Is Lightroom to PS faster than Bridge to PS?

OK, so I've just recently upgraded to a Dual-Core Core2 Duo 2.4 Ghz, 4MB Cache 3 Gig of RAM notebook from my old Desktop which had a pentium D 2.8 Ghz and 3 Gig of RAM.
Naturally I switched my Lightroom and Photoshop installations to the notebook, fully aware that I would see some performance degradation, if only because my scratch drive would now be on the same disk as everything else.
However something is truly bizarre now. Previously Lightroom was a tad slower than Bridge in getting a converted raw file to Photoshop. Now however it appears to be about an order of magnitude faster.
So is this normal, or am I seeing something bizarre?

Found the problem. It was cache settings in Photoshop. I had made the cache changes before I had gotten around to testing Lightroom. Now raw conversion is approximately the same speed whether using Bridge/CS3 or Lightroom.

Similar Messages

  • Any Program to sort by keywords faster than CS-PS6-Bridge For Keyword Search?

    To sort by keywords in (CS-PS6)-Bridge  one has to group all your folders under one overall folder. Then when you search by keywords (CS-PS6)-Bridge opens up all the photos in Bridge which take  avery long time. Since Lightroom Smart Previews open up smaller files will it open up all ones pictures faster? and then can it sort by keywords.
    I am assuming Lightroom  smart preview opens up a larger size file than CS6-PS-6-Bridge and thus is even slower.
    So the question becomes are there Any Program to sort by keywords faster than CS-6-Bridge For Keyword Search? i.e A program that doesn't have to open up a file to look at keywords or a way to open smaller thumbnails in Bridge?

    Really?
    You mean you can't just click on the Magnifying Glass in the Search Box like I can?
    Uploaded with plasq's Skitch!
    And then Select Rating?
    Uploaded with plasq's Skitch!
    And then click on the Third Dot and it will become a Star?
    Uploaded with plasq's Skitch!
    Or even use a Smart Album? File -> new Smart Album: My Rating -> is -> And there's click on the third dot to make it a star trick again?
    Regards
    TD

  • Are the brushes in Photoshop CC faster than CS6 - still need to use CS5 for large files

    Hey,
    Are the brushes in Photoshop CC any faster than Photoshop CS6.
    Here's my standard large file, which makes the CS6 brushes crawl:
    iPad 3 size - 2048 x 1536
    About 20-100 layers
    A combination of vector and bitmap layers
    Many of the layers use layer styles
    On a file like this there is a hesitation to every brush stroke in CS6. Even a basic round brush has the same hesitation, it doesn't have to be a brush as elaborate as a mixer brush.
    This hesitation happens on both the mac and pc, on systems with 16 gb of ram. Many of my coworkers have the same issue.
    So, for a complicated file, such as a map with many parts, I ask my coworkers to please work in CS5. If they work in CS6 I ask them to not use any CS6 only features, such as group layer styles. The only reason why one of them might want to use CS6 is because they're working on only a small portion of the map, such as a building. The rest of the layers are flattened in their file.
    Just wondering if there has ever been a resolution to this problem...or this is just the way it is.
    Thanks for your help!

    BOILERPLATE TEXT:
    Note that this is boilerplate text.
    If you give complete and detailed information about your setup and the issue at hand,
    such as your platform (Mac or Win),
    exact versions of your OS, of Photoshop (not just "CS6", but something like CS6v.13.0.6) and of Bridge,
    your settings in Photoshop > Preference > Performance
    the type of file you were working on,
    machine specs, such as total installed RAM, scratch file HDs, total available HD space, video card specs, including total VRAM installed,
    what troubleshooting steps you have taken so far,
    what error message(s) you receive,
    if having issues opening raw files also the exact camera make and model that generated them,
    if you're having printing issues, indicate the exact make and model of your printer, paper size, image dimensions in pixels (so many pixels wide by so many pixels high). if going through a RIP, specify that too.
    etc.,
    someone may be able to help you (not necessarily this poster, who is not a Windows user).
    a screen shot of your settings or of the image could be very helpful too.
    Please read this FAQ for advice on how to ask your questions correctly for quicker and better answers:
    http://forums.adobe.com/thread/419981?tstart=0
    Thanks!

  • Photoshop 7 faster than CS 3 on Mac Intel .....

    How come Photoshop 7 running on a MacIntel so via Rosetta emulation mode is really really quite faster than the CS 3 which is native !!
    It clearly shows the lack oof optimisation of adobe softwares and that after each update they are becoming more and more gaz factories !!
    It is clear that softwares with competitors are really better than others, the flagrant exemple of Lightroom vs Aperture !
    Plus the prices ...
    CS 3 Standard Edition is in Europe 2032 vs 1199 $ in Northern America reported in US $ 2985 $ vs 1199 $ !!! European customers have to pay 2,5 the price for the same crap !!
    It is clearly that you take your customers for pigeons !!
    Thank you i tried CS 3 the slowlyness and the few more feature will not justify to pay 2,5 more !!

    But its it faster than CS3 on an Intel Mac with Leopard.
    You also have clearly confused the people here on the forums (OTHER USERS) with Adobe.
    Also instead of getting mad at Adobe in America Maybe you should be asking why Adobe distributers in your part of the world see the need to jack the price up. I have a feeling it has more to greed on your end than our end.
    >i tried CS 3 the slowlyness and the few more feature will not justify to pay 2,5 more !!
    Well if you really do own Photoshop 7 instead of just a pirate copy you might want to upgrade now as Adobe's policy world wide is 3 versions back. As soon CS4 is released you will no longer be eligible for upgrade pricing.

  • Lightroom take the place of Bridge?

    I am moving over from Photoshop Elements 5 to CS2.
    Question, does Lightroom take the place of Bridge.
    Thanks you;

    LR has a completely different approach to workflow than Bridge/ACR - that's the first thing you have to realize. Prior to LR (and using Aperture for a short time), I had developed a workflow using Bridge/ACR and iViewMedia Pro (for the DAM), but that workflow was twisted a bit from what I would have wanted, because it had to fit B/A/iV. And it wasn't what I would call "streamlined!"
    Now, LR has a better workflow for me than B/A/iV. Oh, it has a few (some will say "a lot") shortcomings, but I am confident that they will be ironed out. I did have to alter my old workflow to fit LR (e.g. file and folder naming conventions during import) but that was just a matter of changing what I was used to; it wasn't a step down.
    I have CS2 but that isn't part of the regular workflow. I only jump to it when an image needs some major correcting. So when you say you are moving to CS2, I think what you should really do is test out LR's demo, and don't just give up because it doesn't work like PSE5. Like I said earlier, LR is very different.
    And in my opinion, for photography, yes - LR takes the place of Bridge. However you have to realize that Bridge is more "generic" in the sense that other users, graphic artists for example, also use Bridge, but in a different way. And, I believe, those working with web pages can also use Bridge for their organization. But for photography, I think LR trumps Bridge.
    - Pierre

  • Is the Gig version really faster than the 100m version !?

    I just upgraded my 100 meg AEBS to the new Gig version, and ran a quick n easy benchmark, an rsync -e ssh on a 150 meg file. The server is an iMac connected via gig-e, and the Macbook c2d is connected via 802.11n (reporting a consistant 300 mbps in network utility - about 20 feet from the router, going through 2-4 sheets of drywall). The tests were conducted in my Chicago apartment, with at least 10 detectable 2.4gHz networks, and no 5.8gHz networks that I know of.
    The 802.11n 5.8gHz no backwards compatibility was by far the fastest. The fastest test I ran was 11 MBps on the copy, with 802.11a compatibility I believe was around 8, and 2.4ghz + 802.11g compatibility was around 6. I repeated all tests a few times, the results were pretty consistant.
    These results suprised me, as I was really hoping for a bit faster. I could get 40 MBps on my Linux file server over gig-e to the iMac in previous tests. Unfortunately that machine is down until I get some replacement parts, so I couldn't use it to test the new AEBS. But I seem to remember getting 11 or 12 MBps with the Linux file server over the old AEBS with 100m and 5.8gHz no backwards compatiblity.
    So how much of the performance non-difference is due to the iMac vs Linux file server, or the Gig-E version being no faster than the 100 meg version remains to be seen. I'm curious if anyone else has done tests.
    If the router, or this 802.11n implementation is the bottleneck - folks may not want to waste their money upgrading, unless they really want that 4 port (in bridge mode) gig-e switch on the back.
    Rob

