CS and large files — help!

B
Posted By
bhilton665
Nov 8, 2003
Views
489
Replies
16
Status
Closed
Using default settings it looks like CS requires a LOT more RAM than Photoshop 7 to open a program, so much RAM that you’ll be working off the scratch disk almost from the time you load a big file, which is really going to slow things down.

Maybe I’m doing something wrong … take a look at these numbers and see if they make sense …

111 Mbyte file opens in 7 eating 262 Mb of RAM while in CS the "Scratch Sizes" indicator option on the bottom-left of the window says it takes 720 Mb, or more than 600 Mb over the file size just for overhead. This is before any other operation has taken place, just opening the file.

328 Mb file takes 519 Mb in 7 but 1,005 Mb in CS.

552 Mb file needs 783 Mb in 7 but 1,300 Mb in CS.

Basically even if you have the maximum 2 GB of RAM and assign a high percent of it to Photoshop you’re still unable to work in RAM for more than a couple of operations, which is not very nice at all. (2 GB shows up as 1777 MB in the Preferences box for ‘Available RAM’ and assigning 80% to Photoshop gives you
1.35 GB in the ‘Scratch Sizes’ monitor window).

Any of the Adobe designers care to comment on ways I might cut down on the overhead, or is this just something we have to live with. As a frequent user of large files I have to say this is a disappointment.

Bill
Related Tags
file help large

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

F
Flycaster
Nov 8, 2003
"Bill Hilton" wrote in message
Using default settings it looks like CS requires a LOT more RAM than
Photoshop
7 to open a program, so much RAM that you’ll be working off the scratch
disk
almost from the time you load a big file, which is really going to slow
things
down.

Maybe I’m doing something wrong … take a look at these numbers and see
if
they make sense …

111 Mbyte file opens in 7 eating 262 Mb of RAM while in CS the "Scratch
Sizes"
indicator option on the bottom-left of the window says it takes 720 Mb, or
more
than 600 Mb over the file size just for overhead. This is before any
other
operation has taken place, just opening the file.

328 Mb file takes 519 Mb in 7 but 1,005 Mb in CS.

552 Mb file needs 783 Mb in 7 but 1,300 Mb in CS.

Basically even if you have the maximum 2 GB of RAM and assign a high
percent of
it to Photoshop you’re still unable to work in RAM for more than a couple
of
operations, which is not very nice at all. (2 GB shows up as 1777 MB in
the
Preferences box for ‘Available RAM’ and assigning 80% to Photoshop gives
you
1.35 GB in the ‘Scratch Sizes’ monitor window).

Any of the Adobe designers care to comment on ways I might cut down on the overhead, or is this just something we have to live with. As a frequent
user
of large files I have to say this is a disappointment.

Having not yet upgraded, I’m going to watch the responses on this one, and your other post about the apparent file tagging as well. If these are for real, they’re deal killers for me….

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–
B
bhilton665
Nov 8, 2003
From: (Bill Hilton)

552 Mb file needs 783 Mb in 7 but 1,300 Mb in CS.

328 Mb file takes 519 Mb in 7 but 1,005 Mb in CS.

111 Mbyte file opens in 7 eating 262 Mb, 720 Mb in CS

Couple more data points which may be of interest for those with smaller files (like from a digital camera) considering the upgrade to CS …

22.8 Mb tiff takes 149 Mb in v7, 608 Mb in CS

11.4 Mb tiff takes 138 Mb in v7, 592 Mb in CS

50 Kb jpeg takes 122 Mb in v7, 582 Mb in CS

If these numbers are typical of what other users will see then you probably need at least 1 GB of RAM with 75% or so assigned to Photoshop or you’ll be working off of disk instead of RAM after a couple of moves.

What are other CS users seeing?

Bill
N
nospam
Nov 8, 2003
In article ,
(Bill Hilton) wrote:

Using default settings it looks like CS requires a LOT more RAM than Photoshop 7 to open a program, so much RAM that you’ll be working off the scratch disk almost from the time you load a big file, which is really going to slow things down.

