[Digikam-devel] [Bug 142568] Digikam is really slow to load a RAW (.CR2) photo

[Gilles Caulier]

Dany,

I'm not agree with you. The RAW files are handle in digiKam like a JPEG file
as well, excepted of course than the image is in 16 bits color depth... All
tool in digiKam support 16 bits color depth. This is why digikam handle the
image like this.

On my computer, to load a RAW file time around 5 secondes (PIV 3.4Ghz or
Laptop double core 1.6Ghz). In other words, if you want to work with RAW
files use a fast computer... This problem is the same with Aperture,
LightRoom and others program witch handle RAW files.

Preview image in RAW file in a simple 8 bits color depth reduced
JPEG/PPM/TIFF file. Working on preview in a non sence to edit a RAW picture.

Gilles Caulier

7 Mar 2007 06:27:14 -0000, Danni Coy <danni.coy at gmail.com>:
>
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
>
> http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=142568
>
>
>
>
> ------- Additional Comments From danni.coy gmail com  2007-03-07 07:27
> -------
> Actually ufraw can be used as a stand alone tool as well (it works
> internally as 16 bit as well)...
> There is a significant difference in loading times...
>
> Ufraw can do this because it loads a preview of the raw file which is
> detailed enough to do colour correction on but not for detailed editing
> (which it doesn't do)... When the file is saved the proper conversion takes
> place....
>
> I would say that it largely makes sense to take the same approach in
> digikam. Digikam doesn't really handle detailed editing in the way that
> Krita or the Gimp does so having being able to get up to incredibly high
> levels of detail is usually not necessary...
>
> In order to make these changes the editor would have to handle raw files
> in a fundementally different fashion to other file types... Digikam already
> generates previews for raw images in the viewer mode... The editor would
> have to be written to operate the preview image rather than a converted raw
> file. (for raw files and only raw files) Operations would also be written as
> a list and saved as a file (or in the database) this operation list would be
> called upon when converting the file to another file format. A converted
> file can be used to do more detailed editing (the same way as raw files are
> handled now) except this would be more consistant because as things stand
> you can't save a raw file.
> _______________________________________________
> Digikam-devel mailing list
> Digikam-devel at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/digikam-devel/attachments/20070307/abb6f4de/attachment.html>