JPEG broken for high res photos?

[Gurd99]

I have large photos I joined up in photoshop & saved to windows bmp or TIFF. When viewing them in irfanview or fastone image
viewer they load up pretty quick depending on what drive. 30,000-40,000X2000 pixels bmps load up on my SSD in about 1-2secs in irfanview.

However when saved as JPEG in GIMP or photoshop they take forever to open up at about 20-25secs.


The almost same results also happened on another system with win7 loading them up on fast usb drive.

I'd like to have some compression as images up to 100K pixels wide are too large for ssd bandwidth.

Why is JPEG so slow?

[DB83]

Problem might not be the SSD.

TIFF is, I believe, uncompressed. JPG is compressed. So as well as handling the compression, your system must also deal with resizing your large images since I guess you do not natively view them at 100K pixels wide.

[Gurd99]

Problem might not be the SSD.

TIFF is, I believe, uncompressed. JPG is compressed. So as well as handling the compression, your system must also deal with resizing your large images since I guess you do not natively view them at 100K pixels wide.

Yes but my system opens up the uncompressed in just 1-2secs, straight after that I can zoom in anywhere instantly.
JPEG takes 20secs to actually open up before you can do anything.

Clearly JPEG is the problem, I thought all the compression might cause this? My SSD appears to be fine, loading up single 600-1200MB TIFF & bmp images in 2 secs on my machine is pretty impressive.

[andkar]

Does it make a difference if you save as Standard vs Optimized jpg? Just curious, but if you save as jpg in mspaint (if you can open such large files at all in that program), does it open faster than an equally compressed jpg, to about the same file size, saved in PS?

[raffriff42]

JPEG has a hard limit of 65535×65535, and some programs may not support that full resolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG

Not too long ago Photoshop had a limit of 30000x30000
https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/381154-Image-editor-for-over-30000pixles-in-width
https://feedback.photoshop.com/photoshop_family/topics/jpeg_resolution_limit

[jagabo]

Windows 7's photo viewer took about 2 seconds to open and display a 32000x2000 jpg image. About the same in an old version of Ulead PhotoImpact. I5, 2500K.

[Marsia Mariner]

Problem might not be the SSD.

TIFF is, I believe, uncompressed. JPG is compressed. So as well as handling the compression, your system must also deal with resizing your large images since I guess you do not natively view them at 100K pixels wide.

TIFF is a container which supports various image formats, including JPEG:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIFF#Compression_2

As for the OP's question: I suppose the problem is in the applications he's using (IrfanView and FastStone)

[jagabo]

I just opened the earlier mentioned file in a seven year old version of Irfanview (32 bit). It also took about 2 seconds.

[Case]

Reading uncompressed TIF (flattened; no layers) or BMP is pretty straight forward: this pixel has this value. With JPG it is a bit more complex, as the values have to be calculated (in macroblock tiles), and even more complex with progressive, as the whole image has to be decoded before it can be shown (in final form). For very big files (w×h), the specs of the computer and software may play a large role in decoding speed, much more than reading speed from a fast disk (making the byte size almost not important).
25 seconds seems like a lot, though. I just hand-clocked 0:00:03.5 for a 30,000×2000 sample JPG file (5 scan progressive, max quality), opening in Photoshop. (Lower quality and baseline gave faster results.) The same file opened much faster (<1 sec) in a dedicated image viewer, though.

[jagabo]

A 40,000x2000 image as 32 bit RGB (dummy alpha channel) is only about 320 MB. The OP's profile indicates Windows Vista on an i7 870 with 4GB of RAM. The CPU is probably fine but 4 GB may not be enough memory If he has other memory intensive software running in the background. When programs start swapping to virtual memory the system slows drastically.

I just opened the same jpg image on an old AMD Athlon 2 X2 255 running vista with 4 GB of DRAM. It took about 3 seconds to open in the programs I mentioned earlier.