Maybe I’m doing something wrong … take a look at these numbers and see if they make sense …
[…]

Bill, this might be a good time to run some performance comparisons. If we could come up with some fair, known tests we could find if CS is faster or slower than 7.
B
bhilton665
Nov 8, 2003
From: (jjs)

Bill, this might be a good time to run some performance comparisons. If we could come up with some fair, known tests we could find if CS is faster or slower than 7.

Good idea. I guess I get the nomination, uh? I’ll post something in a new thread later today.

I’ll just take two film scans (35 mm and 6×7 cm) and do a few basic tasks on them and time it, say crop to get the film border off, levels to set end points, run a canned contrast curve, hue/sat with say +15% sat, convert to 8 bit, and run Atkinson’s edge sharpening action.

If the file is small enough to stay in RAM instead of going out to disk we will see a fair comparison. The larger files that eat up all the available RAM immediately in CS should take a lot longer to complete though.

I’ll run these steps on a big file and a small file and report back in a new thread.

Bill
N
nospam
Nov 8, 2003
In article ,
(Bill Hilton) wrote:

From: (jjs)

Bill, this might be a good time to run some performance comparisons. If we could come up with some fair, known tests we could find if CS is faster or slower than 7.

Good idea. I guess I get the nomination, uh? I’ll post something in a new thread later today.

If you can make them droplets or actions, and post the original test image, then we can try them on our various platforms. I have 7.1 on a late model Wintel and 6.0 on a Mac. Would love to benchmark these against CS.
B
bhilton665
Nov 9, 2003
From: "Flycaster"

Having not yet upgraded, I’m going to watch the responses on this one, and your other post about the apparent file tagging as well.

See the other threads, especially the one on testing smaller files. Apparently they are using a dynamic memory allocation which looks at the size of free memory first, so with smaller amounts of free RAM CS actually gobbles up LESS memory than V7 did. I was seeing these high numbers because I have a lot of RAM, apparently.

So the RAM allocation issue isn’t really a problem. CS runs faster pretty much across the board for me.

If these are for real, they’re deal killers for me….

I’d hate to be the one to turn you off to CS 🙂 The RAW converter alone is worth the price of the upgrade if you’re doing much digi-cam work (especially if you had to use the wretched Canon RAW converter), and for photographers there are several other tools that are very valuable. Something like the Shadows/Highlights tool will save me a lot of time, for example.

I’d say CS is a definite buy for photographers. Even the Nikon header problem seems to happen only with untagged tiff files from one source (so far) so should be easy for them to fix with a patch.

Bill
F
Flycaster
Nov 9, 2003
"Bill Hilton" wrote in message
From: "Flycaster"

Having not yet upgraded, I’m going to watch the responses on this one,
and
your other post about the apparent file tagging as well.

See the other threads, especially the one on testing smaller files.
Apparently
they are using a dynamic memory allocation which looks at the size of free memory first, so with smaller amounts of free RAM CS actually gobbles up
LESS
memory than V7 did. I was seeing these high numbers because I have a lot
of
RAM, apparently.

So the RAM allocation issue isn’t really a problem. CS runs faster pretty
much
across the board for me.

I read those. Great job, and thanks for doing the heavy lifting. FWIW, my main PS box sounds identical to yours, so the issue of "RAM gobbling" was a major concern to me. OTOH, it now looks like I have nothing to worry about.

If these are for real, they’re deal killers for me….

I’d hate to be the one to turn you off to CS 🙂 The RAW converter alone
is
worth the price of the upgrade if you’re doing much digi-cam work
(especially
if you had to use the wretched Canon RAW converter), and for photographers there are several other tools that are very valuable. Something like the Shadows/Highlights tool will save me a lot of time, for example.

