-
Hi everyone,
I'm new to pixl, and I have a large project ahead of me. The problem is that I've noticed early on that PI seems to eat up a huge (unreasonable to me) amount of RAM, dipping heavily into the virtual memory.
I've got 512 Meg on the system, and with nothing else running, I look at the Windows XP Task Manager in the Processes tab, and PI (Iedit.exe) has about 40 Meg memory. Fine. But when I open a simple 20 Meg .jpg, it goes to over 400 Meg--and I haven't even started to edit anything. I've turned the Undo completely off because I thought this was the culprit, but it's not. When I start cutting and pasting and doing filters and all, the pagefile goes past 2 Gigs of use.
I guess my questions are:
What's up with that?
and:
Is this common--do you all see similar behaviour? Should I just accept it and maybe add memory to the system? Or is there some setting I should tweak? I don't have any system problems that I'm aware of--all other programs on my system run extremely fast and efficiently. But when PI runs, I stare at a hourglass and listen to the disk churn.
Thanks for any insight...
--Jim
-
Hi everyone,
I'm new to pixl, and I have a large project ahead of me. The problem is that I've noticed early on that PI seems to eat up a huge (unreasonable to me) amount of RAM, dipping heavily into the virtual memory.
I've got 512 Meg on the system, and with nothing else running, I look at the Windows XP Task Manager in the Processes tab, and PI (Iedit.exe) has about 40 Meg memory. Fine. But when I open a simple 20 Meg .jpg, it goes to over 400 Meg--and I haven't even started to edit anything. I've turned the Undo completely off because I thought this was the culprit, but it's not. When I start cutting and pasting and doing filters and all, the pagefile goes past 2 Gigs of use.
I guess my questions are:
What's up with that?
and:
Is this common--do you all see similar behaviour? Should I just accept it and maybe add memory to the system? Or is there some setting I should tweak? I don't have any system problems that I'm aware of--all other programs on my system run extremely fast and efficiently. But when PI runs, I stare at a hourglass and listen to the disk churn.
Thanks for any insight...
--Jim
-
If you are planning on using PIXL alot, I would recommend getting a video card with at least 8X AGP and 128MB on it (make sure your mother board supports 8x) ... it is common for the newer photo programs to eat alot of memory. What video card are u using now?
-
Thanks for replying. I'm using an ATI Radeon 9000, with 64Meg memory, and the motherboard (Gigabyte w/nForce2 400) supports 8x AGP.
I guess another 64Meg on the video card would help, but I'm at a loss as to why this disk is thrashing like crazy. It's defragged every night, and no other programs--even memory-intensive ones like compilers or disk-intensive ones like databases--will bring the machine to it's knees like pixl.
I've got to think there's some setting I've got wrong because I can't see a professional who works with pixl all day getting anything done unless they're working with small files. I'll wait literally 20 seconds to get the control of the machine back before I do another operation on the image--but sometimes it goes for 4 or 5 operations, ie, copy/paste/crop/filter/save with no problems. But then I go to make another selection and the old selection box (that dashed-rectangle box) un-draws itself very slowly and then the new selection draws slowly over what I (blindly) drew with the mouse. It's not very productive.
Thanks for any info you might be able to give me,
--Jim
-
Hmmm.. just thinking out loud here, I will look into more details today.. how empty is your Hard drive? If you have installed lots of programs which edit your registry, it could be some reg settings messing you up. I had huge problems with Corel like that.. I cleaned the hard drive and did a fresh install, worked great... also, what is your Vmemory set at? do a defrag on your HD... I will get back to you with more later (once my brain starts working today.)
-
This is a relatively new install of XP, but I do have alot of other programs installed. I defrag the HD every night (on the Task Scheduler), and I've got about 40 Gig free. I've experimented with different VM settings--It's my understanding that if you 'hardcode' the min/max VM settings, then Windows won't have to dynamically resize the VM. The problem first happened when I was using 'Let windows manage vm' setting, which, with 512Meg Ram, is set to 150% or 768Meg min VM size. So I set the Min VM to 2 Gig, and Max to 6 Gig. I also tried setting the Pagefile on the other physical HD, which has about 20 gig free.
