Sign in to follow this  
zenkert

Very slow response moving with arrow keys

Recommended Posts

Hi there!

Don´t know if this is a bug or what so I post it here.

When I use the M tool to move the content of a layer

with the arrow keys the response is extremely slow.

Five strokes on the down key is like this....

Wait, wait

Move 1

wait, wait, wait, wait

Move 2

wait, wait, wait, wait

Move 3

wait, wait, wait, wait

Move 4

wait, wait, wait, wait

Move 5

Done

I don´t think this has to do with my computer.

It´s an Intel Dual Core Lap-top.

Moving with the "M" tool and the Mouse is also

slow with a delay so it´s hard so actually see

the effect of the move before it´s to late...

Oh, I run the latest version of paint.net v.3.36

Any thoughts on this?

Zenkert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry.

I do not understand the question about 1,474 megapixels???

Most of my pdn-files are around 900 Kb

with a size around 1000x900.

And they consist of appr 10-20 layers.

But the amount of layers does not seem to affect this.

And the content in the layer does not matter either.

It could be just a small graphical object sized 36x36 px.

Moving is painfully slow.

Zenkert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smaller selections should move faster than large ones.

I always make large "moves" with the mouse first, and then fine tune the final position with the arrow keys.

If you're suffering delays, it is most likely performance is poor because of lack of memory (mentioned above) and/or the selection/layer size is quite large.

NB having a number of images open at once will also eat up memory! The bigger the images, the worse it will be. Try opening a single image with a modest number of layers and see if the delays are the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 Gb RAM
Usually just FF 3.05 and from time to time Nvu html editor and FileZilla.
with a size around 1000x900.

And they consist of appr 10-20 layers.

It all adds up, you see. Check out this topic outlining the maths behind calculating RAM usage for each open image: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=23125

If my maths is correct, then that one, ten-layered image of 1000x900 pixels is worth around 41 MB of your memory (twenty layers takes that to around 75 MB). Take into account your other active applications (as much as it burns me to say, Firefox is not known for its small memory footprint) and OS requirements, as well as any other images you have open simultaneously - as Ego Eram Reputo mentioned.

All of this piles up on your 1 GB of RAM. Ego Eram Reputo's advice might be best if you're experiencing response lag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 Gb RAM
Usually just FF 3.05 and from time to time Nvu html editor and FileZilla.
with a size around 1000x900.

And they consist of appr 10-20 layers.

It all adds up, you see. Check out this topic outlining the maths behind calculating RAM usage for each open image: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=23125

If my maths is correct, then that one, ten-layered image of 1000x900 pixels is worth around 41 MB of your memory (twenty layers takes that to around 75 MB). Take into account your other active applications (as much as it burns me to say, Firefox is not known for its small memory footprint) and OS requirements, as well as any other images you have open simultaneously - as Ego Eram Reputo mentioned.

All of this piles up on your 1 GB of RAM. Ego Eram Reputo's advice might be best if you're experiencing response lag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I know this with RAM .

I also make the big moves first but they are kind inaccurate too...

As a former Photoshop-user I could do the moves I´m talking about

with images of that size in pixels with more than 50 layers

without any "lag" at all.

So I still think this is kind of strange...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I know this with RAM .

I also make the big moves first but they are kind inaccurate too...

As a former Photoshop-user I could do the moves I´m talking about

with images of that size in pixels with more than 50 layers

without any "lag" at all.

So I still think this is kind of strange...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Read the rest of that post; Photoshop doesn't have to hold the entire thing in RAM at once. It tiles pieces of the image into and out of the swap file.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Read the rest of that post; Photoshop doesn't have to hold the entire thing in RAM at once. It tiles pieces of the image into and out of the swap file.

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