Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: Qn for RAW shooters...

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Singapore, Bedok
    Posts
    1,785

    Default Qn for RAW shooters...

    Hi.

    i've started shooting RAW since getting Canon's free DPP software. i'm getting something like 700 RAW files processed in 6 hours (approx - left overnight), on an Athlon 1700.

    Thus, i'm considering upgrading my PC, since a typical event/wedding shoot can run into more than a thousand shots.

    Can i find out from the RAW shooters (esp Canon users) out there what kind of processing speeds you are getting from your current CPU? i don't want to waste money upgrading if the processing speed increment is only marginal.

    Thanx.

  2. #2
    Moderator nightwolf75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    really MORE diaper changes
    Posts
    17,845
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ST1100
    Hi.

    i've started shooting RAW since getting Canon's free DPP software. i'm getting something like 700 RAW files processed in 6 hours (approx - left overnight), on an Athlon 1700.

    Thus, i'm considering upgrading my PC, since a typical event/wedding shoot can run into more than a thousand shots.

    Can i find out from the RAW shooters (esp Canon users) out there what kind of processing speeds you are getting from your current CPU? i don't want to waste money upgrading if the processing speed increment is only marginal.

    Thanx.
    wats ur current setup?
    If Life worked on auto mode then manual mode for photography would have never existed. ― Deeksha Mittal

  3. #3

    Default

    i use breezebrowser, 700 RAW is just a matter of 1hr+ to 2hr on my XP1800 processor.

    converting RAW files largely depends on the converter software u use.

  4. #4

    Default

    Sorry, can I know what's DPP?

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Singapore, Bedok
    Posts
    1,785

    Default

    DPP is a free software Canon released in Apr/May this year. "Digital Photo Professional". i use it bcoz the workflow is much better than FVU, and it's free.

  6. #6
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    6,601

    Default

    free? where to get it from?

  7. #7

    Default

    isn't DPP only for the 1D series raw files? it didn't recognize my 10D raw files the last time i tried.

  8. #8
    Deregistered
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    6,601

    Default

    oops, found the page for the download, but it requires the serial number of a valid 1D/1Ds/1D Mk II....

  9. #9

    Default

    Can use EOS Viewer Utility instead. It works almost like DPP and will support the other non-pro Canon DSLRs.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ST1100
    Hi.

    i've started shooting RAW since getting Canon's free DPP software. i'm getting something like 700 RAW files processed in 6 hours (approx - left overnight), on an Athlon 1700.

    Thus, i'm considering upgrading my PC, since a typical event/wedding shoot can run into more than a thousand shots.

    Can i find out from the RAW shooters (esp Canon users) out there what kind of processing speeds you are getting from your current CPU? i don't want to waste money upgrading if the processing speed increment is only marginal.

    Thanx.
    I'm using the same chip but with 1.5GB mem. So far I don't see any significant gain in processing speed even with a faster processor, unless you r interested in a SCSI setup. Alternatively go for Mac.

    I prefer Adobe 8.0 for processing. Normally dump all my raws, select the desired actions and let it run on its own. >100 pics can be completed in about 30mins with full workflow.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by madmacs
    isn't DPP only for the 1D series raw files? it didn't recognize my 10D raw files the last time i tried.
    What makes you think he isn't using something from the 1D series
    My Personal Folio (of random events and things)

  12. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    181

    Thumbs up

    For image/video processing applications clock speed (the actual clock speed in Mhz) is the main horse. I can recommend you to go for a Celeron (not other Intel processors, stay away from AMD as its clock speeds are much lower than Intel CPUs, AMD 3000 runs at only 2.17 Ghz whereas Pentium clock runs at the actual 3Ghz). Celeron usually gives the highest Ghz for the lowest price, don't worry about cache etc.

    If you can get a serial ATA (SATA) it will be good, otherwise any 7200 RPM ATA harddisk should be sufficient. 5400 RPM harddisks will also work but with s slightly degraded performance. 7200 RPM ATA harddisks are good even for real-time video editing jobs (5400 RMP may cause frame drops). Get something with 8MB cache.

    512MB RAM should be good enough unless you open many (many many) pictures at the same time for editing or so...

    If you're planning to cut costs on any of the above items, I would start with harddisk. Even 5400 RPM old stuff has transfer rates of 100 MBps (6MP uncompressed TIFF file takes about 1-2 secs to read/write).

    SCSI hard disks has advantages on server environments. On a desktop, it won't make much difference. See the link below to compare the data transfer
    rates of some harddisks:
    http://tomshardware.bizrate.com/buy/...--seagate.html

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stoned
    What makes you think he isn't using something from the 1D series
    he should be shouldn't he? after all he can use dpp to work on his raws

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Singapore, Bedok
    Posts
    1,785

    Default

    Jeff, your suggestion for a SCSI setup implied that the HDD might be the bottleneck. i doubt so, the disks weren't spinning hot and the CPU utilization was at 100% at the way. The RAM usage was quite low too, about half of physical RAM at most. i'm led to conclude that the CPU is causing the traffic jam in my case. YMMV. In any case, i've got more harddisks than my casing can handle already, and they are piling up in my room.

    Alpie, thanx for the tip. Buying a CPU these days almost certainly involves changing the motherboard (and the RAM sometimes). For that reason, i'm not too sure a Celeron is a good idea. i'm looking more at a Pentium or AMD in the 3GHz range. Do you have any references/links to "actual clock speed being the main horse' for image processing applications"? Would be very helpful in my decision. Thanx.

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ST1100
    Jeff, your suggestion for a SCSI setup implied that the HDD might be the bottleneck. i doubt so, the disks weren't spinning hot and the CPU utilization was at 100% at the way. The RAM usage was quite low too, about half of physical RAM at most. i'm led to conclude that the CPU is causing the traffic jam in my case. YMMV. In any case, i've got more harddisks than my casing can handle already, and they are piling up in my room.
    Hmm, I thought if one shoot for a living and need precious processing time, the more RAM the better (best for multi-tasking). This will prevent unnecessary harddisk swapping which may lead to further file fragmentation. (Well try for yourself to see) This will reduce overall system performance. Well, a SCSI system works well for video editing too. It does makes a difference for high work load. Well 700 RAWs is considered heavy (tested and verified by me on an IBM workstation PRO ) Besides, the excess RAM can be setup as a virtual harddisk for instant access best still!

    Anyway, u may want to consider a dually.

    Just my two cents.

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    181

    Thumbs up

    Comparison of AMD vs Intel
    http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2003...4_3200-10.html

    This is slightly old, but it shows the cache doesn't make any difference for video encoding. Comparison of Pentium vs Celeron:
    http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2002...ding_flask_501

    On the other hand the following article shows the slower and cheaper Athlon processors are beating Celeron's with faster clock speeds:
    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...alue-cpus.html

    According to the last article, you might be better off going for Athlon. You might save a lot of money by just upgrading the CPU if your motherboard supports it. I was in the same shoes with you. I upgraded my CPU from AMD 2000 to AMD 3000. Kept the same motherboard, RAM etc...


    Cheers!
    Alpie

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Tampines
    Posts
    3,287

    Default

    I do a lot of digital video and also digital still processing. I was using an AMD before but now switched to Intel 3.2 GH. For serious processing you will be better off with Intel. If it is for games then that is a different story. My RAM is 1 GB. I can do 100 RAW in about 30 minutes. Not saying that this is the ideal. This is from my own experience. Others may have a different view.

  18. #18

    Default

    the solution is not to upgrade the existing computer but to simply buy a 2nd computer and use one of them solely for raw processing.

    The computer that does raw processing only needs a card reader. It doesn't even need a keyboard or monitor. You can operate it remotely over the network using Windows XP's remote feature.

  19. #19

    Default

    Can the DPP open 10D or 300D RAW file for processing?

  20. #20
    Member twiki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Mountain Time Zone
    Posts
    426

    Default

    Dear 10D owners,

    For now, it seems that our only no-cost option is Canon's FVU (File Viewer Utility), since DPP (Digital Photo Professional) doesn't currently support the 10D.
    However, just sit tight, as it appears that it will include the 10D in an upcoming release. Read it here. I believe that even the 300D now has support as DPP now ships with this camera.

    Of course, there are always costlier options for commercial solutions like C1, Photoshop CS, or mid-range offerings like BreezeBrowser.

    Mac users, like myself, will have fewer options.


    .
    With modern cameras this smart, it's easier than ever to take bad pictures.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •