Hi,
at 4k x 3k for most things you do see the line comming
down. its slow for hue/sat/lightness adjustments, and
fastest for curves. i may try this on windows, but i
think some of the others on this list have already
beaten that horse enough.
Someone already mentioned it, but I want to
surrounded by them..
64megs is a small amount of ram for images that heavy.
im surprised your getting decent performance from
photoshop.
It is a small amount, now I've gotten over the levels problem I've tried a
few more things in gimp, and ended up halving the resolution of my image
to try
I was used to adjusting photoshop to prevent it swapping, and tried to do
that with GIMP, the above figures were based on my idea that X wanted 30
megs and gimp seemed to want about 10 or so, leaving about 20 left for the
image. All wrong, terribly wrong. I set the cache to 30 megs last night
Hi,
I'm forwarding this from gimp-user for anyone who is not on that list.
There was a question regarding performance and configuration but I can't
seem to get Gimp to outperform Photoshop.
TIA for any configuration tweeks that may help me. (so far the only thing
i've done is adjust the tile
Scavenging the mail folder uncovered Jon Winters's letter:
I'm forwarding this from gimp-user for anyone who is not on that list.
There was a question regarding performance and configuration but I can't
seem to get Gimp to outperform Photoshop.
TIA for any configuration tweeks that may
on
okay would finish it.
-George
-Original Message-
From: Jon Winters [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 10:03:22 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: Performance of Gimp vs. photoshop for large images (fwd)
Hi,
I'm forwarding this from gimp-user for anyone who
Andy Thomas wrote:
What version of gimp are you using? The recent CVS versions had a real
bug in the updating of previews when using the levels/curves stuff.
On the advice of Andy and others I disabled the layer pre-vue images and
things speeded up quite a bit. (they also mentioned this is
Hyperborean wrote:
Could it be that Photoshop does the previews only on the
visible pixels?
snip
I'm with George on this one! Pre-vue mode should be visible pixels
only.
--
Jon Winters http://www.obscurasite.com/jon/
"Everybody Loves The GIMP!"
http://www.gimp.org/
On 4 Feb, Raphael Quinet wrote:
I wouldn't be too sure about that. On a system that I was previously
administering (students' network at the university), I have seen some
users that were using /var/tmp or /tmp to store their applications
while they were logged in, and deleted the stuff
On Thu, 03 Feb 2000, Kelly Lynn Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 3 Feb 2000 19:33:31 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
If you have a shared maschine the best would be to let the
administrator choose how much memory each user will get because
users'll ALWAYS try to get what they can
On Fri, 4 Feb 2000 09:52:30 +0100 (MET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Raphael Quinet) said:
I disagree. This would only encourage some users to re-compile their
own version of the Gimp in a private directory in order to get around
the hardcoded limits.
Frankly, I disagree. Systems where admins are
I use SuSE Linux 6.2. I have 128 MB RAM. I use the default values for
tile caching. I have a EIDE IBM 6,4 GB and 10 GB. I use on both a 128
MB partition as swap.
Martin
On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 08:13:56AM -0800, Martin Weber wrote:
Here some performance tests on an Intel Celeron 333 with 128 MB
help performance.
later,
Andrew Kieschnick
with will work with all systems, and
also on a given system if the user dumps more memory in, the Gimp will
automagically have better performance.
I agree that magic numbers are foolish to use, but I do think that the
method for choosing a default should be carefully planned. Your system
sounds good
On 3 Feb, Arcterex wrote:
I think that this was discussed some time back and the conclusion was
that if you have 5 users on your system all using gimp and each using
50%... well, you see where that could be a problem.
In that case you could adjust the value manually. But bear in mind:
If
On 3 Feb, Raphael Quinet wrote:
I think that asking the user is the best solution in any case, because
you can hope that the user has some vague idea of how much memory is
or will be available on the system he is using (shared or personal
computer). This will not work in all cases (e.g.
On Thu, 3 Feb 2000 19:33:31 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
If you have a shared maschine the best would be to let the
administrator choose how much memory each user will get because
users'll ALWAYS try to get what they can even if it makes no
sense
It might be a good idea to have a
On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 07:33:31PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you have a shared maschine the best would be to let the
administrator choose how much memory each user will get because
users'll ALWAYS try to get what they can even if it makes no
sense
This is none of our
Sven Neumann wrote:
You should definitely increase your tile cache size from the default 10mb.
It should help performance.
Shouldn't we increase the default for the tile_cache_size? GIMP was shipped
with the default of 10MB years ago. Memory is cheap nowadays and I guess we
can expect
dumps more memory in, the Gimp will
automagically have better performance.
Just my $0.02,
-Elan
Sven Neumann said...
|
|Shouldn't we increase the default for the tile_cache_size? GIMP was shipped
|with the default of 10MB years ago. Memory is cheap nowadays and I guess we
|can expect the average user to have more RAM available. I'd suggest setting
|it to 32MB.
I'd say go for it. We could
Here some performance tests on an Intel Celeron 333 with 128 MB:
BMP file, grayscale (8-bit), 1x7500
loading with ImageMagick 5.1.1: 20 min
loading with GIMP 1.1.15: 10 min
loading with Photopaint 8: 1 min 39 sec
loading with Photoshop 5: 14 sec
saveing with GIMP 1.1.15: 2 min 25 sec
22 matches
Mail list logo
