RAW to Jpeg conversion time survey

Clearly it matters to some who want to know...please do not reply if you do not find my request of any value...thank you.

kitacanon wrote in post #11533993
The link is not useable for many users....expecially with older machines

There are posts in the thread showing it being run on old P3s and P4s.
I doubt you could manage a RAW conversion on anything slower.

kitacanon wrote in post #11534410
Clearly it matters to some who want to know...please do not reply if you do not find my request of any value...thank you.

That doesn't make it any more or less valid, and sadly no one can deciede in which direction a thread will go.

RAW conversion, regardless of the software used is very CPU intensive and very HDD intensive. You could have a system with a fast HDD, fast CPU and very little RAM that would do well at RAW conversion, but be a terrible machine for photo work.
Someone with little to no computing experience might read results from such a machine in this thread, buy a similar machine, and then be horribly disappointed at it's performance.

The link I posted provides an objective test that uses all the parts of system needed for fast photo editing, CPU, HDD and RAM.

Your also asking for a very imprecise measure.
Someone might be converting RAW files from an old canon G4, and go from an out dated Pentium P3 to a still out dated Core 2 Duo.
They would see a huge improvement in performance and a massive reduction in RAW to JPEG conversion times.
But, again, someone with little computer knowledge might read that and think all they need to process thousands of RAW files from their 5D MKII is a simple Core 2 Duo, when what they really need is a new i5 or i7 quad core.

I understand your trying to help, but to actually do something helpful, you need an objective test.
Yours is not.
The tests we already have are.

Moppie wrote in post #11536358
There are posts in the thread showing it being run on old P3s and P4s.
I doubt you could manage a RAW conversion on anything slower.




That doesn't make it any more or less valid, and sadly no one can deciede in which direction a thread will go.

RAW conversion, regardless of the software used is very CPU intensive and very HDD intensive. You could have a system with a fast HDD, fast CPU and very little RAM that would do well at RAW conversion, but be a terrible machine for photo work.
Someone with little to no computing experience might read results from such a machine in this thread, buy a similar machine, and then be horribly disappointed at it's performance.

The link I posted provides an objective test that uses all the parts of system needed for fast photo editing, CPU, HDD and RAM.

Your also asking for a very imprecise measure.
Someone might be converting RAW files from an old canon G4, and go from an out dated Pentium P3 to a still out dated Core 2 Duo.
They would see a huge improvement in performance and a massive reduction in RAW to JPEG conversion times.
But, again, someone with little computer knowledge might read that and think all they need to process thousands of RAW files from their 5D MKII is a simple Core 2 Duo, when what they really need is a new i5 or i7 quad core.



I understand your trying to help, but to actually do something helpful, you need an objective test.
Yours is not.
The tests we already have are.

The points you make are exactly why I asked for a simple observation of an experience many people have...rather than a TEST...Sorry you don't understand...

kitacanon wrote in post #11534410
Clearly it matters to some who want to know...please do not reply if you do not find my request of any value...thank you.

Sometimes (in fact, most times), it is useful to have your values challenged. That's how we
learn that things we thought were important actually aren't half so important (and vice versa).
Or to put it another way, when you post a question, don't be a Barney Fife about how people respond.

Peano wrote in post #11537710
Sometimes (in fact, most times), it is useful to have your values challenged. That's how we
learn that things we thought were important actually aren't half so important (and vice versa).
Or to put it another way, when you post a question, don't be a Barney Fife about how people respond.

...and people who have no interest in participating needn't bother posting...thank you.

kitacanon wrote in post #11537836
...and people who have no interest in participating needn't bother posting...thank you.

People are participating.
If you have no interested in listening and allowing them to share their opinions, or challenge yours, then this thread has no future.