Problem with Layers

[RedEyeMike]

Hi I was wondering if someone could relate to my problem. I love using Paint.net and recently discovered what layers are and what i could do with them, however every time I try to add a new layer I get an error message saying not enough memory. Does this refer to my Graphics Board memory or main computer memory? Current configuration is an Intel dual core E6600 CPU running at 2.4 GHz with 4 Gb main memory and a Radeon X1300/1550 GPU with 256 Mb onboard memory.

[Rick Brewster]

How big is the image you're working on? (width and height in pixels, please)

[RedEyeMike]

How big is the image you're working on? (width and height in pixels, please)

Its a community street map that is 8.3 Mb. mostly black and white10200 x 7424 pixels - oops thats big! Is it too big? When finished I would like to print it as a banner say 4 pages wide by 4 pages long and be able to read the street names and house addresses.

Edited September 24, 2011 by RedEyeMike

[W@@dy]

Dear god that's massive.

However I just tried those same settings and successfully created a new layer myself.

4 Gigs of RAM as well.

Idk how it's only 8.3Mb though. My file is over 200Mb just after creation, 577Mb with the second layer

Edit: That sounds like a pretty cool project though. Be sure to check out a DPI guide so you don't waste a ton of ink by accidentally printing something blurry

Edited September 24, 2011 by W@@dy

[RedEyeMike]

Dear god that's massive.

However I just tried those same settings and successfully created a new layer myself.

4 Gigs of RAM as well.

Idk how it's only 8.3Mb though. My file is over 200Mb just after creation, 577Mb with the second layer

Edit: That sounds like a pretty cool project though. Be sure to check out a DPI guide so you don't waste a ton of ink by accidentally printing something blurry

[RedEyeMike]

Thanks - already made that printing mistake once! Could it be my graphic card holding me down? Only 256Mb.

[Ego Eram Reputo]

No, it's probably computer memory.

There are multiple layers and buffers required to handle each image (see: ).

When the image is huge, the overheads are similarly large:

(width x height X 4 ) x (layers +2)

[david.atwell]

Your best bet (and maybe your only option) would be to break it up into much smaller pieces and work on them, then stitch them together at the end.

[W@@dy]

What if he grabbed a Flash Drive and set it up for ReadyBoost?

I don't see why yours can't make a second layer while mine can. It might be worth checking out your memory usage before opening PDN, after opening PDN (With 800x600 image), and after opening the file you're working on (the massive one).

That might reveal where all the memory gets sucked up. If you're running any other programs while doing this, that might be the problem too.

For me, running win7 I only hit 2.3 Gb of RAM being used with both layers created (each layer costing ~300Mb of RAM), I also have my web browser running with two tabs.

So...unless you have like 50 windows open, I don't exactly see where the issue lies. Perhaps a lack of swap space?

I'd really suggest a Flash Drive using ReadyBoost in that case

(well actually I'd suggest a larger HD as the best solution, but ReadyBoost as a good temporary solution)

Edited September 25, 2011 by W@@dy

[Ego Eram Reputo]

More memory and a 64-bit version of Win7 (I don't think our original poster specified which OS). The HD can wait unless it's stuffed full.

[W@@dy]

More memory and a 64-bit version of Win7 (I don't think our original poster specified which OS). The HD can wait unless it's stuffed full.

Sorry, I don't understand. Is that your suggestion for him to help the problem? How would 64 bit help? I thought that just meant faster computing.

..or does faster computing mean more data can be handle simultaneously therefore less data needs to be stored into a cache while waiting for the processor?...

You're right, he didn't specify which OS he's using.

Now that I think of it, if he is using Windows XP then he David would be right in that he would have to separate the image into smaller chunks because XP only supports 4Gb RAM maximum.

Edited September 25, 2011 by W@@dy

[RedEyeMike]

Sorry, I don't understand. Is that your suggestion for him to help the problem? How would 64 bit help? I thought that just meant faster computing.

..or does faster computing mean more data can be handle simultaneously therefore less data needs to be stored into a cache while waiting for the processor?...

You're right, he didn't specify which OS he's using.

Now that I think of it, if he is using Windows XP then he David would be right in that he would have to separate the image into smaller chunks because XP only supports 4Gb RAM maximum.

[RedEyeMike]

OK so i left out some important info....sorry - 32 bit Vista. No browser open, and no programs running other than Zonealarm, and WD backup.

[Ego Eram Reputo]

@W@@dy:

Yes it was/is a recommendation. More memory is cheap and relatively easy to install.

A 64-bit version of Win7 will manage that memory better than a 32-bit: http://forums.getpaint.net/index.php?/topic/14822-re-memory/page__view__findpost__p__261303

64-bit is not just about faster computing!

@RedEyeMike:

I don't know how much memory you can stuff into 32 bit Vista, but this would be worth looking in to (unless you fancy a shiny new box with all the bells and whistles)

[W@@dy]

Vista 32bit is limited to 4gigs on all versions, however 64bit offers up the 128gb (thats the super uber commercial edition though).

Even win7 is limited to 4gigs on 32bit.

It doesn't feel like this size should be an issue with memory, but I guess it is.

You're options then would be to break it into smaller pieces, or basically get a new computer that supports 64bit.

Unfortunately, a 64 bit OS would require a 64 bit processor, which would require a new motherboard most likely, and that could affect your RAM and any other component inside your PC as well.

If you have the mulah, or dive to build your own PC, I'd definitely advise it because PDN 4.0 will support Win7 only, so the upgrade would be good. Plus building PC's is just uber fun.

Building your own PC could be cheaper, especially if you customize it so that you can use some parts that are currently in your PC (HardDrive, CD Drives, Video Card, Tower, Power Supply etc etc.). Ultimately, if you go for the right parts you may only have to pay for a new processor and Motherboard (and the upgrade to a new OS (I'd suggest Win7 64bit)).

If you go for win7, you may be able to get a discounted version through a college if you know someone.

E.g. my college sells all Windows products for 95% off, so a win7 upgrade is $14 instead of $110 or w/e it is.

Also, Ego, I did not know x64bit also handled memory better. Thanks for the knowledge

Edited September 26, 2011 by W@@dy

[Ego Eram Reputo]

...I did not know x64bit also handled memory better. Thanks for the knowledge

You're welcome. I simply repeated something Rick said (his word is gospel), by the look of it you have all the knowledge

[Rick Brewster]

The problem isn't that 32-bit is limited to 4GB. The problem is that each process is limited to 2GB each. That's why 64-bit is important: each process can virtually address pretty much as much memory as it could ever possibly need. 32-bit gets very claustrophobic.

[W@@dy]

The problem isn't that 32-bit is limited to 4GB. The problem is that each process is limited to 2GB each. That's why 64-bit is important: each process can virtually address pretty much as much memory as it could ever possibly need. 32-bit gets very claustrophobic.

Doh!

I knew that!

Playing Supreme Commander on Win7 gave me crashes when battle sizes got to large because it would break the 2gb memory limit. Windows 7 was fine, but the game didn't know what to do after 2 gigs was hit (the game was built for XP), so the game would crash D:

That was incredibly frustrating since the game always gets good once the battle sizes are of epic proportions. EPIC I SAY!

Edited September 26, 2011 by W@@dy