Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

View large images more quickly

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Requested View large images more quickly

    Thanks to this handy and powerful tool, I can manage and view my images comfortably. So I appreciate Irfan's great work.

    IrfanView is great, but there is also a problem. When I want to see a large picture(3*** X 2*** in resolution, more than 2M in size) in full screen, I find it a little slow to view the pic compared to ACDSee 2.44. It seems to lag for a while to show the pic, depending on the pic's size. While ACDSee 2.44 shows the pic very quickly, even the pics are very large(5*** X 4*** in resolution, more than 8M in size). And I have carefully compared both display quality, but I can't tell any differences. Maybe when big pictures resized to such small resolution, the difference is very small.

    So I wonder if IrfanView can improve display speed when showing large pictures.

    Best regards.

    #2
    Hi Goldentime,

    Go to
    -> Options / Properties / Full screen options
    and uncheck the box Resample if it is checked.
    (commands freely translated from french).

    Honnestly, I tried both and I don't see much difference. Most of the time is used to load the image from the hard disk. The display is somewhat faster when loading from an USB key.

    Laurent
    Before you post ... fill in your OS and IV version in your profile.

    Comment


      #3
      Hi Laurent,

      Thank you for your suggestion. But I find that resample option is unchecked already, maybe by default.

      I don't know what kind of pictures you display. I see some digital cameras' samples every now and then, and they are always very big. You can download the pictures I have selected through this url:

      And maybe you can find the difference.

      BTW, I don't quite catch what you mean, when you say display faster when loading from an USB key. As far as I know, the hard disk is much faster than the USB key now.

      Best regards.

      Comment


        #4
        Hi Goldentime,

        The two biggest of your images (11 MB, 3328 * 4992) opens here in 2 or 3 seconds. Not too bad imho :-) It's almost the time needed to copy ont of the images on the hard drive.
        The pictrures of my DSC opens faster, but they are only 10 M pixels.

        Laurent
        Before you post ... fill in your OS and IV version in your profile.

        Comment


          #5
          Dear Goldentime,

          I have already written about that, but it seems that very few really understood. Please check my post: "Preload the next image in memory". I think that the AcdSee 2.4x has an option to preload in the memory the next (or previous) image while the user is looking to the current image. Anyway, I have also found later that the loading time for a jpg of few MBs in IV is longer than AcdSee even when in the current folder is only one image. I have no ideea why. The only thing I can think of is the algorithm of reading jpg files. The problem with AcdSee 2.4x is that it lacks in options like: possibility to scan files. (Not to mention that for large gif files there is a bug which appears from time to time, so that about 10-20% of loaded gifs (large gifs means more than 1MB) are damaged on screen.) Currently, I am using both programs... And I don't agree with the idea that 2-3 sec is a good time for loading images. By the way, the HD drive speed is currently 20 MB/s so that I don't believe this is the cause. My computer is also very fast (Intel 3GHz, 1GB RAM) so that the CPU speed is also excluded...
          Best regards,
          Vizitator
          Last edited by Vizitator; 14.06.2007, 11:28 PM.

          Comment


            #6
            Well, I downloaded those pictures, and for the initial time of opening each picture, at no time did any opening take longer than 1.5 seconds. (Explanation, once you have opened a file once, any subsequent opening may be less - depending upon how much data remains in cache.)

            Now perhaps it is because I am running with a P4 at 3.2 GHz, and I have 3GB of memory, also I have SATA hard drives, all of that helps. But if that is the reason why I am getting much better performance, with my setup, then that just goes to show that your setup may be somewhat lacking.

            By the way, one thing we "old-timers" used to always do to improve performance was to set our paging file size (or "Virtual Memory") to one unalterable large size. Doing that and your computer no longer "wastes" time in calculating and adjusting the paging file size. I have a 2GB setting for my paging file size.
            I wish to die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather.
            Not like those passengers, in his car, when he drove over that cliff.

            Comment


              #7
              Hi Laurent,

              I think 2-3 seconds is not very short. Maybe it can be accepted when viewing just one image, but if there are lots of such images, that will make people impatient.

              And as Vizitator said, I think hard disk speed is not the problem. My disk can be up to 30M/s(even higher) writing and reading.

              Best regards.

              Comment


                #8
                Hi Vizitator,

                Yes, at first, I think the same way as you. I think ACDSee 2.44 may preload the images. But I find later it doesn't. I drag one image into ACDSee 2.44, then I drag another image into it randomly even from another folder, the interval time is very short. But when using IV 4.00, the interval time is longer.

                My CPU is Sempron 2500+ 64bit, my ram is 512M DDR400. It seems that your computer is better than mine, and that problem is not due to the hardware.

                Best regards.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Hi ChuckE,

                  Thank you for your suggestion on the paging file.

                  Yes, higher hardware can bring shorter opening time. But with the same hardware and the same operating system, ACDSee 2.44 takes shorter time than IV 4.00 to open an large image. I really don't think the hardware is the main problem.

                  Best regards.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X