Capture NX seems very slow to me.

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=2293448, Jan 8, 2007.

  1. I downloaded the NX and play around , it seems it is very slow in my machine
    P4-2.8 516-RAM which over the basic requirement for NX.

    i used Capture 4.x in this machine, not that slow.

    and I feel the NX's interface is not that user frendly, compare to 4.x
    maybe i m still sticking in old version one.
     
  2. jvf

    jvf

    For me too. P4-3.4 2Gb Ram, but still i prefer NX over Capture 4.x.
    There are a few 'bugs' that anoyes me though, can't read hidden directories and sometimes it locks up after changing picture size.
     
  3. Performance is what keeps me from using CaptureNX as my main photo editor. Too slow on my P4 2.0 GHz, 1MB RAM. The computer will be upgraded in the next year, but it sounds like even much more horsepower isn't going to get that cart rolling.

    Nikon needs to address the performance problem.
     
  4. For me too, AMD 3700+ 64bit 2.4ghz with 4gb ram on Windows XP Professional x64. Latley I have been running Capture Windows Vista x64, and it is much faster, probably what Nikon intended. I found it now works great with Photoshop CS2 and CS3, before I just stuck to CS2 and the latest Camera Raw for all my work; only shoot raw.

    Now I have discovered the Nikon Capture really is better than Photoshop at several RAW processing, like dynamic lighting, sharpening and noise control. After I tweak these, I open in CS2/CS3 in 16bit and go from there.

    The thing I like about Capture NX is its ability to work with JPG in ways it does with RAW files, this will come in handy with my new Mamiya RZ67 and Epson 4990.
     
  5. I have the same problem with NX; it is just too slow no mater how fast or how large your RAM is. I too personal like some of the quality over PS, however I have just recently downloaded the beta version Adobe Lightroom and yes beta does have some problems but I do like the way it works even with jpeg.
     
  6. NX needs a lot of memory and processor speed. NX runs great on my old HP X4000 workstation (three years old) but it has dual Xeon 2.8ghz processors and 2.25 gigs of rambus ram. (This was one of the machines used to do the animation for the movie "Shrek.")
     
  7. NX is ridiculously inefficient on my machine. I only use it when I need control points, and Capture 4.4 for most of my stuff. Nikon badly lost the ball with this software. I would have expected a major bug fix upgrade by this time. Or a complete retraction of the software and returning support of the old software.
     
  8. The update, coming very soon, will address many of the speed issues.

    Best,

    Michael Rubin
    Nikon Inc.
    mrubin (at) nikon (dot) net
     
  9. Performance is fine on my Pentium D840 with 3GB of ECC RAM except that the Pentium keeps overheating and shutting off the machine. I'm considering replacing it with a Core 2 Duo since it is supposedly plugs into the same socket and is faster. Running XPP 32 bit and planning to try it with XPP 64 bit.
     
  10. So... any updates? Is it any faster?

    This is the only program that I am considering that I know will run like molasses on my system - a 1 Ghz PC w/ 512 Mb RAM and an old graphics card.

    Eventually I will be upgrading my machine, but I am confused as to where the bottleneck is - is it RAM? Computer speed? Graphics card?

    I know what Nikon *says* the minimum req are - but what would the min *usable* reqs be???

    Ideas?
     
  11. Hi there,

    We recommend 1 GB or more for RAM whether on a Mac or PC.

    Personally I recommend 2 GB.

    Michael

    mrubin (at) nikon (dot) net
     
  12. mjt

    mjt

    Calvin ...

    you DEFINITELY need more RAM. you didnt mention which OS you're running, but even if it's Win2k, that's not enough RAM. if you're going to say XP, then you're WAY underpowered, RAM-wise.

    the rule of thumb is, the more the RAM, the better (well, given you have a modern machine too).

    current-day specs call for 2 GIG RAM, minimum, especially if you're wanting to run graphics-intensive software. dont be fooled by the manufacturers ... heck, even M$ gets it rwong with their "minimum specifications" to run their OS only.

    i run a 64-bit Linux box, a Mac Pro, and a MacBook Pro, and all run 4 GIG RAM (except laptop: 3) ... with these specs, big applications feel just right - anything less, i know they would be slouches.

    RAM is SOOO cheap these days, it would behoove any person to bump up their RAM.

    regards, michael
     

Share This Page