    That is somewhat counterintuitive, as the 802.11n connection speed is reportedly 300 mbps. I understand the implications of protocol overhead, but 70% overhead seems a bit excessive. I guess I'm curious if the bottleneck is:
    - in the router backplane
    - in the 802.11n protocol
    - in apples implementation of 802.11(draft)n
    Also - anyone else have actual benchmark data to share?
    regards
    Rob

  • Playback speed in Sample Editor window many, many times faster than track (at correct speed) in arrange area. How do I sync Sample Editor playback speed to correct speed/tempo in arrange area? Track is spoken word.

    Playback speed in Sample Editor window many, many times faster than track (at correct speed) in arrange area. How do I sync Sample Editor playback speed to correct speed/tempo in arrange area? Track is spoken word. Sample Editor playback sounds like Alvin on a meth binge. Spoken phrase is generated from Textspeech. Textspeech can export files as WAV files or MP3 files. Perhaps a clue?:   When exported Textspeech WAV file is dragged and dropped into track in arrange area of new project, it exhibits same supersonic speed. When Textspeech file is exported as MP3 file and dragged and dropped in arrange area track, it plays at correct speed.

    Thanks Erik,
    If nothing else, this huge list of updates and fixes, shows clearly that the Logic Dev team is working hard on fixing and improving LPX to a major degree.... and from the list of fixes done.. show they do read the bug reports submitted!
    As an aside....
    I recall how all the 'naysayers' prior to LPX (and in some cases, since...)  were proclaiming how Logic was dead, the team was being disbanded, we won't see any further development, the Dev team doesn't listen or care... and so on....... I wonder where those people are now?

  • Why is Mac Pro 2.66 only 1.3x faster than 2.7 G5 on CPU intensive stuff?

    I produce DVDs so my Compressor DVCam -> MPEG2 encoding is the most time consuming task. Take the MacWorld benchmarks, I was dissappointed the QC 2.66 was a third faster than a DC 2.7 G5 running Compressor.
    I would have expected almost 2x as fast, basically halving encoding times. The Mac Pro took 107s vs G5 137s only 1.28x as fast OR put another way jobs complete in 78% of the time taken for the G5.
    This is key reason for me to have just sold a G5 DC 2.3...but I'm dissappointed with these early indicators. Would it be reasonable to assume Apple have not optimised Compressor for Intel - surely not at this late stage?
    G4 Dual Gigabit   Mac OS X (10.4.7)   ATI 9800 Pro

    Terpstar,
    I was wondering if you have had a chance to use Motion yet. I have a MBP, and using Zapfino fonts with SciFi Glow crashes my system every time. I would be interested to see if this is the case on other intel based systems. This has led to a failure of my main logic board twice over the last month. See my thread:
    http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=614641&tstart=25
    Also, of the two GB ram I have installed, FCP doesn't seem to utilize more than 100MB of RAM. Although the VM size is several GB for the app. I noticed that in order to utilize both cores on my MBP, Airport had to be turned off.
    Also, as Ned Snowing was saying, there is no doubt that there are going to be many software bugs that must be sorted out. Especially since this program is being adapted for intel macs, and not re-written.

  • I want to add more capacity on hard drive of time capsule. Can i add a normal usb driver? I will see it as an external drive in the time capsule network? It will work as fast than time capsule? Thanks

    I want to add more capacity on hard drive of time capsule. Can i add a normal usb driver? I will see it as an external drive in the time capsule network? It will work as fast than time capsule? Thanks

    Can i add a normal usb driver?
    Yes, but be sure that the drive is formatted correctly for Mac in Mac OS Extended (Journaled)
    I will see it as an external drive in the time capsule network?
    The drive will appear as a shared network drive, like the Time Capsule.
    It will work as fast than time capsule?
    No, the drive will operate at about half or 50% of the speed of the Time Capsule.

  • Mencoder H.264 20 times faster than Compressor 2

    I tested mencoder with compressor running with 5 G5s. the H.264 implementation of mencoder was four times faster than the 5 dual core quads clustered with compressor two and queermaster . my single computer alone with just a dual 2 ghz processor encoded a movie 20 times faster than compressor with Queerrmaster on this same machine.
    compressor costs more than mencoder(free in DVision). to get compressor you have to get an expensive Pro app.
    What's wrong with this picture?

