apinakapina Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 Hi. Copying a large image to clipboard can be very slow. I had a jpeg photo with size of appr 3000x1800 pixels. I copied it to clipboard to paste it to another picture (well, i noticed the import to layer method to do this properly), and it took like 15 seconds to perform the copying, while some other imaging software can perform similar task in no-time. When dealing with high resolution print quality images, this can really slow you down. Some re-think or optimization would be in place here. Thanks, Antti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuzzKill Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 What's the current size of you RAM? - DO NOT contact me asking for the .pdn of my avatar or the PDN logo. Thank you. Have a nice day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apinakapina Posted February 6, 2007 Author Share Posted February 6, 2007 The computer i was trying paint.net had 512MB RAM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leif Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 I had the same problem on my old computer. (512MB) My new computer (2GB) is a lot faster. My DA: http://leif-j.deviantart.com/ -------------- Some people seek justice so persistent, that they will do great injustice themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 while some other imaging software can perform similar task in no-time. Which one? No. Way. I've just seen Bob. And... *poof!*—just like that—he disappears into the mist again. ~Helio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apinakapina Posted February 7, 2007 Author Share Posted February 7, 2007 Which one? Well, Photoshop obviously. I'm using the elements version. I did some measurements on my own computer (2GHz, 1G RAM) with image of size 3000x1800 pixels, it took 4.7 seconds to copy the image with Ctrl+C. With Photoshop it took about 0.7 seconds. Then I doubled the image size to 6000x3600 and copied again. Photoshop copied in 0.75 seconds, while Paint.NET copied the image 70 seconds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Brewster Posted February 7, 2007 Share Posted February 7, 2007 Ok so it takes longer and uses more memory than Photoshop. This is neither surprising nor alarming. Copy and Paste is not something that I've spent time optimizing in some manner so as to compete with Photoshop: my time was spent making sure it worked. (Copy/paste is one of those problems that is actually deceptively hard: it seems so easy in principle. Until you have to handle 500 weird corner cases, and get it to integrate with the other tools in the software in an elegant way, etc.) If you really need the performance then honestly I just have to recommend that you use your copy of Photoshop. The Paint.NET Blog: https://blog.getpaint.net/ Donations are always appreciated! https://www.getpaint.net/donate.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apinakapina Posted February 23, 2007 Author Share Posted February 23, 2007 "If you really need the performance then honestly I just have to recommend that you use your copy of Photoshop." Quite weird attitude you got there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Lionhearted Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Well, he isn't God. He has limitations both with time and resources. My Gallery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barkbark00 Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 I don't think it is weird at all. PDN is not optimized for professional photographers who need to print posters. his response was honest. If I needed to process a extremely large photo I would not use PDN. Take responsibility for your own intelligence. 😉 -Rick Brewster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Brewster Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Quite weird attitude you got there... It's just a realistic attitude and honest response. I could just as easily get your hopes up and say, "Oh yes, I will bend over backward and spend a lot of time to optimize this!" after which either 1) I do, and sacrifice a lot of free time in order to accomplish it, or 2) I don't, in which case I'm a liar and a jackass. (2) isn't very nice, and (1) takes away time from my time allocated for things like beer, video games, girls, and teasing my cat. I'm not trying to be patronizing or anything. Paint.NET is distributed for free, which is awesome for everyone, but it removes a certain level of obligation on my part. It isn't designed to be perfect for every scenario or market segment. I don't have a business plan that lays out a strategy for making inroads on Photoshop's marketshare. So compared to them (the Photoshop crew), it does seem weird for me to be referring you to "competing" software. The Paint.NET Blog: https://blog.getpaint.net/ Donations are always appreciated! https://www.getpaint.net/donate.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usedHONDA Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Photoshop is slower than PDN for me. "The greatest thing about the Internet is that you can write anything you want and give it a false source." ~Ezra Pound twtr | dA | tmblr | yt | fb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apinakapina Posted February 25, 2007 Author Share Posted February 25, 2007 "Oh yes, I will bend over backward and spend a lot of time to optimize this!" Ok, easy now. Just giving you some feedback here, and I really appriciate what you are doing with Point.NET (and I beleave that you wish to make Paint.NET as perfect as possible. Every programmer wants that with their creations). There is no need to get angry. But back to the topic. It seems (to me) that the whole copy-thing needs re-design; no optimization can fix that. The design just dont work with large images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Just do best. Seems so easy. No. Way. I've just seen Bob. And... *poof!*—just like that—he disappears into the mist again. ~Helio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Brewster Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 "Oh yes, I will bend over backward and spend a lot of time to optimize this!"Ok, easy now. Just giving you some feedback here, and I really appriciate what you are doing with Point.NET (and I beleave that you wish to make Paint.NET as perfect as possible. Every programmer wants that with their creations). There is no need to get angry. Who said anything about being angry? The text in quotes is meant as a bit of facetiousness. I gave you a realistic assessment of the situation. But back to the topic. It seems (to me) that the whole copy-thing needs re-design; no optimization can fix that. The design just dont work with large images. You have no idea what the code is like, so saying that it needs a "re-design" is a bit misplaced on your part. Please don't tell me what the code needs. That'd be like if you took an elevator ride in a skyscraper, it took "too long," and you suddenly jumped to the conclusion that the whole building needed to be demolished and then rebuilt to fix the problem. Anyway this thread is just circling the drain. It's obvious that some people have no desire to actually understand why I'm not spending all my time working on their requirements, and more interested in complaining about it. I see no reason to leave it open. Thread closed The Paint.NET Blog: https://blog.getpaint.net/ Donations are always appreciated! https://www.getpaint.net/donate.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts