Performance: How can PSP improve?

[Rick_R]

Also, if we could pre-compile the scripts prior to running I believe we would save additional time.

The scripts are in Python, which is not a compiled language.

[LeviFiction]

Yes and no. Technically Python converts all scripts to byte-code before running them. Python includes an interpreter so you can test code one line at a time. Now this will mean a slightly slower startup of uncompiled scripts as they are being compiled but once the script is loaded and compiled it runs at speed every time. So csh2000 is correct that a tiny portion of time would be saved if the scripts could be pre-compiled. But most scripts aren't exactly huge, so the compile time is minimal. Python libraries that include a .pyc file will load a little faster because of this precompiling. Which is what the "c" stands for.

Though I also defer back to what csh2000 wrote, again, that a majority of the speed issues are waiting for the UI to update.

Actually, now that I think about it. In some ways python is a little too fast. Sometimes the UI doesn't update or the program state doesn't up date in time for the next command to be run and we end up with a "program state" error. A perfectly legal command suddenly can't execute. We've found that by changing the process, or even just pausing the script for 1 second is usually enough for the UI to catch up. Odd as that sounds.

EDIT:
Just tried to compile a script to see if it would work. Failed while parsing the script. Apparently PSP does its own parsing. *shrug*

[csh2000]

EDIT:
Just tried to compile a script to see if it would work. Failed while parsing the script. Apparently PSP does its own parsing. *shrug*

Thanks for trying, was just getting ready to try myself.

[MarkZ]

I'm using performance in the context of actual and perceived speed, efficiency, and responsiveness of the app. Any observations or suggestions you can share would be great.

Nev:

There are many instances in PSP where common operations require far more clicks or adjustments than necessary. We often end up doing repetitive tasks when working on a batch of images and all these unnecessary clicks add up, waste time and cause frustrations. Suggestions for reducing these repetitions:

- make the zoom level in the dialog box used in most adjustment tools the "last used". I find that within a session I'm working on the same size of images and the zoom level is consistent between tools - and not the default which is 100% in some instances and full size display in others.
- when a new brush is selected make it the same size as the last used. If you are going through a lot of brushes to see which works it can drive you crazy resetting the size from the default each time.
- keep the pan window display within the tool dialog box within the tool dialog box. The way it is now, if you are at the edge of your display most of the pan window disappears, the tool dialog box has to be repositioned and the pan window accessed again. In one session when I had the tool dialog box at the edge for a good reason all the repositioning was awfully frustrating. I think all that is needed is a new X value for the position of the pan window. The development team tried a response to this request in X8, screwed it up, reset to the old way in SP1 and walked away. Let's try again.
- With today's higher resolution monitors some of the lines and the nodes are very hard to see. I know from comments I've seen that there are many others who spend a lot of time searching for these details and then trying to land precisely on the line or node - some of us are getting older, which is good because the alternative sucks. Perhaps you could do an ergonomic analysis of PSP and see where improvements could be made.

[Rick_R]

This is sort of half-way between a performance tweak and a wishlist item.

I frequently have to change screenshot images to higher resolution, e.g., looking at an aerial view of an accident location in Google or Bing or taking a Street View or Streetside image of a house, and in such cases convert them to 300 dpi.

Depending on the user's specific hardware, normally the images get saved at either 72 dpi or 96 dpi. And generally the conversion is to 300 dpi for printing. That might be either changing the print size only by changing the dpi or increasing the number of pixels by multiplying by a specific amount. It would be nice to have two options the user can set in Preferences and then have buttons for [ ] Shrink 72 dpi to 300 [ ] Resample 72 dpi to 300.

[LeviFiction]

Wouldn't those be better to do in scripts?

[JoeB]

This is sort of half-way between a performance tweak and a wishlist item.

I frequently have to change screenshot images to higher resolution, e.g., looking at an aerial view of an accident location in Google or Bing or taking a Street View or Streetside image of a house, and in such cases convert them to 300 dpi.

PSP doesn't have a dpi setting.

[Rick_R]

When I save screen images they usually show up as "72 dpi", depending on the particular program I'm using to get the info. Often (e.g., Ancestry.com document images) they were scanned at 300 dpi but when the image displays on screen it shows as 72 dpi with huge dimensions.

I do have scripts, but that's because I mainly use it for Ancestry documents and those were scanned at a variety of dpi settings, so I have a number of scripts, plus those require clicking and cursoring through quite numerous steps to get to the one I want.

I think most people would really want just "Take this image, which says it is 72 [or 96] dpi and resize it [not resample] to 300 dpi so I can print it." In other cases they would need to resample it so the print dimensions don't change.

It might be possible to even do that as a one-button solution, where the code automatically determines whether to just change the print size [no resampling] or to "magnify" by resampling. For instance, if an image 2550 W x 3300 H shows as 72 dpi, chances are the user doesn't intend to have it print 35.4 inches wide by 45.8 inches high. So that probably was scanned at 300 dpi and the print dimensions probably should be 8.5" x 11".

The user would have to set in Preferences: "Screen" dpi (72, 96, or custom), "Print" dpi (300, 600, custom), and possibly "Maximum print width" and "Maximum print height". So if the program sees that resampling--e.g., 72 to 300 dpi--will produce an image [much] larger than [Max print size] 8.5 x 11, that means "resize using same number of pixels".

Conversely, converting from 72 dpi to 300 basically produces a 1/16th size image. If the 72 dpi original is anywhere near the "Maximum print size", the chances are the user wants resampling.

In Preferences it probably would also be a good idea to give the option: Change current image, Resize to new image, Backup current image then resize.

[LeviFiction]

I have made two simple scripts, one to change resolution the other to change resolution and resample keeping print size

Best part, they use the resolution setting from the preferences so no need to edit the scripts to make them work, and they run silently all the time.

If you want one that uses maximum print size which setting is most portant, print size or resolution? If both the old an new resolution are greater in print size than the maximum do we choose a resolution to bring the print size down ir do we use the method that gives the closest to the maximum?

[Rick_R]

Nev -- since this is basically your topic, do you think it might be better to move this discussion to the X10 Wishlist?

If it's not basically a one-button or one-of-two buttons solution, then it doesn't really seem to be much of a "performance" suggestion.

[Nev]

Nev -- since this is basically your topic, do you think it might be better to move this discussion to the X10 Wishlist?

If it's not basically a one-button or one-of-two buttons solution, then it doesn't really seem to be much of a "performance" suggestion.

Thanks for your suggestion Rick R.

I'm honestly good either way and not sure how strict this forum is in regards to ensuring that posts are (directly) related to the original topic. Personally, I find all of these comments to be insightful, so I'll let all of you who are more experience with this forum decide.