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 Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
