Photoshop CS opening files = extremely slow….

P
Posted By
peternrg
Feb 22, 2004
Views
1767
Replies
53
Status
Closed
I switched back to Photoshop 7, cause this slow file opening behavior is totally redicilous.

I have a Photoshop file which opens in just 2 seconds in PS7, but it takes about 1 minute and 30 seconds to open the same file in PS8, on the same machine, with the same PS prefs set.

The file itself is only 5 MB in filesize, but contains a lot of layers ( I guess over 150), devided in different sets. It’s an interface design, with a lot of paths and layerstyles.

My guess is that it has something to do with the nice ‘money checking feature’. I disabled already the Digimarc plugin, cause I know from previous releases it slows down opening files a lot (and it’s totally useless cause I don’t use it).

Any ideas what I can to to speed up the opening of my files? So far the CS upgrade has been pretty disappointing because of this issue.

How to Improve Photoshop Performance

Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!

L
LenHewitt
Feb 22, 2004
My guess is that it has something to do with the nice ‘money checking
feature’. <<

You guess is completely wrong.

Have you allowed the file browser to cache all your image files? Not doing so is the usual cause….
P
peternrg
Feb 23, 2004
I’m not using the filebrowser to open my files. In fact, the PS8 filebrowser is as slow as the PS7 one, so I never use it. I deselected all filebrowser options because of this slow behaviour (to speed it up a little bit).

What have image caches to do with layered files BTW? It’s definately a layer issue, cause when I flatten the psd, it opens in a second.
SB
Scott_Byer
Feb 23, 2004
If your files have a lot of text layers, they will indeed open slower in Photoshop CS. The type engine changed and was significantly improved, but as a result, it has to translate Photoshop 6/7 type layers on opening a file. If you update all the text layers and re-save out the file, it will load much faster in Photoshop CS. You may want to put up with the slowness during a transition period, but it would be worth the experimen if you need to see that this is indeed the issue you are seeing.

-Scott
P
peternrg
Feb 23, 2004
I did some more experiments as you suggested Scott, but no real solutions so far.

I openend the 5MB PS7 file with over 150 layers in it in PS8 (updating the text layers takes only about 2 secs, and only takes place after the file is loaded) and saved it again with PS8. So I guess I created a native PS8 file by doing this? Well, opening the PS8 created file still takes 1.5 minutes, while opening it in PS7 (which is still possible), still only takes a few secs.

One notice though, although the file is only 5 MB once saved, Photoshop creates a 100 MB file out of it while it’s open. When opening the file in PS8, my harddrive is actually ‘working’ for those 1.5 minutes.

Too bad I cannot share the file, cause it contains some work under NDA.
L
LenHewitt
Feb 24, 2004
Peter,

What do you have your Photoshop memory allocation set to? Have you tried turning it down?
P
peternrg
Feb 24, 2004
The memory settings are about the same for PS8 as for PS7:

Available ram (according to Photoshop): 1777 MB
-max used by PS7: 57% = 1013MB
-max used by PS8: 55% = 972MB

I tried setting it to 15% or even 90%, it makes no difference at all.

I also double checked my scratch drives: both version use the same F: disk (a data disk, so not the C: drive)
SB
Scott_Byer
Feb 24, 2004
Which harddrive is working? What are the XP Virtual Memory settings? You may want to defrag your boot drive and make sure the minimal XP paging file size is at least 3GB. I usually like setting the minimum pagng file size == max size, 2x RAM. You’ll find the settings in the System control panel, Advanced tab, Performance button, Advanced tab, Virtual Memory button.

-Scott
P
peternrg
Feb 24, 2004
Drive F: is ‘working’ while opening the specific file.
Page file on drive C: = system managed = 7% fragmented = 80GB big and has still 50GB free And I have no page files specified on drive F:

But, does it really matter? I mean, Photoshop 7 on the same computer with the same settings works faster then the new PS8… I find it very odd that I have to check/tweak my system settings only for PS8 to get to speed, while I never had to do that before for any updates or any programs.
AJ
Adam_Jerugim
Feb 24, 2004
Yes, it really does matter. Photoshop CS uses more system resources than PS 7.0.1. As a result the page file can fill up quickly and when it either has to "grow" the page file or when the page file hits the maximum size, performance takes a hit.

