Sean Dague wrote:
On 12/16/2009 09:08 AM, Jim Hartley wrote:
I agree - a 150MB image file is orders of magnitude bigger than what I
usually work with. And the internal representation is going to be at
least as big as the file, I believe the XCF files are more or less BMP
files with control info. So I would EXPECT it to be slow. Give it as
much memory as you can, and shut down everything else that is running so
it doesn't have to do any swapping to disk (that used to help a lot
o=when I was running on an older, slower, low-memory machine).
The internal representation is going to be much bigger than the file.
Files almost always have some compression (even high end types use
lossless compression). Looking at gimp process size will give you some
idea there.
I do have a 80 MB PSD file here with 350 layers that is the basis for
the new farm project site. That worked fine in Gimp, if you could
mentally figure out which of the 350 layers you cared about (which
wasn't always clear).
-Sean
I think gimp devs are working to improve performance.
Cool!
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/lists/gimp-developer/2009-April/022050.html
_______________________________________________
Mid-Hudson Valley Linux Users Group http://mhvlug.org
http://mhvlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mhvlug
Upcoming Meetings (6pm - 8pm) MHVLS Auditorium
Dec 2 - MythTV
Jan 6 - Git
