jffe
|
In most cases with large image sizes, saving the file takes as long as rendering it did (or extremely close to that long, like 2/3 at least). What's the point of rendering it at full quality if you then have to *save* it which takes nearly as long ? Genetica doesn't take any time to save an image once it's rendered, for the sake of comparison here, so why does FF exactly, and will that be changed/sped up/fixed in V2 ?
jffe Filter Forger
|
Posted: May 22, 2008 4:35 pm |
Details
E-Mail
|
uberzev
not lyftzev

|
When I save an image that has already been rendered there is no delay. Perhaps your image was still anti-aliasing at the time.
If you go to the FF options, under the "Rendering" tab, and select "Show Elapsed Rendering Time" you'll know exactly when the image has rendered and how long it took.
|
Posted: May 22, 2008 6:08 pm |
Details
E-Mail
|
jffe
|
Quote |
---|
uberzev wrote:
When I save an image that has already been rendered there is no delay. Perhaps your image was still anti-aliasing at the time. |
----Nope, with anti-aliasing off it still does it. It renders, tells me the time that took, then if I choose to *save* it, another time remaining bar pops up and slowly moves across until it is saved, and usually that takes from 2/3 as long as the render to 3/4+ the time the render took.
jffe
Added: I just finished one with about 2/3 transparent area, and it saved pretty fast, like in 10%-15% of the time it took to render. Filter Forger
|
Posted: May 22, 2008 7:17 pm |
Details
E-Mail
|
uberzev
not lyftzev

|
Does this happen with all filters?
|
Posted: May 22, 2008 7:23 pm |
Details
E-Mail
|
jffe
|
Quote |
---|
uberzev wrote:
Does this happen with all filters? |
----Well, with the 30-40 I've tried (at the larger sizes) yeah.
jffe Filter Forger
|
Posted: May 22, 2008 8:51 pm |
Details
E-Mail
|
Kraellin
Kraellin

|
the only time that shld happen is when you are 'rendering' with the image not at full pixel size. then, the image has to render the full size image to save correctly, since it's not been rendered to full size previously. go the menus and pick 'view' and then 'preview size' and set it to actual. shldnt be a problem after that. If wishes were horses... there'd be a whole lot of horse crap to clean up!
Craig
|
Posted: May 22, 2008 10:07 pm |
Details
E-Mail
|
jffe
|
Quote |
---|
Kraellin wrote:
go the menus and pick 'view' and then 'preview size' and set it to actual. shldnt be a problem after that. |
----It is set to *actual*. Again though, we are talking large renders, not 600 X 600.
jffe
Filter Forger
|
Posted: May 22, 2008 10:20 pm |
Details
E-Mail
|
Kraellin
Kraellin

|
yes, i understood. i tried it on a 1200 x 1200 and it worked fine for me. you might have something different set in your options? If wishes were horses... there'd be a whole lot of horse crap to clean up!
Craig
|
Posted: May 22, 2008 10:36 pm |
Details
E-Mail
|
jffe
|
Quote |
---|
Kraellin wrote:
yes, i understood. i tried it on a 1200 x 1200 and it worked fine for me. you might have something different set in your options? |
----Do me a favor then and try it at 3000 X 3000. if it still takes like 1 second or less to save, then I/my computer is at fault somehow. Thanks.
jffe
Filter Forger
|
Posted: May 22, 2008 11:44 pm |
Details
E-Mail
|
uberzev
not lyftzev

|
Could be a ram issue. Make sure FF is set to use all the ram it needs.
|
Posted: May 22, 2008 11:57 pm |
Details
E-Mail
|
jffe
|
Quote |
---|
uberzev wrote:
Could be a ram issue. Make sure FF is set to use all the ram it needs. |
----I have it set at 80%.
----Thanks for replying though by the way, and you too Kraellin. My replies are kinda short since this is a technical kind of thread, but don't think I don't appreciate the feedback, I do.
jffe
Filter Forger
|
Posted: May 23, 2008 12:44 am |
Details
E-Mail
|
Redcap
Redcap

|
jffe, I have the same issue, but I think it is important to note it really doesn't take the same amount of time as it does to render, it just takes about 20-60 seconds.
If you render anything bigger than 3000 X 3000 it renders, and then after the render a bar does indeed pop up that says saving. It takes a while but it doesn't take the 7 minutes it takes to render.
But I agree this is a wee bit annoying, but may just be how FF has to roll.
|
Posted: May 23, 2008 7:11 am |
Details
E-Mail
|
jffe
|
Quote |
---|
Redcap wrote:
jffe, I have the same issue, but I think it is important to note it really doesn't take the same amount of time as it does to render, it just takes about 20-60 seconds. |
----On a few occasions it has taken nearly as long to save as it did to render. In most cases it takes a little over half as long, which translates to about 2-3 minutes now on my new dualcore. What are you running for a ram usage setting Redcap ?
jffe
Added: I am saving in .png format, if that matters/is perhaps causing the slow saving to happen because of some compression in that format ? Filter Forger
|
Posted: May 23, 2008 11:51 am |
Details
E-Mail
|
Redcap
Redcap

|
I have a dualcore as well set to only use 60% of my cpu at one time.
|
Posted: May 23, 2008 7:27 pm |
Details
E-Mail
|
jffe
|
Quote |
---|
Redcap wrote:
set to only use 60% of my cpu at one time. |
----I'll try dropping it to 60% and see if that helps files save faster. Thanks.
jffe
Filter Forger
|
Posted: May 24, 2008 2:48 pm |
Details
E-Mail
|
onyXMaster
Filter Forge, Inc.
Posts: 350
|
Errm .. there is a slider to set CPU utilization? I'm surprised greatly!
On the topic -- to increase performance of rendering
1. add more memory or close other programs (so FF has 1.5Gb of physical memory for it's own needs, usually having 3Gb of memory is good enough if you plan to keep something like Photshop in the background)
2. use standalone version
3. crank up memory usage slider to 85% (almost no use upping it above that)
4. get a faster hard drive, or even better, get another hard drive and put Filter Forge temporary folder there
Explanation:
When FF renders and hits the memory limit set in the options (there's an additional 1.5Gb limit for rendering blocks), it swaps. Fortunately it does not use Windows swap file (well, not unless you crank up the memory usage slider and then run some memory-hungry programs, eagerly awaiting the "eternally flashing disk activity LED"), so it dumps the contents of memory to disk (in a much more intelligent way than swapping does), freeing memory for new rendered data. When the rendering completes and you're going to save the data, FF needs to access previously rendered image (the contents of the preview area is not what is saved into the files -- saving to files is done using high-precision internal image), but if the data was swapped out to disk -- it needs to read it back, hence the slow saving.
|
Posted: May 24, 2008 3:36 pm |
Details
E-Mail
|
onyXMaster
Filter Forge, Inc.
Posts: 350
|
P.S. scrolling the memory slider down to as low as 25% might help if you're low on memory. FF never uses less than 32Mb or 5% of installed memory, whichever is larger.
|
Posted: May 24, 2008 3:37 pm |
Details
E-Mail
|
Kraellin
Kraellin

|
ok, so as long as you're under your limit of memory, like i was with the 1200 x 1200 image, the rendering on a save wont show. but, if you've exceeded your memory limit and are using the swap, then things may slow down during the save due to what you said. cool. thanks, onyx  If wishes were horses... there'd be a whole lot of horse crap to clean up!
Craig
|
Posted: May 24, 2008 5:04 pm |
Details
E-Mail
|
jffe
|
Below are the normal settings I use, most are the defaults really.
jffe
Filter Forger
|
Posted: May 24, 2008 5:05 pm |
Details
E-Mail
|
onyXMaster
Filter Forge, Inc.
Posts: 350
|
The "Rendering", "Saving" and several other progress bars show only after an internally specified time of the specific activity (so when it's fast it doesn't annoy user with popping up and instantly disappearing windows, and when it's slow it displays the progress so you won't think FF is hung, and gives the ability to cancel).
|
Posted: May 25, 2008 3:10 am |
Details
E-Mail
|
onyXMaster
Filter Forge, Inc.
Posts: 350
|
jffe: your settings are okay, maybe your hard drive is slow, needs defragmentation or so? Also I see that you have only 2.6Gb free space -- that may be too low for some large renders. Also, Windows disk performance suffers when there is less than 20% disk space left if you're using NTFS.
|
Posted: May 25, 2008 3:12 am |
Details
E-Mail
|
jffe
|
Quote |
---|
onyXMaster wrote:
Also I see that you have only 2.6Gb free space -- that may be too low for some large renders. Also, Windows disk performance suffers when there is less than 20% disk space left if you're using NTFS. |
----That makes maybe the most sense (of problems on my end), however, I do look occasionally, and FF has never paged more than 1.7gigs when rendering, so my 2.6gigs available is more than enough when rendering to .png files that are about 8-14megs each in size.
----The whole saving takes as long as rendering thing just caught me offguard when I started doing larger renders (as opposed to 600X ones), so I thought I'd post about it and get some feedback. It's somewhat unlikely I'll be able to free up 20gigs of space, so I'll just havta live with it for now. Thanks for the info though.
jffe
Filter Forger
|
Posted: May 25, 2008 12:59 pm |
Details
E-Mail
|
jffe
|
O.k., new information time = I noticed that my cpu drops to 50% when saving (as opposed to 99%-100% when rendering), that seems really weird, and contributes to explaining why saving can take up to as long as rendering.
jffe Filter Forger
|
Posted: May 26, 2008 3:17 pm |
Details
E-Mail
|
onyXMaster
Filter Forge, Inc.
Posts: 350
|
CPU dropping from 98-100% when rendering is usually because of the disk activity, so the real bottleneck is the disk drive.
|
Posted: May 27, 2008 6:38 am |
Details
E-Mail
|
Kraellin
Kraellin

|
buy one of the new Asus boards, jffe... 75 gigs of ram  If wishes were horses... there'd be a whole lot of horse crap to clean up!
Craig
|
Posted: May 27, 2008 1:19 pm |
Details
E-Mail
|