ArtRage 5 Product PageArtRage Lite Product PageArtRage for iOS Product PageArtRage for Android Product PageArtRage  Android Oil Painter Free Product PageArtRage  Free Demos Page

Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: slow, lagging processing when working at large size + techie hardware advice please

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Atlantic Canada
    Posts
    237

    slow, lagging processing when working at large size + techie hardware advice please

    Howdy!
    I first posted about this in another partly related thread, so I'll just copy-paste my query from there.

    Here is the original thread on slow processing at large size, by cool beans four years ago:
    http://forums.artrage.com/showthread...he-canvas-Help!

    ...and now my query today:


    Quote Originally Posted by Rachelle View Post
    Oooooooh, how I can relate to this challenge!
    Melodrama!


    I know about the left-click, hold and drag. It works - it's just so very slooooooooooooooow.

    I specialize in jumbo-size.
    Think 36 inch x 36 inch, sometimes even 40 or 48, at 200 pixels (above 36 inch is less often, merely because of the limits imposed by the technology I use; whether it's ArtRage's limits or the hardware's, I don't know).

    I work on a laptop, 6GB DD3 RAM
    Intel Core i5-480M (whatever that means).

    I spend looooong minutes (not just seconds, but a minute or two) in transition mode, waiting for a brush stroke (or other tool) to process. I hold the mouse left-button for minutes on end waiting for transformations or moving a layer. Hold still, don't breathe, don't sneeze, don't move! or else it's a wasted move and minutes. (Okay, I admit I can still breathe, but I catch myself holding my breath so to not move my arm or twitchy finger one iota.) And I do a LOT of those transformations. So these minutes soon translate to hours.

    I have tried working at smaller size, then upscaling it, which of course offers better speed and flow, but I lose a lot of texture and precision in the upscaling. So this is not the ultimate answer for me. It's a compromise, that keeps me from producing my art at its real full size. Or if I go full size via the upscaling method, it's not my 'real' original art anymore, it's a washed-down print of it (loss of texture and fine detail). It's still nice, but it's not the original.

    I'm still in ArtRage 3.5.12.
    I don't know if the 64bit ArtRage 4 helps in any way on this. For starters, I don't know what 64bit is, but I see it a lot around here... I wish I had time and inclination to become a techie, lol.

    since I'm no computer techie, I'm wondering if there is a system that would be sufficiently powerful to overcome this lag, or if ArtRage itself is limited to a certain point - a point which is perhaps 'below' whatever sufficiently powerful computing gear? In other words, I wonder: if I had a powerful enough system for my jumbo-size work, would I be able to configure ArtRage to that optimum (or might it be ALREADY fit for that), or would ArtRage still be limited by a threashold below my desired performance?

    I welcome any good techie advice, on how much power I should get, and what type of power (RAM? processor?? other?). I'm wondering if it would be better (cost-wise) to custom-build a desktop with all the optimal components for ArtRage jumbo-size, or if I'm dreaming in technicolor......

    I think I'll start a thread regarding my questions, but I'll leave my original post here, since it is related to this thread to begin with.

    Gratitude in advance for techie time and advice!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Auckland, NZ
    Posts
    1,852
    Okay, transformations and moving layers around are two of the most memory intensive things that you can do in ArtRage, so if that's where all your issues are, it's memory related.

    I have two solutions for that:

    1. Try recording your work with scripts at a smaller, more manageable, size, then playing it back at a larger size. It should help you sidestep the quality issue.


    2. Try downloading the ArtRage 4.5 demo, and see if the 64 bit support makes a difference (then decide it it's worth upgrading!).



    Quick tech lesson: 64 bit and 32 bit are different 'size' processors. 64 bit has 'more' available, so can work faster (for example, it can do 64 actions instead of 32 at a time, which is a VERY crude way of putting it, but this is a 'quick' lesson!), but programs need to be designed to take advantage of that.

    RAM is the 'quick access' memory storage, where the computer juggles 'stuff that is currently happening'. The bigger it is, the more the computer can do at the same time, and the faster it will be.

    ArtRage at 32 bits cannot use more than 4GB of RAM. If you have less than that, upgrading is worthwhile. If not, it will make no difference. ArtRage at 64 bits will use literally as much RAM as the computer allowed (which varies across operating systems, but is a minimum of 8GB).
    Ambient Design Tech Support & Community Manager

    This is not my signature.

    Go forth and read the tutorials. Also, check out the featured artists!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Atlantic Canada
    Posts
    237
    Hi Hannah

    Thanks for the quick 32 versus 64bit lesson, it does delivers the basic clear picture!

    Thanks in particular for the specifications about how ArtRage uses RAM!
    My AR Studio Pro is therefore okay for now on my 6GB laptop, but now I'll know to look for more RAM before I jump to ArtRage 4 (eagerly! although, to be fair, I'm already very glad to have AR Studio Pro = 3.5.12, and I wouldn't want to discourage others from trying it out - and going far with it! - if that is what was available to them... It's just that AR4 is much more!)

    About your suggested solution #1, on "recording your work with scripts...",
    I'm not sure I get what you mean; if you really are talking about recording my every step, for playback as in a video, this is someting I never tried yet. What I was referring to, about losing quality, is about when I start on a smaller size canvas (to acquire more real-time processing speed, without lag or at least less lag, but it's important to grasp that I don't intend my canvas this small, I intend LARGE, JUMBO), for example,

    if I intend to get a finished product of 30 inch x 24 inch, at 200 pixels/inch

    I can START working at a third of the size, 10 inch x 8 inch
    at 200 pixels/inch
    which gives more speed of brush strokes etc., and also more speed of Layer Transfomation,

    then when I'm done or almost done,
    I can upscale the canvas (resize) to 3 times up, at 30x24inch

    but this is where I lose texture (lots of it!!) and a bit of precision data.

    I grasp that I might be faced with some limits about ArtRage's processing speed and capacity; I'd like to KNOW exactly which limitations, and what expectations I can have about it, and about whichever computer hardware, so to better plan on what next hardware. And get some techie feedback too

    I hope my querry is clearer

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Auckland, NZ
    Posts
    1,852
    We've actually found that 4.5 improves performance for low RAM systems and 32 bit users as well (though not as dramatically); I do recommend trying out the demo, just to see what happens.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rachelle View Post
    Hi Hannah

    About your suggested solution #1, on "recording your work with scripts...",
    I'm not sure I get what you mean; if you really are talking about recording my every step, for playback as in a video, this is someting I never tried yet. What I was referring to, about losing quality, is about when I start on a smaller size canvas (to acquire more real-time processing speed, without lag or at least less lag, but it's important to grasp that I don't intend my canvas this small, I intend LARGE, JUMBO), for example,
    If you go to File > Record Script and just record a script of your entire painting, you can play it back at the end and choose a larger canvas size. This means it will repaint everything at a larger size, with larger strokes.

    Because it's actually painting larger strokes, you don't get the quality loss that you get when you 'stretch' the canvas.
    Ambient Design Tech Support & Community Manager

    This is not my signature.

    Go forth and read the tutorials. Also, check out the featured artists!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Atlantic Canada
    Posts
    237
    Ooooo0ooooOOoooooo0ooooooooh!!!!

    This is cool!!!
    Recording script at lower, than choose automatic redo at higher size!!!

    So glad I asked!

    My hardware is 64bit, but as you said, AR3 is only 32bit anyway.
    .....Although.....
    Whenever I want to upgrade to AR4, you say it would improve my experience even on a system that is "lower than the recommended 8GB RAM", right? Now that is cool too! Gracias!

    You know, when I will upgrade to AR4, and even when I'll try the free demo, I'll need time to explore it and experiment.... and I'll just go full CRAZY with fun. So I'm being veeeerrrry patient before I go there - it's a very sexy sweet temptation - because I have so much stuff to do already with AR3, I don't want my present workflow sidetracked just yet.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •