Speed - Preview Size and Library Thumbnails

I recently switched from iView to Lightroom for cataloging.  While Lightroom has some great advantages for cataloging, it is much slower than iView.
Lightroom appears to be rendering previews of every thumbnail even in the Library where I am perfectly happy with a grid of 60 images on a screen.
Is it rendering standard size previews even though I set my catalog preference to 1024 pixel previews?  After all, if all I usually want is a thumbnail, that's plenty.  On a test catalog, I imported standard size previews but my catalog was 8 GB and there was still a lag time as I scrolled down the thumbnails in grid view (realistically only about 1 second, but iView didn't have any lag time in the same situation).
Thanks,
Lightroom 2.5
Intel Core 2 Duo CPU 2.67 GHz
2 GB RAM

If I have Lightroom build smaller previews and then look at an image in the Develop module at 1:1 is the smaller preview generated on import replaced by a 1:1 in the Previews.lrdata folder?
Whilst you have stated that you read the two explanations that I gave and those that Sean has given it is clear to me that you didn't understand either of us. Building small sized previews (i.e. 1024 pixels) is really only useful if your viewing the preview on a screen size less than about 1200 pixels wide. As soon as you zoom to 1:1 a new preview pyramid will be created which will replace the original.
For the most speed in Library grid would I be better off setting my catalog preferences to delete the 1:1 each day?
Deleting them would be silly. The performance benefits of keeping them far outweigh the saving in disk space.
What settings / previews provide the fastest browsing in the Library grid, no matter what happens to the speed when I want 1:1 in Develop?
The optimum standard-sized preview is one with a long side pixel dimension which slightly less than your display resolution.

Similar Messages

  • Oracle - Informatica transfer speed fetch size and SQL*Net message from c

    Hi,
    I'm testing how fast informatica can take data from our 10.2.0.3 and using large (140GB 1 200 000 000 rows) table as source and doing simple
    select * from large_table .
    Here goes quite interesting wait time analyze :) .
    call     count       cpu    elapsed       disk      query    current        rows
    Parse        0      0.00       0.00          0          0          0           0
    Execute      0      0.00       0.00          0          0          0           0
    Fetch   186994    131.84     198.25     127545     314167          0    25431184
    total   186994    131.84     198.25     127545     314167          0    25431184
    Misses in library cache during parse: 0
    Parsing user id: 400
    Elapsed times include waiting on following events:
      Event waited on                             Times   Max. Wait  Total Waited
      ----------------------------------------   Waited  ----------  ------------
      db file scattered read                       9122        0.33         64.71
      SQL*Net more data to client                529327        0.00          8.34
      SQL*Net message from client                186994        0.21        478.74
      SQL*Net message to client                  186994        0.00          0.30
      db file sequential read                       145        0.01          0.49
      gc cr multi block request                    6998        0.01          6.30
      gc current grant 2-way                          9        0.00          0.00
      gc cr grant 2-way                              67        0.00          0.03The interesting part is ' SQL*Net message from client 186994 0.21 478.74'
    so looks like from Informaticka point of view (client side) is lagging 478 sec , so its lagging .
    Doing some math 25431184/186994 = 136 .
    Could You share with me Your experience in that matter ?
    Looks like to speed up I need to :
    1. increase fetch size (not sure how to do that).
    2. increase SDU client and probably server side .
    Network is 100Mbit ethernet so about 10MBytes per second .
    Regards
    GregG

    Have you solve your problem ?
    If yes I'm strongly interest by the solution.
    If you have a question of issue create your own thread and provide the particulars of your use case. This thread is year old.
    OP likely did NOT have any problem. As OP stated the max throughput for a 100 Mbit network is about 10 MB per second. So do the math for moving 140 GB and you will see that the network itself will be the limiting factor.

  • Preview - PDF and default thumbnail sidebar view

    When I open a PDF in Preview, the sidebar appears automatically, and it shows the Table of Contents view. I want Preview to always show the thumbnails view. Is there a way to change this to the default setting?

