Sign in to follow this  
Ketenks

Memory is Low, It wont Load Two PDNs

Recommended Posts

It's crashing over and over. I have to save every 5 minutes. I'm certainly using a large PDN, it has to have 2400 DPI for printing purposes. But I also have other programs open. How much memory will that DPI take?

 

EDIT: In fact it's saying I don't have enough memory for copying small images to clipboard.

Edited by Ketenks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would GPU rendering do anything even though I have this:

 

Video card: Intel(R) HD Graphics 3000 (v:8086, d:126, r:9), Microsoft Basic Render Driver (v:1414, d:8C, r:0)

 

It's just a laptop with onboard graphics card.

 

EDIT: Well, instead of paint.net just crashing, now my whole computer crashed with that setting on. So I'll stay away from it.

Edited by Ketenks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, you are just better off with a vector graphic software if you need 2400 dpi. Takes way less memory there. Why do you need 2400 dpi with a raster graphic software?

Edited by Reptillian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do all of my images at 96 pixels per inch. DPI is for printers. I let the printer do its thing. If I am working on an image in Paint.NET for a project that will be printed on a 4ft x 8ft surface I still use 96 pixels per inches but in a canvas space that is 4608px x 9616px,
From this sitting I get ~9.2Mb PNG or ~1.2Mb JPEG

@Reptillian : Most vector apps can only produce up to 256 colors which is not good for works that have photos in it

Take a look at this video link:

 

Edited by HyReZ
to add more nfo / correcting errors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, HyReZ said:

@Reptillian : Most vector apps can only produce up to 256 colors which is not good for works that have photos in it

Actually, most quantify their rendering to 8BPC which means they can produce 256^4 (RGBA) color value combination. Affinity Designer can render at 16 BPC. But my statemwnt still stand that you should use vector graphics if you are going over 2000 dpi. Those apps don't care about pixels in a way which adds information. 

 

Let me do a little math here. 2000 dpi 8.5*11.

 

1*3 at 2000 DPI = 6000 * 2000 px

 

8.5*11 at 2000 dpi = 17000 * 22000 px

 

That's too much info that can be reduced via vector route.

Edited by Reptillian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Reptillian

Your rendering is actually a merging of vector and raster processes into a rasterized file! Inkscape, Affinity Designer/Photo, and Photoshop does this, but the output is not a vector file. I know that some of theses apps can vetorize a raster file but you can and do loose detail. I am not sure if the SVG2 specification has been implemented in Affinity or anywhere else; that would add the ability to produce gradient meshes or diffusion curves, but in order to vectorize most photos would require the image to be diminished in detail and color count. 

 

Our friend is asking about PDN so vector files are not exported in the app.

Edited by HyReZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never done vector images before. I'm trying Inkscape and it doesn't have the same tools. It seems to treat the pixels differently. At this point, I can make much more progress with paint.net saving every 5 minutes than learning something new. But I will see whether it can do what I need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Ketenks said:

How do I increase the memory for the program? I have an available 8GB.

 

What about adding more memory to your laptop? 16GB will probably help a lot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Rick Brewster said:

 

What about adding more memory to your laptop? 16GB will probably help a lot

I only have this laptop. And it's on its last leg and wouldn't be worth investing in it. I might as well buy a new one when this one finally dies.

 

But I'm guessing from the first reply that paint.net will use whatever is available and isn't limiting itself to a specific amount of ram. And this is what I needed to know. I thought it might be limiting itself but I guess a 2400 DPI image is a lot of memory to work with and I should close out all other programs while working on it.

Edited by Ketenks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ketenks

Just because your laptop has 8BG of RAM does not mean that you have a 64bit Operating System. Check to see.
If not 4GB of RAM is wasted. Your on-board GPU can use up to 1.7GB of your system RAM, make sure that is set to do so.

You have not mention your file in storage size,  file type, or dimension. Something henky is going on.

I sometimes use my 2006 dual core laptop with 2GB of RAM to run Paint.NET but the results are dependent upon file size in the number of bytes and the dimension of the file in pixels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, HyReZ said:

@Ketenks

Just because your laptop has 8BG of RAM does not mean that you have a 64bit Operating System. Check to see.
If not 4GB of RAM is wasted. Your on-board GPU can use up to 1.7GB of your system RAM, make sure that is set to do so.

You have not mention your file in storage size,  file type, or dimension. Something henky is going on.

I sometimes use my 2006 dual core laptop with 2GB of RAM to run Paint.NET but the results are dependent upon file size in the number of bytes and the dimension of the file in pixels.

