Paint Shop Pro support - psp8 and psp9 image adjustments slow

Author

psp8 and psp9 image adjustments slow

greensteak@aol.com

2005-02-19, 6:36 pm

I've noticed that when doing simple adjustments using PSP8 and 9, for
instance contrast, levels, saturation, that there's a short lag time
from when I move the slider until when the adjustment takes place. I
briefly get the hourglass "busy" indicator on the mouse pointer. I
usually don't use the preview windows, instead preferring to see image
at regular magnification without having to adjust the preview, but it
happens using them, too.

Programs like ACDSee and Photoshop Elements have a smooth, instant
transition as you move the slider. This is much more desireable when
doing adjustments, as the appearance constantly changes. With PSP, I
move the slider, wait, move, wait, move and wait........

I chooose PSP over the aforementioned programs, so I'm not looking to
switch, as I'm happy with everything and have accepted the lag effect.
But, does everybody experience this? I have 1 gig of ram, a 2.2
processor, and a 64mb video card. I'm wondering if a 128 or 256mb video
card will cure this.

The tech rep said it didn't happen on his computer. Also, I'm wondering
why the brush stroke effect takes forever to complete.
I cant's use this at all...........tweaking the settings takes up to a
minute and a half to take affect.

Thanks,

GS

Carl Frisk

2005-02-19, 6:36 pm

Well that card is old technology. I don't experience the lag usually unless I'm doing something very large or very
computational. Then only for a brief half second.

--
....Carl Frisk
Anger is a brief madness.
- Horace, 20 B.C.
http://www.carlfrisk.com

<greensteak@aol.com> wrote in message news:1108830612.320494.302260@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> I've noticed that when doing simple adjustments using PSP8 and 9, for
> instance contrast, levels, saturation, that there's a short lag time
> from when I move the slider until when the adjustment takes place. I
> briefly get the hourglass "busy" indicator on the mouse pointer. I
> usually don't use the preview windows, instead preferring to see image
> at regular magnification without having to adjust the preview, but it
> happens using them, too.
>
> Programs like ACDSee and Photoshop Elements have a smooth, instant
> transition as you move the slider. This is much more desireable when
> doing adjustments, as the appearance constantly changes. With PSP, I
> move the slider, wait, move, wait, move and wait........
>
> I chooose PSP over the aforementioned programs, so I'm not looking to
> switch, as I'm happy with everything and have accepted the lag effect.
> But, does everybody experience this? I have 1 gig of ram, a 2.2
> processor, and a 64mb video card. I'm wondering if a 128 or 256mb video
> card will cure this.
>
> The tech rep said it didn't happen on his computer. Also, I'm wondering
> why the brush stroke effect takes forever to complete.
> I cant's use this at all...........tweaking the settings takes up to a
> minute and a half to take affect.
>
> Thanks,
>
> GS
>

Fred Hiltz

2005-02-19, 6:37 pm

greensteak@aol.com wrote:
> I've noticed that when doing simple adjustments using PSP8 and 9,
> for instance contrast, levels, saturation, that there's a short
> lag time from when I move the slider until when the adjustment
> takes place. I briefly get the hourglass "busy" indicator on the
> mouse pointer. I usually don't use the preview windows, instead
> preferring to see image at regular magnification without having
> to adjust the preview, but it happens using them, too.
>
> Programs like ACDSee and Photoshop Elements have a smooth, instant
> transition as you move the slider. This is much more desireable
> when doing adjustments, as the appearance constantly changes.
> With PSP, I move the slider, wait, move, wait, move and
> wait........
>
> I chooose PSP over the aforementioned programs, so I'm not
> looking to switch, as I'm happy with everything and have accepted
> the lag effect. But, does everybody experience this? I have 1 gig
> of ram, a 2.2 processor, and a 64mb video card. I'm wondering if
> a 128 or 256mb video card will cure this.
>
> The tech rep said it didn't happen on his computer. Also, I'm
> wondering why the brush stroke effect takes forever to complete.
> I cant's use this at all...........tweaking the settings takes up
> to a minute and a half to take affect.

It does not happen on my computer, either, GS. It's 1.6GHz, 1 GB
RAM. Well, it will slow down on large images. A single-layer 9 MB
image takes about 1.5 seconds for a Hue/Saturation/Lightness
adjustment. There is a 0.5-second intentional delay before that
starts, to allow for several settings changes at one go. Is that
what you are seeing? 90 seconds for a simple HSL adjustment is way
out of line unless your image is truly huge. What does Image > Image
Information say about memory used in RAM?

The heavyweight computations of Digital Camera Noise Removal can
take tens of seconds here.

One easy thing to check: PSP should be getting 100% of the CPU when
running the filter. Watch the Windows Task Manager's Processes tab
to verify that nothing else is stealing cycles.

2-D image editors like PSP, ACDSee, and PSE do not need and do not
use the advanced 3-D graphics features of high-end video cards. Any
recent card that has enough memory to hold one screen of data will
do fine. (Pixel width) times (pixel height) times (four bytes per
pixel) is the video memory requirement.

That said, a buggy video driver can still slow things down. Test by
setting the hardware acceleration all the way down with Control
Panel > Display > Settings > Advanced > Troubleshoot. If your
display runs better that way, get an updated video driver from the
card manufacturer. Not from Microsoft, which runs months or years
behind on driver updates.

This does not apply to you, but for others reading, the "integrated"
video sold with low-end PCs is definitely a drag to be avoided.
Video processing steals memory cycles and processor cycles from the
CPU. A suitable separate graphics card is cheap today; buy it.

Brush strokes can be slow if the step size is small. The Step number
in the Tool Options palette is a percentage of brush size. For most
work, 15% to 40% is adequate. 1% makes PSP compute an awful lot of
brush impressions, usually wasted.

Kris Zaklika

2005-02-19, 11:17 pm

Fred Hiltz wrote:
[snip]

> Brush strokes can be slow if the step size is small. The Step number
> in the Tool Options palette is a percentage of brush size. For most
> work, 15% to 40% is adequate. 1% makes PSP compute an awful lot of
> brush impressions, usually wasted.

The default step is 25. Additionally, look in the Brush
Variance palette and make sure you have not selected
multiple impressions per step.

Nightingail

2005-02-20, 4:25 am

I had it with beta versions of both PSP8 and PSP9, but it was
fixed in the final releases. You're not by any chance still using
beta versions? Just a thought.

Gail
--
Nightingail's Gallery
http://www.nightingail.com

<greensteak@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1108830612.320494.302260@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> I've noticed that when doing simple adjustments using PSP8 and
9, for
> instance contrast, levels, saturation, that there's a short lag
time
> from when I move the slider until when the adjustment takes
place. I
> briefly get the hourglass "busy" indicator on the mouse
pointer. I
> usually don't use the preview windows, instead preferring to
see image
> at regular magnification without having to adjust the preview,
but it
> happens using them, too.
>
> Programs like ACDSee and Photoshop Elements have a smooth,
instant
> transition as you move the slider. This is much more desireable
when
> doing adjustments, as the appearance constantly changes. With
PSP, I
> move the slider, wait, move, wait, move and wait........
>
> I chooose PSP over the aforementioned programs, so I'm not
looking to
> switch, as I'm happy with everything and have accepted the lag
effect.
> But, does everybody experience this? I have 1 gig of ram, a 2.2
> processor, and a 64mb video card. I'm wondering if a 128 or
256mb video
> card will cure this.
>
> The tech rep said it didn't happen on his computer. Also, I'm
wondering
> why the brush stroke effect takes forever to complete.
> I cant's use this at all...........tweaking the settings takes
up to a
> minute and a half to take affect.
>
> Thanks,
>
> GS
>

greensteak@aol.com

2005-02-20, 11:23 pm

> It does not happen on my computer, either, GS. It's 1.6GHz, 1 GB
> RAM. Well, it will slow down on large images. A single-layer 9 MB
> image takes about 1.5 seconds for a Hue/Saturation/Lightness
> adjustment. There is a 0.5-second intentional delay before that
> starts, to allow for several settings changes at one go. Is that
> what you are seeing?

The following tests were all done on a 2.8 mb image.

I did a HSL combo, adjusting the sliders on all three two notches up in
a single command. The average time for the effect to take place after
hitting the proof button was about 4 seconds.

>90 seconds for a simple HSL adjustment is way
> out of line unless your image is truly huge.

That lenght of time was only for brush strokes.

>What does Image > Image
> Information say about memory used in RAM?

24 mb, and task manager reported 57 mb for PSP9.

> The heavyweight computations of Digital Camera Noise Removal can
> take tens of seconds here.
>
> One easy thing to check: PSP should be getting 100% of the CPU when
> running the filter. Watch the Windows Task Manager's Processes tab
> to verify that nothing else is stealing cycles.

Task Manager reported 97% to 99% consistently. I also have AOL and OE6
running in the backround. The command took 1:33 to complete. See more
on that below.

>
> 2-D image editors like PSP, ACDSee, and PSE do not need and do not
> use the advanced 3-D graphics features of high-end video cards. Any
> recent card that has enough memory to hold one screen of data will
> do fine. (Pixel width) times (pixel height) times (four bytes per
> pixel) is the video memory requirement.

That comes to about 32mb for an 8mp image. I have 64mb.

>
> That said, a buggy video driver can still slow things down. Test by
> setting the hardware acceleration all the way down with Control
> Panel > Display > Settings > Advanced > Troubleshoot. If your
> display runs better that way, get an updated video driver from the
> card manufacturer. Not from Microsoft, which runs months or years
> behind on driver updates.

I did that, and thought I'd found a difference running Digital Camera
Noise Removal. The times for the command were now consistently around
55
seconds. But after setting the accelleration back to high, the command
maintained the 55 second completion period. Go figure.

> This does not apply to you, but for others reading, the "integrated"
> video sold with low-end PCs is definitely a drag to be avoided.
> Video processing steals memory cycles and processor cycles from the
> CPU. A suitable separate graphics card is cheap today; buy it.
>
> Brush strokes can be slow if the step size is small. The Step number
> in the Tool Options palette is a percentage of brush size. For most
> work, 15% to 40% is adequate. 1% makes PSP compute an awful lot of
> brush impressions, usually wasted.

Thanks for the information. It's a livable situation, but I just wanted
to see how others were experiencing it if at all.

GS

greensteak@aol.com

2005-02-20, 11:23 pm

no, these are shipped in the box finals.

Uni

2005-02-20, 11:23 pm

greensteak@aol.com wrote:
> no, these are shipped in the box finals.

Damn!!! PSP = Paint Shop Poky?

:-)

Uni

Fred Hiltz

2005-02-20, 11:23 pm

greensteak@aol.com wrote:
> The following tests were all done on a 2.8 mb image.
>
> I did a HSL combo, adjusting the sliders on all three two notches
> up in a single command. The average time for the effect to take
> place after hitting the proof button was about 4 seconds.
>
>
> 24 mb, and task manager reported 57 mb for PSP9.

Is it 2.8 MB or 24 MB? Maybe the 2.8 MB is the size of the JPEG file
on disk, which is irrelevant after the file is open in PSP. Four
seconds for a 24-MB HSL is in line with my experience.

>
> That comes to about 32mb for an 8mp image. I have 64mb.

One screen of data, not one complete image. For example, if the
highest display resolution you anticipate is 1600 x 1200 pixels,
then 1600 x 1200 x 4 = 7,680,000 bytes is enough.

[snip][color=darkred]
>
> That lenght of time was only for brush strokes.
>

How do your brushes behave with Step = 25? They should be
instantaneous.
--
Fred Hiltz, fhiltz at yahoo dot com