    This works but only when opening the same document. Other documents just default to the plain view.
    Big oversight - particularly when merging lots pdfs and each one has to be manually changed to thumbnail view. All becomes very cumbersome

  • Render Previews Size and Aspect Ratio

    We are currently editing several projects that have an odd editing dimension but a standard output dimension.  These videos are for a live event with rows of four projection screens set somewhat tightly together.  From a production standpoint, we wanted to have content flow freely across all four screens.  We prefer not to have to visualize this, so we set up a "Desktop" mode, square pixel sequence within a project with a dimension of 2560 x 540.  The 2560 dimension is because most of the footage is from the Panasonic P2 camera (HVX200P).  This camera shoots video at a rectangular pixel dimension of 1280 x 1080.  The pixel aspect ratio is 1.5.  So 1.5 times 1280 = 1920, the final output square pixel dimension. In this case the final output WOULD be 1920 x 2 or 3840 x 540 high. 3840 divided by 4 = 960 x 540.  So we're outputting standard def widescreen to each screen.  Premiere automatically creates the final output through nesting the 2560 x 540 sequence twice in a DVCPROHD 1080i sequence of standard size.  The two 2560 x 540 sequences, one on video layer 1 and the other on video layer 2 are positioned so that the video that corresponds to screen one is positioned top-far right and the second instance of the sequence is positioned bottom far left. The final output file is an avi in the Canopus HQ codec at 1920 x 1080.  This output file is a video that is actually four standard def videos in one 1920 x 1080 video. The Grass Valley Turbo 2 outputs this standard hi-def  file to a Vista Spyder which will isolate and project the four videos-in-one, to the appropriate four screens.
    This type of project would not have been possible without CS5 and Mercury.  Premiere is handling this oddity extremely well.
    One minor issue for the support gurus:
    When we render the Desktop mode square pixel 2560 x 540 sequence timeline, we get what appears to be random, mixed render results.  Sometimes this odd shape renders perfectly, other times it renders out to small dimension that is less than half size.  Other times if renders out with pieces of the elements small. but positioned with spaces between them.  Playing around with sequence render settings and playback resolution, sometimes SEEMS to cause the render to correct itself.  Sometimes a computer restart SEEMS to correct the issue.  Any thoughts?

    Colin Brougham wrote:
    Barring previewing, are you able to export to your intermediate/final movie without problems?
    The final exported video is 1920 x 1080. I have test exported in a number of formats without any problems at all.
    The 2560 x 540 version, (BEFORE it is "processed" through 2 instances of itself in a standard DVCPROHD sequence) is for editing purposes only, so we can actually see how the video will play across four projection screens.
    The remaining issue I'm trying to work out is, how to best get the finished video into the grass valley Turbo 2.  The Turbo 2 takes an AVI file transcoded into the Canopus HQ codec natively without having to transcode.  The only way to get an avi from Premiere Pro CS5 into the Canopus HQ codec is to first export the finished video as an uncompressed avi from Premiere, import it into either "Edius" or "Procoder 3" and export in the HQ codec.  The export from Premiere CS5 + Mercury takes 15 minutes.  The export (HQ encoded file) from the trial version of Edius takes around 10 minutes.  IMO grass valley should create a plug-in for Premiere CS5 and shouldn't allow the quickest export to be Canopus exclusive.  I seriously doubt many Premiere CS5 users will switching to Edius any time soon.
    According to grass valley, the Turbo 2 will accept an MPEG-2 Pgm Stream, whatever the heck a Pgm Stream is???.  I did a Google search without success.  Of course Premiere will export an MPEG-2 file, but how the Pgm Stream relates to this, I have no idea. There are a mind boggling array of settings and the preset seems to export a rather compressed looking video.
    My current thinking is to try to convince the boss to buy Procoder 3.
    BTW:
    the 3840 x 540 version sequence renders fine part of the time and then for whatever reason starts creating a preview that is about 35% of the correct dimension... So back to the original Sequence settings of 2560 x 540

