Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

gimp slow?

52 views
Skip to first unread message

Just nix

unread,
Nov 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/1/98
to
GIMP seems extremely powerful, but it is also very slow. The main
problem I have is in previewing adjustments made to large (20 MB)
images. PhotoDeluxe in Win95 lets me quickly preview changes
(especially with brightness/contrast). Is there a way to do this in
GIMP?

nix

David Kastrup

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to
Just nix <n...@clark.net> writes:

You might want to play around with the preference dialog, in
particular the "conservative memory usage" button.


--
David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-700-5570
Email: d...@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de Fax: +49-234-709-4209
Institut für Neuroinformatik, Universitätsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany

Adrian Karstan Likins

unread,
Nov 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/6/98
to
In article <m2zpaa4...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>, Da

vid Kastrup wrote:
>Just nix <n...@clark.net> writes:
>
>> GIMP seems extremely powerful, but it is also very slow. The main
>> problem I have is in previewing adjustments made to large (20 MB)
>> images. PhotoDeluxe in Win95 lets me quickly preview changes
>> (especially with brightness/contrast). Is there a way to do this in
>> GIMP?
>
>You might want to play around with the preference dialog, in
>particular the "conservative memory usage" button.
>

The "conservative memory useage" option is actually pretty lame
and makes little difference. For big images, you really need to increase
the size of the tile cache. It's set to 10megs by default which is
very conservative. I'd suggest setting it to about half the size of your
real ram at least. Theres not much point in increasing it beyond the size
of the physical ram.
btw, the tile cache controls how much info is actually held in
ram. You can set it in the Preferences dialog.

Adrian Likins
adr...@gimp.org


Just nix

unread,
Nov 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/6/98
to
Thanks. Yeah, "convervative memory" didn't do much (in fact, I think it made
things worse). I increased tile cache to 64 MB (I have 128 MB total RAM), and
the speed improved a little. It still takes ~30 seconds to preview contrast
changes on a 3400x2400 pixel image on a 200 MHz P200 MMX. When previewing
changes in PhotoDeluxe, PD filters a decimated copy of the image and the
preview is instantaneous. When a final selection is made, PD takes 15-25
seconds to filter the whole image. Gimp, on the other hand, seems to always
filter the large image. Is there a built-in way around this? I could always
create a small version of each file, make my adjustments, write them down, and
then load the real image. However, I was hoping for a method that was easier
to use.

Can anyone help me out?
Is the speed I'm getting typical?
Is there a "fast preview" mode of Gimp?

nix

Ralph Alberti

unread,
Nov 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/9/98
to
I noticed that the memory seting is some odd number like 10981825. Can I set
this number to some even number like 64000000, if I want to dedicate 64MB
RAM to the tile cache? I actually have 256 MB RAM and 128MB swap space.
What would you recommend setting the tile cache to? 128 MB maybe? I am not
currently running a lot of programs simultaneously so I can afford the RAM.

Thanks, Ralph

Adrian Karstan Likins wrote in message ...


>In article <m2zpaa4...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>, Da
>vid Kastrup wrote:
>>Just nix <n...@clark.net> writes:
>>
>>> GIMP seems extremely powerful, but it is also very slow. The main
>>> problem I have is in previewing adjustments made to large (20 MB)
>>> images. PhotoDeluxe in Win95 lets me quickly preview changes
>>> (especially with brightness/contrast). Is there a way to do this in
>>> GIMP?
>>
>>You might want to play around with the preference dialog, in
>>particular the "conservative memory usage" button.
>>
>

Ross Vandegrift

unread,
Nov 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/15/98
to
> Can I set
> this number to some even number like 64000000, if I want to dedicate 64MB
> RAM to the tile cache?

hehehe... not a programmer are you? It shows. ;-) See, 64Mb is not
64000000, but it is 64*2^20. The value you call ``weird" is not at all
weird: it is 10*2^20, or 10MB. Bytes are all measured in powers of 2,
rather than powers of 10. So, if want 64MB of tile cache, you'd type
``67108864"
--
Ross Vandegrift | Eric J. Fenderson

"Man, I've been working in a retirement home WAY too long."
--Todd Presson

Bill Ross

unread,
Nov 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/19/98
to
|> > Can I set
|> > this number to some even number like 64000000, if I want to dedicate 64MB
|> > RAM to the tile cache?
|>
|> ... So, if want 64MB of tile cache, you'd type
|> ``67108864"

Here's an interface idea for the developers (if not done already):
if the user wants 64MB of tile cache, allow them to type ``64MB''.

Bill Ross

Paul Scott

unread,
Nov 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/19/98
to
In article <730oov$pnp$1...@sun500.nas.nasa.gov>,

Bill Ross <bross!@!nas.nasa.gov> wrote:
>|>
>|> ... So, if want 64MB of tile cache, you'd type
>|> ``67108864"
>
>Here's an interface idea for the developers (if not done already):
>if the user wants 64MB of tile cache, allow them to type ``64MB''.
>

You're missing the point - if this was put in, anybody could do it...

Ross Vandegrift

unread,
Nov 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/19/98
to

But wait, is it really important that you have **exactly** 64MB of tile
cache? I mean, I am familiar with powers of 2, but I still approximate
64M to be 64000000. If you really need that much tile cache, it would
be better to increase that number even further (say 70000000) than worry
about getting exactly 64M.

0 new messages