I am editing my first large group of photo in Lightroom and the everything is nice except for the blurriness.
When I just move a slider one number the image goes blurry then re-focuses.
This is giving me a headache when trying to fine tune a photo, much less 400+.
My machine is Athlon 4200, 2 gig ram, dedicated FW 800 drive, XP.
Is there a way around this?
I can't believe Adobe would send this out the door thinking ''photographers won't mind this out of focus thing everytime they move a slider''.
I don't care about software coding ect..., this is a program for photographers and that is what we do, tweak every photo.
Thanks for any help.
Make a Change, blurry, Make another,...
This is from ''pixel doubling'' and it makes making changes drastically faster and smoother. Lots of programs use this approach including RSP and LR.
Make a Change, blurry, Make another,...
How could this make changes dramatically faster %26amp; smoother when the photo goes blurry for a simple brightness nudge?
In Bridge, moving the brightness slider is smooth and instant, not a hint of blurriness in between moves.
How could Lightroom's way be better than that?
The way pixel doubling works is to turn one pixel into many, then adjust those originals. If you have 1 pixel to adjust for every 9 on the screen, it runs 9 times faster. The price for this is that it has only 1/3 the linear resolution.
Don't know about Bridge. I could never get it to do anything useful.
Okay, I just tried the same operation (exposure adjustment) on the same image in Bridge and LR, both viewed at 1:1. In LR it is approximately 4 times faster.
Lee, we must be speaking of two different things here.
When in Lightroom (Raw File), even at 1:1, every change I make to a slider number (highlighting a field and using the up arrow to change the value by one number) results in the photo going blurry for a second or two then making the change and getting back to sharpness.
In Bridge (camera Raw), a slider move results in instant change in the photo without any blurriness.
Now is this different from your experience in Lightroom?
If so, do you know why my Lightroom is doing this?
Because 4 times faster is nowhere in the ballpark with my experience.
Do your photos go blurry when you move a slider?
Thanks
We're talking about the same thing. The ''blurry'' is pixel doubling as I said. I do see it. Some people see it as movement.
I did a test where I just slid the exposure slider up and down rapidly watching how many times it updated the screen per second. LR seemed to be updating about four times faster than ACR called from Bridge. Now, that version of ACR was quite a bit older than the version used in LR so that may be the reason, I don't know.
Lee, I have to ask this again,
How could Pixel doubling make changes dramatically faster %26amp; smoother when the photo goes blurry for a simple brightness nudge?
This only happens in PSCS2 inside the filter gallery preview.
From your posts, it sounds like this does not bother you?
It hurts my eyes to watch photo after photo go blurry with each slight exposure or brightness adjustment.
Is there any way to get Lightroom to behave like the ''slower'' Photoshop or Camera Raw?
%26gt; How could Pixel doubling make changes dramatically faster %26amp; smoother when the photo goes blurry for a simple brightness nudge?
I already explained this. Because it only has to update a small fraction of the pixels before you see the change!
Not only does this not bother me, but it was a request from the Beta period (from multiple users) that I was grateful for when it was implemented.
%26gt; LR seemed to be updating about four times faster than ACR called from Bridge.
I wonder if this is another Mac vs. PC thing, because I don't see much if any difference between ACR or Lightroom in screen update time. What is different, as Tim has pointed out, is that there is no pixel doubling going on in ACR; as you make small adjustments, the changes are very smooth and retain maximum sharpness. There's a ''clear'' advantage to ACR in this regard. :)
Tim,
You're not crazy. Yes I notice this too on my MacBook Pro C2D.
But I'm pretty much in Lee's camp. Trust me I have (or am cursed with) a discerning eye (I find the quality of 90% of previews in LR's 'Library' of unacceptable quality even when JPEG quality is set to 'high', for example); however, I don't mind the bit of blurriness due to the fact that moving sliders almost instantaneously updates the image. Works for impatient folk like myself...
