Digital Photo Professional (DPP) 4.5.X is slow (performance)

[raviballa]

I would love to continue to use DPP for its color output. But, where I am struggling with is its slowness to process RAW files. Loading of the RAW files is slow and I cannot tell when my minor corrections are applied to the image (there is no indication of DPP processing my adjustments). The 'Quick Check' of images is good though, without any lag.

Any suggestions?

[vincentau]

Hello, So may I know what are currently using the machine type? I am so curious to know if you are using Nvidia graphic card type computer, DPP's can support on that driver coding API, so that's why can work well all the time on your work. The question is, as I quoted previously post and I raised out one of my question about the graphic card support and I haven't got reply answers from any Canon's representative. I currently using iMac 27" with AMD graphic card type model, so if I really want to use DPP 4.5.x with great editing performance, I better bought a new one as well in order to archive what I expecting it?! I thing that's impossible in real world. That's a great conversation with you guys for the captioned subject, thanks. Regards, Vincent

[Waddizzle]

---

@vincentau wrote:
Hello, So may I know what are currently using the machine type? I am so curious to know if you are using Nvidia graphic card type computer, DPP's can support on that driver coding API, so that's why can work well all the time on your work. The question is, as I quoted previously post and I raised out one of my question about the graphic card support and I haven't got reply answers from any Canon's representative. I currently using iMac 27" with AMD graphic card type model, so if I really want to use DPP 4.5.x with great editing performance, I better bought a new one as well in order to archive what I expecting it?! I thing that's impossible in real world. That's a great conversation with you guys for the captioned subject, thanks. Regards, Vincent

---

I am using a Dell [Inspiron 15, 7000 series laptop] with a Nvidia GeForce GTX graphics card with 4GB of RAM.  I also have 16GB of system RAM.  You have to tell the graphics card driver to include DPP.

This is not a high performance, high priced workstation [laptop].  It is a middle of the road gaming computer.  A budget priced, entry level machine [laptop] is inadequate.

[EDIT]

[vincentau]

Great to heard you reply for those valuable information, so that Canon developers who are watching on this topic can do something about this for all Canon users like us. Thanks again for your shared information.

[Waddizzle]

---

@vincentau wrote:
Great to heard you reply for those valuable information, so that Canon developers who are watching on this topic can do something about this for all Canon users like us. Thanks again for your shared information.

---

Let me repeat myself.  There is nothing wrong with the Canon DPP4 software package.  Nothing. 

I cannot speak for people using Apple hardware, but those running Windows need to use a machine with the horsepower to do intensive graphics processing.  A budget priced Windows laptop is simply not up to the task. 

[KBeat]

Wad,

That wouldn't surprise me. Digging into the app a bit it appears to be just a port from Windows, with little in the way of Mac specific performance tuning, like using OpenCL, for example.

It's a shame, because the vast majority of Canon's pro users (including their Explorers of Light) use Macs (this is per Canon). It's not a suprise that almost all of them use Lightroom given how DPP performs on the Mac. Canon should be embarrased that the people they most count on to showcase their cameras opt for lesser quality RAW conversions because their software peforms so poorly.

As I've mentioned, apps like FinalCut Pro X, Lighroom, Photoshop, and CaptureOne fly on my machine. I'm running a trial of CaptureOne right now, before dropping $300 on it, and I was able to process around 500 RAW files in the time it would take to do about 100 in DPP. I can bang through an entire set of adjustments in CaptureOne on my 5D Mark IV files (exposure, color correction, sharpen, crop/alignment, shadows, noise, etc.) in the time it takes DPP to load a RAW file and then load the dust/stamp tool. That's before making a single adjusmtent in DPP. No bueno.

I'm sure I could eventually throw enough horsepower at it that it runs acceptiably, perhaps with a Mac Pro. However, my MBP is already many, many times above their "System Requirements" that I'm not even sure about that. (Quad Core 2.5 GHz i7, 16 GB RAM, 512 GB SSD, CUDA 3 NVIDIA GPU with 2 GB VRAM)

[RobertTheFat]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

---

@vincentau wrote:
Great to heard you reply for those valuable information, so that Canon developers who are watching on this topic can do something about this for all Canon users like us. Thanks again for your shared information.

---

Let me repeat myself.  There is nothing wrong with the Canon DPP4 software package.  Nothing. 

I cannot speak for people using Apple hardware, but those running Windows need to use a machine with the horsepower to do intensive graphics processing.  A budget priced Windows laptop is simply not up to the task. 

---

Waddizzle, you insist on doubling down on a statement of opinion as though it were fact. My experience (and apparently that of several others) sharply contradicts that statement. All you can say for certain is that you're not seeing the problems that we're seeing, not that those problems don't exist. And at least some of those problems don't appear to have anything to do with the power of our graphics processors. I'm running DPP 4 on a computer that's almost certainly as powerful as yours and with twice as much memory. And I see long delays when all that's being displayed is JPEG thumbnails. Are the files you edit on a server or on the local machine? Mine are usually on a server, and I see extremely high activity on my LAN. I'm going to try to address that with a faster switch, but I still suspect that software inefficiency is the primary root of the problem.

[Waddizzle]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

---

@vincentau wrote:
Great to heard you reply for those valuable information, so that Canon developers who are watching on this topic can do something about this for all Canon users like us. Thanks again for your shared information.

---

Let me repeat myself.  There is nothing wrong with the Canon DPP4 software package.  Nothing. 

I cannot speak for people using Apple hardware, but those running Windows need to use a machine with the horsepower to do intensive graphics processing.  A budget priced Windows laptop is simply not up to the task. 

---

Waddizzle, you insist on doubling down on a statement of opinion as though it were fact. My experience (and apparently that of several others) sharply contradicts that statement. All you can say for certain is that you're not seeing the problems that we're seeing, not that those problems don't exist. And at least some of those problems don't appear to have anything to do with the power of our graphics processors. I'm running DPP 4 on a computer that's almost certainly as powerful as yours and with twice as much memory. And I see long delays when all that's being displayed is JPEG thumbnails. Are the files you edit on a server or on the local machine? Mine are usually on a server, and I see extremely high activity on my LAN. I'm going to try to address that with a faster switch, but I still suspect that software inefficiency is the primary root of the problem.

---

Sorry, Bob.  I am not stating an opinion.  I posted a video of how fast DPP runs.  In an earlier post on this thread, I even acknowledged that DPP can run like a snail on a PC.  I also pointed out that using a graphcis card makes all of the difference. 

I needed a new laptop, so I bought one iwht a graphcis card.  By using a graphics card, your System RAM is not being used for video, and neither does your CPU spend time updating the GUI.  Having a lot of system RAM can slow down a system if the hard drive is slow, BTW, because of the paging file size.  Without a graphics card, much of your paging file is consiumed with video graphics data.

If you are not using a graphcis card, then you are comparing apples to oranges.  It's as simple as that, and that's a fact.

[Waddizzle]

Lightroom uses "smart previews" to speed up functionality, especially when working over a network.  Instead of editing the actual RAW file, it seems that a compressed version is stored locally and you perform edits on with the compressed file.

Canon's DPP takes no similar shortcuts.  Comparing DPP, which has to load the entire file across a network, to Lightromm, which loads a compressed local file, is comparing apples to oranges in some ways.  Is LR more efficient?  Yes.  My DPP process about six 25MB files RAW to JPEG per minute.

[vincentau]

Yes, I totally agreed with yours to say and let's go back to beginning of my point:- 1. I really want Canon's to re-considerate about the software capabilities to support more than Nvidia display card coding on market in order to increase the usability with DPP for different type of the display card at least to support two larges of display card company (AMD Radeon / Nvidia GForce). Better to know this is end-to-end solution to add value on Canon's own camera products. 2. Increase processing performance to convert RAW file to JPEG. ( I don't want to explain anymore in details why to slow and everyone should know that in this topic. ) Other than that, I have no comment at this moment on this software in terms of functions / features and I like to use because it can simplify the work flow from time-to-time for processing thousands of thousands photo at rush moment. I have to say as a end-users written this words, the main point is we wish more efficiency and professional tools provided from Canon. As Fans, the loyally of the product.

[KBeat]

All they have to do on the Mac is support OpenCL and it will automatically use any GPU on the system. That's what Lightroom, Photoshop, and virtually all other GPU/CPU intensive applications on macOS do. AFAIK, DPP is the only one to exclusively use CUDA (with OpenCL, CUDA is supported as well). It's a ridiculous decision. All the new high end iMacs, for example, including the scary new iMac Pro, use AMD GPUs, and they scream. Yet they are useless in DPP.

The application is a port from Windows and doens't leverage any Mac specific performance technologies. When apps do, it makes a huge difference. You can easily find videos [Removed 3rd party link per Forum Guidelines.] of lowly MacBooks absolutely smoking top of the line workstation PCs with significantly greater specs rednering the same 4K videos. The MacBooks use FinalCut Pro X, which naturally utilizes all the latest macOS performance APIs, against Adobe Premier on the PCs. It's the same reason Affinity Photo and Pixelmator are so **bleep** fast on the Mac compared to crossplatorm apps like Photoshop (Affinity is now cross platform, but was developed for macOS).

I can't say if I am or am not running macOS High Sierra, but hypothetically, let's just say WOW. Sadly, I doubt DPP will leverage any of the new APIs like Metal 2 or improved OpenCL. By accident it will get to use APFS, but only because it has no choice. **sigh**