Hi there - been busy, hence delayed response.
Since posting i realized that it was not terribly clear what it meant.
And i have also found the problem, and a workaround..
I have found that the bottleneck is actually the cheap enclosure that
the hdd is in is asynchronous - being that the write speed is MUCH
slower than the read speed (we are talking 2hrs to copy 220GB off - and
around 4-5 to put back on...). Strange problem I know, but this is the
problem i have. This then brings me to the problem, being that
processing on the fly is very slow to write to the hdd.
After submitting the bug on launchpad about the camera developer setting
causing the orientation to be wrong (see
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/923325) - which you informed me was
known and being worked on, i found the feature to use the embedded jpg
and only create a duplicate when the contents are modified, rather than
putting a duplicate next to the RAW file. This will actually solve most
of the problems that i am facing as reading the RAW will be miles
quicker than shotwell attempting to process and read that jpg on first
read..
As far as the feature of shotwell developing all of the RAW files on
import - mine is not doing that at all, is it supposed to? Even with
Shotwell set as the developer on import it still develops and writes the
jpg on first view. In previous versions, on import shotwell would
import, then in the status bar a 'Processing RAW Files' status bar would
come up. But 0.11 does not. I have however found a workaround - filter
the RAW's in the total library view, select them all then Photos >
Developer > Shotwell (or Camera if i feel like rotating them all). This
does what i want it to do. With 40k+ RAW files this takes all night,
but does the trick. The first read is what i was talking about by
"on-demand" and obviously all at import was what i was referring to as
"batch"
Ideally, i would still love to see a feature that would allow storage of
shotwell developed or modified images (both jpg's and camera processed
RAWs) locally - even in the home folder - as if it was in the same
directory structure would be very easy to copy over if need be. Ideally
camera developed RAWs that dont put a duplicate would be the best
option, but until orientation issues are sorted, that is a little
problematic too.
I apologize if this is longwinded and sounds like a whinge - i really do
love shotwell, but like all things, has a few little quirks and
improvements that could be done :) Will be looking forward to 0.12 if
it has fixed the Camera developed RAW issues :)
Scott.
On 01/02/12 05:50, Adam Dingle wrote:
Scott,
On 01/29/2012 04:21 AM, Scott wrote:
Hi there,
Firstly, i'm unsure of wheather i am even in the right place, and as
this is my first post (and am unsure of how to check older posts) am
unsure wheather this has been raised before even.
You're in the right place. To check older posts, look at the archive
of messages previously sent to this list at
http://lists.yorba.org/pipermail/shotwell/ .
Thanks - Will Do..
But my question is, is it possible in future versions to have the
option, somewhere in the preferences, of where rendered RAW files are
stored? I used to be a little annoyed that it did store those files
in the home directory when my collection was stored locally on the
hdd. But now, for a few reasons, my collection is on an external
hdd, and rendering in the new version is in-line which makes
accessing and rendering much slower than it needs to be.
Are you sure that storing the external hard drive is really the
bottleneck? Which operations seem to be slow?
In the Shotwell preferences, have you set RAW Developer to Shotwell or
Camera? Unfortunately this is an area of Shotwell which is quite
buggy at this time - see http://redmine.yorba.org/issues/4691 and
http://redmine.yorba.org/issues/4692, for example. Our intent in 0.11
was that if the user sets the RAW Developer preference to Camera then
Shotwell should never develop a photo itself, which will greatly speed
importing and rendering. Unfortunately due to these bugs this is not
the case, and that may be the true cause of the slowness you're
perceiving. I hope we can improve the situation for 0.12.
For those that do use external drives, a feature like this could be
similar to imatch's offline caching of photo's (shotwell is what i
replaced imatch with). I am one that would copy the rendered JPG's
manually if i needed them and especially if they were in the same
folder hirachy as the library.
Also - another feature that would be handy is, again in preferences,
the option of batch rendering RAW or on-demand as the current version
does. I have always liked the batch proccessing of RAW files,
especially on first import from a fresh install, but i guess those
with in-line rendering would not have this problem.
I'm not sure I understand what this preference would do. If you set
RAW Developer to Shotwell, then Shotwell should render all RAW photos
at import time so they are available to display immediately when you
open them. If you set RAW Developer to Camera, then they should
always be immediately available since there is no rendering to be
done. Again, due to bugs this isn't exactly how things work today,
but that's the intent. I'm not sure whether you all call this "batch"
or "on-demand". Does this behavior seem reasonable to you, or do you
want the option for things to work differently?
adam
_______________________________________________
Shotwell mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.yorba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/shotwell
_______________________________________________
Shotwell mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.yorba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/shotwell