I’d suggest bumping your min and max settings for Virtual Memory.

See the following post for more info:

Photoshop CS on XP Memory Caching #10
DM
dave_milbut
Feb 24, 2004
I mean, Photoshop 7 on the same computer with

Don’t mean to rant at you but so please consider this a "general" rant…

When are people going to realize that PS8 is NOT PS7?!! WTF?!! IT’S A DIFFERENT PROGRAM PEOPLE – WITH MORE FEATURES AND HEFTIER SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS! THAT’S WHY YOU UPGRADED, REMEMBER?!!!!

Rant off.
DM
dave_milbut
Feb 24, 2004
Yes, it really does matter. Photoshop CS uses more …

everything! Thank you adam! Finally someone who realizes that different version #’s = different programs. That’s such a BS argument (well PS7 runs fine with the same settings). It’s getting rather old.

Nice to meet an intellegent gentleman like yourself! 🙂

dave
P
peternrg
Feb 24, 2004
Hi Dave, nice to meet you 🙂

I know it are two different programs, it only surprizes me that PS8 doesn’t work that flexible as PS7 does, although I’m on a high-end system.

The box of Adobe’s Creative Suite mentiones this as minimum system requirements: Intel PIII > I have a P4 3GHZ one
256MB Ram recommended > I have 2GB!
1.55GB of avail HD Space > I have 50GB free on drive C, my drives are all fast SATA drives.

Once again: I’m opening a 5MB file here which takes 1.5 minutes to open, not a 500 MB file (which I could asume it would take longer).

—–

Further more, I followed Adam’s advice on the Page Files, and tried many different settings, but nothing helps or speeds up the proces of opening the files. At one point, I had two swap files of 4GB on each drive (C & F), Photoshop didn’t get any faster or slower because of that. BTW: why would I need a pagefile 2 times my RAM memory (being 2GB) for just opening a 5MB (uncompressed in PS about 100MB) file? There’s no logic here.
R
Rick
Feb 25, 2004
Something is definitely wrong with your machine setup then. I have a 512 M notebook on a 40G drive that opens 5 Meg file well under a minute. I can’t imagine it being PS CS.

rick

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 14:50:00 -0800, wrote:

Hi Dave, nice to meet you 🙂

I know it are two different programs, it only surprizes me that PS8 doesn’t work that flexible as PS7 does, although I’m on a high-end system.

The box of Adobe’s Creative Suite mentiones this as minimum system requirements: Intel PIII > I have a P4 3GHZ one
256MB Ram recommended > I have 2GB!
1.55GB of avail HD Space > I have 50GB free on drive C, my drives are all fast SATA drives.
Once again: I’m opening a 5MB file here which takes 1.5 minutes to open, not a 500 MB file (which I could asume it would take longer).

—–

Further more, I followed Adam’s advice on the Page Files, and tried many different settings, but nothing helps or speeds up the proces of opening the files. At one point, I had two swap files of 4GB on each drive (C & F), Photoshop didn’t get any faster or slower because of that. BTW: why would I need a pagefile 2 times my RAM memory (being 2GB) for just opening a 5MB (uncompressed in PS about 100MB) file? There’s no logic here.
DM
dave_milbut
Feb 25, 2004
hey pete, Something is seriously wrong on your system. I just opened an 8 meg tif file (using open with in winxp explorer) in under a second.

xp pro sp1
p4 2.8c hyperthreaded
800mhz fsb on mobo
1 gig pc3200 ddr ram (400 mhz)
scratch is on a serial ata drive with 30 gig free
scratch file is 151 meg after opening that one 8 meg file

in the prefrences section (edit> prefrences):
recent file list has 10 files
cache levels are at 4
on the memory tab i have:
available ram 931 meg
used by ps=50% =465 meg (on the serial ata described above) file browser tab has:
do not process larger than 200 meg
allow background processing off (after doing the whole drive overnight) high quality previews on
render vecter and parse xml from non images are both off keep sidecar files with masters is on.

