When does Luminar NEO come out the alpha version?

Answered

Comments

6 comments

  • Avatar
    Helena Carter

    Hi Alessandro Varini,

    I'm really sorry you are not satisfied with Luminar Neo performance.

    Usually, the performance depends on the number of photos you have in your catalog, their format (it can take a bit more time to load RAW or TIFF files), your hardware configuration, and the place where you store your photos (it works faster when the photos are located on an internal drive).

    Nevertheless, we are constantly improving the speed of the app to provide our artists with the best quality. In fact, it's one of our top priorities at the moment. 

    Could you please let us know the following:

    • How many images are there in your Library? Please send us a screenshot of your Catalog file structure as in the example: 

    Please make sure we can see the total number of photos added and all the folders.

     

    • Where are they located (on an internal or external drive)?
    • What's the format and size of files you're working with?
    • What’s your major concern in terms of performance? (e.g. RAW file rendering speed, export speed, etc.)
    • How much time does it take to export an image? / How much time does it take to apply an adjustment to an image?
    •  

    Next, could you try creating a new catalog adding fewer photos, and see if the issue persists? In the top bar menu choose File > Catalog > New

    Try adding folders one by one. Avoid adding big folders like your Drive one.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Alessandro Varini

    The problem is that catalog is quite empty... I mean, I 've just a folder of raw files inside.
    I tried with my Mac (not so new, but not so bad about performance) and I tried on a new pc i7 12th with a Nvidia rtx3060ti, and working with raw is the same nightmare!
    I love the program, but really, I'm loosing the will to use it!

    Using it with jpg files become better, but it still takes ages to preview the image and export it!!

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Tania Taylor

    Hi Alessandro Varini!

    Could you please reach out to us at skylum.com/support so that we could investigate your specific case and recommend you some solutions? We'll appreciate your message.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Member

    I have already written it in many places here in the forum, but I like to repeat it again.

    The performance of Luminar, besides the variables Helena mentioned, is mostly dependent on pure CPU performance.

    Your i7 is a potent CPU, but unfortunately a bottleneck for Luminar. Even an Apple Silicon M1 is faster, which you immediately notice in NEO's performance. So the faster the CPU, the faster Luminar runs, although the scaling is not linear.

    Their graphics card from Nvidea, while good, is completely irrelevant to Luminar. What the Skylum team always likes to leave under the table in terms of performance is that Luminar does not use the GPU for image calculations. It also doesn't use the Neural Engine in the Apple Silicon chips. This is the real bottleneck of Luminar.

    And this is where the necessary further development of NEO comes in. Skylum has to use the GPU for the calculations. And with Apple Silicon Chips, the use of the Neutal Engine is obligatory. This way, the performance of older PCs can be increased considerably.

    On the other hand, in my tests the size and complexity of the folders and the place where the folders are stored had no relevant effect on performance. I have tested this with RAWs, TIFFs, JPEGs, PNGs and HEICs from one image in a folder up to 12000 images in a folder, each with several subfolders and in each of them again several subfolders.

    That a RAW image takes longer to be rendered is obvious. Especially if some edits have been made to it. A TIFF image is rendered faster because it already has a target format defined. Jpeg images are the fastest because, like TIFF images, they represent a target format and the file is also very small.

    In terms of performance, many of the responses from Skylum staff are more marketing. The actual bottlenecks are not addressed. And this is where the development team, i.e. the programmers must start in the next stage of further development of the software.

    But I have hope, so far NEO seems to be on the right track. And considering how long it took other software companies to get their software presentable, Skylum is actually doing pretty well with NEO.

    2
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Alessandro Varini

    20 seconds to get the proper preview of a jpg file (11mb)... Think about having a client watching the pictures with you. Of course he can get annoyed!!

    0
    Comment actions Permalink
  • Avatar
    Member

    20 seconds for a jpeg is of course very long. Which surprises me, because with me it goes much more quickly. Unprocessed, all formats (CR2 RAW, jpeg, HEIC and PNG) are displayed immediately.

    Processed the display of the image then takes a little longer, depending on what I have done with the images. A CR2 RAW then takes between 2-5 seconds to render. A Jepg renders in 1-2 seconds for me, HEICs take between 1-4 seconds depending on what I've done with them.

    All images are stored locally on the SSD, my folder contains almost 13,000 images.

    0
    Comment actions Permalink

Please sign in to leave a comment.