Re: [Gimp-user] Cpu usage and speed - test results
Steve Bibayoff wrote: Hello, On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 09:45:23 -0700, Robin Laing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Sven Neumann wrote: But GIMP is Free Software with the source code open to everyone. So the GIMP's development team could be as large as it's user base. You are correct but many of the users wouldn't know C++ from JAVA so wouldn't be much help in the optimization. I am a user but I don't have any time to assist in the development other than submitting bug reports which I have never had to do with GIMP. Fallacy #1(at least I consider it #1) w/ regards to Open Source development, "I can't help because I'm not a programmer/coder". There are many ways to be helpful and be part of the "development team", submit bugs, submit suggestions/wishlist, write docs/howtos, help out w/ the website, demo The Gimp to people local to you, etc... . This applies to almost any project. Good points. I was thinking of how to optimize coding to make GIMP run faster as speed is the issue of the thread. And the comment was based on code development in regards to Photoshop and GIMP. I submit bugs when I come across them. I have thought about the documentation point of view. This is one area that many open source programs have problems. I do want to help there but again time is an issue. I am subscribed to the LDP. Writing good documentation takes time but it is necessary. On the note of development, I read that Adobe is releasing some code to the Open Source community and I thought that I read some of it was from Photoshop. -- Robin Laing Instrumentation Technologist Voice: 1.403.544.4762 Military Engineering Section FAX: 1.403.544.4704 Defence R&D Canada - Suffield Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] PO Box 4000, Station Main WWW:http://www.suffield.drdc-rddc.gc.ca Medicine Hat, AB, T1A 8K6 Canada ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Cpu usage and speed - test results
Hello, On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 09:45:23 -0700, Robin Laing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sven Neumann wrote: > > But GIMP is Free Software with the source code open to everyone. > > So the GIMP's development team could be as large as it's user base. > You are correct but many of the users wouldn't know C++ from JAVA so > wouldn't be much help in the optimization. I am a user but I don't > have any time to assist in the development other than submitting bug > reports which I have never had to do with GIMP. Fallacy #1(at least I consider it #1) w/ regards to Open Source development, "I can't help because I'm not a programmer/coder". There are many ways to be helpful and be part of the "development team", submit bugs, submit suggestions/wishlist, write docs/howtos, help out w/ the website, demo The Gimp to people local to you, etc... . This applies to almost any project. Steve ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Cpu usage and speed - test results
Sven Neumann wrote: Hi, Robin Laing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Now Photoshop has the benefit of large development teams and the necessary funding to support optimization. It would be nice to have that with the GIMP as well. But GIMP is Free Software with the source code open to everyone. So the GIMP's development team could be as large as it's user base. Sven You are correct but many of the users wouldn't know C++ from JAVA so wouldn't be much help in the optimization. I am a user but I don't have any time to assist in the development other than submitting bug reports which I have never had to do with GIMP. But volunteers do have the personal pride as a better driver than that dollar paycheck. -- Robin Laing ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Cpu usage and speed - test results
Hi, Robin Laing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Now Photoshop has the benefit of large development teams and the > necessary funding to support optimization. It would be nice to have > that with the GIMP as well. But GIMP is Free Software with the source code open to everyone. So the GIMP's development team could be as large as it's user base. Sven ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Cpu usage and speed - test results
Dana Sibera wrote: For GIMP - Version 2.2 on OSX, Tile Cache set to 400, 500, 600, 800 and 1400MB - all had the same results within a second or two. Any less than 400MB tile cache with this image and the visible changes in both preview and the final 'OK' would hit a wall part way through the change and slow down drastically, with times for each change doubling or more. Undo levels set to 1 and Maximum undo memory set to 128MB. GIMP shows the image taking 230MB at the bottom of the image window. Adjust curves - 15 seconds to complete 'preview' across the entire image on each & every movement of the curve. It takes the same 15 seconds to 'apply' a change across the image if preview is off, after pressing 'OK'. Color Balance - 16 seconds to preview across the entire image on each movement of an RGB/CMY slider. Stretches to 36 seconds on each preview if "Preserve Luminosity" is turned on. Same 16/37 seconds to complete the whole image if preview is turned off, after pressing 'OK' . Levels - 16 seconds to preview across the entire image on each movement of the black/white/grey points, 