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 15:36 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. I've found dcraw to be quick for my situation - it's free.
From: Doug McDonald on 9 Jun 2010 15:43 On 6/9/2010 2:36 PM, ray 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? >> >> 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. > > I've found dcraw to be quick for my situation - it's free. On my old Pentium 4, for Canon CR2 files, both Photoshop CS2 and dcraw take about 20 seconds to convert to JPEG. This does not seem to depend on the quality level. Doug
From: ray on 9 Jun 2010 17:55 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? >>> >>> 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. >> >>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. > > UFRAW is probably the best front end for dcraw. It provides all of the > necessary options for a general purpose RAW converter. It can produce > JPEG images directly (as well as TIFF or PPM images). It can also be > configured to generate only an "ID" file, which contains the > configuration used by the interactive adjustments so that they can be > used by the batch processor. > > For example, I just ran off converstions on 65 RAW files (14-bit > compressed NEF files from a D3S) as a batch. Since all of these had > virtually the same characteristics, only one image was actually done > interactively. Then ufraw-batch was invoked on the entire list of > files, using the ID file to set the configuration: > > ufraw-batch --conf=DSC_0001.ufraw *.nef > > At other times, when each shot requires individual configuration, I > invoke ufraw interactively on the entire list, and produce an ID file > for each image. Then ufraw-batch is invoked on the ID files: > > ufraw-batch *.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.
From: ray on 9 Jun 2010 20:08 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: >> >>> 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. Damn - I could have sworn I just said that! > > 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.
From: ray on 9 Jun 2010 20:09
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 16:07:44 -0700, Mike Russell 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? >> >> 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. > > That's not such a slow system. How much memory do you have? If it's > less than 2 gigs, that's probably the bottleneck. Memory is cheap. Doubtful. It shouldn't take 2gb memory to convert a 12mp image! |