1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Olympus Viewer 3 speed -- Mac vs. PC

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by twalker294, Jun 28, 2013.

  1. twalker294

    twalker294 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    543
    Aug 18, 2010
    So this morning I got a new work computer to replace my aging laptop. It's nothing special at all -- HP desktop, 3 Ghz Core2Duo, 4 gigs RAM, Windows 7. My Mac is a Macbook Pro, 2.4 Ghz Core2Duo, 4 gigs RAM, running Mountain Lion. So the specs of the two are pretty similar with the only real differences being the nominal difference in CPU speed and of course operating system.

    I installed OV3 on the PC to see what the difference in speed would be. I was blown away. On the PC, it's MUCH more responsive when making edits, browsing through pictures, etc. And the RAW to TIFF conversion time is right around 1/2 what it is on my Mac -- around 15 seconds per pic on the PC vs. 25-30 on the Macbook. I was honestly shocked. But the conversion time isn't the real tangible difference. The whole interface on the PC version is just so much quicker.

    This tells me that Olympus has put very little effort into optimizing the code for the Mac version and that's pretty disappointing to me.

    I guess my point in posting this is to get some sympathy for those of us who are using OV3 on a Mac. We are in much more pain than the PC folks. Well, I say "we" -- I'll be using it on my work computer from this point forward. Just gotta try to profile this crappy monitor now.
     
  2. kevinparis

    kevinparis Cantankerous Scotsman

    Feb 12, 2010
    Gent, Belgium
    doesn't really surprise me... in 14 years of using digital cameras, the software provided with the camera has been universally cr*p. I understand they are obliged to offer some solution.. but they never seem to deliver something that works as well as third party company with dedicated experience of delivering software for either platform.

    It is understandable that the Mac side is seen as a smaller platform, but camera manufacturer software always looks and feels like it has been written by some guys who havent looked at the larger world of software for at least 10 years.

    And before anybodys says.. "see PC's are faster than macs"... this has nothing to do with the inherent speeds of the two platforms, more the inability or unwillingness to invest in good guys to write their software.

    I suppose they have done their sums and reckon its cheaper to build crappy software inhouse rather than licence from Adobe or Capture one as Leica do

    Personally I am sticking to my Mac and Aperture... I will have OV installed for firmware updates.. nothing more

    K
     
  3. twalker294

    twalker294 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    543
    Aug 18, 2010
    There are other threads here discussing OV3 and the general consensus among those of us who have used it and compared it to LR or Aperture is that the output from OV is far superior. I will continue to use it despite it being poorly written and slow. The final output is what matters to me and OV delivers the goods. I just wish it was better on my Mac.
     
  4. kevinparis

    kevinparis Cantankerous Scotsman

    Feb 12, 2010
    Gent, Belgium
    i have no doubt you can get superb results out of OV... I wouldn't expect it to do otherwise... but if you run multiple camera systems and want fast processing and flexible delivery of your images, its hard to argue that LR/Aperture/Capture1 etc don't offer a better solution.

    K
     
  5. chipbutty

    chipbutty Mu-43 Veteran

    I find OV completely unusable on my Mac. A very poor deal for Mac using Olympus owners.
     
  6. RobWatson

    RobWatson Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Actually, I have not seen threads showing OV3 versus Aperture so I'd be interested in seeing that - particularly for shadow details (that is where LR fails). I don't do Mac and will never buy Aperture so mostly just curious.
     
  7. CiaranCReilly

    CiaranCReilly Mu-43 Veteran

    481
    Oct 18, 2012
    Dublin
    Ciaran Reilly
    Just started using Olympus Viewer 3 on my MacBook Pro after getting used to Aperture RAW processing over the last three or four months - wow is it slow!! Using a mid-2010 2.6GHz C2D MBP with 8GB RAM, so it's definitely not down to a slow machine. It's really frustrating because I'm liking it a lot more than Aperture for tweaking RAW files. As an Olympus-only person I'm really liking the controls (especially the way some match in-camera settings, makes it all very comfortable) and the output, but will have to see if I can live with the speed. Dumping my edits out as high quality JPG for import and cataloguing in Aperture, I could not imagine sorting through a large library in OV3!

    Anyone have any suggestions for improving the speed of OV3 on Mac?
     