In an ideal world, we'd just have a checkbox under 'Preferences' for this sort of behavior... perhaps as LR matures.
-Rishi
So there is not way to stop the blurriness?!
Camera Raw is so smooth on my computer, I just can't see Lightroom as an improvement.
I can literally move the mouse back and fourth on a slider as fast as I can and the image still changes smoothly in Camera Raw.
This seems like a flaw in Lightroom rather than a desired effect.
Lee you posted:
''Not only does this not bother me, but it was a request from the Beta period (from multiple users) that I was grateful for when it was implemented''.
Can I ask what we gain by using pixel doubling if the refesh speed is slower?
Is the image quality better?
I can't believe people would vote for a two second pause after every change.
%26gt; Can I ask what we gain by using pixel doubling if the refesh speed is slower?
The refresh speed is faster! It should take about the same time to get to the final, sharp image, but the ''blurry'' one goes way faster.
The steps are, update 1/4 of the image 4 times as fast, then update the other 3/4 if no other changes are requested.
On my system, looking at a 1:1 in ACR from Bridge on a 1920x1200 screen, changing the exposure slider results in perhaps 2 updates per second. In LR, the same thing is a little jumpy, but I'm guessing closer to 8 updates per second.
I am with Tim on this, in that the ''blurriness'' prevents one from easily assessing the cnages being applied. If the change was smooth, albeit a bit slower, the changes would be much easier to observe.
I know it is possible to view the before and after image side by side, but most of the time, I like to keep a single image on screen.
As has been suggested, it would be nice to have a preference option.
%26gt; I am with Tim on this, in that the ''blurriness'' prevents one from easily assessing the cnages being applied.
This is true regarding sharpening, but how can the pixel doubling inhibit your perception of the basic and tone controls?
Lee, as I said in my first post, I don't care about software coding.
I don't write the software, I just buy it and use it.
The fact is, Lightroom is slower to show the changes than ACR on my computer when one moves a slider.
I want to use Lightroom because I agree with its concept.
But it is more difficult to adjust photos due to this blurriness appearing with every slider move.
I am not against pixel doubling ect..., it seems I dislike the disruption of the sharpeness of the photo.
Is this the correct problem I am speaking of so we are on the same page?
You do not see a problem with a photo going out of focus with slider move?
Sorry to be argumentative, but I really can not understand where you are coming from.
The pixel doubling is the cause of the ''disruption of the sharpness'' that you are seeing, the reason is that this approach is faster by the amount of the ''doubling'' (if doubled, it's 4 times faster, if tripled, it's 9 times faster, etc. [actually this is an over-simplification but you get the idea]).
The fact for me is, LR is faster by a good bit than ACR when I move a slider (for the version of ACR I'm using). But I don't wait until the image shows up sharp to ''stop the clock''. As soon as the adjustment is made and shows up, even ''blurry'', it's done as far as I'm concerned, except for sharpening adjustments.
RSP used heavy pixel doubling and was often praised for that because moving the adjustment sliders created adjustments in a very smooth fashion.
Well, it hurts my eyes to look at something and watch it go out of focus.
Well PSSC has a toggle for this, maybe eventually LR will too, though it seems unlikely at this time.
Don
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
I'm so used to it, I don't even notice it *at all*.
Please Tim, back off. Be careful what you wish for. Can you imagine how slow LR rendering would be if it didn't have pixel doubling?
I hate it too and find that Bridge is faster to render the change. This should be fixed with a preset (a lack of presets in LR is a major fault) but the rendering engine should be improved before it is done.
I am going to e-mail adobe tech support and ask them about the performance difference between ACR and Lightroom.
I really like the color control inside of Lightroom and will stick with it, but I hope they can clean this up as it is kind of a show stopper for me.
BTW, I don't know anything about pixel doubling, and do not want to know either.
This attitude of 'I don't want to know anything about X, but I'm gonna go ahead and complain about it to no end' is just ridiculous.
People here are genuinely trying to help by *explaining* your observations, yet you simply say 'I don't wanna know about it'. If you took the time to *know* about it, or just listen to what someone is saying when they try and explain it to you, you might have a better idea of *why* this particular feature might be the way it is.
Only *then* can you engage in an intelligent conversation about the pros and cons of having or modifying said 'feature'.
Ignorance is not cool. Certainly not in these forums.
-Rishi
I thought he was going for the ''ignorance is bliss'' approach.
Okay Lee Jay, it's the same old mantra--attack people who point out LR weaknesses.
Do you know everything about everything? How about endocrinology--or more narrowly, human endocrinology? Is your ignorance of it bliss? Just what did you mean by that comment? He was asking for help, not an explaination of what was happening.
Are you perfectly skilled in first-generation programming languages? How about all scripting languages? How about something so low as agronomy? The Krebs cycle?
Lee Jay, should a photographer be well versed in ''pixel doubling'' to do their job effectively? Is that really important? How about first-generation programming languages? Or the Korn shell? It sounds like Tim is a photographer who would like to use LR in a way that helps him. Does he really need to know about ''pixel doubling'' to shoot and process better pictures? He just wants to do his job faster and better.
Sorry to see that the attitude of the MVC's (or whatever you were named or named yourselves) hasn't changed.
Tim, as for Adobe tech support, I spoke with them about these and other issues and their approach was, ''Gee, let's see. I try to do X on my computer and it takes Y seconds. Isn't LR great?'' In effect, live with it. Same as the LR defenders in these forums.
Thanks for your post Mark, I agree with you.
As for Lee or Rishi ect...
I can't say you have any valid points.
One should not have to have the knowledge of the code to use a program nor to decide if a program is easy to use or helps one complete a task.
Ignorance about topics that one does not have interest in is, what?
Lee, I don't know your background, or if you are a moderator here.
I appreciate your willingness to participate, but I feel for whatever reason you are trying to explain away issues with tech talk that favors this program.
Bottom line - This problem does not occur in Photoshop, so why should it occur in Lightroom?
I will let it rest and deal with it.
Thanks for your help.
The proper answer should be:
Lightroom uses botched pixel doubling algorithm, causing that the image jerks. This is not so in better quality programs, like RawShooter Pro, in which case these updates were not only drastically faster than in Lightroom, they were also stationary to your eye.
This jerking/blurring of the image in Lightroom has been meanwhile filed as a bug by David Metzger, moderator of the Pixmantec forum.
I find this image jerking maddening. In addition, with some graphics card by NVidia the entire image can jump sidewards several times by as much as the entire margin between the image left edge and the edge of the Lightroom window.
%26gt;Do you know everything about everything?
Nope. But when I need to learn something to suit my needs/wants, I do.
%26gt;He was asking for help, not an explanation of what was happening.
Sure, but now that he has an explanation for what is happening, he can intelligently conclude that nothing will fix the problem in LR as of now... hence, he can now make an informed decision about when and if to use LR.
Without that explanation, he would have been forced to make an uninformed decision. Unless you don't question what you're told and would have simply accepted a 'nope there's nothing you can do about the image going blurry' without any sort of follow-up inquiry or 'why?'
But, this is all more a philosophical discussion at this point and entirely OT, so, apologies for the late night ramblings.
Rishi
Clearly the effect of pixel doubling is a problem for some and not others. Accepting this to be the case and also recognising that that is the way LR is currently set up, one would hope that if Adobe value this sort of forum they will at least take note and offer alternatives.
But whatever happens don't let the forum descend into bickering. We are all photographers keen to make the best of Lightroom!
What the heck? You wanted to know why things go ''blurry'' and if it's a bug. I tried to explain why it's done (several times). You respond with:
''BTW, I don't know anything about pixel doubling, and do not want to know either.''
Okay, then just realize that it's a feature, not a bug. Period. I don't care at all if you want to remain ignorant. But people who want to be ignorant generally don't get a lot of respect from me.
