topic DPP 4.6.10, sickenning slow in EOS DSLR & Mirrorless Cameras

DPP 4.6.10, sickenning slow

sensia25 — Thu, 20 Apr 2017 02:41:38 GMT

Ever since I purchased 80D, I have to move on to DPP4 which is becoming more of hassel to use. I had DPP3 working perfectly with 60D files. It was fast and snappy. Then came DPP4. On a highend i5-4690k/16GB RAM system, this freaking software works like a dog. A file deletion locks up the screen for seconds. RAW processing is slow as hell. Please, Canon, bring back the snappy DPP3.

I have read adding a Nvidia based GPU may improve the speed of DPP4 but I don't want to spend 100 dollars on anew GPU. Canon, how about enable support for OpenCL from ATI?

End of rant.

Re: DPP 4.6.10, sickenning slow

Waddizzle — Thu, 20 Apr 2017 10:41:37 GMT

Windows has changed. It won't be long before DPP3 no longer works.

With that said, DPP4 does not run well on budget priced laptops. Having a separate graphics card, with its' separate video memory, seems to make all of the difference. I'm running a core i7 with 16GB, and a graphics card with 4GB. I'm accessing files across a LAN. RAW files load in 2-3 seconds. I can run a batch process, and it crunches 6 files per minute.

Re: DPP 4.6.10, sickenning slow

sensia25 — Thu, 20 Apr 2017 12:06:51 GMT

I am quite surprised by your result since Dpp does not use gpu beyond previewing images. My workstation is not low end by any means. I5 4690k turbo up to 4.3GHz and 16GB ram is more than enough. Canon is definitely at fault here. The most horrid part is looking at the spinning wheel after deleting a picture, because dpp is scanning all my drives again. A gpu won't solve that.

Re: DPP 4.6.10, sickenning slow

Waddizzle — Thu, 20 Apr 2017 22:48:13 GMT

@sensia25 wrote:
I am quite surprised by your result since Dpp does not use gpu beyond previewing images. My workstation is not low end by any means. I5 4690k turbo up to 4.3GHz and 16GB ram is more than enough. Canon is definitely at fault here. The most horrid part is looking at the spinning wheel after deleting a picture, because dpp is scanning all my drives again. A gpu won't solve that.

People complain about DPP scanning their drives. I have not observed that. I have no idea what people are seeing. I never noticed the behavior under Windows 7, either.

I'm running Windows Pro. I don't let the OS automatically scan thumb drives for media files. I have disabled WMP from automatically scanning, too. I do not store photos in the "Photos" folder setup by Windows, either. I store them in a folder on the root C: drive, and at network locations.

Re: DPP 4.6.10, sickenning slow

sensia25 — Fri, 21 Apr 2017 02:00:40 GMT

None of that effected DPP3. The culprit is DPP4. WMP has nothing to do with DPP4 as was evidenced from procmon log.

Re: DPP 4.6.10, sickenning slow

ebiggs1 — Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:25:11 GMT

Easy solution, get Adobe Lightroom 6. Canon is not a software company, they are a camera company.

Re: DPP 4.6.10, sickenning slow

TCampbell — Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:58:26 GMT

I use Lightroom. Prior to that I used Aperture.

My main reason for liking those tools (Aperture & Lightroom) is that in addition to providing all the tools for image adjustments (and they have far more than what you'd find in DPP) they also manage all of the images.

They maintain a file heirarchy of all your shots (organized by date shot) but as you pull in photo you can also add them to "collections". So images that should be associated with each other -- even if not shot at the same time -- would be grouped together. They also let you rapidly do all the keywording, tagging, etc. so now everything is searchable and very quickly. You can even search for shots taken with specific pieces of gear (e.g. if I want to find images shot with a certain lens for example... or at certain exposure settings, etc. that's easy to do.)

But the other nice thing is the ability to rapidly synchronize global adjustments across a group of images. E.g. I can adjust the white balance of a shot and then 'sync' that across the entire shoot (you can sync almost any adjustment... when you open the sync panel it shows a whole list of adjustments that can be synced and you just tick the boxes that you want to sync.)

The one annoyance I have with all these programs is that the color temperature adjustments are backwards. Hotter tempertures are BLUER in real world physics... but DPP and Lightroom get that backward. Blue stars are hotter than orange stars. Even your light bulbs get it right... the lower the color temp on the box (in Kelvins) the more yellow/orange the light.

Re: DPP 4.6.10, sickenning slow

ebiggs1 — Fri, 21 Apr 2017 14:08:54 GMT

"...but DPP and Lightroom get that backward."

Tim that may be the way of stars but it isn't the way of colors. Most of us who are not astronomers see this as perfectly correct.

Re: DPP 4.6.10, sickenning slow

TCampbell — Fri, 21 Apr 2017 15:56:24 GMT

I get that people will refer to an image as "warmer" as having more amber/orange/red tones and a "cooler" has more blue tones. My problem is that they state that in Kelvins... and they get it backwards. If the kelvin value is higher then the image will change to the BLUE side... not the red side.

Under no cicumstances is it acceptable to use the label "kelvins" on that scale and then use it backward.

That's sort of like saying that photographers are ok with the idea that 5+2 = 3 ... because we use the plus symbol where every mathmatician would have used a minus symbol -- but it's ok because we're photographers. No no no... wrong is wrong.

Weight Watchers would love these people.... "I used to weigh 200 lbs...but I managed to get up to 220 lbs and I look so much thinner!" O.o

It's the sort of thing I'd expect in a Monte Python skit... but not in the real world.

Re: DPP 4.6.10, sickenning slow

ebiggs1 — Fri, 21 Apr 2017 16:01:04 GMT

"Under no cicumstances is it acceptable to use the label "kelvins" on that scale and then use it backward. "

Hmmm, must be one of those dpi or ppi things! Photo editors and people often use incorrect terms to say what we all understand?

"It's the sort of thing I'd expect in a Monte Python skit... but not in the real world."

How old are you Tim? You certainly don't think that?

Re: DPP 4.6.10, sickenning slow

TCampbell — Fri, 21 Apr 2017 17:16:17 GMT

Even photographers don't use Kelvins the way when they are selecting lighting.

For examle, when you buy lighting, you might want 'daylight' color balance. The daylight is about 5700ºK... that's the actual temperature of our Sun -- a G2 class star.

If you hate the "white" LED light bulbs with the pale blue cast and prefer the light bulbs that resemble what you had with an incandescant light with a golden cast, then you're probably shopping for something in the 2500-3000K range.

If you look at Orion in the winter, you might recognize the stars Betelgeuse and Rigel. Betelgeuse is a red super-giant star with a temperature of 3500K. But Regel - the blue star - is about 11,000K.

If you own a telescope, then during the summer months you can point it to Alberio - the head of the constellation Cygnus the swan. But Alberio is actually a double-star and it's one of the most interesting doubles becuse of the very strong color contrast between the two stars. One is definitely blue, the other is gold. The "gold" star is just a tiny bit over 4000K. The "blue" star is a a little over 13,000K. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albireo).

Higher color temperatures are bluer... not redder. Hotter, higher-energy sources pump out wavelengths of light that repeat more frequently. That produces a bluer color. Lower energy sources produce wavelengths that repeat less-often... each single wave is longer. That produces a reddish color.

When you buy lighting systems, the color temperatures represented in Kelvins are basically correct for photographic lighting... it's only incorrect when you deal with post-processing software such as DPP or Lightroom.

Re: DPP 4.6.10, sickenning slow

ebiggs1 — Fri, 21 Apr 2017 20:08:23 GMT

You can fight it all you want there Tim but you ain't gonna change it. We both know the facts but others do not and could care less.

No different that the stubborn dpi confusion. Look at how these guys on this forum replied to that!

Re: DPP 4.6.10, sickenning slow

Waddizzle — Fri, 21 Apr 2017 23:06:40 GMT

@sensia25 wrote:
None of that effected DPP3. The culprit is DPP4. WMP has nothing to do with DPP4 as was evidenced from procmon log.

Okay. Mine runs just fine, though.

[EDIT]. BTW, you're correct about none of it having anything to do with DPP. I never said it did.

Re: DPP 4.6.10, sickenning slow

TCampbell — Sat, 22 Apr 2017 00:05:35 GMT

I noticed a little sluggishness... a typical adjustment seems to have about a 1-2 second delay before the screen updates. Granted their huge RAW files.

Mostly what I notice are that in DPP, if I change the white balance, saturation, or most other global image adjustments ... there's about a 1-2 second lag before it shows up on the screen. If I do the same in Lightroom it seems to happen almost in real-time (delays are minimal).

Re: DPP 4.6.10, sickenning slow

RobertTheFat — Sat, 22 Apr 2017 01:59:23 GMT

@TCampbell wrote:
I get that people will refer to an image as "warmer" as having more amber/orange/red tones and a "cooler" has more blue tones. My problem is that they state that in Kelvins... and they get it backwards. If the kelvin value is higher then the image will change to the BLUE side... not the red side.

I agree with your previously stated point about "warm" vs "cool", but in this case I think you misunderstand what DPP is doing. When they set the color temperature (in degrees K), they're referring to the presumed color temperature of the ambient light, not the colors in the image. So if you change the color temperature from 5200 (daylight) to, say, 5700, you're telling the program to correct for a 500-degree increase in its assumption of the color temperature of the ambient light, i.e. to make the resulting image 500 degrees less blue.

Re: DPP 4.6.10, sickenning slow

TCampbell — Sat, 22 Apr 2017 14:43:28 GMT

@RobertTheFat wrote:
@TCampbell wrote:
I get that people will refer to an image as "warmer" as having more amber/orange/red tones and a "cooler" has more blue tones. My problem is that they state that in Kelvins... and they get it backwards. If the kelvin value is higher then the image will change to the BLUE side... not the red side.
I agree with your previously stated point about "warm" vs "cool", but in this case I think you misunderstand what DPP is doing. When they set the color temperature (in degrees K), they're referring to the presumed color temperature of the ambient light, not the colors in the image. So if you change the color temperature from 5200 (daylight) to, say, 5700, you're telling the program to correct for a 500-degree increase in its assumption of the color temperature of the ambient light, i.e. to make the resulting image 500 degrees less blue.

Ahhh... now that makes sense! I was baffled as to why the colors were shifting opposite of what they should.

This means, in theory, that if I take a RAW shott outside at mid-day (clear sunny day) then bring it into DPP or LR and adjust the white balance to 5780k (the color temperature of sunlight) then I should get reasonably accurate color balance. (There will likely be some variation based on the sensor filters for a given camera model.)

I learned something new today. Thanks Bob!

Re: DPP 4.6.10, sickenning slow

ebiggs1 — Sat, 22 Apr 2017 15:24:43 GMT

The program thinks like a camera and not like a physicist. The temperature slider in LR and the reason the adjustment seems backwards is that you are choosing a color temperature to compensate for, not setting what the color temperature of the image should be. In LR reducing the color temperature value cools off the image, while increasing it warms up the image. This certainly seems backwards based on the actual Kelvin scale for color temperature.

Re: DPP 4.6.10, sickenning slow

Waddizzle — Sat, 22 Apr 2017 15:29:41 GMT

@TCampbell wrote:
I noticed a little sluggishness... a typical adjustment seems to have about a 1-2 second delay before the screen updates. Granted their huge RAW files.

Mostly what I notice are that in DPP, if I change the white balance, saturation, or most other global image adjustments ... there's about a 1-2 second lag before it shows up on the screen. If I do the same in Lightroom it seems to happen almost in real-time (delays are minimal).

I hope this works. First time I have ever uploaded to YouTube.

https://youtu.be/btUuHHqvOQs

That is a short clip of how my DPP4 runs on Windows 10. Does that look slow.