16 seconds total to complete the whole image if preview is turned off, after pressing 'OK'. Turning previews off makes things quicker by only requiring one 15ish-second pass over the image - however it also makes each tool effectively useless when trying to adjust by sight. A bit like working around having a dirty windscreen by driving with your eyes closed. -- Photoshop 8.0 - Percent memory used set to 92% of available = 500MB on a fresh boot. Scratch disk is boot disk, and 'cache levels' left at 4. Adjust curves - preview is instant, well under a second across the entire image area on each movement of the curve. After clicking OK takes one second to complete a curves change on the whole image. With preview off, also takes one full second to complete a curves change on the whole image. Color Balance - preview is instant, perhaps 2-3 changes per second are reflected in the preview when moving the slider, and well under a second to complete the color balance after pressing OK. Same sub-second time when preview is off. Levels - preview seems a bit faster than with color balance, almost smooth realtime transitions reflected in the preview. Pressing OK gives an instant change of levels across the image regardless of preview. - I also have an athlon 2600+ (1912MHz) running Debian and GIMP 2.2 that I had a chance to use earlier while it had 512MB RAM in it, and though I didn't get to use this exact test image, I tested with another I was working on at the time and had similar results to the 1GHz G4, just scaled in speed. That is - a color change in gimp that took 30 seconds on the 1GHz G4 would take say 18 seconds in gimp on the Athlon 2GHz. In order to get past any background processing photoshop may have been doing, I also tried adjusting the curve in the curves dialog then quickly hit OK - this came out taking the same time as if I moved the curve and waited 10 seconds before clicking OK. Closing the image immediately afterwards was also instant, so there seemed to be no tricky background processing happening over the whole image area. I hope this helps show the large image size type problems. I wouldn't expect two apps to give identical times for every process, but there's some big inefficiency in GIMP here that's making it more than ten times slower - especially considering that Photoshop on a Powermac 7300/200 (200MHz PPC604e with 140MB RAM) is not much different to GIMP on a 2GHz Athlon with 512MB for these particular operations on images at this particular size. (That's not a glib exaggeration either. Color Balance across the same panorama while I was constructing it on the 604e took about 10 seconds. It is running Photoshop 5.5). I stress "these particular operations on images at this particular size" because in other areas GIMP's speed is fine, however I'm often working on images at this size or larger. Of course, if there are some memory/cache settings I'm missing out on to get GIMP down to the sub-second adjustments on images of this size, please tell me!. dana I just tried the file on my computer and I didn't find GIMP to be that slow. Color balance was the slowest with you image at ~8 sec for a preview. All others were under 2 sec. I am running Fedora Core 1 with 2gig ram, ATI 7500 graphics card and Intel 2.5G I am wondering if you are having issues with your graphics card and it's refresh on Linux. I was running SETI at home. I had GIMP 1.x and 2.x open at the same time with the same image. There were also other applications opened as well. I would have to try the image on my home computer which is much faster to see if there is any change. I do know that memory makes a big difference as I have just upgraded my memory from 512 to 2gig because of working on large files as well. Processing times have dropped drastically from hour
Re: [Gimp-user] Cpu usage and speed
Sven Neumann wrote: Hi, Michele Petrazzo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: On the same machine with photoshop, a preview of a "curves" tool spend only 4-5 seconds, but when press the OK button, it spend about the same time of gimp. As you already guessed, the preview of the color manipulation tools in GIMP isn't really a preview. It's the full thing and no attempt is made to for example restrict the effect to the visible area or even render it on a scaled-down version of the image. That's a known problem and should not be too difficult to improve. Just needs a motivated hacker who has some spare time. Do you volunteer? I am not a C/C++ programmer, I know only python, and I'm following the development of three sourceforge projects. I hope that there are other volunteer person that want to help the community. Sven Michele ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Cpu usage and speed
Hi, Michele Petrazzo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On the same machine with photoshop, a preview of a "curves" tool > spend only 4-5 seconds, but when press the OK button, it spend about > the same time of gimp. As you already guessed, the preview of the color manipulation tools in GIMP isn't really a preview. It's the full thing and no attempt is made to for example restrict the effect to the visible area or even render it on a scaled-down version of the image. That's a known problem and should not be too difficult to improve. Just needs a motivated hacker who has some spare time. Do you volunteer? Sven ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] Cpu usage and speed - test results
This message contains the results of a few comparison tests with GIMP and Photoshop across one large image - I posted a message earlier about some of the speed problems I was having with GIMP - and Michele Petrazzo seemed to be indicating some similar problems in the same areas (namely color operations across large images) All of the below tests are done with the image at http://www.danamania.com/temp/largefile.jpg, a panorama created from 3 rather dirty snapshots out of a cheapie film camera, scanned & joined manually (forgive the distortion :) The image is about 946KB, and is a 5889x3711 image. These main tests are done on a 1GHz G4 eMac with 640MB RAM. The GIMP and Photoshop tests on the eMac were both done after a fresh reboot, each app being the only thing running apart from the system. For GIMP - Version 2.2 on OSX, Tile Cache set to 400, 500, 600, 800 and 1400MB - all had the same results within a second or two. Any less than 400MB tile cache with this image and the visible changes in both preview and the final 'OK' would hit a wall part way through the change and slow down drastically, with times for each change doubling or more. Undo levels set to 1 and Maximum undo memory set to 128MB. GIMP shows the image taking 230MB at the bottom of the image window. Adjust curves - 15 seconds to complete 'preview' across the entire image on each & every movement of the curve. It takes the same 15 seconds to 'apply' a change across the image if preview is off, after pressing 'OK'. Color Balance - 16 seconds to preview across the entire image on each movement of an RGB/CMY slider. Stretches to 36 seconds on each preview if "Preserve Luminosity" is turned on. Same 16/37 seconds to complete the whole image if preview is turned off, after pressing 'OK' . Levels - 16 seconds to preview across the entire image on each movement of the black/white/grey points, 16 seconds total to complete the whole image if preview is turned off, after pressing 'OK'. Turning previews off makes things quicker by only requiring one 15ish-second pass over the image - however it also makes each tool effectively useless when trying to adjust by sight. A bit like working around having a dirty windscreen by driving with your eyes closed. -- Photoshop 8.0 - Percent memory used set to 92% of available = 500MB on a fresh boot. Scratch disk is boot disk, and 'cache levels' left at 4. Adjust curves - preview is instant, well under a second across the entire image area on each movement of the curve. After clicking OK takes one second to complete a curves change on the whole image. With preview off, also takes one full second to complete a curves change on the whole image. Color Balance - preview is instant, perhaps 2-3 changes per second are reflected in the preview when moving the slider, and well under a second to complete the color balance after pressing OK. Same sub-second time when preview is off. Levels - preview seems a bit faster than with color balance, almost smooth realtime transitions reflected in the preview. Pressing OK gives an instant change of levels across the image regardless of preview. - I also have an athlon 2600+ (1912MHz) running Debian and GIMP 2.2 that I had a chance to use earlier while it had 512MB RAM in it, and though I didn't get to use this exact test image, I tested with another I was working on at the time and had similar results to the 1GHz G4, just scaled in speed. That is - a color change in gimp that took 30 seconds on the 1GHz G4 would take say 18 seconds in gimp on the Athlon 2GHz. In order to get past any background processing photoshop may have been doing, I also tried adjusting the curve in the curves dialog then quickly hit OK - this came out taking the same time as if I moved the curve and waited 10 seconds before clicking OK. Closing the image immediately afterwards was also instant, so there seemed to be no tricky background processing happening over the whole image area. I hope this helps show the large image size type problems. I wouldn't expect two apps to give identical times for every process, but there's some big inefficiency in GIMP here that's making it more than ten times slower - especially considering that Photoshop on a Powermac 7300/200 (200MHz PPC604e with 140MB RAM) is not much different to GIMP on a 2GHz Athlon with 512MB for these particular operations on images at this particular size. (That's not a glib exaggeration either. Color Balance across the same panorama while I was constructing it on the 604e took about 10 seconds. It is running Photoshop 5.5). I stress "these particular operations on images at this particular size" because in other areas GIMP's speed is fine, however I'm often working on images at this size or larger. Of course, if there are some memory/cache settings I'm missing out on to get GIMP down to the sub-second adjustments on images of this size, please tell me!. dana -- http:
Re: [Gimp-user] Cpu usage and speed
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 10:30:12AM +0100, Michele Petrazzo wrote: > Hello list, > my customer say me that he want a new graphic workstation. He said: > "give me a good machine with win xp and photoshop for handle tiff image > that can have 400/500 MB ", and have replied: "xp and photoshop? No! > linux and gimp!". > I install it, but after a day of tries, I see that gimp can't work very > well with these big images! My tries: > hardware: cpu amd 2600+, 1GB ram, hd 80GB Maxtor, ati 7000 64MB > > OSgimptime open(400MB)time curves > linux mdk 10.02.0 40 sec 80 sec > linux mdk 10.01.2 20 sec 70 sec > win xp2.2 35-40 sec 70 sec > > OSgimptime open(300MB)time curves > linux mdk 10.02.0 20 sec 40 sec > linux mdk 10.01.2 15 sec 35 sec > win xp2.2 35-40 sec 40 sec > you should start over with these numbers with the gimp preview turned off at the tools dialog. and dont bother with gimp-1.2. and there is something wrong with a test environment where the windows gimp is newer than the linux gimp. your customer said he wanted a good machine, so the problem might also be that you are relying on binary installations of a linux application and an honestly good machine should be able to build their own gimp. so, race it on the good machine your customer wants, first. count the seconds without the previews toggled on or tell him to wait until photoshop can provide real previews so it can be a fair race. carol ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Cpu usage and speed
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 10:54:42AM +0100, Michele Petrazzo wrote: > Carol Spears wrote: > >On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 10:30:12AM +0100, Michele Petrazzo wrote: > > > >>I try to install photoshop on win and it work very well with these > >>images and bigger images. > >> > > > >how about some numbers showing that windows/photoshop work better? > > On the same machine with photoshop, a preview of a "curves" tool spend > only 4-5 seconds, but when press the OK button, it spend about the same > time of gimp. > I think that photoshop don't create a real preview, like gimp, but for a > user that make a lot of changes (and preview) whit a single tool, for > view if the changes are right, the photoshop solution is better. > Try to think is a user want to make 5-6 tries to find that seem better, > he must wait 50-80 seconds every time (50*5 = 250), while with photoshop > only 4-5 seconds! (5*5 = 25) > well, then play fair. turn the previews off and see how fast gimp seems. you mention Curve Tool. that preview is toggled on the dialog and by default. if you toggle this off and you haven't messed with the other default setting, it should remain off from session to session. i was anxious to see the same numbers from your machine using windows as i did with the linux instance. since these numbers are apparently not available in that form, then run gimp using the same conditions. no previews and some "time marks". it has taken me about 10 minutes to find the gimp preview and explain it to you. can you spend 10 minutes and tell me how to show how photoshop works on windows with the same type of numbers as you did originally with gimp? carol ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Cpu usage and speed
Carol Spears wrote: On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 10:30:12AM +0100, Michele Petrazzo wrote: I try to install photoshop on win and it work very well with these images and bigger images. how about some numbers showing that windows/photoshop work better? On the same machine with photoshop, a preview of a "curves" tool spend only 4-5 seconds, but when press the OK button, it spend about the same time of gimp. I think that photoshop don't create a real preview, like gimp, but for a user that make a lot of changes (and preview) whit a single tool, for view if the changes are right, the photoshop solution is better. Try to think is a user want to make 5-6 tries to find that seem better, he must wait 50-80 seconds every time (50*5 = 250), while with photoshop only 4-5 seconds! (5*5 = 25) carol Michele ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
Re: [Gimp-user] Cpu usage and speed
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 10:30:12AM +0100, Michele Petrazzo wrote: > > I try to install photoshop on win and it work very well with these > images and bigger images. > how about some numbers showing that windows/photoshop work better? carol ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
[Gimp-user] Cpu usage and speed
Hello list, my customer say me that he want a new graphic workstation. He said: "give me a good machine with win xp and photoshop for handle tiff image that can have 400/500 MB ", and have replied: "xp and photoshop? No! linux and gimp!". I install it, but after a day of tries, I see that gimp can't work very well with these big images! My tries: hardware: cpu amd 2600+, 1GB ram, hd 80GB Maxtor, ati 7000 64MB OS gimptime open(400MB)time curves linux mdk 10.0 2.0 40 sec 80 sec linux mdk 10.0 1.2 20 sec 70 sec win xp 2.2 35-40 sec 70 sec OS gimptime open(300MB)time curves linux mdk 10.0 2.0 20 sec 40 sec linux mdk 10.0 1.2 15 sec 35 sec win xp 2.2 35-40 sec 40 sec Time curves is a modify of a color curves. (image -> color -> curves) I see that on linux OS, there are a lot of cpu work (with top) about 100 % all the time. On win OS, there are a lot of HD work, and the cpu work about 40-50 % (see on task manager). I try to install photoshop on win and it work very well with these images and bigger images. Is this correctly, so gimp don't work well with these big image? P.s. This is not a critical about gimp, only a little question. Thanks for replies and for gimp work, Michele Petrazzo Italy ___ Gimp-user mailing list Gimp-user@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
