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Changing the Limit Preview Size setting does not mark existing previews as out of date.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)  

Similar Messages

  • 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.

  • How to force LR to update previews in bulk

    hi all,
    is there a method or setting to force LR4 to update the prewies in "bulk", means outside of the grid too?
    problem is that when applying development changes on image sequences with hundreds of images, or even a smaller bunch of images LR4 only shows the applied changes in the current grid view.
    for updating the previews one has to go back and forth in preview by hand. this seems a bit stone age and can take a while.
    this was never a problem in bridge, which - although it took its time to create ALL previews - afterwards allowed for quick scrolling trough images with all previews generated. this was especially good for watching stop-motion movies and applying xmp RAW development changes.
    for LR4 RC3, this would be a nice option to have... classic, like it is now, and a "force update previews outside grid view" with a true progress indicator / counter, like with bridge.
    an example where we started using lightroom during production and ran exactly into the problem of slow / missing preview updates after applying batch XMP / development changes can be seen here (about 32000 raw files processed, 7500 used for the film)
    http://www.astronomerswithoutborders.org/news/1066-astronomers-paradise-is-a-journey-for-e veryone.html
    or here on NAT GEO
    http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/02/21/new-time-lapse-gives-rare-glimpse-at-at acamas-starry-nights/
    any info or idea would be appreciated. systems used are current Macs with OSX 10.6.8 and Lion 10.4.7.
    thanks
    chris

    hi dorin,
    I don't have that. but I found:
    lightroom>preferences>file handling>import DNG creation>JPG preview - none, medium, full size (with "embed fast load data", "embed original raw file")
    lightroom>preferences>catalog setting> standard preview size/preview quality/automatically discard 1:1 previews...
    also "camera raw cache settings" could be interesting? in preferences>file handling
    cheers
    c

  • Preview size question

    Right now Preview size is set at Half Size and slider all the way to the left. Lowest quality I guess. This all in Aperture 2.1.1 preferences.
    It takes forever to update previews. I shoot D300 NEF.
    Is there a way to turn off previews? Or make them as small as possible? I import the photos on the MBP hard drive.
    So I need Previews? I do not use the other iLife apps.
    Anything to make Aperture faster is what I'm looking for.

    No it says Previews next to the spinning pie chart as it's updated. I see thumbnails too.
    My settings
    If I make complex adjustments to a photo, I can wait for quite a while as the preview updates before I can do anything else. If I could turn off previews I could literally do my work in half the time.

  • Preview size & quality settings

    Although I have been using LR for many months I am still confused as to what to set my import settings to when it comes to previews. Standard or 1:1? What quality settings? Can anyone enlighten me on best practices?

    >... my import settings to when it comes to previews. Standard or 1:1?
    Standard Size previews are of your choosing: 1024, 1440, 1680 and 2048. You set these in the catalog settings "File Handling" tab. Also, you can set the quality to Low, Medium or High. You could also think of the Standard Size as that which most closely matches you screen size.
    1:1 Previews are previews that match the dimensions of the image and are generally much larger than the Standard Size previews. e.g. from a 10MP Nikon D200 the size is 3872*2592.
    The implications of your choices are as follows:
    - The larger the preview size that you choose, the slower the import
    - Larger previews take more disc space in your .lrdata folder, specifically the thumbnail-cache file.
    If you are going to import a large number of photos, that you may later cull prior to doing any develop work, then you could choose Standard Size previews, with a low (1440) pixel size, Medium Quality. Import should then be fast. After you have eliminated photos that you do not wish to keep, you could use the Library ->Previews -> Render 1:1 Preview, if you wish to generate full-size previews of the selected pictures. Again, this may take a significant amount of time, depending on how many photos you select.
    When you go to Develop module, Lightroom will automatically generate a 1:1 preview of the selected photo. So if you are not concerned about a slight delay while Lighroom generates 1:1 preview in Develop module, you could stay with Standard Size previews for import.

  • Standard Preview Size/Preview Quality

    This may be a silly question, but in Library mode, under Edit>Catalogue Settings>File Handling, you have options under Preview Cache for 'Standard Preview Size' (1024/1440/1680/2048/2880 pixels) and Preview Quality (High/Medium/Low)... but what do these settings actually do; I've tried changing them & not noticed and difference??

    Les_Cornwell wrote:
    Thanks again Rob
    You bet .
    Les_Cornwell wrote:
    I've tried all the different size options, namely 1024 through to 2880 & low/Medium/high and none make any obvious difference at all.
    So are previews only created as required when you view a picture in full screen mode or does LR create a preview for all your files?
    Every image you look at in Library module comes from the (library) previews, there are up to 8 possible jpegs:
    * a tiny thumbnail in root-pixels.db
    * up to 7 jpegs ranging from small to 1:1 in the "preview pyramid" (each smaller is half the dimensions of it's bigger sibling).
    Try this with a 10 photo test catalog:
    If you have a big monitor and set standard preview size to 1024, then (with Lr closed) delete all previews, then restart Lr and wait for all the "..." indicators to be extinguished (indicating standard previews have been built), then step from photo to photo in loupe view with all panels collapsed (loupe view "real-estate" maximized), you should see "loading" indicator, since it needs a bigger preview than you've got built. What it will do then is build 1:1 previews and all the smaller ones along with it, which is suboptimal from a performance point of view. If you try and zoom in to 1:1 after the "loading", there will be no additional loading, since 1:1 previews were already built.
    Then, repeat the test with preview size at max - no loading indicators, right? (when stepping in loupe view after standard previews have finished being built, I mean). Except now if you try to zoom in there will be "loading", since 1:1 preview were not required to display the loupe view, they will need to be built for the zoomed (1:1) view.
    The only difference between big enough and too big will be an ever-so-slightly greater lag when stepping in the loupe view and no 1:1 preview exists (when preview is too big I mean), since it's loading a bigger standard preview than is actually needed. Reminder: if preview is not big enough, there will be an ever-so-slightly bigger lag when stepping in loupe view too (e.g. vs. just big enough), since it's using the 1:1 preview instead of standard (which wasn't big enough). So, tester beware... (somewhat counter-intuitively, in some cases, it will be faster loading a preview when settings are, in general, too big, because it can get away with loading the next size down, which is an even better fit, e.g. if image is cropped just so - all of these little nuances make it especially tricky to test & evaluate, so consider doing initial tests using uniform-size uncropped images, to reduce the number of variables - it's confusing enough as it is ;-}).
    Note: as previously mentioned, there is considerable complexity (and bugs) in the preview system, and I may not have described it perfectly, so it wouldn't surprise me if your results were not exactly like that, but I just went and retested on my system, and what happened is exactly as I described above (win7/64), as I read it anyway...
    Regarding quality, you should see difference in some photos not others, but ONLY if it didn't resort to the 1:1 preview which may be higher quality than the standard and is independent of the standard quality setting. (I think somebody may have stated that you'd need to zoom in to see differences in standard preview quality settings, but that is wrong - the only way to see differences in standard preview quality settings is if you are in fact viewing standard previews, which you aren't when zoomed in to 1:1, and anyway it can be ellusive - see paragraphs above...).
    PS - If you want to compare jpeg quality of standard previews, one way is to export them using PreviewExporter. Again, it's tricky, since you need to assure you aren't exporting a scaled down version of the 1:1 instead of a true standard preview. After exporting you can compare outside Lightroom, so you don't have the "preview of a preview" issue going... I use Beyond Compare by Scooter Software for doing objective comparison of like-sized jpegs, but you can compare subjectively using any ol' viewer, e.g. as built into OS.
    Too much?
    UPDATE:
    Les_Cornwell wrote:
    does LR create a preview for all your files?
    No - they are created on an as-needed basis (thus the reason we hear many complaints about how stale or non-existent previews should be built in the background, to minimize "loading" in library module, e.g. after making dev changes to a large bunch), but note: standard previews may be considered "needed" when thumbnail is in view in grid or filmstrip (but not considered needed if thumbnail is off-screen, even if existing in filmstrip and/or grid).
    R
    Message was UPDATED by: Rob Cole

  • Larger font preview size

    How do I change the font preview size in the drop down font preview list in Adobe inDesign cs6?

