XnView Software

Hello,

I'm a ACDSee user and tried xnview. So far, its a great program. But what I can not stand is the lag that I get while browsing. When I click on a thumb I have to wait around 2 seconds till the preview pic appear. This happens for pics with around 1500x1500 pix and bigger. I've tried it with cache enabled and disabled, tried it with highquality and lowquality on browser and preview. Makes no difference.

The Laptop I use the programs on is a 1.3 GHz Pentium with 512 RAM and WinXP. I know its not the fastest. But with ACDSee on the same machine I have no problems. Preview appears almost instantly when I click on a thumb.

To me, this problem is unacceptable. Its a pity, especially because I consider to completely switch to xnview deluxe. But as long as this problem isn't solved...

Am I the only one with this problem ? Is this a bug ? Will this problem be solved in future versions or with a patch ?

Perhaps experimenting with some of the following options can help with speed:
View>'High Zoom Quality'
View>fullscreen>'use delayed high quality'- this is very new and faster.
Browser>preview>'use high quality'
There are image quality differences between programs when they fit image to screen (reduce/enlarge).

marsh wrote:Perhaps experimenting with some of the following options can help with speed:
View>'High Zoom Quality'
View>fullscreen>'use delayed high quality'- this is very new and faster.
Browser>preview>'use high quality'
There are image quality differences between programs when they fit image to screen (reduce/enlarge).

I have already tried your suggestions. Unfortunately it makes no difference at all.

On the german xnview page it says: "xnview allows fast viewing, browsing and converting of images."

Sorry, but xnview is everything but fast. (At least compared to other programs)

I assume that you are using XnView 1.80.1 and click on a thumbnail to see a specific image in the preview.

There is no known bug in this area. I've just tried this in XnView with JPG images each 2000x3400 pixel and I experience very little delay (<<1 sec).

What format are your images (JPG, TIF, ...)? What's their average file size? What does the memory usage in the TaskManager say? How many images are in that folder? Is a virus scanner active (if so, does temporarily deactivating it make a difference)?

Yes, I use both, 1.80.1 and have also tried the latest deluxe trial. I got the lag in both programs.

The images are in jpg.
Filesize varies from 1500x2500 (around 700 kb) to 2500x3700 (around 1200 kb).
Memory usage is around 250 to 300 MB. (512 RAM installed and a fixed 1024 MB swap file).
Typical image-number per folder is between 50 and 100.
Yes, there is a virus scanner active (freeav). Disabling makes no difference.

What I forgot in my first post, if I go from pic to pic in view mode (not fullscreen) via mousewheel, I have also some lags. It took me around 1 sec to go from pic to pic. 1 sec sounds not long, but to me it is very annoying. For example, doing the same thing with the same pics in the same folder with ACDSee, the pics change absolutely instantly.

For example:
Going (effectively, so that I can recognise every pic) in view mode from pic to pic via mousewheel through a folder with 62 images (with the average filesize mentioned above). With xnview it took me around 1 minute. With ACDSee around 17 seconds (If I want, I can go from the first to the last pic in 5 sec).

I have thousands of images in hundreds of folders. Viewing them, sorting them etc. So, a fast imageviewer is essential to me.

Sorry for always comparing with ACDSee. But it is the program where I come from. ACDSee crashes sometimes and is overloaded imho. So I am looking for an alternative.

Marco wrote: Memory usage is around 250 to 300 MB. (512 RAM installed and a fixed 1024 MB swap file).

There are image cache problems which effect speed of navigation and also memory usage. I recommend leaving View>File List>Cache>all off.

marsh wrote: There are image cache problems which effect speed of navigation and also memory usage. I recommend leaving View>File List>Cache>all off.

Already tried that. Makes no difference.

Marco wrote:Yes, I use both, 1.80.1 and have also tried the latest deluxe trial. I got the lag in both programs.

The images are in jpg.
Filesize varies from 1500x2500 (around 700 kb) to 2500x3700 (around 1200 kb).
Memory usage is around 250 to 300 MB. (512 RAM installed and a fixed 1024 MB swap file).
Typical image-number per folder is between 50 and 100.
Yes, there is a virus scanner active (freeav). Disabling makes no difference.

What I forgot in my first post, if I go from pic to pic in view mode (not fullscreen) via mousewheel, I have also some lags. It took me around 1 sec to go from pic to pic. 1 sec sounds not long, but to me it is very annoying. For example, doing the same thing with the same pics in the same folder with ACDSee, the pics change absolutely instantly.

For example:
Going (effectively, so that I can recognise every pic) in view mode from pic to pic via mousewheel through a folder with 62 images (with the average filesize mentioned above). With xnview it took me around 1 minute. With ACDSee around 17 seconds (If I want, I can go from the first to the last pic in 5 sec).

