The most important thing

[JohnFredC]

... for me: ability to view large images.

For instance, today XnView displays an "out of memory error" on a 78Mb jpg. Admittedly it is a large image (22k x15k pixels) but not nearly as big as some of the images I want to view.

No problem with using FastStone to open/pan over this image, so I know it is possible to do so within my system's memory footprint (1Gb RAM, 8Gb swap).

Please place better behavior with large images at the top of the development task list.

[xnview]

... for me: ability to view large images.

For instance, today XnView displays an "out of memory error" on a 78Mb jpg. Admittedly it is a large image (22k x15k pixels) but not nearly as big as some of the images I want to view.

No problem with using FastStone to open/pan over this image, so I know it is possible to do so within my system's memory footprint (1Gb RAM, 8Gb swap).

Please place better behavior with large images at the top of the development task list.

Strange, is it possible to have it?

[JohnFredC]

Hi Pierre...

Here is a link to the image.

But I don't think having that image will help you. On another day XnView might open it. There is no consistency whether XnView will open an image or not. Sometimes I can open everything. Other times, any image of 50Mb fails. Some times a 50Mb jpg opens but a 50Mb png fails.

Wish I could help you more but I haven't detected any regularity or pattern and I have tried the alternatives you mentioned in the past (using File->Open instead of the thumbnail).

[Drahken]

Could it be that xnview isn't clearing memory properly? For example, does it open a large image fine if it's the first thing you've viewed since opening xnview, but error out if you've viewed other images first?
Have you tested it with large multi-page images, like a tiff whose total filesize is 50M or more, but which contains 10 or 20 pages (leaving each page approx 2.5~5M)?

[Clo]

—> Drahken

Hello !

• Here I've a JohnFredC's sample JPG 239 MiB !

- Indeed, it's almost impossible to display, even if I've "Cacheman" which moves the stuff from the memory
to the swap (512 MiB RAM here only… SATA HD)
- I guess that XnView might use some kind of loadind “part-by-part”, but not sure this could be sufficient…
- AFAIK, JohnFredC has to work with such images, it's his job…

KR
Claude
Clo

[JohnFredC]

No Clo, it's not my job.

[Drahken]

Personally, I never deal with images larger than about 5M, and even those are extremely rare and only occur when I'm dealing with a less-than-effiecient format (ie, a photographic image in a lossless format). The largest JPG I've ever dealt with was 3megs, and I try to keep most images under 500k.

[JohnFredC]

It seems reasonable to expect that XnView be able to open very large images if FastStone and Picasa can.

Picasa opens the image I mentioned in my first post in <10 seconds, though a zoom to 1:1 (while happening instantly in the proxy), takes several minutes to refine to actual pixels.

[nerbrume]

I totally second this request. Even a 6 Mb Hi-Res (21600x10800) JPEG can be slow to open (20+ seconds when not cached, 5-10s when cached) (1Gb Ram, P4@3.2GHz). Of course I don't use such large images too often, and I won't drop XnView just for that, but it's quite annoying.

[xnview]

Hi Pierre...

Here is a link to the image.

But I don't think having that image will help you. On another day XnView might open it. There is no consistency whether XnView will open an image or not. Sometimes I can open everything. Other times, any image of 50Mb fails. Some times a 50Mb jpg opens but a 50Mb png fails.

Wish I could help you more but I haven't detected any regularity or pattern and I have tried the alternatives you mentioned in the past (using File->Open instead of the thumbnail).

Hi, i've tested, and no problem on my Win 2K with 1Gb, it's only very slow. Normal the picture take 983Mb in memory.
(And on my system, FastStone crash )

[JohnFredC]

Hi Pierre

I really don't have any consistency to report about XnView's refusal to display large jpgs and pngs. My guess is that the problem may be more about pixel dimensions than file sizes or types, but...

When my latest project completes I'll try to do some structured testing to see if I can discover anything useful.