Nikon Capture 4.xx RAW converter

[Canis Vulpes]

I have been really happy with the output quality of Nikon Capture 4.xx but its real slow. I have the latest version and it takes 2-5 minutes to apply noise reduction and a similar time to convert and pass to photoshop. At first I did not mind because the quality is high but the speed issue is putting me off as I can only work on one photo per hour or so...

Two questions:-

Can Nikon Capture be configured to run faster, hardware upgrade is out of the question.

What RAW converter, if any has a similar high quality output but with much faster operation.

Computer hardware is as follows:-
Athlon XP 2800+
XP Pro
1GB Ram

[robski]

Stephen

Does the software have a recommended Hardware spec ?

Is there a lot of disk activity when it processes file ? It could be your disk drive is the limiting factor and a faster Drive would help a lot.

The Athlon is a very basic CPU and is OK for most programs. It maybe the program wants to use features in the higher spec CPUs which are missing in the Athlon and ends up using a long winded squence with commands available in the Athlon.

I know one of the frebie Canon raw converter won't run on my AMD PC at home but will on my Intel PC at work.

[Roy C]

[quote=robski]Stephen

"The Athlon is a very basic CPU and is OK for most programs. It maybe the program wants to use features in the higher spec CPUs which are missing in the Athlon and ends up using a long winded squence with commands available in the Athlon."

I do not agree that the Athlon is a very basic CPU - I consider them to be equal if not better than the same speed Intel pentiums. AMD do make a basic CPU but this is a 'Duron' which is akin to the Intel Celerons.
I agree that the 2800 is not the speediest by todays standards but neither is the equivilent speed Pentium.
My last three PC's have all been Athlons and I have never had any performance problems (currently running a Athlon 3400 - 64bit CPU).

[Canis Vulpes]

Nikon Capture takes around 5 mins per complex operation but Bibble is instant. The computer specification is higher than the minimum Nikon suggest and I am aware its known to be very slow.

I believe that a computer should be upgraded when it does not perform acceptably or has failed. Photoshop CS2 performs to my satisfaction but NC dos not.

If I can divert to question two by rephrasing it...

What RAW converter is renowned for quality output, similar to NC. I am thinking of trying another but appreciate the views of other members.

I have tried RAW shooter but did not like the way sharpness is added in the viewer without any control. Bibble I also have but find it complex, learning is not an issue but I found NC easier to use but slow, I payed for NC but trialled Bibble.

[Nigel G]

Originally Posted by Stephen Fox

I have tried RAW shooter but did not like the way sharpness is added in the viewer without any control.

Have a look at RAW Shooter Premium. In addition to now being able to vary sharpening it has also got tools for Levels & Curves, Noise suppression, Saturation Hue & Vibrance, Croping, Rotating/Straightening. It also supports a side by side comparison of up to 4 RAW images to check for the best quality shot and a good system for sorting and batch processing.

I've also just timed a conversion to JPEG at 12 secs and my PC is an Athlon 2400 with 512 RAM! I can't compare it with NC as I've never used anything else but its worth a look.

It is now $99 +VAT but I think you can download a 15 day trial first.

http://www.pixmantec.com/

[yelvertoft]

Which version of Photoshop are you running? Adobe Camera Raw is a free plugin for photoshop but not all versions of ACR will run with all versions of photoshop. Strangely enough, ACR V3.x doesn't work with CS, but does work with elements 3 or higher! I find it works very quickly with my Athlon 3200 and 1GB RAM.

Duncan.

Some more info here:
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/cameraraw.html

[Canis Vulpes]

I am not keen of the quality of ACR when compared with Nikon Capture. I have now found a way to dramatically increase processing speed.

NEVER use the multiviewer, it must load lots of images and hold in RAM strangling the core application. Instead view thumbnails in windows and drag one for processing into Capture. I mainly use the camera at airshows so each folder/session must hold approx 350 images so it was really bloating Capture. This way only one image is held in RAM, the one that is being processed.

Now noise reduction takes two SECONDS and transfer to photoshop around 90 seconds which is excellent compared to using the multiviewer.

[Don Hoey]

Thanks for that Stephen, a bit worried on my old system if I was to move up to 4.xx.

I am currently on 3.5 and do not have multiviewer so speed has not really been the same issue as for you.

From your previous thread ' 2/3rds difference between RAW convertors ' . I was a bit concerned about how other converters might affect colour, and as Nikon Capture does not influence them I wanted to stay with the product. From the histograms in that post I was sure Bibble ( a well known converter ) would have some influence.

Don

[Leif]

Originally Posted by Stephen Fox

I have been really happy with the output quality of Nikon Capture 4.xx but its real slow. I have the latest version and it takes 2-5 minutes to apply noise reduction and a similar time to convert and pass to photoshop. At first I did not mind because the quality is high but the speed issue is putting me off as I can only work on one photo per hour or so...

Two questions:-

Can Nikon Capture be configured to run faster, hardware upgrade is out of the question.

What RAW converter, if any has a similar high quality output but with much faster operation.

Computer hardware is as follows:-
Athlon XP 2800+
XP Pro
1GB Ram

The most obvious speed gain can be obtained by doubling your RAM. You should notice an improvement even adding 512MB.

The AMD processors are supposed to be very good indeed.

Unfortunately NC is slow, even on my 3GHz Pentium with 1.5 GB RAM. Disk speed probably also makes a difference, so maybe getting a SATA disk (if your motherboard allows) and using it for the scratch file can help, though I am guessing here.

There is a free RAW converter, being pushed by Andy Rouse, which is well respected. You could always give it a try. Unfortunately I like NC due to the near perfect CA removal and quality RAW conversion.

Leif

[robski]

Originally Posted by Leif

Disk speed probably also makes a difference, so maybe getting a SATA disk (if your motherboard allows) and using it for the scratch file can help, though I am guessing here.

Leif

I Guess if the drive light come on during processing will give you the clue.