RSS/Atom feed Twitter
Site is read-only, email is disabled

image size

This discussion is connected to the gimp-user-list.gnome.org mailing list which is provided by the GIMP developers and not related to gimpusers.com.

This is a read-only list on gimpusers.com so this discussion thread is read-only, too.

7 of 9 messages available
Toggle history

Please log in to manage your subscriptions.

image size sam ende 09 Jan 02:42
image size Fred Bazolo 09 Jan 04:36
  image size sam ende 09 Jan 10:18
image size Kevin Myers 09 Jan 04:52
3E1CF45A.8090007@obscurasit... 07 Oct 20:15
  image size sam ende 09 Jan 09:42
   image size Nick Leverton 09 Jan 19:01
200301082110.36662.nexus@ch... 07 Oct 20:15
  image size sam ende 09 Jan 09:48
sam ende
2003-01-09 02:42:19 UTC (about 21 years ago)

image size

it seems is a problem with gimp. large images slow down my machine quite a bit, somtimes to the point of impractabilty, but they are sizes not so untypical of people who need to make prints of their graphics.
now i'm hesitant to recommend gimp to people who i know tend to need print quality grapics/pictures, but then perhaps proffesssional graphic artist use larger/better machines ?

sammi

Fred Bazolo
2003-01-09 04:36:28 UTC (about 21 years ago)

image size

from sam ende, Thu, 9 Jan 2003 01:42:19 +0000:

"it seems is a problem with gimp. large images slow down my machine quite a bit, somtimes to the point of impractabilty, but they are sizes not so untypical of people who need to make prints of their graphics.
now i'm hesitant to recommend gimp to people who i know tend to need print quality grapics/pictures, but then perhaps proffesssional graphic artist use larger/better machines ?"

When my file gets to be about 100 megs in size, it is hard to get any work done. Files up to 25 megs or even 30 megs do fine, without a lot of waiting around for things to stabilize. Depends on your system I suppose.

What I have is an Athlon 1200 Mhz Tbird, 768 megs of ram, about 15 gigs of HD space to play with. Not real slow but hardly extraordinary.

I've never used a complete version of Photoshop. I stopped using proprietary software two or three years ago. Used to use Corel Draw, and can remember years ago when a five meg graphic would take an hour to display, and I was ecstatic! Ha! Things keep getting better.

I have read that with the larger files Photoshop does seem to have an advantage. That, along with the CYMK thing, are what seem to keep it alive.

Kevin Myers
2003-01-09 04:52:09 UTC (about 21 years ago)

image size

Just FYI, even though Photoshop may generally handle large file sizes well, it fails completely with images that are larger than 32K pixels in any dimension. That's a complete washout for my images, which are very long, often well over 100K pixels in length.

On the other hand, the GIMP will handle such large image dimensions, as long as you don't run into something like the 2GB image cache file size limit under Windoze. Unfortunately, I do presently run into that limit with my largest images. Supposedly that limitation will be addressed in the next GIMP version (currently in development). Unfortunately that doesn't do me any good right now, since I'm not enough of an expert and haven't yet been enough of a glutton for punishment to attempt porting the new version to Windblows. I'm trying a few other things instead (e.g. ImageMagick) and hoping that maybe Tor or someone else will complete the port by the time I confirm that other applications can't get the job done either...

s/KAM

----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Bazolo"
To: "Gimp User"
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 9:36 PM Subject: [Gimp-user] image size

from sam ende, Thu, 9 Jan 2003 01:42:19 +0000:

"it seems is a problem with gimp. large images slow down my machine quite a bit, somtimes to the point of impractabilty, but they are sizes not so untypical of people who need to make
prints of their graphics.
now i'm hesitant to recommend gimp to people who i know tend to need print quality grapics/pictures, but then perhaps proffesssional graphic artist use larger/better machines ?"

When my file gets to be about 100 megs in size, it is hard to get any work done. Files up to 25 megs or even 30 megs do fine, without a lot of waiting around for things to stabilize. Depends on your system I suppose.

What I have is an Athlon 1200 Mhz Tbird, 768 megs of ram, about 15 gigs of HD
space to play with. Not real slow but hardly extraordinary.

I've never used a complete version of Photoshop. I stopped using proprietary software two or three years ago. Used to use Corel Draw, and can remember years ago when a five meg graphic would take an hour to display, and I was ecstatic! Ha! Things keep getting better.