In addition, I tried setting Pixl's own temp directorys to the other HD, then tried using both HD's (pixl allows up to 4 different temp directories) and the problem still exits. I've run speed tests on the HD's, they're both very fast, the nForce2 chipset has some good UDMA drivers, and the Mode is UDMA 5--100MB/Sec. Actual throughput is lower of course, but my tests show that it is still very good--I can copy a 100Meg file from one drive to another in under 3 seconds.
But 100Meg/3-seconds is 30 seconds for 1Gig, and this is what seems to be happening--while the system memory used by Iedit.exe goes to over 400Meg--the pagefile kicks in and goes to 1.5 gig, and I've seen it creep up to 2gig--so that (insane) disk usage is where I think the time is going.
Thanks agian for helping on this,
--Jim
-
Dont defrag every night.. that moves your files around by repetition and will mess you up.. Try using a defrag by diskeeper (not XP) and only run once per week... if you are NTSF then only once a month or longer.
Processing files from two HD's will cause bottle necking.. you are reading, processing, and putting back on the HD in order to process information from another HD (the source program).
So put your swap file on the same HD as the PIXL and also make sure the HD's are on the IDE bus on the mother board, not on a PCI card.
Let me know how that stuff is working.
Good Luck.
-
Yes, the HD issue I changed, I've got it back on the same HD. I had gone back & forth with that, and the defragging I just started, when I thought that might be a culprit--and I of course had the problem before the nightly defrags also.
So what I'm assuming is that you've not seen this behaviour? I guess if this were the 'norm' we'd hear more about it or more likely Pixl wouldn't exist at all. So I'm going to keep looking at settings and see what could possibley do this. It's almost like I'm expecting to find some off-the-wall, hidden setting like "# of backup copies of each Opened file to make behind-the-scenes: 50" ...or something like that.
--jsteph
-
Unfortunately I dont have PIXL yet.. I am still using PI8.. so I cant get into the settings and junk with you.. I will look through my PI8 settings and see if I find anything that could be changed to cause this.. have you contacted Ulead yet? they might could help you out.. BTW please post your fix if you find it in case someone else incounters the problem.
Best of luck.
-
Well I'm cautiously optimistic about this being fixed.
I had contacted ULead when this first started happening. They had said to re-install Pixl. I had done that--twice. The problem was still there. But yesterday I reinstalled for the third time, and now the problem seems to have gone away.
I say 'cautiously optimistic' because on one of the previous attempts at reinstalling I thought it had gone away-but after the second image I loaded it was back. But last night I worked for about 1 1/2 hours doing the same stuff that had problems before--but now with no problems at all.
So my fingers are crossed that this is fixed for good, but I have that nagging nervousness that one day it's going to happen again out-of-the-blue. And this of course is because I don't know for sure what the exact cause was, and further--I don't know for sure that re-installing will fix it every time, since I had tried it twice before. But the problem is definitely gone for now.
My guesses are that something else I installed might have hosed or overwritten with a new version some .dll that's critical to Pixl. This is a relatively new install of Windows XP, and I'm still in the process of gradually loading all of my apps, and there were a few things loaded after Pixl but before this problem started.
So thanks for all your help, and I'll post more if I get some more specific info on what the problem actually was.
--Jim
-
Jim, I would suggest that, rather than load the entire meg image into PhotoImpact that you do a partial load. You can select whatever portion of the image you're working on. This would help solve a few problems in that it wouldn't take nearly as much memory.
If you have any third party plugins, you may want to uncheck the pointer to them because all of those loaded when you load PI. And last but not least, if you have an excessive amount of fonts, they too eat up memory as all of them are loaded when the program loads.
MaryLou
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 color=navy>
MaryLou, RtD</font>
<hr>
<table border=0>
<tr><td align=left>
<a href=http://wwell.net>
http://www.pircnet.com/bb/buttons/ww-tutorials.gif</a></td>
<td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 color=navy>
<a href=http://www.pircnet.com>PhotoImpact Resource Center (PIRC)</a>
AIM: MaryLouJW E-Mail: <a href=mailto:mlwhite@pircnet.com> mlwhite@pircnet.com</a></font></td></tr>
</table>
-
MaryLou,
Thank you. I will try those things--I had forgotten about the plug-ins, but I have a couple of those.
