RAW to Jpeg conversion time survey

I just got a new PC...a HP i7-860 with 6gb RAM and am very pleased...

I've improved my 40D RAW to Jpeg conversion time from 17-18 seconds on my old P4/2.5gb to about 3 seconds...so I am very pleased....

....still I was wondering how that compares to other folks' experience...

Since a lot of people are asking about the possible gains from upgrading I thought a nice little survey would give them an idea as to what to expect.

For variables, I'd ask for: Camera/appx. file size....(file size will vary a bit...but generally a 40D is about 13-14mb), CPU and Ram...as a starting point...

...I understand that there will be other variables/factors such as hard drives and other configurations, but just as a general survey it might be useful to people who don't build or who have special configurations...and different software may have different timings....so if possible let's use DPP since everyone has access to it....

Those specially configured machines will improve times a bit I'm sure....and of course a difference between 2 and 3 seconds is a 33% reduction and that's a lot...but I'm just trying to establish the "ballpark" for those looking to upgrade and who are wondering if it's worth it....if you do have any special configurations please note them...

Here's mine to start....
Converter: DPP

Old:
40D/13-14mb file
P4-3.2HT/2.5gb
Timing: 17-18 seconds

New:
40D/13-14mb file
i7-860
6gb Ram
Timing: 3+ seconds (I don't have a stop watch...just know it's less than 4)

Again...this is not contest....just trying to offer some guidelines and expectations.

On my desktop with a P4 core2 duo running at 2.9ghz and 4gb ram it will convert my 550D files (around 22MB average) in about 6 seconds. If I do the work on my laptop which is an i7 Q720 quad core running at 1.6 ghz and 6 gb of ram it will convert the file in what is probably just shy of 3 seconds. Both machines are running 64-bit Win7 Ultimate.

Sorry, there are just too many variables to make this a useful poll. To be more useful, everyone would have to use the exact same photos since color, luminance and camera will change processing time considerably. Two files with exactly the same size will have different rendering times. Then, there's programs. Lightroom, Photoshop (ACR) and Aperture are probably the most used, but there are others like Bibble and ACDSee Pro. Some are better at using multiple CPU/cores than others. Some use the video card while others do not. Then, what type of JPEG files are you creating? Is it original to original? What DPI and image quality? You would also have to take into account that more than one file would have to be converted. It takes at least a second to cache the conversion tools in memory to start the process.

How about this. Download these files and set parameters. Some programs will be faster than others, so users must state which they use. Just some ideas...

I'm sitting at my laptop with a dual-core 2.1G Pentium with 3G of RAM running Win7 64. I just converted an 15MP Raw file (from a T1i), an 18.8 MP file, using DPP, full size/quality, and it took about 7 seconds.

MaxxuM wrote in post #11523114
Sorry, there are just too many variables to make this a useful poll.

And yet so many want to know if it's worthwhile upgrading...and how much they'd gain....this isn't a scientific poll...just a general picture of typical use...your point is okay if we were measuring differences in 10ths of seconds....but this is NOT that kind of "test"...

If i5 users were getting similar results as i7 users within a couple of seconds that might help some decide to go for the cheaper cpu...if AMD users' results were similar THAT would support AMD use wouldn't it...if i9 users' results were not better than 2 seconds, one might ask whether spending $300 more that THAT cpu is worth it.

This is a far, far better indication: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=170063

Moppie wrote in post #11533495
This is a far, far better indication: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=170063

You took the time to post this but, sorry but not everyone can use it...everyone can use a simple Raw conversion in DPP...thanks anyway.

MaxxuM wrote in post #11523114
Sorry, there are just too many variables to make this a useful poll. To be more useful, everyone would have to use the exact same photos since color, luminance and camera will change processing time considerably. Two files with exactly the same size will have different rendering times. Then, there's programs. Lightroom, Photoshop (ACR) and Aperture are probably the most used, but there are others like Bibble and ACDSee Pro. Some are better at using multiple CPU/cores than others. Some use the video card while others do not. Then, what type of JPEG files are you creating? Is it original to original? What DPI and image quality? You would also have to take into account that more than one file would have to be converted. It takes at least a second to cache the conversion tools in memory to start the process.

Add to the list the editing/processing done to the image. Sharpening adds time. NR adds a lot of time. Lens corrections add even more. All these variables have to be considered.

kitacanon wrote in post #11533544
You took the time to post this but, sorry but not everyone can use it...everyone can use a simple Raw conversion in DPP...thanks anyway.

That link provides access to a usable, reasonably objective and easily analysed set of results.
Unlike your extremely subjective and total useless attempt at gathering opinions.


For the record, it also took less time to find that link and post it than it would have for me to find a copy of DPP, install it, update it, then convert a RAW file.
It takes less time to download the objective benchmark in the link, run it, and post the results, and it takes even less time to do a simple search of that thread for a processor type, or an amount of RAM.
But thanks anyway.

It takes as long as it takes. I'm not about to spend several hundred pounds on a new computer system just because it might save me a couple of seconds when converting raw to JPG. In the great scheme of things the conversion time is rather insignificant when compared to the overall time spent processing an image, so I can't see why anyone would concern themsleves with how long it takes.

Sorarse wrote in post #11533728
It takes as long as it takes. I'm not about to spend several hundred pounds on a new computer system just because it might save me a couple of seconds when converting raw to JPG. In the great scheme of things the conversion time is rather insignificant when compared to the overall time spent processing an image, so I can't see why anyone would concern themsleves with how long it takes.

Exactly...
That's the whole point here....upgrading may not be worth the time and money expended...it's a personal decision...whether there's a problem to be fixed...or simply an itch to be scratched....

In my case it was simply a matter of getting a 64bit system so PS and PSE would run more smoothly without the hiccups and hesitations I was experiencing....that more RAM (more than the 4gb limit a 32bit system allows) would take care of...upgrading the 64bit OS required new hardware, so for me it was a logical time to upgrade hardware as well...

But many people ask about upgrading without knowing what they'll generally gain....whether an upgrade would amount to an improvement measureable in the order of 15 seconds... or 2 seconds... or a half-second.......which is what I'm trying to establish for people asking the general question of upgrading...

THAT is all I'm getting at with this simple question...it doesn't need to be any more complicated by "scientific" tests...or contests...and a simple single process that most Canon users are familiar with will help get a "picture" of the order of "improvement"

Moppie wrote in post #11533577


That link provides access to a usable, reasonably objective and easily analysed set of results.
Unlike your extremely subjective and total useless attempt at gathering opinions.

For the record, it also took less time to find that link and post it than it would have for me to find a copy of DPP, install it, update it, then convert a RAW file.
It takes less time to download the objective benchmark in the link, run it, and post the results, and it takes even less time to do a simple search of that thread for a processor type, or an amount of RAM.
But thanks anyway.

The link is not useable for many users....expecially with older machines

tzalman wrote in post #11533568
Add to the list the editing/processing done to the image. Sharpening adds time. NR adds a lot of time. Lens corrections add even more. All these variables have to be considered.

I didn't ask about any more variables...just one...conversion of a simple RAW image to JPEG...other variables only complicate things that I was trying to avoid...

My 40D does the conversion in nano-seconds.

tzalman wrote in post #11533568
Add to the list the editing/processing done to the image. Sharpening adds time. NR adds a lot of time. Lens corrections add even more. All these variables have to be considered.

+1

Especially the editing time. If I spend 30 or 40 minutes editing, it doesn't matter to me whether the conversion takes 3 second or 10 seconds.