  • Discrepancies between vault size and library size

    Can anyone explain to me why there is large discrepancy between the size of my vault and the Aperture library?
    I just synced my library to a vault and there is a 9 GB difference in the size of the two, with the vault being larger. Now I know there is a container of deleted images in the vault, but that only adds up to about 800 MB, so that still leaves an 8.2 GB difference. I'm wondering why there is such a discrepancy.
    Both the drive that the library lives on, and the vault drive, are exactly the same size (300gb). In fact, they are the same brand of drive. Also, both are formatted the same.
    I'm not sure I know what's going on, and that makes me a bit nervous since I'm dealing with my archive here.
    Any thoughts?
    Antonio

    So, you can see from this that something is strange.
    http://amrosario.com/vault01.jpg
    This image shows a screen shot of the Aperture Library compared to the Vault which I just synced. The Aperture Library is on the left, with the "Get Info" box behind it. The Vault is on the right with its "Get Info" box behind it.
    There are some BIG differences in the size of the project folders, as you can see, with the vault's folders being smaller across the board.
    I mean, maybe I could chalk this up to some formatting differences between the drive (although I think I remember they were formatted the same). But if there was a formatting difference, wouldn't the folders all exhibit a similar proportion of discrepancy? Look at the "New York City" folders - almost 2 GB in difference, but the "Commercial Work" folder is less than 1.4 GB difference.
    Arrrgh!
    Antonio

  • Folder size and library size don't match?

    I have my iTunes music library located on an external hard drive and when I do the "get info" tool on it it shows up being 43 gigs. However, when I'm using iTunes it says that my total music library is 19 gigs, my videos are only 383 mb, and my podcasts take up 2 gigs. that only amounts to about 21 gigs!? Does this mean that some songs didn't import when initially relocating my music library to my external hard drive? how can I find these songs and import them or delete them?

    Hey There!
    My reply to this person might help you!
    http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1210125&tstart=0
    Good luck!
    Sharon

  • Standard Preview size/quality Lightroom 1.1. (how and what)

    I'm working on a Macbook pro, with hi-res 17" screen 1920x1200. In most manuals, tutorials etc. it says that you can "set the standard preview size fitting for your screen".
    I'm looking for some more background info on the standard preview, to decide which setting to use(if somebody has other criteria to keep in mind please do say so):
    1) What is the difference in size of files for the different combination of options (pixel/quality). Does somebody have a list.
    2) What is the actual difference in the quality options
    3) In which modules is the preview size used (also in development and slide show?)
    4) Are they also used to generate the thumbnails from? If so, does a higher standard preview size reduce the performance in library mode because it as to shrink bigger files for these thumbnails?
    5) what happens if I would use the smaller, let's say 1440 preview and then decide to view the picture full-size, in library or slide show
    6) What would be the size (in pixels) on the normal main window in lightroom on my 1920x1200 screen. if it is about 1440 (might take that one)
    Last question of course: What standard preview size / quality should I use on my 1920x1200 screen??
    Thanks in advance for all your thoughts!

    As to standard preview size and quality, try 1440 and 1680 and Med and High quality and see what you like best. You will probably choose 1680 size for your screen running at 1920x1200. That will let you run LR full screen where the image size will be close to the full size of your monitor. You can try 1440 too but I doubt that you will see any performance improvement. I have tried both sizes on my 1600x1200 monitor and I see no difference in quality or speed.
    Try both Med and High quality and see if you notice any difference in your preview quality or speed. High will make your preview folders bigger which might be a factor if you have limited hard drive space.
    Don't think preview size has anything to do with thumbs. Standard previews are separate from 1:1 previews so you can always zoom in and LR will generate a full size preview.
    In short feel free to experiment with various settings in LR. Good way to learn the program and you will know what works best on your particular computer.

  • CS6 Mini Bridge - Thumbnail size and preview

    I've just upgraded to CS6 (design & web premium) and was setting up my workspace in InDesign, and after adding (docking) Mini Bridge there seems to be no preview or anyway to change the size of the thumbnails I can view.
    I use Mini Bridge a lot as we have folders that include 100+ assets in, and it's good to see a small thumbnail to quick scan, then to click on it to see more detail.  Now all I can see is a maximum of 6 thumbnails, which means I will need to scroll a lot to find anything.
    I've read the following topic from the PS CS6 Beta forum (http://forums.adobe.com/message/4286375#4286375#4286375), and was wondering if this "as designed" thinking has been rolled over to  InDesign, meaning that in order to  change the thumbnail size (with no preview), I have to have Mini Bridge undocked and if I want to see more detail, I have to enlarge the thumbnail, then reduce again to carry on searching?
    If so, it seems like a massive oversight, as InDesign is a layout tool and having easy access to multiple documents to include (and to see what they are) is vital, which isn't helped by the seemingly arcane way to access folders.
    Hopefully this is me just being a bit dim and missing something obvious, otherwise it's going to cause a lot of hassle in my day to day work.
    If anyone has a definitive answer, that would be great.
    Cheers.
    Craig Hurford

    Adobe needs to realize that if "as designed" results in users thinking it's a bug or otherwise not useful — then it's a bad design choice and should be revised. They need to leave options in place for people that don't agree with some of their "new" aka bad ideas.
    Assuming users don't want to use Mini Bridge vertically is just ridiculous — especially since you can't dock it to the bottom in InDesign like you can in Photoshop.
    And not showing folders in the thumbnail view is most unintuative thing to do here. If it's a Mini Bridge, why doesn't it behave like bridge and at least have a check box for filtering out folders or something.
    Mini Bridge is kind of useless now.
    -mpm

  • Speed-up? - Force a rebuild of Preview Size

    Folks
    Many people say they experience an increase in speed by having smaller previews. The default Preview size, in 1.5, as set in Preferences under 'Limit Preview Size' is 'Don't Limit'.
    If you alter this setting to a smaller setting it does not alter the size of your existing Previews. Some folks suggest throwing away all your Previews and starting again. However - Tech article 304345 suggests an easier/better way
    Aperture: Previews do not update after changing Limit Preview Size Preference
    Solution:
    Issue or symptom
    After you change the Limit Preview Size setting in Aperture's Preferences, existing previews are not changed, even if you choose Images > Update Previews.
    Products affected
    Aperture 1.5
    Solution
    Changing the Limit Preview Size setting does not mark existing previews as out of date. In order to force existing previews to be regenerated using a new size setting, select the desired images, press Option and choose Images > Generate Previews.

    Is there a way to easily tell which pictures have unwanted preview sizes? I started building previews (36,000 pictures)with the aperture default setting (unlimited size) and a day-and-a-half (approximately 24,000 pictures) later switched to the size recommended for my display. Aperture is definetly running slower than before I updated to 1.5. If there isn't an easy way to identify and resize the "unlimited size" photos, am I better off just deleting all previews and rebuilding them from scratch, or should I just rebuild as needed for purposes of ilife integration? I like the idea of being able to view all pictures in my Aperture library for purposes of using in other applications but if it is in fact slowing down Aperture I will happily rebuild.
    G5 2.3ghz, 23 inch HD cinema display   Mac OS X (10.4.8)  

  • Thumbnail Preview Size

    Is there anyway of increasing the size of the thumbnail image? If so, where and how?
    Cheers in advance,
    Carl.

    Depends on which thumbnail you are talking about. If you are in Column view, and have gone to the menu item View and selected Show View Options, and checked the boxes for Show Preview Column and Show Icons, the size of the thumbnails depends on the width of that final preview column. You can enlarge the column width by dragging the little handle at the bottom of the column separator (it is represented by two vertical lines), thus increasing the size of the displayed thumbnail, up to a maximum of about 256 pix width--after that even dragging the column wider yields no further increase in the thumb size.
    If you are in Icon View, and go to Show View Options, you need to check the box to Show Icon Preview, and then drag the slider near the top of the dialog box to make the thumbs bigger. It goes up to a maximum of 128 pixels (which is the biggest native size of builtin thumb icons in a Mac graphic file).
    Even list view will allow you to have an icon about twice the size as the regular List View icon. This rather useless though, since List View will not display a custom icon unless it is built into the file itself, while the other views will draw a custom icon from the file and display a thumb whether or not the file has one builtin.
    Francine
    Schwieder

  • HT3805 Sudden problem: Adjustment panel blank (metadata and library OK). Thumbnail shown as file loads but then  image has dark blue cast and is not adjustable.  Have current version of Aperture running.  Help please

    Aperture Help needed: Adjustment panel is blank, although metadata and library panels normal.  Thumbnails appear normal but when RAW (CR2) file is loaded, it appears with a dark blue cast, and does not load into the adjustment panel, and is not adjustable. Suggestions please

    You may need to register your camera with the the launch service database again, see this post by Alan Roseman: Re: Aperture 3 preview of raw file greenish
    There is a "typo" in the command given in the link above, so read also the following posts on how to correctly enter the command and how the fix is supposed to work
    Good luck.
    Post back, if this does not help.
    Regards
    Léonie

  • SharePoint 2013 Picture Library Thumbnail Preview not Working

    We are using SharePoint 2013 Enterprise edition.  We are using an enterprise wiki site collection template.  In the Site Collection Images library (Picture library), the thumbnail preview is NOT working.  For some users, they can see all of
    the thumbnail previews, for other users they cannot see any.  Some users can see a few thumbnail preview images and the users that could not see any thumbnail preview images, after refreshing a few times could see SOME of the thumbnail preview images. 
    In addition it is likely not a security issue as all users have contribute rights to the library and I have SCA rights.  It is also not a browser issue as one user on my team has IE 9 with nearly (maybe identical) identical settings as I do, who am also
    using IE 9.  We are having the problems in IE 8, 9 and 10.  Also, how could it be a browser issue if using IE 9 for example, users can see some of the thumbnail preview images but not others.  Lastly, it is not a file extension issue as the
    problem happens with jpg's as well as png's. 
    Any help would be GREATLY APPRECIATED!   FWIW - I'm chalking this up as a bug as it is SO odd and inconsistent, I cannot understand it any other way.
    Regards,
    Bill

    Have you tried looking at the traffic with Fiddler?  That can give you an idea if there are any auth or 404 issues.
    Chris Givens CEO, Architecting Connected Systems
    Blog Twitter

  • IPhoto library size and movie imports - getting HUGE!

    In iPhoto 08- (in my primary library) I have 23,000 photos, and about 300 movies (some MPEG) from an older Sony digicam, and now I have a Canon Powershot TX1 which is a flash based still digicam/720P HD camcorder that captures very large AVI's (depending on shot length, they range from 30MB to 400-500MB). I know I can choose on import to not bring them into iPhoto, and just bring in the still shots. However, it does make it easy to bring them into iPhoto along with the still pics, but I am concerned about the growing size of my 45GB library (1 of 3 libraries - I have not been splitting them up in the last couple of years, relying on the fact that iPhoto is stable with very large libraries- and going to enable a Time Capsule w/ Time Machine very soon). Time Capsule would save me here, right? Am I playing with fire here on the library size, and setting myself up for a crash?? There are so many downsides to multiple libraries when it comes to projects, searches, imports, etc. I'd love to know that I can safely stick with one.
    Wondering also if I should NOT import the movies into iPhoto, and keep them seperate? The benefit to doing this, is that we can post MULTIPLE movies to the .Mac gallery at the same time, and have them appear as seperate movies...whereas in iMovie 08, if I put a bunch of clips into a project to post to .Mac gallery, it compiles them as a single movie - which is, many times, not what we want.
    Any advice here is greatly appreciated!!!

    GaryFL1:
    You might consider creating a separate library for the movies and see if that will speed up your primary library. If you needed a movie in an album to create a web gallery you could put it in an album in the Movie Library and copy that album to your working library.
    A lot of iPhoto's quickness depends on both CPU power, RAM and free space on your boot drive. I would imagine your iMac would be your primary iPhoto machine and it should meet the CPU and memory criteria. How about your free space?
    Time Machine is a very good backup device in my experience. Depending on how big your backup drive is and how much you're backing up, you can go back in time a fair amount. I've got a 750 GB TM drive backing up my boot drive and one external. It now goes back 5 1/2 weeks for me.
    TIP: For insurance against the iPhoto database corruption that many users have experienced I recommend making a backup copy of the Library6.iPhoto (iPhoto.Library for iPhoto 5 and earlier) database file and keep it current. If problems crop up where iPhoto suddenly can't see any photos or thinks there are no photos in the library, replacing the working Library6.iPhoto file with the backup will often get the library back. By keeping it current I mean backup after each import and/or any serious editing or work on books, slideshows, calendars, cards, etc. That insures that if a problem pops up and you do need to replace the database file, you'll retain all those efforts. It doesn't take long to make the backup and it's good insurance.
    I've created an Automator workflow application (requires Tiger or later), iPhoto dB File Backup, that will copy the selected Library6.iPhoto file from your iPhoto Library folder to the Pictures folder, replacing any previous version of it. It's compatible with iPhoto 6 and 7 libraries and Tiger and Leopard. iPhoto does not have to be closed to run the application, just idle. You can download it at Toad's Cellar. Be sure to read the Read Me pdf file.≤br>
    Note: There now an Automator backup application for iPhoto 5 that will work with Tiger or Leopard.

  • How do I install OSX onto a new SSD (in the place of my optical drive) without transferring all data across.  However, with the applications, system and library on the SSD to improve the speed, but keep non essential items (the home folder) on the HDD

    I have a mid 2009 13 inch unibody 2.53GHz MacBook Pro.  I'm finding that it doesn't run as quickly as it used to. 
    A genius in the Apple store suggested that I replace my optical drive with an SSD, however only use the SSD for OSX, applications, system and library.  Keep all documents, pictures, music etc on the current hard drive. 
    I would be grateful if someone could help me with:
    1) installing OSX on the SSD without copying across data from the current hard drive
    2) transferring applications, system and library folders across to the SSD so that they still function
    3) changing my settings so that OSX reads the home folder from the current hard drive, as well as all the applications' data (documents, music etc...)
    However, I would like to run iMovie, with all events etc solely from the SSD to speed up the process of editing movies.
    If anyone could help with this, it would be much appreciated.

    If you got the data transfer cable with your SSD, the procedure should be pretty simple - and there should be step-by-step instructions in the box. You're simply going to remove the bottom case of your computer (using a Phillips #00 screwdriver), take out the two screws in the bracket holding the hard drive into place (using same screwdriver), remove the drive and (use a Torx 6 screwdriver) remove the four screws that hold the hard drive in place. Then put in the SSD and reassemble the machine.
    Then you'll plug up the old hard drive by using the SATA to USB cable and use the option key to boot from the old drive. I don't know what data transfer software Crucial provides, but I would recommend formatting the SSD  using Disk Utility from your old drive ("Mac OS Extended (Journaled)" with a single GUID partition) and then use Carbon Copy Cloner to clone your old drive to your new SSD (see this user tip for cloning - https://discussions.apple.com/docs/DOC-4122). You needn't worry about getting an enclosure since you have the data transfer cable and you don't want to use your old hard drive.
    There are a number of videos on YouTube that take you step-by-step through this procedure - many specific to Crucial SSDs and their data transfer kit - do a little searching there if you're unsure of how to procede.
    Clinton

  • The photos in my IPhoto have all become mini-thumbnails and I can't open or edit them. When I print the image it comes out normal size.  How do I get the thumbnails back to the standard size and be able to work with them?

    The photos in my IPhoto have all become mini-thumbnails and I can't open or edit them. When I print the image it comes out normal size.  How do I get the thumbnails back to the standard size and be able to work with the photo files?

    What version of iPhoto and system are you running?  On the guess that you're running the latest iPhoto, 9.4.2, Try the following:
    1 - launch iPhoto with the Command+Option keys held down and rebuild the thumnails, Option #2.
    2 - It may take 2-3 attempts so don't give up after only one attempt.
    OT

Maybe you are looking for