Huge File Size blow out in Photoshop CS compared to version 7

[Michael_Gersch@adobeforums.com]

I've started to use Photoshop CS instead of version 7.0.1 and have discovered that a base file of say 60MB that subsequently has many layers added (sometimes I use over 200 layers), increased in size, as indicated by the "document size" box at the bottom of the file window, to 1.2 GB in CS. The same file with the same layers opened in 7 indicated about 350MB! In CS any command took ages, and the screen redraw was painfully slow, where as in 7 it was acceptably snappy with no long waits for things to happen. The difference is very marked. I've gone back to using 7 for my work flow as the decrease in productivity is substantial. The apparent 3 times file increase is unbelievable and unacceptable. There doesn't seem to be anything in the preference that is different in my settings for CS and 7.
I'm running a Quicksilver dual 1GHz, 1.5 GB RAM, OS10.3.3.
Until this can be fixed I would definutely not recommend that anyone using large multi layerd files go to Photoshop CS.
Has anyone found a fix for this?

[Chris_Cox@adobeforums.com]

Sigh. There is no fix, because there is no problem.
You're just reading the wrong numbers, and jumping to VERY wrong conclusions.

Read the existing threads where other people made the same mistakes.

[Michael_Gersch@adobeforums.com]

I checked all the treads for a similar issue and couldn't find one other than the one that mentioned the slow redraw. I'd appreciate it if you would tell me which one covers this issue.
Meanwhile I've done some checking with a particular miltilayered file and got these results-

In CS-
Time to open- 242 seconds
Image size- 36.5M/1.43G
Scratch size- 4.24G/1.26G
Efficiency- 20%
Time to reduce file size from 300 to 150 pixels/inch- 107 seconds

In 7-
Time to open- 33 seconds
Image size- 36.5M/454.9M
Scratch size- 953.4M/1.27G
Efficiency- 70%
Time to reduce file size from 300 to 150 pixels/inch- 53 seconds

Now what numbers am I reading incorrectly?
Which program am I going to use, the fast one or the slow one?
Now if there is a way to make CS as fast as 7 PLEASE tell me!.

[Chris_Cox@adobeforums.com]

Read all the threads that refer to large file sizes, too much memory usage, etc.
Read the theads about AutoFX edges and the excessive number of files it installs.

CS is as fast as 7, except for launch time (and that's only really bad if you have AutoFX PhotoGraphicEdges installed) and some file IO (that's maybe 10% slower because the new file APIs in the OS are slower).

If you're seeing it take that long to open an image, then the image either contains lots of text layers that need to be updated -- or you have something seriously wrong with your machine.

The Image size is right -- PS CS just uses larger virtual memory tiles if you have lots of RAM, this speeds things up considerably (especially for MP machines).

The scratch size is right, but doesn't mean what you think (in fact, you can probably ignore it). But from the looks of it, you might have a lot of presets loaded (patterns, brushes, styles, etc.) and eating up some additional scratch space.

And it sounds like your memory preferences might be set differently as well.

[Michael_Gersch@adobeforums.com]

I don't have AutoFX edges on my system- never heard of it, and it mustn't be part of another application as it didn't come up in a search.

The file I used had NO text layers.

My system appears to be running perfectly in every way- just very slow in CS compared to 7.

Memory preference both set at 100%

Don't know what is a file "IO" or "APIs"

Read lots of threads, and now I know I'm not alone- and there are serious issues that Adobe needs to resolve. As a new user here it took me a while to find the search function! How about an obvious search box like Google for dumbos like me?
As for my work flow, I'll be running version 7 until the problems with CS are sorted. There are a lot of frustrated power users out there with awsome machines and a lot of frustration. These are Adobe's loyal customers and need to be taken seriously and not patronised. The patronising way that the Italian customer, who was pointing out exactly what I was saying, was appalling.

Time to get back to work and make up for some lost time!

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Memory preference both set at 100%




That can be a serious problem. Since Photoshop can use up to 2GB of RAM, if you set it to 100% and you have only 1.5GB of RAM, Photoshop can literally starve your system. OS X then doesn't have enough RAM to run in.

Try setting it back to 65% or so and see if that helps with speed and screen redraw.

[Chris_Cox@adobeforums.com]

There are lots of misunderstandings, and a few corrupt systems, but zero problems for Adobe to address.

Ramon - it's 100% of available RAM. But yes, setting it to 100% would slow things to a crawl (because it doesn't leave anything for the OS).

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Chris,

it's 100% of available RAM.




If you had 8GB installed in a G5, would "100%" mean 100% of 8GB, of 2GB, or of what? It seems I get confused every time I look this up.

Is "available RAM" total installed RAM or that figure minus whatever the system already grabbed?

Thanks in advance.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Chris,

There are lots of misunderstandings …




No question about that. If the User Guide was written more clearly and more soundly structured, perhaps there would be a lot less misunderstandings, I think. Apple's printed documentation leaves even more to be desired.

[EDIT: I realize the User Guide may not be in your bailiwick, at least not 100%.]

[Chris_Cox@adobeforums.com]

"available" means available to the application - each application can get up to 2 Gig of RAM (if 2 Gig or more is installed).

Otherwise it's installed RAM minus what the OS is using, minus the binary size in memory and a few other things.

So, with 4 Gig installed, you probably have only 1.7 Gig available to Photoshop (2 Gig, minus binary, etc.). That's why we show the actual amount in the dialog.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Thanks, Chris. That's what I thought my understanding was and what I had written (or intended to write).

Therefore, with my new Dual 1,25MHs G4 maxed out at 2GB (if that is indeed the maximum RAM it can take, and I think it is because Apple offered me no higher RAM options) it would be wise to allocate 65% to 70%, leaving some 500MB for the system. Is that assumption correct? Or should I try to think it through again tomorrow after I have had some sleep?

[Michael_Gersch@adobeforums.com]

Chris,

Could you please explain the difference in the way the file sizes are showing in the different versions? No one has actually done that. The fact is the performance of CS is good with smaller files, but with the larger multilayer files it behaves like it really is trying to handle the "blown out" file, and will slow to the same degree the version 7 would if it was showing such a large file. but as it is in 7 it's only apparently dealing with a much smalller file(the same file!).

Why would allocating 100% memory work in 7 but not CS?

And Chris, if many customers are having the same problem, Adobe DOES have one too.

[Buko@adobeforums.com]

Why would allocating 100% memory work in 7 but not CS?




It works the same way in 7. If you allocate all your memory to PS the system must constantly write to SWAP file. is your scratch on the same disk as your system as well??

Have you tried decreasing allocated RAM??

you come here asking for help when you are given the answer you don't listen.

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Why would allocating 100% memory work in 7 but not CS?




The principle is the same for any application. You give 100% of your RAM to the application, the System gets starved of memory.

It's that simple.

[Peter_Figen@adobeforums.com]

Ramon, read what Chris just wrote. The ram allocation percentage is the percentage of ram available AFTER the System and a few small other things. That sets aside whatever the System is using and does not take it into account. Given that, I'm still not sure why, if you're only running one application - PS - why you couldn't run the percentage up higher, effectively emulating what most of us have done forever in OS9. Maybe Chris could comment on that.

[Zina_Saunders@adobeforums.com]

I, too, find Photohsop CS much slower on large, multilayered files. I find the responsiveness of the brushes particularly slow, and since I'm an illustrator, and often lay down brush strokes very rapidly, the brush delay is a particularly bad problem. I have gone back to PS 7. There are some things I so much like in PS CS, but the slowness on my mcahine makes PS 7 the only solution for my daily work. Dual G4, 1.25 Ghz, 2 GB RAM, OS 10.2.6. Memory at 65%. Scratch disks on different partitions, not start-up (40 GB, 30 GB, 30 GB empty partitions for scratch). 2 monitors, (Artisan), NVdida GeForce 4 Titanium.

[Chris_Cox@adobeforums.com]

Michael - you aren't looking at file sizes in any of those status readouts.
You're looking at memory and scratch disk usage - which has changed because CS allows for larger VM tiles (which improves performance).

Yes, it has been explained at least 6 times in different topics in these forums.

If Ferrari has many customers who don't understand the "brake pedal on the left" in their manual transmission cars - that does not indicate a problem with the cars. (a repairman once told me about a customer who returned such a car because it made horrible noises when shifting and "the brake pedal on the left doesn't work").

Peter - because we didn't allow quite enough slop for OS overhead, and because as you get close to 2 Gigs the OS can't really make all 2 Gigs available (address space fragmentation, etc.). Modern OSes don't make this easy.

[Ian_Lyons@adobeforums.com]

To optimize the memory allocation you might find the following helpful

LenHewitt "Tuning Photoshop CS" 2/29/04 3:05am </cgi-bin/webx?50@@.2cd05650>

There is a Mac version around somewhere and when i find it i'll post to the Mac FAQ

In the meantime you should run something like X Resource Graph (Mac)

<http://www.starcoder.com/xrg/>

to see how much memory is being used. On my 2GB Dual 1.25 G4 the optimum setting is no higher than 80%. Going below 70% shows that lots of free ram simply goes to waste.

[Rick_Stare@adobeforums.com]

I find the responsiveness of the brushes particularly slow, and since
I'm an illustrator, and often lay down brush strokes very rapidly, the
brush delay is a particularly bad problem.




Zina, I have had several of our designers report the same brush response slowness, but it hasn't been consistent. I finally was able to see it as it occurred yesterday. It was a multi-layered file with many layer masks and also one complex vector mask on the top layer. We found that the brush response improved 100% if we rasterized the vector mask (even though we were painting on a totally different layer). Later, in playing with this file, I found that just turning off the visibility of the layer with the vector mask gave the same improvement. As long as the vector mask is not displayed or not present, the brush keeps up with the Wacom or mouse.

I don't have a clue why a vector mask would bring down the brush performance, but it does quite clearly on this particular file.
* Rick

[Ramón_G_Castañeda@adobeforums.com]

Peter,

I have read what Chris wrote. As a matter of fact I always read everything that Chris writes very carefully and repeatedly.

Whether others read what mere mortals like myself equally carefully is a different question.

The question remains a little unclear as to what the percentage of available memory means in OS X. Obviously the System has to grab RAM first, otherwise you couldn't boot up or launch Photoshop in the first place. That part is clear. What is still not clear is whether the OS needs additional RAM at ant time after Photoshop is launched and has taken up its assigned percentage of RAM. If that is (or were) the case, then there would be a loss of speed with a high memory allocation to Phsh due to the System having to use the swap file more extensively because it has been starved by Photoshop.

That's where the confusion is, at least as far as I'm concerned.