On Wednesday 08 August 2007 18:31:10 jim feldman wrote:
> Bram Van Steenlandt wrote:
> > Hi list,
> >
> > I run FreeBSD 6.2 (2 gig ram)  and use gimp-2.2.17 for editing my large
> > (10000x10000pixels) photos.
> > This works when the tile cache is set to 256MB but this is not enough
> > for fast editing.
> > When I set the tile cache to 512MB or more it stops with error:
> > GLib-ERROR **: gmem.c:135: failed to allocate 16384 bytes
> > I checked in top while the gimp was opening the image and I still had
> > 400MB free before it stopped (not counting my 4000MB free swap).
> >
> > I have another computer with Fedora 7 and less RAM (1 gig) and here this
> > does work, tile size is set to 512MB and editing is rather fast.
> >
> > I found this old thread:
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/msg07633.htm
> >l wich a bit the same.
> >
> > So my questions are:
> > -Is there some magic setting wich allows the tile size to be bigger ?
> > -Can't the gimp be configured to not save to disk after every edited
> > pixel ? If you put one pencil dot on an image it takes 4 seconds before
> > you can do the next.
> > -Is there a way to work in ram only ?
> > Can I for example buy 2 additional gig and then force the gimp to use
> > only this memory and give me a messages "out of memory" when this does
> > not work
> >
> > ideas
> As the original poster of that thread, let me tell you what I know.
> 1. No magic.  I assume there's something bad happening between glib and
> the FreeBSD memory allocation routines, but whatever it is carried
> across 5.3 to 6.2.  I'm pretty sure I logged a bugzilla case, but in the
> end, I switched to a linux platform and lost interest.  I get the
> feeling that the GIMP devs don't use FBSD and as long as it builds and
> runs, they're not all that interested in what seems like corner cases.
> 2. You could try setting undo level to 0 at the risk of not being able
> to recover from any mistake
> 3. nope, at least not that I've found
> 4. nope
> Don't bother with film-gimp or whatever they're calling the project
> these days.  It does HDR, but their big memory handling is even worse.
> Turns out that the images projected in theaters are actually not all
> that hi rez.  Your eye fills in the missing spots frame by frame.  If
> you built KDE for your desktop, you might want to check out Krita as an
> image editor.   Last I looked at it (which is maybe 9 mos), I still
> liked the GIMP better, but it (krita) handles images completely
> differently, so it might be worth a shot.  Didn't get a chance to run
> any of my scans through it.
As a fellow and long time freebsd user I am puzzled why you should want to 
take such large images and  process them using gimp which can only handle 8 
bit per channel rather than 16bit. The  concommitant loss of image quality 
makes this a no-no for me. I cannot image you are scanning images at 8 bit 
per channel.

I  concur with the last poster - look at krita or if you have an 
appropropriate alternative platfrom one of the latest versions of photoshop 
might be better. I am sorry to sayIMHO  that (atm) there is nothing in the 
open source community that matches photoshop until gimp gets its act together 
to provide support for 16 bit (which I understand may be with us soon) and an 
optional  GUI that makes the learning curve transition from photoshop to gimp 
relatively smooth. 

Personally, much as I would prefer to use gimp on my freebsd platform, I only 
use it for trvial image manipulation tasks until it has support for 16 bit 
and handling large image files more smoothly on all platforms.

Gimp could have a wonderful future but I fear, for reasons I will not discus 
here, that it will always fall short of its real potential.

Best of luck
Freebsd gimp user
Gimp-user mailing list

Reply via email to