Mike Chaney's Tech Corner
July 12, 2020, 01:37:19 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Feb 2013: Qimage Ultimate Challenges... have fun and explore features!
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

Professional Photo Printing for Windows
Print with
Qimage and see what you've been missing!
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
Author Topic: QU - occassional error message etc  (Read 14041 times)
jeffjessee
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 76


.


View Profile Email
« Reply #15 on: August 24, 2010, 02:03:21 PM »

.112 solves the screen redraw problem with my ATI card.

Thanks,
Jeff Jessee
Logged
PH Focal-Scape
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 262



View Profile WWW
« Reply #16 on: August 25, 2010, 12:47:38 AM »

Thank you Mike,

112: a cautious it's better. So far there's no messy screen updates.

However if I use the "high quality" display for page editing, normal sized images display properly but large images (250MB and greater) simply don't display. In the latter case the busy cursor will display and hard drive shows very busy, but in the end nothing is displayed and I have to resort to Ctl-Alt-Del and kill QImage.

If I use the low res page edit option ("Thumbs/Small Images") all images display quickly regardless of size.

When I printed an image using 112 the usual "Clear Queue" prompt didn't appear. Ultimately I found that it was "there" but didn't have top focus. Haven't experienced that before.

I have turned 3D Graphics on again.

Peter
Logged

Fred A
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 5283



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #17 on: August 25, 2010, 06:12:09 PM »

Quote
250MB and greater) simply don't display. In the latter case the busy cursor will display and hard drive shows very busy, but in the end nothing is displayed and I have to resort to Ctl-Alt-Del and kill QImage.

Peter,
I have been playing around with the scenario that you presented. I have created a number of huge Tifs.
This is what I find.
The "hourglass" (the spinning circle)  times out, but the operation is still live. Sometimes the screen does some weird tricks while I wait, but I wait.
Keep waiting, and finally, there's the HQ image at 525 mb and 900 mb files.
So, my point is, I thought QU was done and "cooked" too when the hourglass quit, but just stay there and the file will open in HQ.

What version of Windows?
I have W7, 64 bit in one, and 32 bit in another. I have Vista Premium on a separate HD which I no longer use, except for testing stuff.

Wait it out, and tell us what you find.

Fred
Logged
PH Focal-Scape
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 262



View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: August 26, 2010, 02:20:37 AM »

Quote
250MB and greater) simply don't display. In the latter case the busy cursor will display and hard drive shows very busy, but in the end nothing is displayed and I have to resort to Ctl-Alt-Del and kill QImage.

Peter,
I have been playing around with the scenario that you presented. I have created a number of huge Tifs.
This is what I find.
The "hourglass" (the spinning circle)  times out, but the operation is still live. Sometimes the screen does some weird tricks while I wait, but I wait.
Keep waiting, and finally, there's the HQ image at 525 mb and 900 mb files.
So, my point is, I thought QU was done and "cooked" too when the hourglass quit, but just stay there and the file will open in HQ.

What version of Windows?
I have W7, 64 bit in one, and 32 bit in another. I have Vista Premium on a separate HD which I no longer use, except for testing stuff.

Wait it out, and tell us what you find.

Fred

Thanks Fred,

Yes, the hour glass stops ... and HD activity finally ceases. I'm using Windows 7 64 bit 2.5GB RAM (in a virtual machine on a Mac, not that that should have any significant effect). I wait as long as can be reasonably be expected and then some.

Actually, for most of my page edits the low resolution display of the images is fine and is fast.

Peter
Logged

Fred A
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 5283



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #19 on: August 26, 2010, 09:35:22 AM »

Quote
Windows 7 64 bit 2.5GB RAM (in a virtual machine on a Mac,
Peter,
Thanks for the information. Unfortunately, a virtual PC running in a Mac is not among my highest levels of knowledge.  Cheesy
I did want to say, though, that 2.5 gigs of RAM seems a little borderline for just a PC running W7; without running a virtual machine on a Mac.

I think we should wait for Mike or some other person with oodles of knowledge on RAM requirements.
I word it this way because I know that the size file that Qimage can handle in each machine is different. One of the major criteria is RAM.

