locked
Thumbnail tiff used full memory even with 12 Gb ! RRS feed

  • Question

  • (Im french sorry for my language).

    Incredible but I downgraded my new PC from W7 64bits 12Gb ram to my old XP 32bits (I dont have the xp64b).... only for one thing !

    Image thumbnails TIFF saturates the memory.

    I bought - 3 weeks ago - a big PC with W7 64bit with 12 GB of memory, Intel I7-930, with 1GB video card, hard disk boot 1TB WD Caviar Black, and ... My Windows XP 32bits + 4GB ram is faster to navigate through pictures folders than the new one.

    My pictures folders are not on a network, not on an extarnal HD... only on internal HD in sata. I have 10 to 100 pictures by folder.

    All my pictures come from Photoshop CS (3,4,5 same problem) and are in TIFF format with LZW compression with LAYER (10 to 50 layers).
    But, they are hudge... I suppose they are. the smallest size is 300Mb, the big one 1,8GB.

    I REALLY need to see thumbnails (grrrr no PSD thumbnail freeware in W7 ). I've 3 screens and I need to see a lot of thumbnails. I don't want to install a viewer, it's not necessary... when I open a folder trough a software menu, the problem is the same...

    Used an Adobe Bridge is not a solution too... only one window in same time and I need to copy, paste, move pictures.

    It's a real trouble... how explain that XP is 10 times faster to do that ! Copy 5 pictures files with drag and drop is impossible for me.  I drag... I drop... and... nothing append since 5 min... no progress bar, nothing... only my 12 gigabytes of memory are filled.. and... I pray...

    the same operation in dos mode (CMD) take some seconds to copy 1gb. When the graphic interface isn't used, it seem to be ok...

    Tell me thats a huge bug.

    Am I only the one to work with 1Gb tiff pictures ?

    oh ! another thing I found.... when the thumbnail appear... if you have a TIFF file with an alpha layer.. the thumbnail use only the alpha layer to draw it... If it's a really bug... send me 10 000 bucks on my paypal account :)

    Tx for all brains to help me... I don't want to plug my Apple //e to accelerate my work.

     

     And sorry again for this Frenglish tongue.

    Didier

    Friday, October 8, 2010 4:21 PM

All replies

  • Hi, you said.. It's a real trouble... how explain that XP is 10 times faster to do that ! Copy 5 pictures files with drag and drop is impossible for me. I drag... I drop... and... nothing append since 5 min... no progress bar, nothing... only my 12 gigabytes of memory are filled.. and... I pray... [etc]

     

    Well I've no idea if this is helpful to you as I don't work with TIFF files here. but I just noticed that in Windows - Programs And Features- there is a 'Windows TIFF IFilter' could this be of help to you. if says in the popup that. "It enables the indexing and Searching of TIFF files using OCR..

    It's UNchecked here. But it may be useful for what you're wanting to do..

    Hope you've figured it all out by now I suppose, too. :)

    Regards, pkn 


    If my post was helpful - give it a Vote. If it helps solve your problem - propose it as Answer. ;-)
    Sunday, July 31, 2011 4:50 PM
  • Check out the inexpensive commercial package:  FastPictureViewer Codec Pack.  I bought it and now I can see thumbnails for all the image files I use - PSD, TIFF, CR2 (raw), etc.  It has been very stable.

    If you are seeing much better performance in XP than Windows 7 then you have a specific problem in Windows 7.  I have found that Windows 7 has actually a more efficient disk access subsystem than XP, especially for accessing large datasets.

    -Noel

    Sunday, July 31, 2011 11:19 PM
  • Hello, tanks for the idea, but that s allready unchecked.

    bye

    Monday, August 1, 2011 12:03 AM
  • Hello et merci,

    This plugin is really cool, I'll buy it soon.

    Since my last post, W7 and the updates don't freeze the machine, a big progress. But, if your software accelerate the drawing of the icon for 1gb images, I try it tomorrow :

    really tx all,

    and désolé for my language :)

     

    dider

    Monday, August 1, 2011 12:09 AM
  • hi, you said..  Hello, tanks for the idea, but that s allready unchecked.

    oh.. I did think you may have needed to use that feature?.  But I suppose you've tried that - and other things, in trying to resolve the issue. Just trying to help.. :-)

     

    Regards, pkn2011


    If my post was helpful - give it a Vote. If it helps solve your problem - propose it as Answer. ;-)
    Monday, August 1, 2011 12:13 AM
  • I wonder if Windows by default could be trying to index these very large files, even though they're TIFF and not reasonably something you'd expect to have to search - creating a huge overhead.  I have indexing disabled, which may be why I don't see a degradation in performance when manipulating large files.

    -Noel

    Monday, August 1, 2011 3:44 PM
  • Hi Noel, you said.. " I have indexing disabled, which may be why I don't see a degradation in performance when manipulating large files."

     

    Would indexing store the actual files - or only their header information. I'd have thought it was the number of files in a folder that'd cause the slowdown. (Though perhaps the whole file needs to be read to get to the relevant info?)

    Regards, pkn


    If my post was helpful - give it a Vote. If it helps solve your problem - propose it as Answer. ;-)
    Saturday, August 6, 2011 7:53 AM
  • Who knows what Microsoft's indexing process does?  In my opinion it's a poorly conceived feature that's been poorly implemented.  It wouldn't surprise me to learn it's reading entire gigabyte sized tiff files.

    I guess I'm kind of "old school", but I don't want my system off probing around all my files for stuff I *might* search for someday (in Microsoft's opinion), but rather just to wait until such time as I want to search.  The possibility that Windows is indexing gigabyte sized files whenever they're created/copied/manipulated is just one example of why.

    -Noel

    Saturday, August 6, 2011 4:15 PM
  • Hi Noel, you said.. "Who knows what Microsoft's indexing process does?" 

     

    Well, it's off here - my searching methods both from within the OS and with other tools work great. Can find anything I'm looking for and usually lots that I'm not too. But as I don;t really work with large TIFFs etc I can't guage what'd be getting loaded into RAM for them.

    Perhaps it's not a problem with indexing for Dider - maybe it's a caching problem. I've found with Readyboost ON - SuperFetch OFF. Seems by far the best option on my setup. That might help with these BIG graphic files too perhaps?

    (Aside: The Laptop seems to have a backup problem - RPC server unavailable - shadow copy timeout - so I'd best go sort it.)

    Regards, pkn


    If my post was helpful - give it a Vote. If it helps solve your problem - propose it as Answer. ;-)
    Sunday, August 7, 2011 7:00 AM