Could it be that Photoshop does the previews only on the visible pixels? I don't know how the gimp does this, but it seems to me that realtime previews on images would best be done on the set of pixels the user can actually see, i.e. not the pixels hidden by zooming or panning. Then clicking on okay would finish it. -George -----Original Message----- From: Jon Winters <winters@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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 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 cache) > -- > Jon Winters http://www.obscurasite.com/ > > "Everybody loves the GIMP!" > http://www.gimp.org/ > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 09:52:55 -0500 (CDT) > From: Jon Winters <winters@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: gimp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: gimp-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, gimp-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Performance of Gimp vs. photoshop for large images > > > Hello all, > > Yesturday I requested that our friend send me a copy of his image so that > I could try the test on my computer at work. (PIII 400 128MB, Matrox G400, > WinNT) > > I chose to test with levels because I adjust levels or curves on almost > every image I edit. > > In Photoshop (v5.0) the redraw after letting go of one of the levels > sliders was less than two seconds. (default 'out of the box' photoshop > configuration) > > In the gimp I was surprised that the performance is indeed terrible. With > the tile cache set to 72MB it took 40 seconds. With the tile cache set to > 96MB it took 16 seconds. Moving the tile cache to 128MB (on this 128MB > machine) knocked it down to 11 seconds. > > Is there some other configuration that I am missing? > > Years ago I worked as a photographer and our standard image size, in our > studio using a Leaf Digital Camera Back, was around 100MB. This kind of > performance hit would seriously hamper productivity and pretty much force > the use photoshop. > > Tonight I'll run the same test on my computer at home. (Dual PIII 450, > 256MB ram, 32MB G400, RedHat 6.2/Helix Gnome) > > Thanks > -- > Jon Winters http://www.obscurasite.com/ > > "Everybody loves the GIMP!" > http://www.gimp.org/ > > > >