3rd party plugins loaded are:
Alien Skin’s eye candy 4000
AS’s splat!
AS’s xenofex2
AS’s image doctor
KPT 3, 5 and 6

one thing to note is that since the serial ata is partitioned, even though the system swap file is on c: and the ps scratch file is on f: the two files reside on the same physical drive, this is not the optimal ps setup, but still i’m not seeing these major performance problems.

I suspect a lot of this has to do with the file browser working in the background. Try setting your prefrences closer to what I describe above and see if that helps.

There’s also been mention of a possible problem with 2 gig of ddr on some systems, i notice you have 2 gig. what os? i think most of the problem systems were on win2k.

dave
ND
Nick_Decker
Feb 25, 2004
I mean, Photoshop 7 on the same computer with the same settings works faster then the new PS8

Dave, Adam, whoever, there is something important in that statement. I, and many other people, were blind-sided by this change of how PS manages memory. Some plugins react to it better than others. OK. Which ones? If PS 7 worked fine on a box that I had built specifically to run Photoshop, what is it about PS 8 that brings that same box to its knees??

Maybe it’s working fine for "most" people, but for many others it is not. Adobe is the company that sold me this software and they are the company that needs to figure out what is wrong.

Nick
DM
dave_milbut
Feb 25, 2004
they are the company that needs to figure out what is wrong.

I agree. You’ve been very helpful with the info in trying to get the problems sorted. I’m sure they will too, eventually. Are your settings similar to mine posted above?
P
peternrg
Feb 25, 2004
Hi Dave,

Please reread my initial post: the 5MB PSD file I’m trying to open has lot’s of layers in it (I guess about 150!). I can also open and write an 8MB or even 180MB tif file in less then 2 seconds on my system. So IMHO it has NOTHING to do with my system setup (harddrive speed, scratch or paging sizings, I really think it has something to do with Photoshops8 behavior of ‘analyzing’ all the layers while it’s opening the specific file. If I reduce the number of layers, the file will open faster and faster, until I have 1 layer and then I’m capable of opening the file in less then a sec.

Back to my system settings: my c: and f: drives are NOT on the same SATA disks. In fact my c: drive is setup in a raid0 configuration with another drive (for performance!), while my F: (data)drive is set to a raid 1 striping configuration (for backup safety purposes). So my system has actually 4 drives, optimized for speed and backups.

I’m using WinXP pro, with all the latest updates installed. Mobo = Asus P4C800 deluxe, 2 GB of TWIN hi-density Corsair DDR ram, P4 3GHz intel CPU.

Photoshop: no 3rd party plugins installed! (who needs plugins these days, when you have layerstyles 🙂 )

recent file list has 10 files
cache levels are at 6

on the memory tab i have:
available ram 1767 meg
used by ps=55% =972 meg (on the serial ata described above) file browser tab has:
do not process larger than 100meg
all the other options are DEselected in the filebrowser settings.



And I have to agree with Nick Decker: this issue needs to be figured out by Adobe, cause I’m really not the only one complaining. So far this upgrade has been a nightmare to me, I’m testing and experimenting with settings already for months now, and there’s no logical sense to it, especially not because my system can be called hi-end with such specs. I have been a loyal Photoshop user since version 2.5, and never experienced such problems in the 10 years I’m using Adobe software (I’m an After Effects geek as well, that incredible piece of sofware most of the time needs more resources then whatever I’m trying to achief in Photoshop).
DM
dave_milbut
Feb 25, 2004
well to me after looking at your settings and specs, it sounds like either you’re having the mysterious "2 gig" problem or you’re right and it really IS analyzing every layer for the "money shot".

I’m sure they’re working on it, as someone (scott?) acknowleged they saw "something" funky, but they couldn’t nail it. I wish I could be of more help to you.

dave
AJ
Adam_Jerugim
Feb 25, 2004
Peter,

have you tried to lower your Cache levels from 6 to 4? Try this and see if it improves the time it takes to open the file.

If it does, please let us know.

Also if you’re brave, you can pull some (half for example) of your RAM to see if reducing the machine’s physical RAM helps PS CS performance. Again, if it does, please let us know.

thanks,
-Adam
P
peternrg
Feb 25, 2004
OK, some changes are definately noticable:

Cache levels = 6 > file opens in 1min 30secs
Cache levels = 4 > file opens in 60secs
Cache levels = 2 > file opens in 25secs
Cache levels = 1 > file opens in 22secs

It’s still not the 2 sec PS7 dealio, but it’s better already. Now an important question: what exactly does the Cache Levels settings do? And regardless of speed and with a perfect working system, is it better to have higher or lower settings?

And sorry, but I wasn’t brave enough yet to pull out some RAM 🙂
CC
Chris_Cox
Feb 25, 2004
It has nothing to do with "analyzing" layers.

The cache controls the maximum size of the image pyramid (lower resolution versions of the image used to improve preview performance).

With lots of layers, the cache setting could slow things down – but it shouldn’t be THAT slow.
DM
dave_milbut
Feb 25, 2004
you know i should have caught that cache levels at 6, i just assumed you tried my settings and were still having problems. that’s what I get for skimming your post and posting a reply while my wife’s calling me for dinner! sorry bout that. good catch adam.
P
peternrg
Feb 25, 2004
Chris Cox, once again, I’m working on a 5MB file here (canvas is about 800*600 px), you can say it’s a rather low resolution work. So the lower resolution settings to improve preview performance don’t really make sence here.
L
LenHewitt
Feb 25, 2004
Peter,

BTW: why would I need a pagefile 2 times my RAM memory (being 2GB) for
just opening a 5MB (uncompressed in PS about 100MB) file? There’s no logic here.<<

It’s the way Windows VMM works. When an application requests memory, the Windows VMM commits that amount of pagefile space, even though it isn’t needed at that time. Photoshop requests a damn sight more memory on opening than almost any other application….
D
dcole
Feb 25, 2004
I am really glad I read this thread. There is a reference in it to another thread started by Jeff Anduza – "Photoshop CS on XP Memory Caching" 2/17/04 8:31pm – and in that thread he links to a Microsoft article on the subject. Part of the advice in the MS article is that if you have XP and 512mb of ram or more, its probably worth making your paging file minimum size half the size of your total ram, keeping the maximum paging file size to three times.

I have been getting more and more impatient with the length of time it takes filters to open in CS and thought I would give the MS advice a go to see if it made any difference. It has; filters now open almost instantaneously! CS also loads faster. Don’t know why, but it’s brilliant. Thanks again.
T
tmalcom
Feb 25, 2004
Chris Cox wrote: "It has nothing to do with "analyzing" layers."

Exactly what proof do we have of that?
SB
Scott_Byer
Feb 25, 2004
Because Chris knows what’s going on in the code (as do I).

We are continuing to investigate this, and the information people have provided has been helpful.

I also know I have to write some helper code to take a closer look at the pagefile settings :-).

-Scott
SB
Scott_Byer
Feb 25, 2004
So, while that’s a great start, I usually find it even better (if I have enough disk space) to just set min=max=2XRAM. I’ve never actually gone up to needed 3x RAM (Photoshop won’t, since it handles it’s own scratch).

By setting min=max and by defragging before rebooting to enforce that, you can get a minimally fragmented paging file that doesn’t have to grow as soon as you start opening a file in Photoshop CS. That helps performance a whole heck of a lot.

-Scott
T
tmalcom
Feb 25, 2004
"Because Chris knows what’s going on in the code (as do I)."

Uh huh. "Because we say so" generally doesn’t qualify as proof.
DM
dave_milbut
Feb 26, 2004
Exactly what proof do we have of that?