    It's in the Type section of the prefs...

  • Preview size for at 22 inch monitor?

    Hi, I have just read some posts suggesting that changing the pixel dimensions for a specific monitor can help performance as far as rendering images is concerned. I have a 22 inch Samsung monitor, what would be the optimum pixel dimensions. At the moment it is set at default 1440 pixels, should I change it, and if so to 1680 or 2048? I suppose I could experiment, but is there an "optimum"!
    As always
    Thanks

    The standard preview size should be set to match as closely as possible to the resolution at which you use your monitor. Therefore, there was some relevance to the question regarding the native resolution of the monitor as simply stating the size of the monitor does not dictate the resolution at which it operates. In my case, I have a 26 inch monitor, but the important information is that I have it set at its native resolution of 1900x1200. Therefore, I set the standard  preview size to the closest resolution without exceeding it, which in this case will be 1680. Note that the standard preview size has nothing to do with any zoom factor as applying any zoom factor, even a 1:1, will quickly exceed the maximum standard preview size available of 2048.
    Hope this helps!

  • Should I match STD preview size to native screen resolution or the resolution I am actually using?

    My iMac 27" monitor is 2560 pixels wide but I run it on a screen resolution of 2048 x 1152. Would it be a waste for me to set the Lightroom Standard Preview Size to size to the setting of 2880? I am thinking I should set the Standard Preview Size to 2048 to save space on my hard drive. What do you think?
    When I set my monitor to the native resolution the text on menus etc is pretty hard to see with my tired old eyes. Is there a disadvantage to using  2048 x 1152 on my 27" monitor when using Lightroom?

    DanATD wrote:
    I am thinking I should set the Standard Preview Size to 2048 to save space on my hard drive. What do you think?
    If I were you, I'd use Jeffrey Friedl's Online Lightroom Configurator to bump the font-size of the text, and leave the monitor resolution at 2560 (and standard previews at 2880). Unless of course you can't see image detail all that well either with the increased resolution. There may be some text that jf's configurator can't reach - dunno, but it may be worth a shot..
    If bumping font size (and monitor rez) doesn't pan out, then the answer is yes: 2048 is sufficient resolution for standard previews, at a monitor rez of 2048.

  • Brush preview size does not match brush stroke

    The brush preview size does not match brush stroke. I've insert a pic of the problem. I tried allmost everythning, but nothing works.
    Does anyone have a solution for this problem?
    *I use a wacom tablet.

    Is your system cursor size set to something other than normal?
    under Apple, System Preferences, Universal Access.

  • Text preview size in PS 2014?

    Hi,
    Installed PS CC 2014. Now my text preview size is back down to small and I can't seem to figure out how to change it back to a larger preview size.
    Any suggestions?
    Thanks!
    -Rowen

    Hi Rowen.  Have you seen this video tutorial for the new type features in CC 2014?  They actually suggest turning off font previews completely.  I'm not sure that I would be comfortable working that way, but Type is a whole new ballgame now.

  • Can Finder windows Always preview images? Can the Preview size be changed?

    I would like to have my Finder windows always open so that when viewing a list of images and clicking on one, the preview is displayed as if the arrow has been clicked to open the preview.
    How is that controlled?
    Also, I was wondering if that preview size can change. I thought that if I increases the size of that 'cell' in the wondow that the preview would grow but that's not the case. Can I change the preview size?

