases the amount of available memory. And so goes the suggestion of first working in NC and converting to tiff, and later opening and processing in PS.

    On my laptop, running both NC and PS gives you the feeling of getting run over by snales. The laptop has only 512 MB memory and a 1.7 GHz CPU. Working consecutively does improve performance a lot.

    Hope it helps.
     
  10. nfoto

    nfoto Guest

    Just tested by loading a D2X NEF across my home network (100 Mb/s): 4 secs. After editing, I then saved it as a TIF, this took 12 sec again over the humble performance network. While performance could always be snappier, this isn't that bad? For comparison, BibblePro 4.3a loads the identical NEF file in 1 sec, and saves it in 9 secs, again over the network into the same folder on my NAS, so the difference in saving time isn't that great.

    Hardware: Windows 2000, 3 GHz P-4 CPU, 2 GB RAM, standard 7200 IDE disks.
     
  11. jfrancis

    jfrancis

    May 8, 2005
    Orlando, FL
    I have the same slooow TIFF save issue even on a 3.4GHz Pentium 4 with 4 GB RAM. I don't see how limiting RAM to PS will help as this is an issue even without PS running. PS itself can save these files way quicker. It really is unfortunate that Nikon can't seem to speed this program up, as I really like the results I get with it :mad:
     
  12. jfrancis

    jfrancis

    May 8, 2005
    Orlando, FL
    Just saved a D2X file as a TIFF to an internal HD - 1 minute 15 secs :eek: :eek: :eek:

    A "good balance" JPG too almost as long.
     
  13. nfoto

    nfoto Guest

    Well, doing the identical save operation, I obtained 12 secs to an external network server, over a modest 100 Mb/s network. That's 7-8 times faster! Something must be terribly wrong here, but haven't the slightest clue as to what the underlying cause(s) might be.
     
  14. general

    general

    Apr 30, 2005
    Nebraska
    That is my typo

    CPU should be 3.63 Gigahertz.
     
  15. general

    general

    Apr 30, 2005
    Nebraska
    My times ok

    It took 7 seconds to open a D2X NEF file and 9 seconds to save as TIF to an internal hard drive (SATA). On a second trial it took 6 seconds and 8 seconds respectively. Obviously a wide variation.
     
  16. jfrancis

    jfrancis

    May 8, 2005
    Orlando, FL
    The strange thing is that some days, NC is much slower than others. Today, for example that same save to TIFF took 16 seconds (one minute faster than yesterday :confused: :eek: )
     
  17. heiko

    heiko

    May 15, 2005
    Israel
    I'm jumping on the band waggon here as I've found several problems with NC 4.3.2. Earlier in this thread I mentioned that changing Tone Comp. sometimes causes NC to stop responding. Now I found that the histogram sometimes doesn't change after I modify EV or other settings that influence the histogram.

    I opened a separate thread on that:

    https://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?p=586802#post586802

    Has anyone experienced the same/similar problems? Any suggestions?

    I found that speed - at least with D70 NEFs and TIFFs - isn't that much different from NC 4.3.1, on my PC.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2017
  18. Gordon Large

    Gordon Large Guest

    And then a miracle happened....

    Thanks everyone for the interesting comments and suggestions. I tweaked NC, my file structure, Windows XP, tuned my car engine and adjusted the thermostat. I didn't think I changed much or accomplished anything, and I couldn't possibly recreate what I did. But last night I processed for a couple of hours and all files saved quickly - anywhere from about 7 to 20 seconds. :biggrin: :confused: :biggrin: :confused:

    I'm sorry I can't really offer any suggestions because I was twiddling around with so many settings, don't remember all of them, and have no idea which one(s) helped. :frown: I think this was just another example of "It's better to be lucky than good!". If NC reverts back to its old behavior, I'll let you all know. Meanwhile, I hope this thread continues as folks will report real facts and not just miracles.

    Gordon
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
Very Interesting problem here! General Technical Discussion Feb 18, 2017
Very bright sunlight situations General Technical Discussion Oct 26, 2013
Very low light, High or Low ISO? General Technical Discussion Aug 10, 2012
Setting WB for a very red subject?? General Technical Discussion May 24, 2009
Multiple focal layer technique for extended DOF - very long! General Technical Discussion May 22, 2005