  8. flash

    flash Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Apr 29, 2010
    1 hour from Sydney Australia.
    Gordon
    While I'm certain that software can be far better optimised for one platform over the other, are you really sure you're comparing like systems? Hard drive speed, capacity and prercentage used weren't mentioned. The ram is definately different in type and MacBooks aren't known for their earth shattering graphics cards.It's like saying all 16MP cameras have the same performance.

    Gordon
     
  9. gochugogi

    gochugogi Mu-43 Veteran

    You can't do anything about bad coding but you can speed up your system if you're willing to throw money at it: max out the RAM and install SSD or, even better, SSD RAID. Performance Upgrades; FireWire USB SATA Storage; Memory, more at OWC has some of the fastest SSD and, if you're willing to dump your optical drive, you can mount a SSD in the normal drive spot plus the optical bay and format as RAID.

    I have a Mac Pro with 24GB RAM and SSD RAID. PS and Aperture performance improved 10 fold over the stock 6GB RAM and mechanical HD. But, yeah, OV3 is pretty sluggish compared to even Canon's DPP. The DPP interface is clunky but RAW conversion is fast. Since I use so many different cameras I try to stick to Aperture for RAW unless a file is really problematic.
     
  10. wanderenvy

    wanderenvy Mu-43 Regular

    153
    May 11, 2012
    You are comparing a desktop against a laptop.

    Core2Duo is an Intel brand name and does not describe what's under the hood. The desktop Core2Duo CPU likely gets more done at the same clock speed, supports more parallel threads, has a larger cache and a faster memory. It can afford to do so because it can consume more power, something that the laptop CPU is designed not to do.

    A 2X performance difference is quite possible. Add in the possibility that Olympus has not optimized OV for the Mac and your result is not surprising.

    Try it on a Windows 7 laptop if you want to make it an apple-to-apples comparison (ha!).

    Quite tragically, running OV on an iMac might not make a difference either as Apple uses laptop CPUs in iMacs to help with the cooling in the slim body. And they haven't released an updated Mac Pro in years now where they do use high end desktop CPUs. (A new one is in the wings and will likely cost an arm and a leg.)
     
  11. M4/3

    M4/3 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    713
    Sep 24, 2011
    I have a 2.8 GHz 2008 model iMac with Intel Core 2 Duo only 2 GB of RAM and it handles OV 2 & 3 fine - most edits take only a few seconds and it takes around 20 seconds to convert a E-PL1 RAW to jpg and about 30 seconds to convert a E-M5 RAW to jpg.
     
  12. dejongj

    dejongj Mu-43 Veteran

    230
    Jun 3, 2013
    Whipsnade, UK
    Jean-Paul
    I tried it on my MacBook Air with haswell i7, 8GB Ram, 512SSD and what a rubbish app. Gosh it is so slow, just not useable. I only tried it as the pen 5 raw files don't work in aperture yet but wasn't expecting it to be that bad.
     
  13. CiaranCReilly

    CiaranCReilly Mu-43 Veteran

    481
    Oct 18, 2012
    Dublin
    Ciaran Reilly
    Thanks for the responses but I'm really comparing OV3 vs Aperture on a given system, Aperture does RAW work at (subjectively) three or four times the speed of OV3 on my system. Just wondering was there any strategies that anyone had to get it running faster, i.e. turn off something, don't run something else in the background etc. From what dejongj says, system specs seem not to matter :)
     
  14. Swandy

    Swandy Mu-43 Veteran

    362
    Dec 15, 2009
    I am currently running Aperture and OV3 on an mid-2011 iMac with 12GB Ram. And to me OV3 is just as much a dog slow program as were the earlier versions. (Though this is the only version that I really played with RAW files on the iMac because Aperture still does not support the EP5 RAW files.)
    As far as the look of the RAWs out of either Aperture and OV2 (this was when I was using earlier Olympus cameras - EM5, XZ1 and XZ2), Viewer did a better job IMHO of duplicating the "olympus color" than Aperture - as you would expect. However, I felt that the Aperture results were a bit more natural looking and presented me with as good base starting point for my PP.
     
  15. CiaranCReilly

    CiaranCReilly Mu-43 Veteran

    481
    Oct 18, 2012
    Dublin
    Ciaran Reilly
    I think I am coming to the same conclusion - ran a batch of well-lit nature photographs through Viewer with a few tweaks applied and absolutely loved the output, very Olympus-like, but I've been working with a more challenging set of urban photographs with bad exposure, and was a lot more happy with the results I achieved with Aperture.