+- Gimp-Forum.net (https://www.gimp-forum.net)
+-- Forum: GIMP (https://www.gimp-forum.net/Forum-GIMP)
+--- Forum: General questions (https://www.gimp-forum.net/Forum-General-questions)
+--- Thread: Gimp 2.8 and 2.9 performance (brush lag) (/Thread-Gimp-2-8-and-2-9-performance-brush-lag)
Pages:
1
2
RE: Gimp 2.8 and 2.9 performance (brush lag) - dr_Fell - 02-17-2018
(02-16-2018, 11:57 PM)Ofnuts Wrote: Plenty of powerful open-source RAW converters around. Many/most of them are discussed on pxls.us.
I have tested few of them, including Darktable, Rawtherapee, UFRAF and Digikam (the last two many years ago, so older versions). I liked RT and DT most, but unfortunately both of them were far away from DxO in noise reduction area (especially DT loses plenty of shadow detail). RT had better ability to provide detailed high-iso images, but I generally had problems with color balance, skin tones and general look and tonality in RT.
Since I shoot many high iso / low light images, I depend on good noise reduction, and DxO with it's Prime NR technology seems to be unbeatable. It gives me about 1EV advantage over Lightroom in terms of noise/detail, and Lightroom was a bit better than RT and much better than DT (tested c.a. one year ago).
(02-17-2018, 09:18 AM)rich2005 Wrote: A quick test, my 10 year old Lenovo X61 - 1.8 MHz 2 core CPU - 2 GB memory. The only concession to modernity is a 128 GB SSD.
Xubuntu 16.04 - Gimp 2.9.9 (appimage) With a 4600x3600 pix image & large brush >1000 pix, it is very slow, more so on a layer mask.
CPU is not particularly stressed, memory not maxed out, swap partition is not being used, just slow to render/refresh the display.
Same image ( and 16 bit), same Gimp 2.9.9 in my Kubuntu 16.04 laptop 2.6Mhz 8GB memory and while there is still a lag, it is usable. More click and click again than a smooth action.
Looks like the solution is more resources.
Maybe low system usage shows, that there is room for improvements in future versions of Gimp... ? As I remember, in PS I had quite visible brush lag too, when using only CPU. After activating GPU support, brush started to work smoothly as well as zooming in/out. In Gimp I see no difference with GPU acceleration turned on or off - so maybe in Gimp GPU is not used for brush painting and that feature wil be implemented in the future? That's the question for developers, I guess
Thank You all for clearing things out