Nikon Z6 Raw Files slowing ACR significantly

[Stagecoach]

Group processing Raw files from the Z6 by opening 10 files into ACR, working on each indavidually I have just found is unworkable due to slow response. By slow response I refer to after having moved a slider it is some seconds (2 to 5) before the adjustment takes place and I'm able to start the next adjustment. This appears to be cumalitive the more I do.

The Z6 Raw files are approx 31.0 MB each.

On the other hand I can load 10 D800 Raw files into ACR of approx 37.5 MB each with absolutely no concerns regarding slow response whatsoever. This is something I have been doing for years.

Observations/Clues;

a) I don't believe it's my computer processor because I have undertaken the comparrison today, Z6 then D800 without anything changing.

b) Both cameras are set to 14bit, full size raw, lossless compression saving.

c) It is appartent when looking at image folders 'details' in Win 10 Explorer there is a lag as it goes through the Z6 files.

d) D800 files - 7360 x 4912, Z6 files - 6048 x 4024

At present I'm stumped as to the cause and any ideas will be much appreciated as it's a mega downside to my workflow.

Grahame

[Manfred M]

Very strange. Intuitively I would have expected the Z6 files to run faster because they are smaller than the D800 files.

The only thing that pops into my head is that the processing for the Z6 might not be optimized as well as for the older camera. The problem with any parametric editor is that it has to run every step over again when making a new edit. When I use ACR to edit multiple images, I do all the edits on a single image and then copy those edits to the other ones I am applying the same adjustments too. That gives me the speed of working on a single image. It can take several seconds as the adjustments are applied to the other files I have copied my original edits to.

I thought LR can be run the same way as ACR.

[Stagecoach]

Very strange. Intuitively I would have expected the Z6 files to run faster because they are smaller than the D800 files.

That's what I would have thought also.

The only thing that pops into my head is that the processing for the Z6 might not be optimized as well as for the older camera.

That's a possibility but I have not come across any references or concerns by others regarding this. ACR certainly recognises the camera and lens.

The problem with any parametric editor is that it has to run every step over again when making a new edit. When I use ACR to edit multiple images, I do all the edits on a single image and then copy those edits to the other ones I am applying the same adjustments too. That gives me the speed of working on a single image. It can take several seconds as the adjustments are applied to the other files I have copied my original edits to.

Where I need the facility to edit quickly in ACR is after event shooting and all images are different when mostly it's a matter of cropping, global highlights, exp and shadows then the occasional local shadow boost of such things as faces. It's also great being able to select a number that all require the same WB adjustment. From ACR I will then select all, downsize and save to a folder where they are uploaded for web viewing.

I thought LR can be run the same way as ACR.

I never use LR for work on the raws but I may give it a try to see if there's any difference in response.

What I will do is undertake a further comparrison between the Z6/D800 file working response times by taking 10 shots of the same scene of busy vegitation with each camera

[Stagecoach]

Further controlled comparrison testing.

I took 10 shots in raw 14 bit lossless compressed of the same scene with each camera, these were then downloaded into sub directories in Win 10 explorer;

D800 directory : 10 files - 7360 x 4912 - 42 Meg
Z6 directory : 10 files - 6048 x 4024 - 31 Meg

All as you would expect until you open the directories and the behaviour confirms earlier observations;

Clicking on the D800 directory in 'View Details Mode' all 10 files with details show up instantly.

Clicking on the Z6 directory in 'View Details Mode' it takes 5 seconds for the dates to show from the first to last file.

There is something strange going on with these files.

I then opened the 10 D800 files in PS ACR, made a number of changes to different images with all responses being instantaneous. I selected all and saved them to a folder, it took 15 seconds which I consider normal.

I then opened the 10 Z6 files in PS ACR, made a number of changes to different images and after about 5 alterations the responses became slower. I selected all and saved them to a folder, it took 1 minute 35 seconds, unusually long.

The same also happens when undertaking the comparrisons on my laptop.

I'm stumped still

[xpatUSA]

Group processing Raw files from the Z6 by opening 10 files into ACR, working on each indavidually I have just found is unworkable due to slow response. By slow response I refer to after having moved a slider it is some seconds (2 to 5) before the adjustment takes place and I'm able to start the next adjustment. This appears to be cumalitive the more I do.

Can't help you Grahame but I had a similar experience when Sigma brought out their "Merrill" series while I was still on Windoze XP.

I bought a DP2 Merrill camera and dutifully downloaded the required latest converter. Moving a slider caused up to a minute wait as their bloody converter redid every slider setting from scratch! (that's what it's always done, unlike other converters). OK for the previous model with it's 12MP raws but 40-50MP, ... fuhgeddaboudit.

It was so bad that I sold the camera within a fortnight ...

P.S. by Sigma standards, 2 to 5 secs is positively streakin' ...

[Stagecoach]

Can't help you Grahame but I had a similar experience when Sigma brought out their "Merrill" series while I was still on Windoze XP.

I bought a DP2 Merrill camera and dutifully downloaded the required latest converter. Moving a slider caused up to a minute wait as their bloody converter redid every slider setting from scratch! (that's what it's always done, unlike other converters). OK for the previous model with it's 12MP raws but 40-50MP, ... fuhgeddaboudit.

It was so bad that I sold the camera within a fortnight ...

P.S. by Sigma standards, 2 to 5 secs is positively streakin' ...

I'm starting to wonder if an upgrade of my computer could 'mask' the slowness.

It has to be something weird about these Z6 Neff files that upsets my processor

[DanK]

I don't have any Nikons, so I have no personal experience, but I did a quick DuckDuckGo search and found quite a number of complaints about slowdowns with ACR v. 12. It's clear from those posts that it only affects some users, but I didn't explore long enough to see whether anyone had identified the cameras the affected people use. I wonder whether Z6 users were among them. So an ill-informed guess is that this is a bug that will be fixed.

[Stagecoach]

Yes there are many complaints regarding slowdowns of the latest ACR version Dan and these also affected me with D800 files.

I reverted back and remain on the previous version primarily because the crop tool had been 'altered' making it a pain to use when working on multiple images.

[xpatUSA]

I'm starting to wonder if an upgrade of my computer could 'mask' the slowness.

That it could. -I went from a single-core Pentium HP Windows XP to a four-core i5 Dell Windows 7 -but still running the same Sigma Photo Pro 5.5.3 and the said slowness went from unacceptable to tolerable.

[Stagecoach]

An Update ...........................................

After extensive comparison testing I'm coming to the conclusion that the Z6 Nef files for some reason are more difficult for Windows 10 to deal with than the D800 larger Nef files. The CPU is bottoming out

These are the results of opening 10 off Nef files of the D800 and then Z6 and looking at whats happening in task manager. The files were unaltered and had no sidecar file attached. The slowness mimicks that experienced when just opening a directory in explorer of them.

Whilst it's obvious a 'bigger better' computer may mask this I'm still finding it strange

[xpatUSA]

An Update ...........................................

After extensive comparison testing I'm coming to the conclusion that the Z6 Nef files for some reason are more difficult for Windows 10 to deal with than the D800 larger Nef files. The CPU is bottoming out

These are the results of opening 10 off Nef files of the D800 and then Z6 and looking at whats happening in task manager. The files were unaltered and had no sidecar file attached. The slowness mimicks that experienced when just opening a directory in explorer of them.

Whilst it's obvious a 'bigger better' computer may mask this I'm still finding it strange

I make that 13sec versus 36sec at 50% utilization level. Quite a difference. Interested because my CPU is also 4-core i5 and pretty speedy on my Dell under Win 7 Pro.

Good luck with fixing the Z6 .nef issue ...

[DanK]

Why do you think this is a problem with the OS? I would assume that it lies with ACR. It's ACR that is reading the files and converting them. It's odd that there doesn't seem to be a mess of posts on the internet about this.

[Manfred M]

+1 to Dan's comment. This is most likely a problem with the ACR engine and what it needs to do in order to process the raw data and turn that into an image, with edits.

[Stagecoach]

Why do you think this is a problem with the OS?

I have considered the OS because as mentioned earlier it also takes considerably longer to open a directoy of 10 x Z6 smaller Nefs files than it does to open a directory of 10 x D800 larger Nef files. This is happening in the OS, even before I do anything within ACR.

[Stagecoach]

This is most likely a problem with the ACR engine and what it needs to do in order to process the raw data and turn that into an image, with edits.

The above 'saving times' test is without anything having been altered and edited.

[Manfred M]

The above 'saving times' test is without anything having been altered and edited.

Understood, but the raw processor still has to construct an image from the raw data so that it can be displayed on the screen, before you can do any edits. If your CPU is hitting 100% utilization, it must be doing some number crunching.

[Stagecoach]

Understood, but the raw processor still has to construct an image from the raw data so that it can be displayed on the screen, before you can do any edits. If your CPU is hitting 100% utilization, it must be doing some number crunching.

Manfred, the speed of opening the 10 x Z6 Nefs in ACR did not 'appear' slower but I have not looked at task manager whilst doing this and comparing with D800 files as above. I'll do a test with that later today and also do similar using Nikon NX to see what that reveals.

I have just uploaded some 125 Nefs from the Z6 having shot a race this morning only to find I had left the camera on 'Nef Uncompressed', this should be fun

Presently I have enquiries out here for a new computer, so far, SATA HD and 8GB ram is all I have found

[DanK]

I have just uploaded some 125 Nefs from the Z6 having shot a race this morning only to find I had left the camera on 'Nef Uncompressed', this should be fun

This may be farfetched, but I think there is a fighting chance that these uncompressed files will be less of a problem, not more. Please post if you find out one way or the other. I was struggling to figure out why the OS would be troubled by the type of file. The method of compression could be one reason, I suspect.

[Stagecoach]

This may be farfetched, but I think there is a fighting chance that these uncompressed files will be less of a problem, not more. Please post if you find out one way or the other. I was struggling to figure out why the OS would be troubled by the type of file. The method of compression could be one reason, I suspect.

"Farfetched" maybe, but here's what happened.

I loaded a first set of 8 off 42 to 47 MB Nefs into ACR and carried out my edits consisting of both global and local where needed and response with all adjustments was instantaneous. Selecting 'all' and saving as 1700px wide 350k max file size took some minutes (longer than same MB D800 files) but this really is not a concern and gives a chance for a quick break.

This was repeated for 130 odd images with exactly the same good instaneous adjustments responses and similar saving time with sets ranging between 8 and 15 files opened.

Why, I can not confirm but for now I will continue to shoot 'uncompressed'. The only downside to this at present is that my only useable card is a 32GB Sony XQD and although I have 128GB CFexpress cards I'm unable to update the firmware yet to accept these.