    Well, I have heard this lament before with the G5s, and all I can say is that I guess Apple is slowly starting to drop support for the PowerPC generation (it was inevitable). I assume you've upgraded to 3.0.1?
    As for Motion 3 (and someone correct me here if I am wrong), I believe it's slower because of the full 3D integration. Whether or not you have a lot of 3D aspects, I think it still calculates for it, causing your response and render time to decrease.

  • New Mac Pro 8-core / D700 not much faster than an iMac... in PPro CC.

    So.... my very preliminary testing with our new Mac Pro using the plugin I use most (filmconvert -FC) anyway, shows that Premiere CC needs more optimization for the dual GPUs. In fact, I'd say the CPU utilization is not up to snuff either.
    I know FC only uses one GPU presently from the developer. That will change. In the meantime, using a couple of typical projects with that plugin as an example, I'm only seeing 25-45% speed up in renders over our maxed out iMac (late 2012, 27") exporting the same project. That's significant of course but not the 100%+ one would think we would be seeing at the least given the MacPro config of 8 cores and dual D700s. Premiere Pro CC seems in fact to never maximize CPU (never mind GPUs). I have yet, in my very limited testing, see it "pin the meters" like I did on the iMac.
    Of course that's just testing now two short (under 5 min) projects, and it depends on what one is doing. Some stuff is much, much faster like Red Giant's Denoiser II or Warp Stabilizer VFX. The improvement there can be 3-4x faster anecdotally.  I used to avoid them for speed reasons unless absolutely needed a lot of the time but now they are fast enough to rely on quickly. Other stuff unrelated top PPro CC like DxO PRIME noise removal on RAW stills is much faster too, as is Photoshop CC.  Some effects like blur, sharpening, resize there are nearly instant now even on giga pixel files in Photoshop CC.
    And of course FCPX is much faster on it but I hate the whole editing paradigm. The timeline is just horrid on it; simple things like replacing a word in someone's dialogue is a multi click, multistep process that is nearly instant in Premiere and most every other NLE. Just to try to see your whole timeline is a chore, to see what your edits and sound are in detail are problematic, trying to keep things in sync is a chore, and you can't even zoom your timeline window to full screen! If anybody has edited for any amount of time, I do not understand how they use FCP X. If they start with that program, for example if they are young, then that is a different beast.
    I'm sure Adobe will improve over time. They have to to stay competitive. In the meantime I'll take my 45%... but I wish I saw much more improvement given the cost and hardware differential. Unfortiunately, for now, the mainstream reviews I have seen regarding PPro performance on this machine were right.

    That statement about 4k/5k in Premiere CC with the nMP is false, insofar as performance goes.
    I just tested 5K Red raw files just dragged into Premiere Pro CC (latest version). I expected this to be slow, given my HD experience. However, on my 8 core/D700, I can play 1/2 just fine, full speed. And I even can also do that with a very streneous plugin/filter attached - FilmConvert (in OpenCL mode), also at 1/2 which is quite impressive. I can even add a bunch of other Premiere filters and SG looks and it still stays at full speed at 1/2.
    Ironically, this is quite faster than FCPX which can't seem to play back 5K at all with that filter attached (it doesn't stutter, but it's not smooth... low resolution at "best performace" and reduced frame rate). Even if I remove all filters FCPX plays back Red 4k (again not transcoded) about the same as CC at 1/2, but with a seemingly lower resolution to keep it smooth.  It's a head scratcher. It's like Adobe's Red handling is much better coded than Apple's in this case.
    Or... it has to be attrituable to that particular plugin (other FCPX motion-based plugins don't suffer the same fate and are fast). But either way, filter or no, Premiere Pro CC is definitely and sharper looking at 1/2 when cutting Red 4k/5k with no transcode, playback in real time, than FCPX which needs to bump it down to what looks like a 1/4 or less rez to keep it smooth. So I have no idea what is going on.
    This experience is the opposite with HD, where FCPX is significantly faster (using the same filters/plugin, using C300 Canon XF for HD and 4 and 5K RedRaw alternatively).  Premiere seems slower in HD than FCPX by a good amount in HD and signficantly faster with Redraw 4k. Go figure.

  • Is FIREFOX 3.6.13 is faster than 3.6.8?

    Is FIREFOX 3.6.13 is faster than 3.6.8?

    I have no real idea, but I suspect
    * the changes will be more to do with security fixes etc (you could study the release notes) if anything 3.6.13 could conceivably be marginally slower than 3.6.8
    * it may be more appropriate to compare much earlier versions or the new beta firefox4; but when doing so remember also the changing capabilities, and requirements of modern browsers.

  • How can I get rid of this Lollipop update?  My phone drains faster than it can take a charge!

    I've just spent 4 hours on the line w/ Verizon support agents who were all very nice, but nobody could solve my problem.  Without anything else happening on my phone, I hit an icon to launch an app, and it takes like 2 minutes for anything to happen.  The battery drains faster than it can get charged in SAFE MODE!
    Is there a way to go back to the old OS without rooting?

    Thanks.  I have been using the built-in battery monitor as well as the application manager.  It helps seeing the processes that are chewing away at your phone's RAM and battery, but at this point, it's not even helpful anymore.
    I don't think 'Samsung.Settings' is something I can disable on my phone and that is what's hogging up 80% of my phone's resources.  (Fresh boot and all)
    What really irks me is that I've never signed up to be a BETA tester for Samsung which is basically what we all are doing... Factory reset, remove all apps, add each app back individually, find what app(s) are causing the problems, etc.
    No - this should have been vetted out long before they decided to push out an OS update that has no backward motion of loading the previous OS...
    <Rant off>

  • Is the iPad 3 faster than the iPad 2?

    Hi,
        Is the iPad 3 faster than the iPad 2? Also, how much better resolution is the iPad 3 from the iPad 2? I was just wondering because I heard that the new iPad isn't worth it's price.

    The New iPad is not remarkably faster, but does have a faster chip, which is required to handle the amazing Retina display.  The new display on New iPad is without question significatly better than iPad 2 and offers nearly 4 times the resolution of iPad 2.  Whether it's important to you, only you can know.  To see the difference, go to an Apple store where they still sell iPad 2 and New iPad.  For me, the difference was night and day, which is why I sold my iPad 2 and upgraded to New iPad.

  • Can the WD Raptor make my 2.0 Dual faster than my new 2.3 Dualcore?

    A few weeks ago I had asked what would make my machine at work - 2.3 Dualcore w/2GB of RAM - slower than my home machine; 2.0 DP w/2.5GB of RAM.
    The new Dualcore was unreasonably slow and I followed the few suggestions to wipe the drive, which brought it up to snuff... but I still find it slower than my 2.0 at home. At simple tasks (contextual menu pop-ups, software loading, etc...) as well as more complex Photoshop and 3D tasks.
    It's not the very last generation 2.0, but the one prior, e.g. 8GB of RAM capable, PCI-Express, and liquid cooling, etc...
    I doubt the .5 of RAM can make that much difference, is the WD Raptor the difference and am I just spoiled by it?
    Thanks for any suggestions.
    -Vincent

    So you have a Raptor as boot in your home based Dual Processor and it seems faster than the faster Dual Core you have at work.
    That's understandable, especially since the Dual Core most likely has a 7,200 RPM 250 GB slow drive (and more filled being at work, using more fonts?), plus the Dual Core shares a fronside bus, unlike the Dual Processor which has one for each. Photoshop pre-CS2 swaps memory to disk, so a faster boot drive will help. (Tiger overrides CS2's RAM limit, so more RAM will give better performance)
    At home you have the Raptor as boot and most of your user files on the second drive I'm assuming, allowing you to access two drives at once using two busses.
    Of course CPU intensive tasks the Dual Core 2.3 should beat the Dual 2, but since Mac OS X is heavy boot drive speed dependant (caches, swaps etc) the "User Interface feel" should be more responsive on your Dual 2, giving you the impression it's faster.
    Big fat filled slow boot drives really cripple Mac OS X performance (NAND RAM coming?)
    I've written a better explaination here
    click for text doc

Maybe you are looking for