I have thousands of images in hundreds of folders. Viewing them, sorting them etc. So, a fast imageviewer is essential to me.

Sorry for always comparing with ACDSee. But it is the program where I come from. ACDSee crashes sometimes and is overloaded imho. So I am looking for an alternative.

You use only preview in browser mode?
When you set "Read ahead"&"Cache behind" you have always a delay when you switch between your picture? If you unset Options/Browser/Preview/Use High quality?

xnview wrote: You use only preview in browser mode?

What do you mean with that ?

xnview wrote:When you set "Read ahead"&"Cache behind" you have always a delay when you switch between your picture? ?

With that function enabled I have only no delay between two images, the one that I currently viewing and the one that I have viewed before.

xnview wrote:If you unset Options/Browser/Preview/Use High quality?

No difference

I, too, am an ACDSee user, and the speed difference betweent it and XnView is very noticeable. Could it be the database technology that ACDSee uses for its cache vs. the freeware ZIP technology that XnView uses? I don't know, but while I love XnView for its many features (I can't view my Nikon D50's ISO setting in ACDSee, for example) and quick updates, it is much too slow for useful file viewing.

For example, when I click into a directory with 500 Nikon D50 JPEG files (3000x2000, about 3 MB per file), ACDSee displays them immediately if the directory is in its cache. XnView takes over a minute to display the directory, even though it's been cached. Full screen file viewing photo-to-photo is instantaneous with ACDSee, but takes at least 1 second with XnView. And moving around in a zoomed-in image is very tedious with XnView, and again instantaneous with ACDSee. (This is on a 2.4 GHz PC with 768 MB RAM and 80 GB 7200 RPM drive.)

If this speed problem could be fixed, XnView would be perfect! In fact, I'd gladly pay for this program if were as fast as ACDSee.

Penguin wrote:For example, when I click into a directory with 500 Nikon D50 JPEG files (3000x2000, about 3 MB per file), XnView takes over a minute to display the directory, even though it's been cached.

Strange: I have a folder with 600 6MP JPEG (3MB) images from my 300D, and it takes about 2 seconds to display all thumbnails on my AMD Athlon 2500 + 7200rps hard-drive. I use "Lossy - High quality" in Cache, maybe you should try this setting (it also save quite some space without noticeable loss of quality).

Olivier

Penguin wrote:For example, when I click into a directory with 500 Nikon D50 JPEG files (3000x2000, about 3 MB per file), ACDSee displays them immediately if the directory is in its cache. XnView takes over a minute to display the directory, even though it's been cached. Full screen file viewing photo-to-photo is instantaneous with ACDSee, but takes at least 1 second with XnView. And moving around in a zoomed-in image is very tedious with XnView, and again instantaneous with ACDSee. (This is on a 2.4 GHz PC with 768 MB RAM and 80 GB 7200 RPM drive.)

I improve soon the cache process, but perhaps you can try to remove the cache files, and try it again?

Marco wrote:

xnview wrote: You use only preview in browser mode?

What do you mean with that ?

Where the viewing is slow? When you browse or when you view pictures?

xnview wrote:When you set "Read ahead"&"Cache behind" you have always a delay when you switch between your picture? ?

With that function enabled I have only no delay between two images, the one that I currently viewing and the one that I have viewed before.

Yes, normal, like ACDsee, no? You would like that caching is made on more than 1 picture?

Ok, I removed the cache files and switched to "Lossy JPEG High Quality", and the speed is MUCH better. Directories snap onto the screen in seconds, like ACDSee. So that's at least fixed for me.

The full screen viewing is still slower than ACDSee - I don't know how they do it, but you can go through every photo in full screen mode almost instantaneously in ACDSee. They must use a very efficient database, or a very fast read-ahead/read-behind algorithm. (I haven't done any serious programming since I retired, so you tell me!)

Anyway, I can live with the small lag in full screen viewing, but the zoom movement with the arrow keys is still too slow in XnView. I noticed that XnView Deluxe has a Shift-arrow to move quickly around the zoomed-in photo - does XnView have anything like that? I know it can be done, because the mouse moves you around in a zoomed-in image instantaneously in XnView now.

And these quick answers and back-and-forth learning in this forum are what makes XnView an incredible tool for digital photographers.

Penguin wrote:The full screen viewing is still slower than ACDSee - I don't know how they do it, but you can go through every photo in full screen mode almost instantaneously in ACDSee. They must use a very efficient database, or a very fast read-ahead/read-behind algorithm. (I haven't done any serious programming since I retired, so you tell me!)

With or without "high quality"? Fullscreen from view or browser mode?