I have read that with the larger files Photoshop does seem to have an advantage. That, along with the CYMK thing, are what seem to keep it alive.

sam ende
2003-01-09 09:42:51 UTC (about 21 years ago)

image size

On Thursday 09 January 2003 04:02, Jon Winters wrote:

How large are your large images? I can toss 2MB (JPEG) 2560x1920 images around all day and my computer doesn't miss a tick.

4000x5 0r 60000, its the layers that make it big, sometimes i have 10 or more layers. xcf not jpeg, same image as jpeg is nothing sizewise.

I consider large images to be 100MB or more and I haven't opened one in a long time but I expect it would probably slow my system down.

yes.

My system is a dual 800Mhz PIII with 256MB of SDRAM and a Matrox G400 video adapter. (I think the video card has 64MB of memory)

i think you're showing off now :)

Check the settings on your tile cache. Mine is set to 128MB and I think the default was a woefull 32MB.

cache is set to 256, i wanted to do more but it wouldn't let me, well it would but it sorta didn't work anymore then :) it doesn't like it if you resize a layer x2 but do x 12 by accident instead :)

sammi

sam ende
2003-01-09 09:48:29 UTC (about 21 years ago)

image size

On Thursday 09 January 2003 02:10, Fred Bazolo wrote:

On Wednesday 08 January 2003 20:42, sam ende wrote:

What do you call a large image?

one that slows doen my machine, of course. :) k6/2+500 processor and 440mb memory

sammi

sam ende
2003-01-09 10:18:04 UTC (about 21 years ago)

image size

On Thursday 09 January 2003 03:36, Fred Bazolo wrote:

from sam ende, Thu, 9 Jan 2003 01:42:19 +0000:

When my file gets to be about 100 megs in size, it is hard to get any work done.

yes, so i end up copying visable and paste as new to work on that, that also helps with the undo, cos its impractical to set that much higher than 10x when you're doing large images as well. but it means i end up having several version of the same image in diffenrt stages stored, which uses tons of disk space, of which i have enough but still.

Files up to 25 megs or even 30 megs do fine, without a lot of waiting

around for things to stabilize. Depends on your system I suppose.

smaller images are no problem. in fact when i started using gimp i had a much smaller machine, only 64 memory, barely up to gimps minimal requirements and it did fine

What I have is an Athlon 1200 Mhz Tbird, 768 megs of ram, about 15 gigs of HD space to play with. Not real slow but hardly extraordinary.

I've never used a complete version of Photoshop.

me neither, nor a trial version.

I stopped using

proprietary software two or three years ago. Used to use Corel Draw, and can remember years ago when a five meg graphic would take an hour to display, and I was ecstatic! Ha! Things keep getting better.

:), still takes awhile to render some fractals though.

I have read that with the larger files Photoshop does seem to have an advantage. That, along with the CYMK thing, are what seem to keep it alive.

iit does have some neat functions, i like the idea of a history brush. maybe one could get rid of some functions in the gimp that are the same or nearly the same or aren't much use to make room for other differnt ones. for instance in the light effects we have flare fx and gflare, and i think gflare has the same flare in it as flare fx, that's only a little thing i know, but there are other examples of duplication ( i just can't think of any off the top of my head)

sammi

Nick Leverton
2003-01-09 19:01:03 UTC (about 21 years ago)

image size

On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 08:42:51AM +0000, sam ende wrote:

On Thursday 09 January 2003 04:02, Jon Winters wrote:

Check the settings on your tile cache. Mine is set to 128MB and I think the default was a woefull 32MB.

cache is set to 256, i wanted to do more but it wouldn't let me, well it would but it sorta didn't work anymore then :)

As far as I know, on a single user machine, it makes sense to set the tile cache to be as large as the free memory. 256Mb seems to be about right for you as that is what's shown by "free" immediately after you reboot (allowing a little spare for mailer, browsers, daemons, buffers etc).

I'm open to correction from the list, but I don't think there is any advantage to setting the tile cache larger than free physical memory, as the mem it uses will end up in the kernel swapfile anyway and will have to be paged in and out for each and every operation on the image.

it doesn't like it if you resize a layer x2 but do x 12 by accident instead :)

There is already a bug report requesting that Gimp trap that sort of error (creating a too-large image running out of memory) rather than crashing. I hope it will be fixed in 1.4 :-)

Nick