The problem most definitely returned after I reinstalled though. I'm convinced that the crux of the issue is Pixl's memory managment (or lack thereof). I 'solved' the problem from a practical sense--I bumped my Ram from 512 to 1 Gig. So the slowness is gone, but I can tell that pixl is not only using up the ENTIRE 1 gig--but it's going to the swapfile for another gig and then some. My pagefile usage gradually increments throughout a pixl session to over 1.3 gig. I watch it happen as I open/edit/close each image--up, up, up.
Now come on, ULead. Over Two full gigs of memory and the most I have open at 1 time is 3 images totalling 40-50 megs? And only 2 undo levels. Where is that memory going? It's leaking, that's my professional opinion. As a software developer I know how these things happen. And I know these leaks can be difficult for a programmer to track down, but reducing memory leaks is part of developing a bulletproof system. I'm not really complaining too much though--I am thoroughly impressed with the rest of Pixl, and for the money, I guess I shouldn't expect perfection.
I will try unloading some fonts and the plug-ins, but as I said, I threw hardware at it and solved the practical sense of the problem.
Thanks again,
--Jim
-
From what I've been told elsewhere, the installed fonts don't consume much memory in 98SE onwards because small pointers alone are loaded (unlike 95). So this may not help but I'll be happy to be told I'm wrong if I am
Jon
-
jon,
It's Windows XP, sp1. I'm not sure about just the font pointers being loaded, at least not in pixl, because as you scroll through the font list for a text object the preveiw for each font pops up, and the fonts have to be at least partially--if not fully--loaded for that to happen.
But I really don't think it's fonts or even the fact that I'm not partially loading the image--although those things would certainly help. Pixl is eating up gobs of memory--way more than fonts or the images I'm loading. And it's not realeasing it--maybe it's the clipboard, maybe the 'undo' structures, I'm not sure what. But my swapfile goes way past a Gig, which should only be drawn upon when physical memory is exhausted--which is 1 Gig, and I'm dealing with images in the 5-30 meg range.
Maybe what I'm doing isn't that common, but I think it's normal. I'm not opening an image and editing with it for hours and then saving it. I'm doing mass-production--bringing in an 8x10 scanned image, cut/pasting it into 4 new 4x5 images. Then, on each of the 4, doing a rotate, maybe a brightness adjustment or filter, then save & close. I probably do 15 8x10 images in an hour (60 separate new images).
Before I added the second 512 stick of RAM, it would take about 30 min. before the swapfile and disk thrashing got to the point where I simply could not work at all--I'd have to close pixl and restart it, which drains the swapfile and I can work again. Now I can work much, much longer, but the swapfile still gets up there. I've masked--not solved--the problem with RAM, but I just don't think one should need a gig of memory to do the kind of work I'm doing with pixl.
--jsteph
-
I duuno, I think it may have something to do with the specific system config... I mean I only have a very small Celeron 400, with only 256 megs ram and a puny 8 meg 64 bit v card, and am running Win98... to which, well... I mean it isn't gonna win me any grsfx races for sure,but yea... I am able to use PI just fine, and I have tried out XL and didn't have any bumps along the way... sure I can see the progress bar when applying fx. and of course I only have the undo level set to 50, and auto save is a must go from the git go, but yea... it even runs on my wife's machine... 266 Celeron (no L2), 192 megs ram, 16 meg 128 bit vcard...
so in short... I really dunno what to say, other than it works as PI always does, over here http://www.talkgraphics.com/images/smilies/smile.gif
hope you get this resolved http://www.talkgraphics.com/images/smilies/smile.gif
-
Just had another thought - are you running the autosave feature? that really hogs up memory because it has to keep track of where you are and watch the clock so it can save according to the time you specified.
