How long does it take to convert a raw camera file to "default"JPG?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: How long does it take to convert a raw camera file to "default" JPG?
Next: Well worth reading: "I was wondering if anybody on here has had any problems with there Canon 5D MKII" . Web address inside.
From: ray on 9 Jun 2010 22:13 On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 17:23:20 -0800, Floyd L. Davidson wrote: > ray <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote: >>On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 15:40:40 -0800, Floyd L. Davidson wrote: >> >>> ray <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote: >>>>On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 13:20:26 -0800, Floyd L. Davidson wrote: >>>> >>>>> In fact though, I cheat. I use Linux and have a script that >>>>> determines how many CPU's the system has and then feeds a loop that >>>>> keeps all of the CPU's busy. One box that I use has 4 CPU's, and >>>>> another has 8. The script works them to the max. The 4 CPU box >>>>> processes images at 6 seconds per image. (If ufraw-batch is invoked >>>>> normally, and uses just 1 CPU serially, it takes 21 seconds per >>>>> image on that particular system.) >>>> >>>>Mine, Ubuntu on single cpu 2.4ghz P4, does my kdc images in five >>>>seconds using ufraw. It will also depend on the camera's resolution - >>>>as that determines how much data must be processed and on the >>>>particular raw format as some are a little more complex than others. >>> >>> The time values are not useful for across the board comparison. There >>> are other differences too. Disk i/o speed over a network for example, >>> the image format of the output file, the type of compression and the >>> bit depth of the RAW file, are all significant and will vary from one >>> set of hardware to another. >> >>Damn - I could have sworn I just said that! > > Except you didn't. Ah - I see you have a little reading comprehension problem - that's OK.
From: ray on 10 Jun 2010 11:40 On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 22:37:17 -0800, Floyd L. Davidson wrote: > ray <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote: >> >>Ah - I see you have a little reading comprehension problem - that's OK. > > You'll have to try harder than that Ray. (Lot's harder... :-) Not really. You paraphrased what I said and then said I didn't say it. Seems you have the problem - but we can work with that.
From: ray on 10 Jun 2010 21:43 On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 15:26:44 -0400, Mark F wrote: > How long should it take to convert a "raw" camera file to a "default" > JPG? > > My machine is pretty old (Pentium 4, 2.40GHZ) > > It takes a minute or two of CPU time to convert a Fujifilm FinePix > S100fs RAF file to JPG taking "default" conversion parameters. > > I tried FinePix Viewer that came with the camera and s7raw (arbitrarily > selected from Google searches and located at > www.geocities.co.jp/SiliconValley-PaloAlto/9919/s7raw.html) > > The camera can store directly as 3MB JPG files much faster than it can > store 23MB RAW files. > > Can someone suggest parameters that are faster than the defaults in > FinePix Viewer or a faster converter and defaults? > > I don't mind spending some money (I have Adobe CS3 Premium and am > willing to upgrade to CS5) but I don't feel like using all of the space > that CS takes compared to even FinePix Viewer. For the record, I downloaded a sample raf file taken with that particular camera. Running on a system with 1.5ghz VIA C7 processor, 2gb ddr2 ram - using Debian Linux, the file opens in 20 seconds using ufraw.
From: Jon Smid on 12 Jun 2010 14:18 nospam schreef: > In article <87k4q7d7ib.fld(a)apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson > <floyd(a)apaflo.com> wrote: > >>>> I've found dcraw to be quick for my situation - it's free. >>> dcraw is one of the slowest raw converters. >> tanana:floyd /u10/p5/2006/jan31a 0>time dcraw -h dsc_7022.nef >> real 0m0.131s > >> You should actually try it before claiming to know >> something about how it works. > > i've compared both and dcraw is a lot slower than camera raw on the > same hardware. I leave the fight about the exact numbers for you guys, but some aspects to take into consideration : - Size and compression of input file. - Interpolation used. No interpolation (halfsize option of dcraw) will be obviously the fastest. AHD will be the slowest. - Whether or not threading is used. Standard dcraw does not use multithreading. Ufraw's dcraw *does* use multithreading on some interpolation mechanisms. - Whether or not some 'preloading' is done. I.e. If your image is loaded already in memory or not on the moment you start timing. (I /suspect/ that camera raw for instance does preload images). - Operations done on the image. Just converting to jpeg ? Or applying curves, sharpening, leveling or whatever ... ? I guess it will be very difficult giving a decent answer if you don't define what you exactly mean with 'to convert'.
From: Jon Smid on 12 Jun 2010 16:08
Better Info schreef: > On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 20:18:25 +0200, Jon Smid <Varkensvoer(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: > >> - Interpolation used. No interpolation (halfsize option of dcraw) will >> be obviously the fastest. AHD will be the slowest. > > VNG Cubic is the slowest, but gives some of the best results in almost all > instances. Few editors, however, support this interpolation method. I use > Photoline for its 6 different RAW interpolation algorithms. Donation-ware > RAWTherapee also has the VNG algorithm available but their own EAHD > algorithm is even better when it comes to very fine aliasing artifacts. You > might want to check out their interpolation comparison page to see if your > RAW editor is performing up to your needs. Adobe Camera RAW, Bibble, > Capture One, DxO, LightZone, and SilkyPix all pale in comparison to the > better interpolation methods available in other editors. > > http://www.rawtherapee.com/RAW_Compare/ > > Photoline's (32bit, not 64bit version) RAW import times on my old workhorse > photo-editor 1.8GHz machine: > > Linear: 2 seconds > Cubic: 2.5 seconds > AHD: 5 seconds > PPG: 3 seconds > VNG Linear: 8 seconds > VNG Cubic: 9 seconds You are right, my mistake. VNG is the slower one. (I was not discussing quality in this context, that's another topic) But bottom line it only proves my point more strong : define what you mean with 'to convert' before speaking about speed of it. |