Mogens Jćger wrote:
> Joachim Ansorg wrote:
> > I really like the GIMP.
> > But it's unusable for large images (e.g. 2000x2000 pixels). My brother had to copy
>one big image into another:
> > -My home partitiion was completely filled (115 MB of GIMP swap)
> > -GIMP used more than 60MB of RAM
> Hey there
> I don't quite understand your statement, because I am using the GIMP to produce
>prints from my slides. I am
> scanning whith a HP-Photo-smart scanner, and it's resolution is 2400 dpi, so a
>'normal' slide is aproximately
> 2400*3600 pixels.
> My guess is, that you have some kind of mis-configuration.
My guess: not necessarily.
You probably did not edit your scans as heavily as Joachim's brother did his image.
Let's count:
2000 times 2000 is 4000000, multiply that by 4 for RGB images, you get 16000000.
I assume you have 2 and half a layers = 40000000 Bytes. Copying also adds the size of
the region you copy.
That's about 56 Megs that _need_ to be in memory! Channels, paths, selections also add
to this amount,
so let's say 60 Megs. Let's say we've used 3 levels of undo. That totals at around 180
Megs for a single
2000x2000 image, which is about the amount Joachim reports. And I'm not even taking
opening the second
image into account.
Conclusion: GIMP does its job.
I'm not trying to prove that GIMP is the pinnacle of image processing(even though
having used quite
a few programs I think it is great). But, for heaven's sake, what do you expect on PCs?
Relatively low bus bandwidths, screwed-up design, I know it could be better (all
software could), but it
could be _much_ worse.
BTW, named selections rule, esp. if you're low on memory.
Regards,
Peter Heiner (aka e-Male)
