Qn for RAW shooters...


Status
Not open for further replies.

ST1100

Senior Member
Jun 18, 2003
1,785
0
0
Singapore, Bedok
#1
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.
 

nightwolf75

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 18, 2003
17,857
14
38
really MORE diaper changes
#2
ST1100 said:
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?
 

behyx

Senior Member
Jun 15, 2002
2,642
0
0
35
SG
www.danielbeh.com
#3
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.
 

ST1100

Senior Member
Jun 18, 2003
1,785
0
0
Singapore, Bedok
#5
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.
 

madmacs

Senior Member
Dec 13, 2002
5,456
0
36
madmacs.multiply.com
#7
isn't DPP only for the 1D series raw files? it didn't recognize my 10D raw files the last time i tried.
 

tomcat

Senior Member
Nov 7, 2003
5,515
11
0
63
Visit site
#9
Can use EOS Viewer Utility instead. It works almost like DPP and will support the other non-pro Canon DSLRs.
 

Jeff

Senior Member
Apr 27, 2002
2,589
0
0
www.asianhomebiz.com
#10
ST1100 said:
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.
 

Stoned

Senior Member
May 7, 2004
4,378
0
0
30
Changi
www.photo.net
#11
madmacs said:
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 :D
 

alpie

New Member
Mar 11, 2004
181
0
0
Singapore
#12
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...,att31--63-,cat_id--410,keyword--seagate.html
 

ST1100

Senior Member
Jun 18, 2003
1,785
0
0
Singapore, Bedok
#14
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.
 

Jeff

Senior Member
Apr 27, 2002
2,589
0
0
www.asianhomebiz.com
#15
ST1100 said:
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 :D ) 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.
 

alpie

New Member
Mar 11, 2004
181
0
0
Singapore
#16
Comparison of AMD vs Intel
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030623/p4_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/20020903/p4_celeron-08.html#mpeg4_encoding_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/print/value-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
 

jbma

Senior Member
Dec 28, 2003
3,287
0
0
Tampines
#17
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.
 

erwinx

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2002
2,423
0
0
Visit site
#18
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.
 

AlvicTay

New Member
May 6, 2004
388
0
0
#19
Can the DPP open 10D or 300D RAW file for processing?
 

twiki

New Member
Oct 8, 2004
426
0
0
Mountain Time Zone
#20
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. :(


.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom