RAW files taking a long time to import

[realdereal]

Hi there. I usually shot in jpeg but decided I was going to be mainly shooting RAW from now on but forgot I was still in RAW mode when I snapped about 30 or so pics of some visiting friends.

Took the SD card to get some prints made. They can't read the files. Oops they are in RAW.
Go back to the house, open photoshop etc. They can't read it from the camera. I make a folder in my portable hard drive then put the raw files in there then grab them from there using photoshop to batch import/convert to jpeg.

ok

#1. It took 15 minutes to put 30 or so RAW files from the camera to my hard drive. (Waaa?)
What happens when I need to import 500??

#2. It took as long or worse for photoshop to the convert each and all those to jpeg.

I can't imagine taking hours to upload hundreds of pics, apply actions etc. Even in batch is taking forever. Am I doing something wrong or is this just the way it is with these larger files?
(Dreading shooting this party coming up if this is the way it goes with even just uploading)

[Polar01]

Kristen did you use a card reader to your portable drive, that can be slow depending on the speed that the portable reads and writes the files. if you used a cable from camera to portable drive even slower as the transfer is even slower. Best method is SD card into the computer that you use to process images, second best is a card reader that is USB 3 as its transfer rate is faster than a USB 2 connection (USB 2 are white whereas USB 3 are blue look at the ends).
I would suggest that you change your workflow to include downloading your card each and every time you shoot, then put it back into camera and format it.

Cheers: Allan

[PhotomanJohn]

Kristen,

Yes RAW files are much larger than JPG files especially from a camera with a 24 MP sensor and the downloading and processing time will be longer. As fast computer is certainly desirable. I have not used a D5200 but generally there are several setting which will affect the files size (12 or 14 bit and lossless compression). I can only say that using RAW files is worth the extra time and effort if you want to achieve your best results.

John

[realdereal]

My computer does not have a card slot so I will check out my card reader tomorrow and see what is there. Although I was using the camera to computer method to import to my portable drive I may try the card reader method with the pics I took today and see if that helps.

(cringing as I can't stand waiting for long periods for just a few images to download)

[Polar01]

Try making a pot of coffee I use to do that.

Cheers: Allan

[Shadowman]

I have the same camera and a card reader on my laptop. Transferring 200-500 RAW images usually takes less than twenty minutes, then to convert another twenty minutes. You can shorten the conversion time by sorting which files are worthy of conversion and save the rest for later. ViewNX2 software which came with your camera is the best way to get the images to your computer, you can also use that program to convert to jpeg if needed. There are other short cuts that other members can provide you, such as batch processing/converting similar files shot under the same conditions.

On another note, couldn't you just upload the photos to the printers?

[Colin Southern]

Hi Kristen,

As a test for you I transferred 30 files from my CF card via a USB 2 card reader and then batch processed them into JPEGs. It took 57 seconds to transfer them from the card / rename them / convert them to DNG, and then 1 min 7 seconds to batch convert & save to JPEG.

Usually slow transfers are a sign that the card reader (in this case the camera) is only transferring at USB1 speeds. USB2 is really the minimum. USB3 is great, if it works (I and a lot of others have had a lot of trouble with it, but I guess it's working for some).

[shreds]

Colin,

That sounds more like it.

No one has mentioned the computer yet, is this causing things to slow down? Is it causing a bottleneck? As Colin says, what sort of USB are you using?

Your digital darkroom (AKA computer) I find must be upgraded when you get to this size of file. Its no good having the latest camera, if the computer can't keep up. I would also try and avoid processing from a back up drive. Keep the originals there, but transfer the working copies to your computer to speed things up. Less bits of slow wire to transfer data through.

[John 2]

Hi Kristen,

Usually slow transfers are a sign that the card reader (in this case the camera) is only transferring at USB1 speeds. USB2 is really the minimum. USB3 is great, if it works (I and a lot of others have had a lot of trouble with it, but I guess it's working for some).

I agree. Had the same problem on an older computer and upgrading my USB drivers to USB2 solved the problem if that helps. Don't forget that if you want to use USB3, you need to be sure that the computer supports USB3. It's not just a case of buying a USB3 reader. Incidentally, most of the time I transfer everything from my Nikon via direct connection and it is at least as fast as a USB2 card reader. I prefer that in order to avoid continuous unplugging and re inserting the card in the camera as a means of reducing wear on the connections. Probably being over cautious but...........

[ajohnw]

I've had a few card readers that I haven't been happy with. Speed seems to vary too but not to anything remotely like the OP mentioned. I've had 2 of these now and have been very happy with them Ebay 350933996250. The one I have now has Sumvision on it but it's no different to the other generic one. The 2 USB sockets are useful and I've had no hub type problems - it's self powered from it's own power supply. Currently my mouse wifi thingy is plugged into one of them. I was having problems when it was plugged into the machine.

The sata disc part isn't too bad. I haven't used that for some time but reckon half hour ish to write 30gb to a disc plugged into it. Maybe 45min. I just leave it when I do something like that.

It seems USB3 versions are about now.

I think the problem with many of the card readers is that they are too cheap. Direct from camera transfer rates seem to vary a lot. Having several makes - where the hell is the lead crops up a lot so I usually remove the card.

I've mentioned HP workstations before. They often have a card reader built in. I can't fault that one at all. Also has a USB socket. 5 1/4 fitting and black. Might be worth a look for some but HP prices vary dramatically. Sometimes cheap sometime Ouch.

John
-

[DanK]

Card readers are fine, but there is no need for one if you are dealing with such small numbers of files. For 30 files, the difference between downloading from the camera and from a card readers should be a matter of seconds. Initial processing--that is, the initial rendering of the raw image by the software--should not take long either, perhaps a few minutes if you have a slow computer, a matter of seconds if you have a fast one. Other processing, of course, will take as long as you want. I have a card reader but often don't bother with it unless I have a lot of images or want to control where they get placed on the hard drive.

I would forget about a card reader for now and focus on the other two issues people raised: USB 2 (for uploading) and the speed of the computer (for rendering the raw images).

[rpcrowe]

As correctly mentioned above, there are several reasons why downloading RAW files can be a lengthy process.

One fix that worked with me was to switch to UDMA capable CF cards and a UDMA card reader. This may or may not be of help. I don't know if SD cards are available with UDMA capability or, even if SD cards are as fast as the fastest CF cards...

I purchased some fast Lexar UDMA capable CF cards, when I was shooting with my 40D and 30D cameras. Although neither of these cameras was capable of utilizing UDMA technology, downloading the RAW files shot with the 30D and 40D cameras using a UDMA capable card reader really sped up my downloads considerably.

When I was in China, I would shoot large amounts of RAW images every day and download these images to an older (and pretty slow) HP notebook every evening. I used the Canon proprietary software to download the images. Since I seldom returned to my hotel room until quite late in the evening and normally needed to wake up quite early to resume my touring, speedy downloading really helped. IMO, few things are as frustrating as molasses slow downloading when you are tired and want to go to sleep.

Now that I am shooting with a pair of 7D cameras, the UDMA technology and fast memory cards are absolutely critical when working with the larger RAW file sizes (I would expect that when shooting with a camera that utilizes larger file sizes. The UDMA would be even more critical). I notice the difference, both in writing to my CF card and in downloading via a UDMA capable card reader to my computer, via Bridge. My home computer is quite fast and the UDMA files really download quickly.

[Polar01]

I thing some are missing something, Kristen is downloading them to a folder on a portable hard drive not at drive on her main system. So it maybe that she is transferring images over a slow connection, through her computer through another slow connection to a hard drive that gets it's power also through the same connection. Not all portable drives have their own power supply and must piggy back on another source, so instead of running at 7,200 rpm they run at around 5,000 rpm slowing down the transfer rate and speed at which save files.
I know that my 500GB Lacie rugged portable hard drive which has a USB 3 connection is very slow to write and save files compared to my Lacie external drives that have their own power supply.

Cheers: Allan

[ajohnw]

Compact flash can be very fast as it has more pins and doesn't have to read as serially as others but the lines in and out vary on other types as well. From memory multi media (MMC) is the quickest of the other formats but hasn't caught on. Some versions of that read 8 bits at a time and have 13 pins. Most forms just use serial 1 bit. SD can be 1 or 4 bit but in practice what happens when they are used is determined by the hardware that is connected. Even speed.

The UDMA - ultra direct memory access - is hardware in a PC that transfers data between memory without the cpu doing anything other than setting up the from where too. People might remember UDMA disks. It is much quicker than the processor doing the same thing. Never looked into it but both USB and SATA may make some use of it some where or the other.

John
-

[yauman]

Kristen, As Colin rightly pointed out, it may be that you have a very slow USB-1 card reader. If your lap top is one of those that has a PCMCIA card slot, here's a solution for you. You can buy a PCMCIA card to read SD cards and the PCMCIA card slot bus is very fast - actually almost bus speed. I had this solution with my Dell laptops until I purchased a MaBookPro with an SD card reader built in. I now leave an 16GB SD card in my Dell PCMCIA card to use as my extra SSD!

PCMCIA Card for SD Card

[Dave Humphries]

Some of this has been touched upon, but perhaps not given enough clarity:
Transferring from camera, via computer to another (also USB connected) HDD potentially daisy-chains two slow interfaces. Could it actually be first writing temp files to the computer HDD, then copying them off to the external HDD? (i.e. doubling the time taken, or more)
What is the memory card? (perhaps it is not a fast enough for the RAW data volumes)

That's not to say I don't also agree with many other replies being very relevant.

For example, I am shopping for a new external drive and although they are USB3 these days, part of me wishes, from the power supply standpoint, that they were not all apparently reliant on drawing power from the USB these days (my two existing drives have wall-wart PSUs). Although I'm probably worrying about nothing and will enjoy the lack of an extra cable, need for another socket, etc.

Cheers,