[Gurd99]

Does it make a difference if you save as Standard vs Optimized jpg? Just curious, but if you save as jpg in mspaint (if you can open such large files at all in that program), does it open faster than an equally compressed jpg, to about the same file size, saved in PS?

I tried that in photoshop saving as different & it makes no diff at all. Haven't tried in paint as jpeg compression is really bad.

A 40,000x2000 image as 32 bit RGB (dummy alpha channel) is only about 320 MB. The OP's profile indicates Windows Vista on an i7 870 with 4GB of RAM. The CPU is probably fine but 4 GB may not be enough memory If he has other memory intensive software running in the background. When programs start swapping to virtual memory the system slows drastically.

I just opened the same jpg image on an old AMD Athlon 2 X2 255 running vista with 4 GB of DRAM. It took about 3 seconds to open in the programs I mentioned earlier.

yeah it looks like my system may be the problem, as any compressed format takes ages to load even TIFF with lzw.
But even on a 64bit win7 laptop with 8gb ram its slow off usb stick. So looks like a high end rig is maybe needed?

[andkar]

Haven't tried in paint as jpeg compression is really bad.

Yes, I wasn't suggesting using mspaint to compress all of your pictures, but for troubleshooting. But now we also know that "as any compressed format takes ages to load even TIFF with lzw", so I guess that settles it.

[jagabo]

So looks like a high end rig is maybe needed?

No. It only took a few seconds on a very old Athlon 2 X2 255 with 4 GB of DRAM, off a network share. And a similar amount of time on an old AMD laptop and USB thumb drive or wireless network share. How big are your images? I created the large file at a fairly low quality level -- it was only about 3.5 MB. Maybe you could upload one of your images here and others could try it.

[Gurd99]

So looks like a high end rig is maybe needed?

No. It only took a few seconds on a very old Athlon 2 X2 255 with 4 GB of DRAM, off a network share. And a similar amount of time on an old AMD laptop and USB thumb drive or wireless network share. How big are your images? I created the large file at a fairly low quality level -- it was only about 3.5 MB. Maybe you could upload one of your images here and others could try it.

Thanks but I seemed to have figured it out. JPEG is broken on my system, other compressed formats like TIFF with LZW open quickly. But I noticed in gimp with JPEG using no optimize & progressive gives noticeable faster open times on another laptop i have.

a 100,000X 2160 TIFF LZw opens in about 4secs on my PC. However compression is useless as I like to view/scroll through the images quickly & so a 4sec or even 2sec delay is annoying. So uncompressed is needed along with a faster SSD as my PC is bugged.

A 60,000X2160 TIFF uncompressed opens quicker than a when compressed with LZW. 1-2secs vs ~3-4.

[Gurd99]

Haven't tried in paint as jpeg compression is really bad.

Yes, I wasn't suggesting using mspaint to compress all of your pictures, but for troubleshooting. But now we also know that "as any compressed format takes ages to load even TIFF with lzw", so I guess that settles it.

Not sure what I did (got confused using both photoshop & gimp) but now TIFF with lzw opens relatively quickly unlike JPEG or TIFF with JPEG.

[Case]

… as I like to view/scroll through the images quickly & so a 4sec or even 2sec delay is annoying.

Photo (file) management software solves that by creating a library of your images with all meta data and reduced resolution thumbnail images of each image file, so that you can search and browse through them real fast.

[Gurd99]

… as I like to view/scroll through the images quickly & so a 4sec or even 2sec delay is annoying.

Photo (file) management software solves that by creating a library of your images with all meta data and reduced resolution thumbnail images of each image file, so that you can search and browse through them real fast.

I like to browse then open in full screen.

[DB83]

I still think you are creating a problem that should not exist.

It was stated in an earlier reply that jpg is restricted in dimensions. If your image is larger than is allowed (even if the software you use allows you to create it) that could be the issue.

The request to upload a typical image at the size you desire is not unreasonable. If we then have similar issues then the problem is the image and not your system.