Poor TIFF Performance (Regardless of Default App)

[Guest]

I at least believe this is a very different problem than what I've found
elsewhere in Newsgroups and through Googling about it...

I'm in IT and have about 80 users. Not all users are affected in this way
but there's little variation between each user's computer when it comes to
installed software and configurations since I lock things down fairly tight.

But we have a problem with TIFF files. Certain (seemingly random) users
have to wait about 2-3 seconds to open up ANY TIFF. Office Picture Manager
(2003), Windows Picture & Fax Viewer, Paint... it will not matter which
program I set as default.

I've tried the OIS catalog bit with Office Picture Manager - no difference
whatsoever.

These are very beefy dual-core computers and opening these TIFFs should be
instantaneous for everyone, not just 95% of my users.

Photoshop users are unaffected with the problem.

Any suggestions/help is appreciated.

Matt

 

[Guest]

Thanks for responding, Chuck.

To address some of your questions about our environment:
It does not matter if the file is local or on our (Gigabit) network.
McAfee VirusScan Enterprise is enabled and identically-configured/controlled
on all our computers so although it is a consideration there is no variable
amongst the desktops.
These computers are all HP dc7700 Business Desktops and have 2GB RAM and
users have a hard time figuring out how to utilize >1GB at any one time.
They have Core 2 Duo E6600 CPUs, Gigabit NICs... pretty beefy.
All have Office 2003 Professional with identical updates (I push via WSUS
3.0).
I have a script which runs a defrag and temp file cleanup daily at about
3:00am on each computer.
I allow the users to determine the default app as they prefer. They
typically opt for Windows Picture and Fax Viewer or Office 2003 Picture
Manager.

Windows color compensation... I might be overlooking the obvious, but are
referring to ICM profiles or anything like that?

Hope that helps. Thanks again.

Matt

 

[Chuck]

Since Tiff files are quite large--
Are they local files on the P/C that is opening them?
Is any sort of antivirus or malware program scanning them as they are
opened?
Since on opening, they may be buffering to disk, due to size, how much free
space is available in such things as swap and the working directories used
by the apps?
Are different versions of office involved?
Is there a hardware difference, such as SATA vs ATA or even USB that might
have an effect?
Have the hard drives been defragged recently? How about cleaning out the
temp directories?
What app is set (by default) to open Tiff files?
Is windows color compensation set the same way on the different machines?

 

[Chuck]

This almost sounds like there is something related to the network that is
involved.
I'd be tempted to see if the problem occurs when one of the P/Cs in question
is disconnected.
(It may go away, or actually occur more frequently)
Failing that, How about such things as the indexing service (Try disabling
it)
Or, the hive cleanup utility.
I'd also try setting any antivirus scanner/etc to not look at tiff files,
and see if that makes any difference.
Try using IrfanView. It may not be subject to the same problem. (I say this
because I occasionally see the picture and fax viewer slow down when opening
a file that has just been placed in a folder.)



But we have a problem with TIFF files. Certain (seemingly random) users
have to wait about 2-3 seconds to open up ANY TIFF. Office Picture Manager

 

[Guest]

I am also having a problem opening Tiffs. My new scanner at 6400 ppi makes
1GB files. They will not open in Microsoft Office Picture Manager or Fax and
Picture viewer. Just a little central cross appears.
They seem to open in Photoshop CS3 but will not open from Bridge in Camera
Raw.
Hoping someone can help.
Thanks,
John

 

[John Inzer]

I am also having a problem opening Tiffs. My new scanner at 6400 ppi
makes 1GB files. They will not open in Microsoft Office Picture
Manager or Fax and Picture viewer. Just a little central cross
appears.
They seem to open in Photoshop CS3 but will not open from Bridge in
Camera Raw.
Hoping someone can help.
Thanks,
John

===============================================
Just wondering why you would
scan at such a high resolution?

Maybe the following site will offer
useful ideas:

A Few Scanning Tips
http://www.scantips.com/

Photographic Resolution
How much can we scan?
http://www.scantips.com/basics08.html

--

John Inzer
MS Picture It! -
Digital Image MVP

Digital Image
Highlights and FAQs
http://tinyurl.com/aczzp

Notice
This is not tech support
I am a volunteer

Solutions that work for
me may not work for you

Proceed at your own risk

 

[Guest]

Hi John,

Thanks very much for your reply and for the helpful link. I think I am going
to order the book!

The reason I have been scanning at 6400 ppi is that the "native" optical
resolution of my new Epson Perfection V500 scanner is 6400 ppi. I have been
advised that the best results are obtained by scanning at the optical
reolution of the scanner and then downsizing if necessary. Photoshop also
mentions this in its Help pages.