MaryLou
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 color=navy>
MaryLou, RtD</font>
<hr>
<table border=0>
<tr><td align=left>
<a href=http://wwell.net>
http://www.pircnet.com/bb/buttons/ww-tutorials.gif</a></td>
<td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 color=navy>
<a href=http://www.pircnet.com>PhotoImpact Resource Center (PIRC)</a>
AIM: MaryLouJW E-Mail: <a href=mailto:mlwhite@pircnet.com> mlwhite@pircnet.com</a></font></td></tr>
</table>
-
MaryLou,
Thanks, I had tried that before and it does help by just having autosave stay out of the way--since the default is 5 min, I'd often be waiting on an hourglass for the other disk thrashing, then when I thought I'd get the machine back--the autosave kicked in, so I had disabled it, but it's now reenabled.
gidget, Marylou,
Have either of you noticed anything when doing repetitive stuff like I described? A typical process cycle for me is (which is repeated every 2-3 minutes or less):
Open main Image--about 30 meg jpg, which is a scan of 4 photos that were arranged on the flatbed scanner;
Select single photo (1/4 of main image);
ctrl-C (copy selection);
ctrl-n (new image 'same as clipboard');
ctrl-V (paste to new);
Shift-M (merge);
Click the Transform button; Rotate (either 90 or 180);
Express-Fix--usually exposure and color cast;
Ctrl-s (save) save to jpg (100% quality);
epeat with next 3 selections;
Close original;
------
Open next scanned image and repeat cycle.
I'd have Task Manager's 'Performance' tab open, and after each main image I noticed the swapfile would grow by about 80-150 meg after each image. So after just a few images, the swapfile was near 1 gig.
Prior to adding more RAM, I would notice after maybe the 4rd or 5th main image, that when I'd go to make, say, the second selection, that the prior selection box would very, very, very slowly un-draw, and the new selection box would very slowly draw itself. This would take at least 20 seconds, sometimes nearly a minute! All the while the red disk light is full on, the disk just thrashing away. Closing pixl would start with a clear the swapfile, and I'd be ok for the next few images.
Now of course the slowness is gone, but the swapfile still grows huge, and I can see the selection boxes un-draw/redraw, but very fast, since it seems to be happening in memory, not the disk.
My guess is that one of those aforementioned operations is just not clearing itself out of memory, and it's staying in the swapfile (which is, as far as pixl is concerned, RAM). As I said, I develop software, and I'm well aware of the issue of 'memory leaks', and when developing an app such as pixl (any app, for that matter), extreme care and attention to detail must be taken to prevent these leaks, and I admit that it is not easy and leaks are possibly the most common 'bug' in programs--probably 99% of programs have these, but mostly the scope is small and the manifestation isn't serious and so they go unnoticed.
I've tried fiddling with registry settings that keep certain things in memory (Windows Exec files, for example) and I've had the swapfile on different drives, etc. but regardless of all that, I just don't think all that memory should be used for what I'm doing. I can see where it might need it *while it's doing those operations*, but once done and the image is closed, that memory should be released, and obviously it's not.
I'd be very interested if anyone has tried similar steps like that repetetively and noticed the same thing.
--Jim
-
Hi ML... yea that auto save, though a nice option for some, really just gets in the way for others eh http://www.talkgraphics.com/images/smilies/smile.gif
Hi Jim... hmm, repetitive tasks... haha...
it's all repetitive tasks when using editors of any sort... Here's to tasks managers, and improved workflow, within all apps http://www.talkgraphics.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
While suggesting that I have not noticed such concerns with PIXL, as you have, it should also be noted that I did follow through with such testings as have you... hmmm
I would think that if anybody in the PI community knew of this type of bug, that somebody would have posted such already... ML here for instance, has a PI specific board, to which, should suaid bug been noticed by the members, and brought to attention, then I would think ML would know about it... really http://www.talkgraphics.com/images/smilies/smile.gif
so I really don't have an answer for you Jim, not as of yet anyways... we will look further http://www.talkgraphics.com/images/smilies/smile.gif
-
Well I tried it on another machine. I downloaded the trial version so I could test it on this machine. It's similarly configured, a P4 2.5 gig Dell with 512Meg ram.
I just created a new empty image 5000x6000 pixels--about the same size as the ones I was doing (8x10 inch at 600dpi)--then I hit print-screen and pasted that in until the image was full, and saved as jpeg/100%. About 30 meg or so.
Then I selected a quarter of the image, did new/same-as-cliboard, pasted, merged, flipped, did some edits, and saved. Did that 4 times, closed, reopened and did it again, and sure enough the swapfile was huge--only 800meg on this--but that was only the second go-round.
And the selection box was very slow to un-draw/re-draw, and there was alot of disk thrashing. If you all have done similar and things with similar sized images and things just snap along with no delays and disk-thrashing and big swapfiles, then I've got to be doing something wrong.
I have heard from ULead, and they are looking into it, so hopefully I'll know something soon.
--Jim
-
Hi Jim... perhaps try out PI8, and let us know how it goes with v8 vs XL with your system... basically the same toolset, minus a few new wizards etc...
-
I have a question for you jim.
what are you doing that your files are SO big?
my RAW files from my Nikon D100 are only 2 or 3 MB? you are working with 30MB files at 600 DPI? are you printing billboards?
just curious.<grin>
-
I was wondering that too - why the huge file size? Mine too are in the 2-3 meg size. Not sure what I'd do with one that big. Maybe that's why they have the partial load - it's very nice because you just load in the portions you want to work on and when you save, it updates the image.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 color=navy>
MaryLou, RtD</font>
<hr>
<table border=0>
<tr><td align=left>
<a href=http://wwell.net>
http://www.pircnet.com/bb/buttons/ww-tutorials.gif</a></td>
<td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 color=navy>
<a href=http://www.pircnet.com>PhotoImpact Resource Center (PIRC)</a>
AIM: MaryLouJW E-Mail: <a href=mailto:mlwhite@pircnet.com> mlwhite@pircnet.com</a></font></td></tr>
</table>
-
My advice; buy Photoshop.
Photoimpact isn't well suited for large files, it's just a program for some simple web graphics. Professionals don't use Photoimpact, at least I've never see any design studio using it.
-
Netbutch,
I'm scanning photographs, and at the 'default' 200dpi, the quality just isn't there. Some of these may be just for viewing, some for printing 8x10's. And most importantly, in crowd shots or other wide shots, I am cropping individuals or small groups in crowds. Anything less than 600 dpi will result in a very pixelated image when a small section of the original is blown up to be it's own image.
This has worked out very well, these are good shots taken with 64 or 100 speed film, and I can scan in a crystal-clear and sharp image from, say, a 1x1 inch head-shot cropped from a 3x5 photo. Much, much clearer and more detailed than a full head-shot taken with my 3.3 megapixel digital camera.
As I had said, I'm very impressed with everything else in Pixl, it I'm getting the impression that maybe I am stretching it with these images, but I didn't think it was uncommon to have images that size. I had tried scanning at 1200dpi, but pixl wouldn't even open the file, and besides, 600 seems just about right for the grain-fineness of 100 speed film prints.
But from a practical standpoint the problem is gone, though doing the math I'm still convinced that pixl is leaking memory: 5000x6000x24bit is about 90 megs (compressed jpeg is about 30meg, depending on % compression), but as far as pixl is concerned, it needs to store 90meg of pixels, regardless of what's displayed on the screen or what the .jpg file size is. Then each undo level must store the previous image. I only have 2 levels, so the current image and 2 undo's is still less than 300meg...and even if I had the full original image in the clipboard that's only another 90meg. The program itself takes 25 megs when it starts, and the rest of windows maybe 60 meg. But I'm seeing 1 gig of ram plus 1.5 gig of swapfile. And even now with the extra ram, if I don't close pixl every 1 or 2 hours I'll start hearing the thrashing start. It doesn't make sense.
Oh well, Ulead has been reasonably prompt at replying and asking for different info, etc, so they are looking at it, and maybe they'll find something. And I do appreciate all of everyone's help here, it's been enlightening. I will post any info from Ulead on this when I hear it, but for now things are pretty snappy with the added ram, so I'll just go with that.
--Jim
-
I have but a old Visioneer scanner, as well a very small .8 megapix Canon A5, so that would explain my part in all of this http://www.talkgraphics.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
....interesting that your scans are better than your photo's... with me it is the other way around, no, make that... they both are about the same... and niether close to what my old Konika was able to produce...
It's all in the glass I tell ya http://www.talkgraphics.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif
As for the app, well... maybe next year will see this kid sporting some new and much more powerful toys, to which I will remember this thread, and be sure to attemt same just to see ...
and will do such in every version from 4 up, just to get a better glimpse towards just what all the bells and whistles have cost us... the hard part is factoring in the workflow concerns, as in time spent processing vs time spent creating via PI's wide array of user friendly, multiple level, tool options...
I feel for you no doubt, and do hope you find a resolve... more ram http://www.talkgraphics.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif ...
and... uggg, no doubt, if something bogs and leaks...
and, yes, please keep us posted with this... most interesting http://www.talkgraphics.com/images/smilies/smile.gif
thanks Jim http://www.talkgraphics.com/images/smilies/smile.gif
-
One of the issues you may need to consider is the type of processor you are using. If you have a Celeron and your board will support a P4, then you should do that. My system is running an AMD Athlon XP 2700 Thoroughbred. I have 512 RAM, an ATI video card 128mb. Except for very large gif files I have no lag at all. The problem may not be your processor, it maybe the lack of a firewall and anti-virus updates. Even with lots of precautions it is still possible to pick up a virus or spyware which does really bog down the system. Defragging will not get rid of that trouble. But regarding the processor, AMD does a great job of handling graphics. Make sure you are installing all your Windows Updates, back up your data. Windows XP Professional over XP Home has fewer problems. The only problem PI has for me is it doesn't like to open saved files from my Zip Disk.
-
There is a solution to those huge files - select only the part you really want in the preview phase of the scan, then pump the res way up there. You'll get a much smaller file at a higher resolution than you would by scanning the entire thing and then cropping out what you want.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 color=navy>
MaryLou, RtD</font>
<hr>
<table border=0>
<tr><td align=left>
<a href=http://wwell.net>
http://www.pircnet.com/bb/buttons/ww-tutorials.gif</a></td>
<td><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 color=navy>
<a href=http://www.pircnet.com>PhotoImpact Resource Center (PIRC)</a>
AIM: MaryLouJW E-Mail: <a href=mailto:mlwhite@pircnet.com> mlwhite@pircnet.com</a></font></td></tr>
</table>
-
The installation of too many fonts can cause a lot of problems. I was playing around the other day with a lot of dingbat fonts, I downloaded and installed the zipped files. The next time I booted up I was having all sorts of problems. There is a handy note on how to have your cake and eat it too. I quote PIRC "Tips and Tricks": You don't have to install a font to use it! Simply double-click on the font to open it, then open the program(s) where you want to use the font and it will show up on the font list. The font will remain available until you close it. My suggestion, is analyze the fonts you actually use, save what you don't use to disk and/or put them in another folder rather than using your Windows font folder, then open them when you want. No more memory problems! (At least if this is the trouble!) A handy tool to have is Character Map Pro. It gives you a much better preview of what fonts have to offer. It is free and available here. http://www.5star-shareware.com/Deskt...armap-pro.html The next time you upgrade your hardware check out the following, AMD costs less than Pentium systems and offers a lot for heavy graphical applications and gamers. Newer hard drives are coming with onboard 8megs of cache which should help. And the type of RAM does make a terrific difference, use the recommended and as much of it as you can afford. If you are up to building your own system, ASUS makes great motherboards.
-
Yep - Ive got similar problems, using a 2.4 P4, XP Pro, 32MG Video, 512MB RAM and PI 7. Frequently, I'll have multiple images open(lets say, 10) and the same thing happen to me...hard drive goe's into fits for long durations, and more than half the time program will notify me that "a required resource is needed"(or something like that, and sometimes completely lock up requiring the task manager to shut down.
I'm not sure about the technical aspects of page files and/or swap files, but interestingly enough, I didn't have the same problems with a PII 266 128MB system. Yeah, things ran "slow", but I never had a "resource" or lockup problem. Is this a pagefile or swap file problem?
I'm very interested in hearing about new developments and/or resolutions.
-
Maybe you need,a good memory manager?
you should try(cachman)
http://www.outertech.com/
it's a great program!
