My Pictures...slow....

  nick_j007 12:00 22 May 03
Locked

Hello all!
Since the arrival of a new digital camera some months ago I have been taking a considerable amount of shots. For example my 'May 2003' folder has 203MB worth of pictures in it. Thing is, It is taking up to 30 seconds or so to open. Basically, is this normal?
I have 2,692 files taking up 2.05 GB in total.
I also notice that some files are compressed and others not; does it make a difference? Probably me fiddling in the past. I run Win XP home on a Dell notebook Inspiron 8100, 256 MB RAM 30 GB HD.
Some input as to how to best set it all up would be appreciated.

Many thanks as always,

Nick Jones

  anchor 12:12 22 May 03

Have you got "view - thumbnails" ticked?. If so, I can quite imagine it would take a while for the folder to fully open.

The fact that some are compressed and others not suggests the difference is due to some change you have made. Did you open them in a photo programme, then save them?. Many programmes would do this will a default compression.

  mole44 12:18 22 May 03

put them into folder in small (100) lots

  nick_j007 12:20 22 May 03

Thanks anchor. Yes I do open them up as thumb nails (I should have said..sorry) and this I realise will slow it down. I did get it to open as a list and it was quicker.
If this is all normal then I shall just get on with it.
I do put a few of them through PS7. Also, I have just gone to My Pic's, Properties, Advanced, and am now in the process of leaving them all uncompressed to see if this makes a difference. It's taking a while though as I can still hear it clicking away at it!
Nick

  nick_j007 12:25 22 May 03

I could do that but am trying to stick to a month by month type system for ease of accessing them. I also would like to leave the thumbnails on as this enables me to see straight away what's what.
All files are now uncompressed and it may be a little quicker now?
Sounds like I'm roughly on the right tracks then. Would it normally take longer to open a compressed file?

Nick

  anchor 12:27 22 May 03

Why not burn and archive them to CD, and view them from there?. This will take the "pressure" off your hard drive.

  nick_j007 12:32 22 May 03

At risk of sounding that I'm not listening...I do burn them once every couple of months for back up purposes, but still can't beat accessing them from my hard drive for time. It's still quicker the current way than to find, load and view a disc.
:-)

  hssutton 18:37 22 May 03

nick_j007
What program are you using that takes so long to open, you say you have PS7, if so why not use PS file browser. this is how I view my large image folders of 1Gb + and they open almost instantly, as an alternative why not download Irfanview. I seem to remember this being an explorer type program and should be ideal for viewing your images. (good for what you pay but of course does not compare with PS. Although like you I archive to disk (DVD in my case) it's much better and faster to keep them on your H/drive.

  Pesala 22:57 22 May 03

If you are using Windows Explorer to browse the photos it is going to be a slow way to work. Any number of Photo Album programs will save thumbnails for almost instant previews to find the picture you want.

Irfan View is ideal for browsing a whole directory of photos at full size. It loads them so fast. Generating thumbnails takes longer because resizing needs to be done and the computer is doing uneccessary work.

The largest file I looked at was 1345 x 2276 pixels and it loaded in 345 milliseconds. Those at lower resolution ≈ 800 x 600 load in about 70 milliseconds. That is so fast you don't notice any delay at all.

If you are working with higher resolution pictures more memory would help a lot, but 256 is enough otherwise. I noticed quite an improvement after upgrading from 96 Mbytes free to 352 Mbytes (32 shared by on-board graphics), but I was working with 60 Mbyte images scanned from prints.

  marjted 23:17 22 May 03

My experience would suggest that you can never have too much memory when handling images and with it being so cheap now, an extra 256Mb module would make a significant difference. I would also run a memory recovery programme such as Rambooster click here or Cacheman click here which enables you to free up your ram from time to time, when it gets overloaded.

  woodchip 23:34 22 May 03

Why not get Ashampoo Illuminator

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Best phone camera 2016/2017: Galaxy S7 vs iPhone 7 vs Google Pixel vs HTC 10 Evo vs OnePlus 3T vs…

1995-2015: How technology has changed the world in 20 years

These are the Best Christmas Ads and Studio Projects of 2016

Super Mario Run preview | Hands-on first impressions of Super Mario Run: Mario's iPhone & iPad…