Skip to main content

Really wanted to move to On1, just too slow



  • David Kick


    Have you gone into the Nvidia control panel and configured the Program settings for ON1 - see bold text on the right in 1st image below

    Set windows to graphics settings to high performance for On1

    Settings - System - Display - Graphics settings 2nd image below

    If you haven't do both of these and see if your performance improves 



  • Dennis Hoenich

    I did set those, but the GPU isn't even showing to be used in export, so that is more of a develop setting. I set the priority all the way to realtime in the task manager / details tab. I wanted it to be a replacement, but at 5 times slower in export, I just can't switch. I haven't decided to whether or not to purchase it. I want to help give them the time and resources to fix it. Don't want them to give up and say it's good enough, but don't want to throw money away if it is just not ever going to be fast enough. 

  • Darrell Styner

    Dennis, I know this is an Apples and Oranges comparison, but I just exported one of my Nikon D500 raw images that has a couple of layer edits. I made the long edge 2500 and exported as a jpeg with sharpening for screen to try to approximate your test. The resulting file is 2.1MB and has a resolution of 2500x1666 pixels. The export took 6 seconds.

    Now, I'm on an iMac Pro with a 3GHz Xeon and 64GB of RAM so I'm not claiming this is a fair comparison, but something is very wrong if your export takes 9.5 mins.

    I happen to have the same image on a MacBook Pro with a 2.7GHZ i7 and 16GB of RAM. This is a much better comparison to your hardware. I ran the same export on the same image there and it took 9 seconds. Both systems have the latest version of ON1--2019.5.

    Edit--Just reread your post and realized you were reporting the time to export 45 images so your time of 9.5 mins makes more sense now. However, I just did the same thing to 45 unedited raw files (20 megapixels each) on my MacBook Pro and the time required was 4 mins. 37 secs. Still half of what you're seeing with very similar hardware. If your source images are from something like a D850 (36 mpix), that might explain the difference.

  • Dennis Hoenich

    Your 4.5 min time does give me hope that there is still a chance to improve it. The Raws came off an 18MP 7D. My files all had some edits. They all had exposure and basic changes with highlight, midtones, shadows, structure changes and color correction. Some (15%) had spot healing, 10% B&W conversion, a few limited crops. These were the same changes made on LR to make them as identical as I could. I will keep playing with some system settings. If I could get it down to only 2x as long as LR, I will be interested, but at almost 5 times as long, it is a non starter. I do a lot of youth sports shooting, so I might take 800 pics in a day at a tournament. I probably toss 200 at the start, and then do some minor editing to the rest. Exporting 500 at the current rate will take well over an hour and a half if everything goes perfect. That is a big difference compared to 18 to 20 in LR.

  • Pawel Szczupak

    With i5-6600 and 32GB RAM and the exports from browse module to standard HDD take only some seconds. It is a big difference to 2018 versions, where I had to wait minutes.


Please sign in to leave a comment.