Frankly, I already purchased Adobe RAW for Ver. 7, and am still somewhat ticked off Adobe gave no up-grade credit for those of us who spent that money. Is the new RAW changed in any significant way?

Last, I’ll revisit the Adobe site and take another look at the Shadows/Highlights tool – I wonder if this is primarily a "time saver" tool, or if it does something new and unique.

Thanks again for the tests.

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–
B
bhilton665
Nov 9, 2003
From: "Flycaster"

I already purchased Adobe RAW for Ver. 7 …
Is the new RAW changed in any significant way?

Can’t help you on this since I didn’t buy the V7 RAW plugin. Hopefully someone else who has used both will answer this question. At least the 10D is now supported 🙂

I’ll revisit the Adobe site and take another look at the Shadows/Highlights tool – I wonder if this is primarily a "time saver" tool, or if it does something new and unique.

Haven’t played with it much (only had CS for 2 days) but it seems to do a fine job of pulling details out of shadows. You could do the same on your own with sophisticated masking and Curves but it would be a great deal more hassle. I like what I’ve seen of this tool so far.

Other photographer-friendly upgrades (from other newsgroups I know you’re a photographer) that look interesting are the panorama stitcher, the upgraded Filter Gallery menu, the additional support for 16 bit layering and layer masks, and the ‘Photo Filter’ that lets you select 81 series warming filters or whatever. I got a bit sidetracked with running these memory management tests but look forward to playing with the other new features.

Thanks again for the tests.

No problem, it was informative to say the least.

Bill
F
Flycaster
Nov 9, 2003
Thanks for the info…sounds like it may be time to get out the old credit card and bite the bullet!

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–
CC
Chris Cox
Nov 10, 2003
Frankly, I already purchased Adobe RAW for Ver. 7, and am still somewhat ticked off Adobe gave no up-grade credit for those of us who spent that money. Is the new RAW changed in any significant way?

Excuse me?
Adobe DID give you a discount if you bought Camera RAW 1.0. It was mailed directly to each and every registered owner. (and many of them have already taken advantage of the discount)

Last, I’ll revisit the Adobe site and take another look at the Shadows/Highlights tool – I wonder if this is primarily a "time saver" tool, or if it does something new and unique.

New and unique.

Chris
F
Flycaster
Nov 10, 2003
"Chris Cox" wrote in message
Frankly, I already purchased Adobe RAW for Ver. 7, and am still somewhat ticked off Adobe gave no up-grade credit for those of us who spent that money. Is the new RAW changed in any significant way?

Excuse me?
Adobe DID give you a discount if you bought Camera RAW 1.0. It was mailed directly to each and every registered owner. (and many of them have already taken advantage of the discount)

Not to me, Chris, and there are folks in this newsgroup and others who didn’t get it either. Can you give me a web-site reference, or perhaps suggest how we might take advantage of the discount without having received the notification. Those of us who are registered owners of Camera RAW 1.0 would appreciate it.

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–
CC
Chris Cox
Nov 10, 2003
I’ll forward your request to the Photoshop marketing folks.

We did sent the notices out to the registered address of all registered users (which should be all of them since it was an online purchase). Assuming you used a real address, you should have received the notice.

Chris

In article <3faf1151$>, Flycaster
wrote:

"Chris Cox" wrote in message
Frankly, I already purchased Adobe RAW for Ver. 7, and am still somewhat ticked off Adobe gave no up-grade credit for those of us who spent that money. Is the new RAW changed in any significant way?

Excuse me?
Adobe DID give you a discount if you bought Camera RAW 1.0. It was mailed directly to each and every registered owner. (and many of them have already taken advantage of the discount)

Not to me, Chris, and there are folks in this newsgroup and others who didn’t get it either. Can you give me a web-site reference, or perhaps suggest how we might take advantage of the discount without having received the notification. Those of us who are registered owners of Camera RAW 1.0 would appreciate it.

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–
MP
Marc Pawliger
Nov 10, 2003
In article <3faf1151$>, Flycaster
wrote:

"Chris Cox" wrote in message
Frankly, I already purchased Adobe RAW for Ver. 7, and am still somewhat ticked off Adobe gave no up-grade credit for those of us who spent that money. Is the new RAW changed in any significant way?

Excuse me?
Adobe DID give you a discount if you bought Camera RAW 1.0. It was mailed directly to each and every registered owner. (and many of them have already taken advantage of the discount)

Not to me, Chris, and there are folks in this newsgroup and others who didn’t get it either. Can you give me a web-site reference, or perhaps suggest how we might take advantage of the discount without having received the notification. Those of us who are registered owners of Camera RAW 1.0 would appreciate it.

You need to have registered when you purchased Camera Raw 1.0 and checked the "OK for Adobe to send me offers" opt-in checkbox during registration.

Note also the website from which Camera Raw 1.0 specifically and explicitly called out the fact there would be no expected discount on future products and the Camera Raw functionality was expected to be made part of Photoshop for the next version, as it has for Photoshop CS.

–marc
F
Flycaster
Nov 10, 2003
"Chris Cox" wrote in message
I’ll forward your request to the Photoshop marketing folks.
We did sent the notices out to the registered address of all registered users (which should be all of them since it was an online purchase). Assuming you used a real address, you should have received the notice.

It is quite real, and I checked my registration record on-line. The RAW registration shows up as a second Photoshop 7.0 registration, albeit with a different date and reg. number. At least, that’s what I assume it is.

I’ll just give Adobe a call tomorrow- surely the database must show the registration to the person on the other end of the line. This isn’t rocket science, just a proof of purchase. And if it goes OK, or if there’s a hang-up, I’ll let you know here either way. Fair enough?

(FWIW, the *only* notification I’ve received was for the deluxe "suite" package – which is somethng I simply can’t use.)

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–
F
Flycaster
Nov 10, 2003
"Marc Pawliger" wrote in message
In article <3faf1151$>, Flycaster
wrote:

"Chris Cox" wrote in message
Frankly, I already purchased Adobe RAW for Ver. 7, and am still
somewhat
ticked off Adobe gave no up-grade credit for those of us who spent
that
money. Is the new RAW changed in any significant way?

Excuse me?
Adobe DID give you a discount if you bought Camera RAW 1.0. It was mailed directly to each and every registered owner. (and many of them have already taken advantage of the discount)

Not to me, Chris, and there are folks in this newsgroup and others who didn’t get it either. Can you give me a web-site reference, or perhaps suggest how we might take advantage of the discount without having
received
the notification. Those of us who are registered owners of Camera RAW

1.0
would appreciate it.

You need to have registered when you purchased Camera Raw 1.0 and checked the "OK for Adobe to send me offers" opt-in checkbox during registration.

Note also the website from which Camera Raw 1.0 specifically and explicitly called out the fact there would be no expected discount on future products and the Camera Raw functionality was expected to be made part of Photoshop for the next version, as it has for Photoshop CS.

Marc, as I said I’ll call today and see what they have to say. And, yes, I remember the explicit warning very well, thus you can imagine my surprise when Chris said they *were* offering a discount, especially after being a registered owner and having checked the opt-in box.

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–
F
Flycaster
Nov 10, 2003
Marc & Chris:

I got in touch with Adobe today, and was given credit for the previous purchase. The error was (still is) in the Adobe database in which it registered my purchase of Camera RAW as an *additional* Photoshop 7 license, albeit with a Camera RAW serial number. They’re not sure how to fix it, or so both fellas I spoke with told me. FWIW, they said this error had been previously encountered with several customers who had registered over the internet.

And there you have it.

—–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–== Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–

Must-have mockup pack for every graphic designer 🔥🔥🔥

Easy-to-use drag-n-drop Photoshop scene creator with more than 2800 items.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections