Speeding up file load times

[79wjd]

I've got a first world problem right here.... 

 

I have over 500gb of photos to go through (most are 16-20MB RAWs) but I keep putting it off because it's a pain to do especially since each picture takes maybe half a second to load (which might not be much, but it makes comparing pictures VERY difficult and very time consuming -- 30,000 pictures * .5 second each is like 4 hours of work if I just sit there hitting next). 

 

So is there any way to eliminate that load time? I've tried throwing the pictures on a RAMDisk, but that doesn't seem to improve anything. 

[tbroadwater2010]

I've got a first world problem right here.... 

 

I have over 500gb of photos to go through (most are 16-20MB RAWs) but I keep putting it off because it's a pain to do especially since each picture takes maybe half a second to load (which might not be much, but it makes comparing pictures VERY difficult and very time consuming -- 30,000 pictures * .5 second each is like 4 hours of work if I just sit there hitting next). 

 

So is there any way to eliminate that load time? I've tried throwing the pictures on a RAMDisk, but that doesn't seem to improve anything. 

A good bet for you would be to get another SSD in the 750GB range and keep them on there. That should speed up your load times. Im assuming you have them on your HDD now since your sig shows only 250GB SSD

[tomaatvk]

You could always comress them with a macro and something like paint into a different folder, look through the compressed ones and after that set up a macro to delete the RAWs of which you deleted the compressed versions (or something like that idk).

[Prikk]

You could always comress them with a macro and something like paint into a different folder, look through the compressed ones and after that set up a macro to delete the RAWs of which you deleted the compressed versions (or something like that idk).

 

I'm sure he wanted some solution for his convenience. That is NOT convenient

[79wjd]

A good bet for you would be to get another SSD in the 750GB range and keep them on there. That should speed up your load times. Im assuming you have them on your HDD now since your sig shows only 250GB SSD

A ramdisk should be drastically faster than any SSD I could throw at it, and even that didn't drastically improve load times compared to the speeds I got off my SSD. 

 

You could always comress them with a macro and something like paint into a different folder, look through the compressed ones and after that set up a macro to delete the RAWs of which you deleted the compressed versions (or something like that idk).

Any kind of compression would likely deteriorate the photos, and some of them are virtually identical other than slight differences (hence why they're still in RAW) -- I could probably convert them all to .jpegs (which I can easily do in one shot) and probably significantly reduce the loading times. 

[tomaatvk]

I'm sure he wanted some solution for his convenience. That is NOT convenient

 

As far as I understood he didn't wanna waste his time waiting for it to finish loading sitting at his screen, with that solution you can compress everything without having to be at the screen.

 

 

Any kind of compression would likely deteriorate the photos, and some of them are virtually identical other than slight differences (hence why they're still in RAW) -- I could probably convert them all to .jpegs (which I can easily do in one shot) and probably significantly reduce the loading times. 

 

I know it will deteriorate the quality and that you have the RAWs for a reason but it will speed the loading time up for the ones that are still different at lower quality.

[79wjd]

As far as I understood he didn't wanna waste his time waiting for it to finish loading sitting at his screen, with that solution you can compress everything without having to be at the screen.

 

 

 

I know it will deteriorate the quality and that you have the RAWs for a reason but it will speed the loading time up for the ones that are still different at lower quality.

It's an option, but I'd still much rather avoid that route. 

 

The only thing that I didn't try with a RAMDISK is I'm pretty sure I did it with my RAM running at 1600mhz....so I could try overclocking that to 2400mhz and hope maybe that would help. Would a VRAMDISK be possible? since VRAM is optimized for handling large texture files quickly so the GPU can push out high framerates. 

[tomaatvk]

The only thing that I didn't try with a RAMDISK is I'm pretty sure I did it with my RAM running at 1600mhz....so I could try overclocking that to 2400mhz and hope maybe that would help. Would a VRAMDISK be possible? since VRAM is optimized for handling large texture files quickly so the GPU can push out high framerates. 

 

In recent days I did some testing with RAMDISKs and I got a read speed of 7055MB/s @1866MHz and 6946MB/s @1600MHz (both measured while running windows so some of the bandwidth was already used), overclocking does make a difference. As for the VRAMDISK, I have no idea if it's possible.