How long does it take to convert a raw camera file to "default" JPG?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Forget Dpreview's B.S., "diplomatic language" NEX 16mm lensis not good
Next: How long does it take to convert a raw camera file to "default"JPG?
From: Floyd L. Davidson on 9 Jun 2010 19:40 ray <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote: >On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 13:20:26 -0800, Floyd L. Davidson wrote: > >> ray <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote: >>>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? .... >>>I've found dcraw to be quick for my situation - it's free. >> >> Dcraw is wonderful for what it is, but its user interface is not meant >> for general purpose conversions. A photographer needs an interface that >> allows previewing results in order to select appropriate options for >> best results. > >I use ufraw for that - but it's not what the OP asked about. Then your interpretation of what he asked is different than mine. Mine is that until he defines "default", it might mean a number of things. One definition would be that it defaults to the in camera JPEG settings... and dcraw does not do that at all (nor does UFRAW). In that case though, dcraw (and not UFRAW) could be used to simply extract the embedded JPEG images from the RAW file, but what that produces depends on which brand of camera and on how the camera is configured. I'm assuming the user wants to define the default settings, rather than assuming (the absurd notion) that dcraw has defaults that are somehow "correct". Generating a user defined default requires UFRAW. >> 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. With a different camera using 12-bit uncompressed files, but at lower resolution and generating JPEG rather that TIFF formatted output files, the single CPU time is 1.9 seconds per image, and the multi-CPU time is 0.7 seconds per image. My original point was to show one possible way to optimize batch processing to get the most out of available hardware, which essentially indicates that just asking how long it takes to accomplish a conversion does not produce answers that are useful. -- Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com
From: Floyd L. Davidson on 9 Jun 2010 21:02 nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >In article <87a8pfFcokU6(a)mid.individual.net>, ray <ray(a)zianet.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. -- Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com
From: Floyd L. Davidson on 9 Jun 2010 21:23 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. -- Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com
From: nospam on 9 Jun 2010 23:00 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.
From: Floyd L. Davidson on 10 Jun 2010 02:37
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... :-) -- Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com |