Or many others.
Okay, can someone explain why this ''feature'' is missing from Bridge/ACR, Photoshop, Raw Shooter, etc., and yet those programs, from my point of view (and apparently others as well), seem to handle image manipulation in this capacity better?
Rishi, Don, and Lee Jay,
Explain to me how knowing the intricacies of pixel doubling will help Tim to deal with it. He can't fix it. Okay, so he's no longer ''ignorant.'' LR still does it and Bridge doesn't. That seemed to be the point of his post.
I once had a truck that significantly hesitated when moving from a standing stop. Did I need to know the intricacies of this wonderful ''feature'' or just its name and that it wasn't fixable? Since I didn't care about the details (I couldn't do a thing about it other than drive more carefully), did that mean I wanted to remain ignorant?
Some people don't need to know the details of everything they use. Not everyone is an electrical engineer. I appreciate the details but they weren't significant to Tim. I can understand both positions.
%26gt; Okay, can someone explain why this ''feature'' is missing from Bridge/ACR, Photoshop, Raw Shooter, etc.,
RSP uses heavy pixel doubling.
RSP uses heavy pixel doubling.
Ah... Fair enough. I didn't know that.
How about ACR and Photoshop however? I base my concerns over the current release of Lightroom because I compare performance with Lightroom to Bridge/ACR, IVMP/ACR, and Photoshop in general. What these other programs do very well, Lightroom has trouble with on the very same computer.
Oh, and to offer a little explanation, I see the pixel-doubling on my computer, but the refresh time is very small,
almost insignificant. I can see why people are complaining about it, but I can also see why people don't mind it. I am in the camp that it shouldn't be there, feature or not. If other image manipulation programs don't need it, then I don't understand why Lightroom does.
It doesn't help to try to explain bugs or design flaws to the Adobe apologists. They'll explain everything away and try to make you think it's a feature.
I agree with Thomas - it's botched code. One section of code among many that are botched. People were crying out for the next version of Lightroom almost since day 1 - and not just because of features, but because it's just not ready for prime-time.
I sure hope the next version is free to registered users. I'd hate to think anyone would have to pay for the pleasures of having a program that works correctly!
Well I posted the same question on a different forum and this is the first reply I recieved:
The raw file has to be developed each time a change is made. That is what is causing the delay. It does not happen in bridge because bridge is just just displaying a preview image.
Makes sense to me.
When you say, ''in Bridge'' do you really mean ''in Bridge'' or ''in ACR called from Bridge''? When I call ACR on a RAW from Bridge, it's updates are several times slower than LR, and that's why I like the pixel doubling that LR uses. And yes, the reason is that the RAW (cropped or down-sampled, depending on your current view) has to be re-converted at each adjustment.
RSP shows this very clearly and, when you let go, the little gear icons grind for quite a while before the image is finished converting. RSP uses even heavier pixel doubling than LR and is even smoother in its adjustments. Actually, I prefer that approach to LR's (more pixel doubling) for smoother transitions and adjustments.
This is not ''botched code''. As I said, it was even a feature request from the Beta forum.
I have the exact same thing happen on my brand-new PC. Core 2 Duo 2.6 Ghz, 2GB RAM, 7500 RPM SATA drives in RAID 0. Sadly, LR is unusably slow on this hardware...While ACR and CS3 Beta simply scream.
I really wish I could use LR, but I have gone back to ACR as LR is simply 2 slow to use on my PC. Sure hope they issue a patch here fairly soon, otherwise I've flushed $200..
There are many posts on ''unusably slow'' in LR. Have you tried any of those suggestions?
You already posted this elswhere, and there are reply posts, as well.
Once is enough.
Don
Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core running 10.4.9 %26amp; Win XP, Pentax *ist D
http://donricklin.blogspot.com/
I'd like to get back to Tim's original problem. Some internal testing has shown that an image can ''pixel double'' at an unacceptable level with severe pixelization or blurring of the image. This can be corrected by changing the zoom state then returning to the original zoom state. (I moved from Fit to 1:1 and back to Fit and the problem went away)
Tim, does this accurately describe your problem?
The normal pixel doubling should show a slight softening of pixels then move back into sharp focus as soon as the slider stops moving. It should show consistent performance across all images of the same megapixel dimension. Camera Raw has no pixel doubling enabled so the slider response is slower but the image never softens.
Tim, if this normal pixel doubling has a significant softening effect can you describe the edits that you are making, your zoom level and what file type/size that you're working with?
Regards,
Tom Hogarty
Adobe Systems
Tom can correct me here, but this is what I see and what I believe is normal since I see this on all four of the systems on which I've tested. This is a divx file so you'll need that codec to play it.
http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/pixel%20doubling.avi
Hello Tom,
Thanks for your presence.
I am working with RAW files from a Canon 5D at ''fit'' level zoom.
What is happening/bothering me is during small incrimental moves like one number at a time exposure or brightness moves using the up/down arrows.
I move these sliders a bit at a time to find the limit of exposure then pull them back.
Well, when I am doing this, the photo is jumping in and out of focus.
This makes seeing your changes as they happen rather difficult.
While ACR might be a lesser implementation, at least the movement of the sliders does not impair the vision of the changes made to the photo.
Maybe the Lightroom develop module could have an ''edit'' mode where this focus/out of focus could be disabled for heavy slider movement?
I tried changing the zoom levels and everything was left unchanged.
I also changed the preview quality to low from high and the same behavior was noted.
Thanks for your help Tom.
%26gt;Lee, I don't know your background, or if you are a moderator here.
He's the self appointed Fanboy of these forums. And woe betide anyone who dares suggest LR isn't perfect. as he'll 'ave you!
C'mon, ''troy'', you can do better than gratuitous ad hominems.
Troy,
You're a moron.
First of all, I've made it known on many occasions that I don't even use LR for RAW conversions yet because the image quality is too low (noise, sharpening, and fringing, mostly, plus the Canon orange-reds problem). I've also made dozens, if not hundreds of feature requests, from small to large, and posted a great many of them here usually by confirmation. I've also pointed out several times that LR is too modal in some areas, some of which are specific and some fundamental. I've also said on several occasions that Adobe's UIs tend to be the worst of any company I've seen (PS being right up there) and LR is only a half-step in the right direction, still needing plenty of work.
However, many people come here simply saying LR is junk and that the developers are stupid, without even knowing how to use it or without asking any questions. Such people get little mercy from me and deservedly so.
%26gt;I've made it known on many occasions that I don't even use LR for RAW conversions yet because the image quality is too low (noise, sharpening, and fringing, mostly, plus the Canon orange-reds problem).
So, what do you use it for?
JPEG edits right now, where it saves me unbelievable amounts of time compared to file-browser and PSE 3.0. I used to think the fact that I could edit 1 image per minute that way was pretty good. LR is averaging more like one order of magnitude faster than that!
In some situations I use it for RAWs (low ISO shoots - I've had some shoots like that lately, but they aren't my main thing). I also do a lot of testing and learning as I can see the writing on the wall. It says something like ''LR is about to be better overall for what you use it for, so you'd better get used to it and get working to get it into your full workflow.'' ;-)
''RSP uses heavy pixel doubling''
Lee, yes it does, but in my opinion more effectively than LR.
In RSP any change to a slider causes the image to go slightly out of focus, and, from i gather learning what you say about pixel doubling, is probably unavoidable.
However, In RSP the change is smooth, and modifications are easily followed. In LR, the changes are jerky, the whole image tends to 'jump out of its skin' (for lack of better term) almost like its about to zoom in, and thus its very difficult to follow major, let alone slight modifications.
Hopefully the RSP designer now with LR, can help improve this function.
Brad
No comments:
Post a Comment