I don't know what is going on. I just wanted to know how to increase the memory of the paint.net. But apparently it doesn't limit itself but it will use everything available. Of course I have a 64bit OS to have 8GB of ram.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ketenks said:

I don't know what is going on. I just wanted to know how to increase the memory of the paint.net. But apparently it doesn't limit itself but it will use everything available. Of course I have a 64bit OS to have 8GB of ram.

Some dealers are willing to sell you something that you don't need and many have been sold more RAM than a 32 bit system can address, that is why I requested that you inform us. I need information to trouble shoot.

You seem have enough to run Paint.NET but maybe not enough to effectively run your graphics adapter. See how much system RAM is allocated for it and also you may need to go to the Device Manager and look into Display adapters option and choose your Intel Display Adapter and see if there are any Updated drivers for it.

What also remains is the fact that DPI is something that the printer drivers handle and has to be done through the printer software/hardware after the image is completed. Make sure that the image dimensions/canvas size and the PPI have been correctly establish. (PPI over 300 are typically not necessary) DPI is related to print creation and PPI is related to image creation.

 

 

Edited by HyReZ
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got my answer I needed. If you need to trouble shoot do you want me to send my crash logs to the crash log email address? At this point, I just make sure that I am not running too many programs at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have the answer you need; my job is done. Happy printing!

Edited by HyReZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, real quick. The file size of the pdn in question is 93.2MB. My total memory available is 7.4GB and paint.net uses 0.1GB of RAM on start up. But when I load the 93.2MB pdn with only 20 layers, the memory usage goes up 3.3GB! That's 3x the size of the original pdn. Now I don't know what goes on under the hood and what is required to do everything but first impression: that seems to be quite excessive. Utilizing 3.3GB of ram for a 1GB file when paint.net by itself only uses 0.1GB? Doesn't seem to make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Ketenks said:

Utilizing 3.3GB of ram for a 1GB file when paint.net by itself only uses 0.1GB? Doesn't seem to make sense.

 

When an image is saved to disk, two things are used: Serialization and Compression.

 

Here's a high level example:

 

A solid white image that's 10,000px X 10,000px can be less than 100KB.

Instead of storing full Bitmap data, the data is serialized to a text representation, such as "255,255,255,255"

 

Since the example is solid white, you don't need to say "255,255,255,255" for every single pixel. (10,000px X 10,000px  =  100,000,000 pixels)

You can just say something like "255,255,255,255  100,000,000x". That is compression.

 

But when you open the file, the data is decompressed and deserialized, and the full Bitmap data has to be stored in memory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, toe_head2001 said:

 

When an image is saved to disk, two things are used: Serialization and Compression.

 

Here's a high level example:

 

A solid white image that's 10,000px X 10,000px can be less than 100KB.

Instead of storing full Bitmap data, the data is serialized to a text representation, such as "255,255,255,255"

 

Since the example is solid white, you don't need to say "255,255,255,255" for every single pixel. (10,000px X 10,000px  =  100,000,000 pixels)

You can just say something like "255,255,255,255  100,000,000x". That is compression.

 

But when you open the file, the data is decompressed and deserialized, and the full Bitmap data has to be stored in memory.

So you're saying that the 93.2MB is the compressed form, but then does that mean it is actually 3.3GB in size without compression? I thought compression only gets you 5-20% space saved. This would be a 72% compression ratio which means there must be something else going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ketenks said:

I thought compression only gets you 5-20% space saved.

 

Incorrect. Just look at my 100KB example above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, toe_head2001 said:

 

Incorrect. Just look at my 100KB example above.

You uh, your example is a full white...image. How is that an example? Most images don't experience more than 20% compression if they have enough detail. I can understand how business logos and basic graphic designs may get more, based on compression because they have more similar tones but photos and most paintings don't get more than 20% generally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ketenks said:

You uh, your example is a full white...image. How is that an example?

 

Indeed, which is why I called it a "high level" example.

In any case, it doesn't change the facts laid out in the example. Serialization and compression cause file sizes to be a lot smaller. Why do you doubt that? Can you provide some source that says otherwise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, toe_head2001 said:

 

Indeed, which is why I called it a "high level" example.

In any case, it doesn't change the facts laid out in the example. Serialization and compression cause file sizes to be a lot smaller. Why do you doubt that? Can you provide some source that says otherwise?

Again, there isn't reason to believe that a 93.2MB file decompresses to 3.3GB. There must be something else happening beyond compression. Maybe it's how paint.net remembers the layering of the image, so compressing a pdn file actually gets much higher compression ratios than a single image?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your image has 20 layers. I haven't seen your image, but I know the layers in my images are mostly transparent with just a few object/elements. Lots of transparency equals lots of opportunity for compression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this