Slow to open images

[sijo]

Compared to photshop, Affinity Photo opens new images relatively slow (both when drag-and-dropping and when going through the menu). This happens even on images that are 1x1px, which should open instantly.

[jullit31]

Hello sijo. What do you consider "relatively slow"? I haven't used Photoshop for a long time, so I can't compare to that.

Opening a 1 Pixel jpeg takes about 1 second on my machine, a 75 MPixel jpeg takes about 2.5 sec. Is that comparable to what you experience?

[Grenou]

Compared to photshop, Affinity Photo opens new images relatively slow (both when drag-and-dropping and when going through the menu). This happens even on images that are 1x1px, which should open instantly.

 

I find that images are  VERY slowwww to open.

When I drag from Windows Explorer, or Ctrl+O, it takes ages.

I don't use Photoshop, but use PaintShop Pro when the same thing is instant.

 

Grenou

[sijo]

Hello sijo. What do you consider "relatively slow"? I haven't used Photoshop for a long time, so I can't compare to that.

Opening a 1 Pixel jpeg takes about 1 second on my machine, a 75 MPixel jpeg takes about 2.5 sec. Is that comparable to what you experience?

 

Yes, a 1x1px image takes about 1,5 seconds for me. Photoshop opens such an image in 0,4 seconds.

A 10000x5000 32bit HDR image takes 9,4 seconds. Photoshop opens that image in 5,9 seconds.

 

My machine is a 40 core CPU, 64GB RAM workstation, so performance shouldn't be an issue.

[warpdesign]

I can confirm that loading pictures using drag & drop seems to take more time that I expect, although it was not huge pictures.

 

I haven't timed it, but wondered "hmm.. seems to take a long time". I am also used to photoshop (which isn't particularly fast imho).

 

Edit: some numbers below

 

4500 x 3000 px JPEG file (769kb): 70% slower

--

Photoshop: 0.71s

Affinity Photo: 1.21s

 

5120 x 3200 px JPEG file (12.4 mb): 80% slower

--

Photoshop: 1.13s

Affinity Photo: 2.05s

 

That's on a Core i5 (desktop) / 8Gb RAM / Win 10 / Affinity Photo Beta 37

[jullit31]

Yes, a 1x1px image takes about 1,5 seconds for me. Photoshop opens such an image in 0,4 seconds.

A 10000x5000 32bit HDR image takes 9,4 seconds. Photoshop opens that image in 5,9 seconds.

 

My machine is a 40 core CPU, 64GB RAM workstation, so performance shouldn't be an issue.

That's interesting. I tried the first image I found here. The 4k2k .hdr takes about 3 seconds, the 8k4k about 4 seconds. That seems pretty much in line with your loading time using Photoshop. Now of course, we didn't use the exact same image, so maybe you could try with the one I used (or provide me with your's, if that is possible).

My best guess is that PS uses more threads than AP to handle file opening. Although my CPU (6600K) can only process 4 threads in parallel, it is clocked at 4.2 GHz and may therefore actually perform better in a scenario like this one (i.e. when four or less threads are being used). If that is indeed the case, maybe the devs should consider further parallelizing file opening.

[glengine]

Very slow. The 8k4k hdr in photoshop took 3 seconds, the same image in affinity took 7 seconds!  I'm running 32 gig ram with an i7 4930(overclocked to 4.0 ghz) in windows 7 64.

[neilgcart]

I have tried several CR2 images from my Canon 5D MKiii and on average it is taking 3 seconds to open a file in Photoshop CS6 and 6 seconds in Affinity photo so twice as long.  Development of the RAW image seems to be as quick as Camera RAW and I am not seeing may other speed issues with tools.  The speed difference therefore appears to only be opening the file from what I have seen so far.  This is using a PC with an I7 4790K processor, 32 GB DDR 2400 RAM, a GeForce GTX 750 Ti graphics card, SSD drive for operating system and applications and a hybrid SSD drive for image storage.

 

Neil

[SrPx]

Super shot in the dark, but having read how little PS uses multi core and threads, I'd expect is more a matter of optimizations when loading their native format (PSD). As far as I know, PS benefits mostly from single core top speed (4+ ghz is great) , certain technology improvements in features of the newer cpus, caché, and some other matters, but mostly that. When dealing with files, in general, the amount of ram is super critical, specially when saving. If the image is larger than your computer's RAM, your file saving will definitely be a tad slower.  Opening... No clue. but I'd be inclined to think that the best formula for fast opening files is a SSD (I just hate its limited life -per number of saves, reason why I do believe a scratch disk if used really heavily can last little) , a cpu able to reach 4 ghz, and 16 to 32 gb ram. Probably in this order (and for saving, probably RAM has a more prominent place) . But all this in PS. For AP I don't even have a clue. Just that those 3 components tend to be key in every software when loading. Probably people would see a clear benefit in overall work performance using more cores for a reason, in PS: more than PS using heavily multi core (which is not the case, and can have the prob of using less top speed for each core) , would be due to the fact the Windows OS is already a multi task itself: Services all time running, antivirus, other system components,  music streaming, other tsr programs, etc. Probably with an i7 there's quite some extra fresh air for the cpu so to have it for the actual PS task in hand.  (reason why I keep thinking that for graphics or any heavy multitasking -sth which I do no matter what- best route is an i7. ) 

 

 For usual image editing, which seems to be the AP scope, is that mission critical that one huge jpg or psd takes one second more in AP than PS ?? .  Or even if it takes 5 seconds extra. Still not worth for you the outstanding difference in price, and purchasing model ? (there's no purchasing any more in Adobe, indeed.) . ´Cause to me, if the tool allows me to do my tasks, heck, as if it takes one minute to load.

 

The only scenario where this would be key is someone batch editing images. How many photographers -seems to be a lot around in these forums- do work like this only, instead of opening an image, work editing on it at least some 20 minutes, then load another (or not), or spend like 3 hours to do your final master piece touches ? ´cause if is the case I don't see one or 2 seconds more important than matters like super low price and ownership of your software, freedom, better interaction with the developers, etc. Probably a lot work  mostly batch editing or opening large quantities of images per day, I don't know as am a graphic designer, digital painter, web grunt and game artist. Only rarely I need to do batch operations or opening a tad of files. Usually is working heavily in a file for a large bunch of hours. And for this, I couldn't care less for some seconds difference in loading time.