Because they wrote the code that calls CDS? Sounds like a good reason to me… oh, what proof do WE have? What would make you feel better? What proof would you accept? Do you need to check the source yourself?
T
tmalcom
Feb 26, 2004
Writing code that calls CDS is hardly the same thing as knowing how it works and what it does. Have Scott and Chris read the source code for it? Has anyone at Adobe? Or did they take what some secretive organization of bankers and governmental spooks gave them and implement it based solely on what they were told about it? Banks and governments aren’t generally considered to be paragons of honesty. The problem with losing your credibility, as Adobe has with this debacle, is that without proof, it’s no longer possible to believe statements the company makes. So I ask the question again: what proof do we have that CDS isn’t a factor in the slowdown in CS?
ND
Nick_Decker
Feb 26, 2004
So I ask the question again: what proof do we have that CDS isn’t a factor in the slowdown in CS?

I don’t know if you’ll accept it as proof, but consider the fact that CS file opening isn’t slow for everybody. I’m seeing some problems, but file-opening speed isn’t one of them.

Nick
DM
dave_milbut
Feb 26, 2004
I ask the question again: what proof do we have that CDS isn’t a factor in the slowdown in CS?

And I ask again, what proof would you accept? There’s a cds thread in the lounge – here:

r_harvey "No Wonder Photoshop CS Seems Slow – It’s Analyzing Images For Content!" 2/24/04 10:35am </cgi-bin/webx?13/1351>

with about 1300 posts in it about this. Gripes or support of the cds should be brought up there (and I encourage you to do so). You’re not alone in your dislike of the cds technology – me included, but you’re asking a dumb question. How are you going to get proof? What would it take to prove to you that it’s not cds? I wager that your question can’t be answered to your satisfaction.
L
LenHewitt
Feb 26, 2004
TM,

So I ask the question again: what proof do we have that CDS isn’t a factor
in the slowdown in CS?<<

I’m quite certain that the engineers will have tested with and without the CDS code active during the development cycle. They would have to do so in order to isolate the inevitable coding problems that they will have incurred during development.

Had the CDS code had any noticeable effect upon application performance they couldn’t help but be aware of it. If they say it isn’t a factor, then there is no reason whatsoever to disbelieve them. (Other than any personal paronoia or Delusional Disorder you may suffer from, of course)
RL
Robert_Levine
Feb 26, 2004
So I ask the question again…

And just how many times to do you plan on asking? You can ask 500 times and you’re not going to get any answers that differ from the ones you’ve already gotten.

Bob
V
viol8ion
Feb 26, 2004
I don’t know if you’ll accept it as proof, but consider the fact that CS file opening isn’t slow for everybody. I’m seeing some problems, but file-opening speed isn’t one of them.

But you don’t have 150 layers on your image either, I would wager…
CC
Chris_Cox
Feb 26, 2004
tmalcom – some of us know what is in the code, and have done measurements to verify that it does not take any significant amount of time.

We’re telling you it is not a factor because we KNOW it is not a factor.
IM
Iain_McFadzen
Feb 26, 2004
Maybe he has 150 layers that all look sorta-like bank notes. Bet you didn’t check that! 🙂
T
tmalcom
Feb 26, 2004
And Iain’s response is exactly what I’m getting at. Was it tested with files with many layers? I also work with files with dozens of layers and opening them takes forever.

LenHewitt,

I really don’t appreciate personal attacks and I’d ask you to refrain from implying that I have some kind of mental illness for questioning what I see as a secretive intrusion on my work.

Robert Levine,

If you don’t have anything constructive to add, please don’t comment at all. Your hostile me-too replies are littered all over the forum and it comes across as bullying from a forum moderator.
CC
Chris_Cox
Feb 26, 2004
It was tested with many possible combinations of files.

You’re barking up the wrong tree.
DM
dave_milbut
Feb 27, 2004
has anyone here with slowness seen/tried this?

dave milbut "Successful Speed Improvement to CS (working in and opening)" 2/26/04 4:06pm </cgi-bin/webx?13/1>
DM
dave_milbut
Feb 27, 2004
note to above, pete, i see you did and got your best results. i’m going to leave my cache at 1 for a while. chris so with the cache levels that low are you saying (above) that the previews will be degraded vs cache levels at say 4 or 6? how much? any other effects i should look for?
CC
Chris_Cox
Feb 27, 2004
Some filters and image commands will be much slower (because they normally make use of the upper levels of the image pyramid).
DM
dave_milbut
Feb 27, 2004
can you give us a hint as to where specifically to watch out for? 🙂

I mean if it’s something I never personally use it might be worth it. If it’s something like USM or g-blur, forget it, i’m back to 4.
DM
dave_milbut
Feb 27, 2004
sorry, forgot… can you also tell us – at a high level if its too complex – what an ‘image pyramid’ is?
CC
Chris_Cox
Feb 27, 2004
The image pyramid is a set of images at sizes smaller than the main image – typically each one is half the dimensions of the next larger one – used to speed up some image processing and previews.

Some variations are known as MIP maps.
L
LenHewitt
Feb 27, 2004
TM,

Not a personal attack at all and not nearly so personal as accusing Chris and Scott of lying to you (which you implicitly did). Merely a suggestion as to the only logical explanation for continuing any disbelief of the word of the engineers.

If you now believe them, then obviously neither suggestion applies to this situation…..

for questioning what I see as a secretive intrusion on my work.<<

Ah, so now we come to YOUR crux of the matter. Now THAT is an entirely different matter to speed of opening files in CS, and I have made no comments anywhere in this forum or any other as to moral or ethical implications of the inclusion of CSD in Photoshop CS, or on anyone’s personal attitude to that inclusion.
DM
dave_milbut
Feb 27, 2004
thanks chris… off to google for more detail.
DM
dave_milbut
Feb 27, 2004
hey wait! which filter rely more heavily on the image cache setting?
CC
Chris_Cox
Feb 28, 2004
Building thumbnails, shadow&highlight, and the healing brush all depend on the image pyramid for improved performance. (there’s more, of course, but that’ll get you started)
DM
dave_milbut
Feb 28, 2004
ok. thanks. i noticed tonight after a longer session that it’s not the great improvement (over my already decent performace) that I thought it was. Still some hesitations starting up – after the splash screen (building scratch? – if the splash screen was up for 2 more seconds you’d never see it. It’s like it’s being taken down early.) and switching tools. I’m going back to 4.
HG
Herbert_Gibson
Feb 29, 2004
Some detail on cache:

"Each cache level caches one increment of zoom, so a setting of 4 caches the 66.7-, 50-, 33.3- and 25-percent views, while a setting of 6 adds the 16.7-percent and 12.5-percent views. The highest setting, 8 levels, caches all views down to 6.25 percent. This is really only useful on very large images, but the incremental difference in RAM footprint between 6 levels and 8 levels is so small that even if you’d benefit from a setting of 8 only occasionally, you’d probably be best off just setting the Image Cache to 8 and leaving it there."

Click Here for Link < http://www.informit.com/isapi/product_id~%7BF567CB93-4397-41 0C-934C-3D740B3EC5EA%7D/element_id~%7B4493850C-F1DF-4B80-B3B 2-2473EE0C2A9F%7D/st~%7B30DCE543-8F6C-4B3A-A0F2-F9739BA4F054 %7D/content/articlex.asp>
SJ
Sandy_J
Mar 1, 2004
Going back in this thread (and on Len Hewitt’s FAQ Tuning Photoshop CS), I read references to setting the paging file sizes to min=max=2XRAM. Huh? I have 512MB on a 2.66Ghz Win2K system. What would you recommend for a initial and max size? Also, I have only a single local harddisk of 18.5gigs (12gig free) and access to 3 mapped network servers. Photoshop is setup to use only C: for the scratch. Do I have any alternatives? The system was set up by the company’s IT dept and cannot be partitioned at this stage.

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups 🔥

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections