X4 Layer Palette Bug

[el48tel]

PSP can only address up to 2gb of RAM. You could have a super computer with 1.2tb of RAM and still PSP would only access 2gb. Not usually a problem unless you're working on very very large files and have multiple layers, but for most normal uses it wouldn't be a problem until PSP doesn't give back the memory it used on an image. Eventually it runs out of RAM to use. The third party program link I gave earlier does correct this behavior, but if the program needs the RAM it won't give it back (which is good since if it took RAM that the program needed it would crash the program).

Other things you can do is go into your preferences and turn off Fast Redo on the Undo tab and possibly other things as well. In X4 there's also a scratch disk, make sure that's turned on and has ample space on that hard drive. Another thing that can help is looking up ReadyBoost for your Vista or Windows 7 (not XP or NT) computer and seeing if you have a memory card or USB drive that's capable of using that.

Dan - thanks - just returned home and about to do some images with PSPX4 - so we'll see if we can squeeze a little more out of my machine

Terry

[el48tel]

It can be found at http://www.majorgeeks.com/CleanMem_d5993.html

It seems to work well - so far

Terry

[flagpole]

why can psp only access 2gb of ram?

[Simone Corel UK]

@el48tel

Are you saying that we should work in 8-bit or downsize the image

Yes, I highly recommend to use Shift+I image information to check what happens if we have a 16-bit image. You will surprised how much RAM the image takes.

A JPG with 3000x2000px, 8-bit, has 2.5 MB on disc. After opening it has 17 MB in RAM, but increases to 34 MB in RAM after changing to 16-bit. Copying the layers 4 times, now it has 172 MB in RAM. After changing the image to 4500x2990px it takes 470 MB in RAM.

That PSP can deal with max 2 GB in RAM doesn't mean it will always use all the RAM for all tools and effects. Certain tools will take less RAM and work very slow, others take more RAM and work faster.

Another point is, that while testing Photoshop with 16-bit images, no effects (only sharpen and blur) were active. I would have to change the image to 8-bit to get effects working. It's the same in PSP.
If you ask me personally, I can't see any advantage to use 16-bit, even though some geeks praise it.

[Simone Corel UK]

why can psp only access 2gb of ram?

32-bit programs can generally only work with about 2 GB maximum. Effects don't take all RAM, but they get a certain size of RAM (e.g. 100 MB max.). If you have a very big file, then it takes plenty of time to transform the image. A program should be written in this way that it doesn't crash when using an intensive effect. "Program is not responding" doesn't (therefore always) mean the program is crashed, it means program and Windows RAM are busy. However, it doesn't look nice to see this "not responding" thing.
All programs for 64-bit computer have to be written completely new and even then, only a very few parts will use the 64-bit code and all RAM.

[flagpole]

a note on file sizes in memory. 8bits or 1byte is per colour. Red green and blue. Plus another 8 bits for transparency. That's 32bits of 4 bytes per pixel. So a 10 megapixel image with 8bit colour is 40megabytes per layer.

16 bit colour is twice as much.

I tend to think that 16bit colour over kill too. The one exception is that if you are adjusting brightnes and contrast. If you have a few dark blacks it's very easy to make them all into the same colour. And then you can't separate them again.

[df]

Actually 16 bit colour is 128 times as much. It's a multiples of type thing rather than a sum of type thing.

[df]

Simone, create two new Raster pages in X4, one an 8 bit and the other a 16 bit.
Choose the flood fill tool.
Choose a gradient.
Fill each page.
The 8 bit image will be more blocked up than the 16 bit image.
Now change that layer on each to multiply, grab an image you have, paste as new layer, bring that pasted layer behind the gradient layer. You'll not only see more blocking up, but the gradient is more transparent further up or down the image.

While I'll agree 16 bit isn't something that needs to be in all tools, and in fact is less useful than 8 bit for some things, it's useful when you want a smooth clean gradient or feathering a mask. One of the things I wish were 16 bit is the Histogram Adjust tool, but then I've never been able to use that tool in a 16 bit environment so I may be misguided on that.
I am glad to see the erase, flood fill, and air brush tools in 16 bit.

[flagpole]

Actually 16 bit colour is 128 times as much. It's a multiples of type thing rather than a sum of type thing.

I'm sorry but that is completely wrong.

a 16bit colour image has 16 bits per pixel, per colour, per layer. which is by definition twice as many as an 8 bit per pixel per colour per layer.

by your logic a 10mega pixel image that is 40megabytes per layer would be over 5GB in 16bit colour. if you don't believe me open PSP go to create new image and look at the memory requirements shown in that dialogue.

128 is such an abstract number i don't even know what it is that you've confused yourself about. 16bit colour has 256 times as many shades of red green and blue, (or grey,) than 8bit per channel colour is it that that you are thinking of?

but a 16 bit colour image definitely takes twice as much memory as an 8 bit colour image. that is what the bits are actually referring to.

[df]

Sorry, my math was wrong. It's 256 times more colors, not size. 128 is half of 256, which number is the basis for much of the math that comes into play in all of these discussions.

[flagpole]

Sorry, my math was wrong. It's 256 times more colors, not size. 128 is half of 256, which number is the basis for much of the math that comes into play in all of these discussions.

i have no wish to twist the knife but so that you ate clear it is 256 times as many shades of each primary colour. which makes 16,777,216 times as many colours in total.

[df]

Yes, that's what I meant to say. No knife twisting, just clarification.

[mesmith322]

I have some doubts about memory being the reason for the layers not being displayed since I try to keep my files small. The file in use at the time of the screen snag I posted was only 500kb in size. However, I did install the memory cleaning program suggested so I will see what that has to say. Also, I unchecked the "Enable Fast Redo" which, according to help, sounds like having it checked can slow down the speed of "undo" which did seem slower than I was used to in X3.

[patara]

I agree mesmith, I do not believe it is memory related.
I've worked in PSPX with far more images at the one time and much larger file sizes and never had an issue unless they were large 12 inch digi scrapbooking pages with high ppi and many layers and even then I could have more than 1 open.
This has been happening to me in X4 since I started using in past week.
Have been documenting other problems but in couple of days I will keep notes on this.
So far it seems to happen to me after I've copied part of an image and then pasted it as a new image. When I go back to the original it seems to only show what I had copied and pasted and all the other layers are not there. This is very bad, besides annoying because if I don't keep track of what image has all the layers it would be very easy for me to delete thinking it was one of the test pasted images that I did, instead of my original working image. So far I've managed to get the layers back by changing tools and clicking on part of the image.
This info is written on the fly though, so will start making notes after the weekend and see if I can track down a sequence.

[flagpole]

it's not memory related in the sense of being due to lack of memory i don't think.
i've seen it happen with a few fairly small images open.