I don't even know if this is relevant, but looking at my screen snap, you can see the available RAM for Qimage based on my setup.
(From Qimage, click HELP, then hold the Shift key down while you click on Analyze Current settings)
Just curious what yours says.

Fred
Logged
PH Focal-Scape
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 262



View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: August 26, 2010, 10:40:42 AM »

Thanks again Fred.

I just checked the RAM allocation to my Win 7 and its actually 3GB (forgot that I increased it to accommodate large panorama stitching. Mac host has 8GB RAM).

There's still around 2GB free with a couple of large TIFFs loaded in QU.

The QU memory display is exactly as shown on your screen capture!

Peter
 
« Last Edit: August 26, 2010, 10:42:13 AM by pshrutpark » Logged

admin
Administrator
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 3083



View Profile Email
« Reply #21 on: August 26, 2010, 12:29:11 PM »

You say the file is 250MB.  Is that compressed size?  What actually matters is the pixel resolution (listed on the bottom of the Qimage window when you hover over the thumb with the mouse).  What's the resolution of the image?

Mike
Logged
PH Focal-Scape
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 262



View Profile WWW
« Reply #22 on: August 26, 2010, 09:26:55 PM »

You say the file is 250MB.  Is that compressed size?  What actually matters is the pixel resolution (listed on the bottom of the Qimage window when you hover over the thumb with the mouse).  What's the resolution of the image?

Mike

**See Stop Press at bottom **

For example a 500MB TIF 16bit 22548x3753, with no modifications etc, loaded on an A4 page:

1/ Page edit button clicked and displayed in seconds as set to the low res display.

2/ While in page edit screen changed to high res ("All Images") and the image redisplayed correctly in about 2-3 minutes.

3/ Left high res setting on and exited page edit.

4/ Immediately re-entered page edit again and the same image was eventually displayed in 8-10 minutes. During the process the free RAM dropped from about 2GB to just below 1.6GB. Once displayed, the free RAM went back up to just over 2GB.

5/ Repeated 3 and 4 and image displayed in about 45 seconds ! While loading, the page edit screen displayed a "partial refresh", showing remnants of the main screen.

6/ Repeated 3 and 4 and image displayed in between 10 to 13 minutes. The page edit screen remained clean throughout until image was displayed. Free RAM went down to 1.6 GB while processing and back up to 2GB when displayed. After exited page edit, ie back to main QU screen, free RAM increased to 2.3GB.

7/ Repeated 3 and 4 and image hadn't displayed in 13 mintues. This time while waiting, page edit screen showed remnants of main edit screen. CPU load was low and disk activity ended up negligible. At end I Alt-TABed to check free RAM which was 1.6GB. Alt-TABing back again was unresponsive. QU wouldn't display in any form.

8/ Aborted QU.

While processing, the QU RAM use went from about 265MB up to about 750MB.

And so on!

Thanks

Peter

STOP PRESS!

Not giving up, I decided to explore other options.

Thinking out of the square, I allocated only 1 CPU core to Win7 rather than 2 (of the 4).

High res ("All Images") Page Edit display of the same 500MB image as above repeatedly loaded in 10 to 14 seconds!!

Two image on page (total 750MB) loaded in 34 seconds!

The 2 core allocation works fine in other multi-threaded applications.

My question: Is QU multi-threading during "page edit" display and if so does it have an inefficiency/bug, particularly apparent with large images?    
  
Hoping all this helps, Mike.

Peter



  

« Last Edit: August 26, 2010, 09:48:35 PM by pshrutpark » Logged

admin
Administrator
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 3083



View Profile Email
« Reply #23 on: August 26, 2010, 09:53:06 PM »

Thanks for all the details!  Helps to know exactly what you are experiencing.  What are the specs on your Mac?  I ask because a 250MB image loads in about 8 seconds on my Win7 x64 machine.  I have a folder of gargantuan images as well and I've tried a 700MB, 800MB, and 984MB image.  All load in the full page editor (with "All Images" selected) in under 20 seconds.  I'm wondering if the long delay could be causing Windows to do some nasty things to the program.  The first step might be figuring out why it is taking so long to load that 250MB image.  Windows is notorious for mangling screens in a program that it thinks is "not responding".  I think that's what is happening here, and I don't think it would happen if the image loaded in a "normal" amount of time.  I don't understand the wild difference in timings on your machine.  It doesn't seem to be using any more memory than it needs (plenty of leftover RAM available) so I don't think it is disk swapping.  Something must be causing those long loads though.  Even 45 seconds is too slow and it certainly shouldn't change to 10-13 minutes when it is repeated.  Something strange is going on.  Are you sure some virus program isn't stepping on things?

Mike
Logged
PH Focal-Scape
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 262



View Profile WWW
« Reply #24 on: August 26, 2010, 10:09:22 PM »

Thanks for all the details!  Helps to know exactly what you are experiencing.  What are the specs on your Mac?  I ask because a 250MB image loads in about 8 seconds on my Win7 x64 machine.  I have a folder of gargantuan images as well and I've tried a 700MB, 800MB, and 984MB image.  All load in the full page editor (with "All Images" selected) in under 20 seconds.  I'm wondering if the long delay could be causing Windows to do some nasty things to the program.  The first step might be figuring out why it is taking so long to load that 250MB image.  Windows is notorious for mangling screens in a program that it thinks is "not responding".  I think that's what is happening here, and I don't think it would happen if the image loaded in a "normal" amount of time.  I don't understand the wild difference in timings on your machine.  It doesn't seem to be using any more memory than it needs (plenty of leftover RAM available) so I don't think it is disk swapping.  Something must be causing those long loads though.  Even 45 seconds is too slow and it certainly shouldn't change to 10-13 minutes when it is repeated.  Something strange is going on.  Are you sure some virus program isn't stepping on things?

Mike

Thanks Mike. Did you read my STOP PRESS (maybe I was writing it while you were replying)?

CPU i7 2.66GHz plenty of disk space.

Peter



 
Logged

admin
Administrator
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 3083



View Profile Email
« Reply #25 on: August 26, 2010, 10:17:19 PM »

Thanks Mike. Did you read my STOP PRESS (maybe I was writing it while you were replying)?

CPU i7 2.66GHz plenty of disk space.

Peter

No.  I didn't see that.  Wasn't there when I started typing.  Smiley  It only uses one core for that stuff anyway.  Only time QU will ever use more than one core is for thumbnail building and printing.  Everything else is a standard single core single threaded coding.  Sounds to me more like your system isn't "behaving" properly when only one CPU is assigned to Win7.  It's almost like it doesn't know how to allocate its time.  I think it's possible.  Windows doesn't run perfectly on Macs, even ones with Intel processors.  Not sure why, but there are problems with Windows here and there when running on a Mac.

Mike
Logged
PH Focal-Scape
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 262



View Profile WWW
« Reply #26 on: August 26, 2010, 11:30:00 PM »

Thanks very much for the responses Mike.

The 10-14 sec loading for a 500MB image are comparable with your times.

However:
The "normal" image loading times with only 1 CPU core didn't last! Have reverted to 2 as other W7 programmes run well. Tried fixing page file at 4.5GB (was 3GB auto) and tried turning off ZoneAlarm. No better. It's the inconsistency that is confusing.

Can work well a few times and then goes into snail mode.

The plot thickens. No big deal for me because "low res" page editing is often all I need.

Peter

Logged

rayw
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 440


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: August 27, 2010, 02:41:38 AM »

Hi Peter,

From the description of your problem, it sounds like it is a page file problem. Bearing in mind I have no experience of QU, or windows 7 never mind running any of this on Macs, but it used to be that you had the fastest response by putting the page file on a disc other than the OS. In searching on the web, it seems that many folk using w7 get increased performance, provided they have enough ram, by reducing the pf size to the minimum. Some even mention they get away with disabling it completely, others say that is a bad idea. If you do a search on 'page file windows 7' you will get the Microsoft 'official' explanations, and also what folk do to make it work for them.

hth.

Best wishes,

Ray
Logged
PH Focal-Scape
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 262



View Profile WWW
« Reply #28 on: August 27, 2010, 09:13:32 AM »

Thanks for the comment Ray.

That's food for thought.

 I have tried setting the page file much larger but not smaller.

QU operates without ever getting near to using all the RAM. Whereas my panorama programme, which runs perfectly, consumes nearly all of the RAM and so more likely to need the page file.

That being said, I'll check out your suggestions.

Peter
 
Logged

Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!