Also the V500 is very fast and even scanning such huge files only takes a
few minutes - even when using Digital Ice, so it's not much hardship. The
scanner will interpolate to 12800 but I can't see the point of that!

I think that it is a bit of a catch 22 as if I scan at 6400 and then
downsize, there will be throwing out of information. If I scan at a lower
resolution, it seems from reading the article in the link, that there will be
a downsampling by the scanner.

I have just read in the Photoshop manual that Photoshop "only" supports up
to 300,000 x 300,000 pixels. My 1GB file is 13525 x 13290 so it's not that,
it seems.

I think the problem is something to do with the huge file sizes though and I
cannot so far find a way of allowing the files to be accepted. They just will
not work in the Office picture applications.

I think I will just have to scan at lower resolutions. Lower res scans do
work.

Best wishes,

John

 

[John Inzer]

Hi John,

Thanks very much for your reply and for the helpful link. I think I
am going to order the book!

The reason I have been scanning at 6400 ppi is that the "native"
optical resolution of my new Epson Perfection V500 scanner is 6400
ppi. I have been advised that the best results are obtained by
scanning at the optical reolution of the scanner and then downsizing
if necessary. Photoshop also mentions this in its Help pages.

Also the V500 is very fast and even scanning such huge files only
takes a few minutes - even when using Digital Ice, so it's not much
hardship. The scanner will interpolate to 12800 but I can't see the
point of that!

I think that it is a bit of a catch 22 as if I scan at 6400 and then
downsize, there will be throwing out of information. If I scan at a
lower resolution, it seems from reading the article in the link, that
there will be a downsampling by the scanner.

I have just read in the Photoshop manual that Photoshop "only"
supports up to 300,000 x 300,000 pixels. My 1GB file is 13525 x 13290
so it's not that, it seems.

I think the problem is something to do with the huge file sizes
though and I cannot so far find a way of allowing the files to be
accepted. They just will not work in the Office picture applications.

I think I will just have to scan at lower resolutions. Lower res
scans do work.

Best wishes,

John

=============================
I have no idea what you are scanning
or how you plan to use the scans but
in my experience...scanning old family
pictures...300 DPI is all I need. The only
thing accomplished IMHO by scanning
higher resolution is to increase the size
of the file.

You can experiment for yourself...scan
a picture at 300 DPI and also a higher
resolution. Then compare them...and
decide for yourself if you think the higher
resolution is an improvement.

--

John Inzer
MS Picture It! -
Digital Image MVP

Digital Image
Highlights and FAQs
http://tinyurl.com/aczzp

Notice
This is not tech support
I am a volunteer

Solutions that work for
me may not work for you

Proceed at your own risk

 

[Guest]

Thanks John,

I am scanning film for my website and the photo library I subscribe to. They
like minimum 49MB 8 bit files unsharpened and I often provide 90 approx MB
files. Their maximum is 100MB. I usually scan at 16 bit and after adjustments
change to 8 bit which reduces the file size. This is an advantage of scanned
film that the large files can be provided without the interpolation required
from most digital cameras.

Cheers,

John

 

[John Inzer]

Thanks John,

I am scanning film for my website and the photo library I subscribe
to. They like minimum 49MB 8 bit files unsharpened and I often
provide 90 approx MB files. Their maximum is 100MB. I usually scan at
16 bit and after adjustments change to 8 bit which reduces the file
size. This is an advantage of scanned film that the large files can
be provided without the interpolation required from most digital
cameras.

Cheers,

John

============================
That's a long way from the 1GB files
you mentioned in your other message.

--

John Inzer
MS Picture It! -
Digital Image MVP

Digital Image
Highlights and FAQs
http://tinyurl.com/aczzp

Notice
This is not tech support
I am a volunteer

Solutions that work for
me may not work for you

Proceed at your own risk

 

[Guest]

Ah yes but that's because as I mentioned above, I understand that the best
quality is obtained by scanning at the optimum resloution and then
downsizing. I use Genuine Fractals for this.

It makes you wonder whether such a high optical resolution is in fact an
much of an asset after all.

 

[Chuck]

The problem with large image files is that any conversion or editing process
can require memory (storage) about three times the size of the file.
(I chose conceptual names rather than actual or functional names)
Source file (Buffered in memory)
Conversion/ editing (active buffer)
"Go Back" buffer
Destination file/result buffer

 

[jrsjs]

Thanks Chuck,
I use Adobe Photoshop CS3 and Genuine Fractals.
I have loads of memory - 4Gb.
I will try naming files before they are scanned.
Cheers,
John