    It's not altogether clear to me exactly what you want, but if you open a folder of images and put the window into column view, you can drag the last preview column until it displays the maximum size preview of 255 pixels in width or height. However, not all thumbs are created equal, and not all will display at that maximum size, some are limited to the usual icon maximum of 128 pixels. Thus the jpegs I download from my camera will have a max of 128, but if I have opened and saved the image as a Photoshop file the max will be 255. Screenshots in png format also have the 255 maximum. Large jpegs I download (which do not have a custom thumb) will also display at the 255 max in Column view. Just depends on the file.
    Francine
    Francine
    Schwieder

  • Web module exports all the different preview sizes

    Trying out the web module - I select a flash template with extra large previews. When I export to Dreamweaver, not only are the Extra large previews exported but also large, medium etc. This means that if I upload to my server I will use far more space than necessary. Can I prevent this? Or can I simply delete all but the extra large pictures?

    When exporting a Flash gallery it does export three sizes. Those three sizes are "relative" to the "preview size" setting, which you could kind of think of as setting the size for the "largest" of the three. When the gallery is loaded into a browser, the gallery automatically detects the size of the window, looks at the rendition sizes available, and then downloads the largest rendition size that will fit into the window. It then does some pretty sophisticated pre-fetching of the other images of that size based on user behavior (linear vs non-linear browsing of the gallery). The gallery does not download the other renditions at all - unless the end user changes the size of their browser window such that a different rendition size should be used. The gallery does not real-time scale the images inside Flash - except in the case where the browser window is made too small for even the smallest rendition, in which case it will scale down the image in real time (this is why your "trick" works). In Beta 4, the gallery threw scroll bars on the images themselves if the window was too small. I think the 1.0 approach is much better.
    Granted this takes up extra room on the web server, (pretty cheap these days though) but if there were only one rendition, it really should be a size that will fit on 800x600 monitors - which is still well over 10% of web users, which would mean it would need to be pretty dang small given OS chrome, browser chrome, headers, etc - and then if you had thumnails across the bottom... Is all this overkill? When I look at galleries like the one at http://www.computer-darkroom.com/antarctica_2007/index.html in a maximized window on my hi-res monitor, I grow to really love the multiple rendition approach.

  • Photo preview size of 1920

    Hello,
    When I go into Aperture -> Prefs -> Previews, in the list of potential preview sizes, an asterisk appears beside the "fit within 1920 x 1920" option. It thus looks like "Fit within 1920 x 1920 (*)"
    Can somebody shed some light on the significance of the asterisk??
    Many thanks!
    H.

    Aperture uses the asterisk to indicate the long dimension of your currently connected primary monitor. This is the recommended size for Previews, being large enough to display full screen and no larger.
    This information is hard to find in the User Manual. The page it is on, however, is well worth knowing.
    Aperture places asterisks (*) next to choices that match the resolution of your currently connected displays.
    From the [User Manual|http://documentation.apple.com/en/aperture/usermanual/index.html#chapter=6%26sec tion=15%26tasks=true]
    Message was edited by: Kirby Krieger

  • Limit Preview Size. Which setting are you using?

    I'm not exactly sure how the Limit Preview Size preference affects my workflow. Which setting are you using, and why?
    My preference is currently set to the v2.0 default 1/2 Size. My iMac's resolution is 1680x1050, and I'm using the Canon EOS 1D Mark III taking full size RAW images at 3888x2592.
    regards,
    Gregory

    Gregory,
    I use the default (which is 1/2 size) with no ill effects. Previews are used by external programs to gain access to photos in your Aperture library. (This is not the way your external editor works, though.) Your preview size will not affect your workflow. When previews are turned on, Aperture works on generating previews when you have something new of which to make a preview. I seriously doubt that making a small copy, versus making a smaller copy, would affect how long it takes Aperture (and therefore, how sluggish Aperture might appear.) The difference between making previews and not making previews can be significant.
    nathan

Maybe you are looking for