Compressed Image Panning Speed is too Slow,why?

[raju0003]

Hello Sirs,

I have one tiff image which has around 330 MB , when I load this image into image station software , it will take more time to display the image and when i PAN the image the loading speed of image in screen taking more , So that I decided into compressed the Original image , it came 60 MB then i loaded into software then i checked its taking also the same speed as original image

Please help me why this problem occurs and how to rectify this problem ?

Regards
Raju .K

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Raju,

This is because compressing the image only reduces an image's disk storage file size; it will still (usually) get expanded back to the same size it was when put back in your computer's memory for you to edit or even view it.

To achieve what you want, you will have to do some non-reversible things to it like;
a) reduce the pixel dimensions - e.g. image size 4000 x 2000 reduced to 1000 x 500, or
b) if you have layers in the tif, Flatten the image, or
c) reduce the colour depth from 16 bit to 8 bit (in Tif)

However, ALL these will affect how much you can subsequently edit the image and retain some quality, so they should ALWAYS be saved as a different filename so you can re-open the original large file if you need to.

I don't think this is going to help much unfortunately; in a moment, someone else will ask how much memory (RAM) your computer has, what speed the processor is, how many cores it has and before you know it, you may be looking for a faster computer
To help; if you have other applications open at the same time, close them: so don't use Excel, Word, TV Tuner, i-Player, watch webcasts, etc. at same time as trying to edit a picture.
Oh and seeing this started in HDR, close any other images you have finished editing too.

Welcome to the CiC forums from ...

[raju0003]

Thanks for your replay Sir.

Actually original size of image is 11500x7500

This is my system configuration :

1. Windows 2000

2. 512 MB

Is there any other way to increase panning speed of image ..system configuration? please replay sir..

[Dave Humphries]

That's a huge image for a small system

When you say "slow", I guess you were not exagerating!

More RAM is, I would say, essential.
I cannot remember now whether Win 2000 has a limit or can be increased to say 2GB.
If the system is fairly old (as OS suggests), maybe there will be motherboard problems too though

You are moving well out of my area of expertise, so I have moved this question to the most appropriate forum to get good answers for you.

I also deleted the duplicate question you posted in General Photography forum because having two identical questions running will confuse me further

I think we need some input from my more IT literate colleague in NZ; Colin, over to you...., (or anyone else of course)

Cheers,

[rick55]

I'll dive in until Colin gets up.

Welcome, Raju!

Dave is right: you can close other applications, which will help a little, but the bottom line is that you can't edit that file in 512MB of RAM and expect performance. Anything you use to edit that image uncompresses it first: the performance of uncompressing when panning would be far worse. So the space required is the real size of the image. The image processing software itself is executing in that same RAM, as is the operating system. If you create a gray-scale pixel layer while editing, just one byte per pixel, you add 80MB. So you can see that you're not really editing it in physical memory: the operating system is moving things back and forth to a file for you, invisibly. Unfortunately, when that happens, it's SLOW.

What version of Windows 2000 are you using? As near as I can tell, there's no "Home" version, the way there used to be with some releases (For Vista and 7, the call it "Starter"). The lowest-level version of Windows 2000 that Microsoft references is "Pro."

Windows 2000 Pro can handle 4GB of physical memory. Since it's 32-bit, it will only use 3GB, but that's not the issue here. If your machine will accept more RAM, you really want to add it. You should be able to go to the manufacturer's site to see how much physical memory it can handle, and what kind of chunks to use. For example, desktop memory is usually added in pairs of DIMM modules.

I have a desktop that I stopped using six months ago or so, and I have 1.5GB RAM in it, running Windows XP Pro. The performance was acceptable but not great for images 5000x3000. If your machine will support adding 2GB to your existing memory, you could have 2.5GB. Otherwise, maybe just jump to 4GB. If you're going to consistently edit big files like this, I think you want 4GB.

Cheers,
Rick