FF3: Slow

I let FF 3 update itself last night hoping something would be updated to make it useable. Still very slow! I like the concept and I like the effects, but I really struggle forcing myself to click on the filer in my list, knowing it will take so long.

I have a fast Dell computer, maybe a year old, but it was the fastest system they sold at the time. It has a quad core Intel processor, 12 gigs of ram, a fast nVidia card with 4 gigs of ram, and plenty of scratch disk space. This is on a Windows 7 Ultimate operating system. I have most of the filter packages from OneOne, NIK, Topaz, Zycod, Alien Skin, and several other filter packages on my system, and none of them are even remotely as slow as Filter Forge.

Most images are 2754 x 4129, 8 bit (I use 16 bit on all the other filters when possible), and in the AdobeRGB color space. Most of my images are photos and the filters I use most often are the daubs, painterly strokes, and artistic effects.

I wrote FF's tech support prior to upgrading to 3, asking if they fixed the "slowness" problem and the response was they didn't know anyone thought it was slow. They wanted more details which I supplied, but I never heard back.

When I end up clicking cancel after ten minutes after seeing only about 10% of the status bar filled, I'd call that slow. I'd love to use FF daily, so maybe they can do something to make it much, much, much faster.

I read some of the other posts on this topic, and many pointed to problems with an under powered system, but that is not the case here. The program is simply slow in rendering both the preview image and worse on the final image.

M. Jackson

Quote
tetonimages wrote: I let FF 3 update itself last night hoping something would be updated to make it useable. Still very slow! I like the concept and I like the effects, but I really struggle forcing myself to click on the filer in my list, knowing it will take so long.

Do you mean updating to 3.007 from 3.006 ? As you can see in this thread very little has been changed.

Upgrading from FF 2.0 to FF 3.0 as far as i know and from a few test I have done, the render speed is nearly exactly the same. NOTHING has been done to make this software faster with the new version. I do not know if something has been changed form 1.0 to 2.0.

I agree totally with you, I too like the concept, the engine and the wonderful, beautiful, lovely and awesome results and effects that you can get from the FF filters, BUT the price to pay for this is that you must have a lot of patience and wait much time for FF to render those beautiful results, because in many filters FF is SLOW.

I also feel like forcing myself to use FF and when I click on a preset I know that it will be slow to render, and even many times to preview it.

Quote
tetonimages wrote: I have a fast Dell computer, maybe a year old, but it was the fastest system they sold at the time. It has a quad core Intel processor, 12 gigs of ram, a fast nVidia card with 4 gigs of ram, and plenty of scratch disk space. This is on a Windows 7 Ultimate operating system.

I had during 5 years a AMD X2 4600 that was a dual core and when I wanted to work with Filter Forge was desperately slow and I was in pain working with it.

In August last year I could afford and have the opportunity to upgrade the main part of my computer and bought one the latest and fastest processors available in the balanced price/perfomance market, that is a Intel Quad Core Sandybridge i7 2600 3.5 Ghz and added 16 MB RAM (mainly for Photoshop and not for FF as it will not use it) and I was happy thinking that that with this NEW much faster computer FF will fly and be much faster.

BUT REGRETABLY, this has NOT been totally true, I mean it is much faster than before, and uses the 8 cores, BUT it keeps being SLOW. I was expecting to find it MORE usable and more manageable as it happens with other filters for Photoshop.

Quote
tetonimages wrote: I have most of the filter packages from OneOne, NIK, Topaz, Zycod, Alien Skin, and several other filter packages on my system, and none of them are even remotely as slow as Filter Forge.

YES, I also have and own this same filter Packages and NONE of them is as slow as Filter Forge, and even less with the new latest versions just released that they have optimized them to make as faster as they could and use the available software technologies to be able to get the most from the computer power to be used by the software.

Quote

Morgantao wrote: If you dig around on the forums you'll see that other than the quad core processor, none of what you have in your computer makes much difference. 1) FF can't use more than 1.5GB RAM. doesn't matter if you have 4GB or 40GB of ram, FF won't use it. FF has it's own custom built memory manager, that is 6 years old, therefore OBSOLETE. 6 years in RAM time is like 95 years human time. In other words, FF is senile. 2) You can have the best graphics card on the planet, heck THE UNIVERSE, it won't matter because FF doesn't (And never will, according to FF inc.) use any hardware acceleration solutions such as OpenGL, CUDA etc. 3) FF isn't 64bit. It can run on 64bit machines, but it won't utilize 64bit functions that would make it faster and more efficient.

I totally agree with you and is very true what you have wrote.

FF 3.0 ONLY cares and can get benefit from a very powerful CPU chip and will and get the most from all the cores available real or virtual ones.

FF will not be able to get any benefit form having LOTS of RAM, and will not care at all the kind of graphic card you have, and is not a 64 bit filter, and there is NO plan to make it 64 bit as it have happened already with other companies updating many filters available for photoshop to 64 bit during 2011.

FF is senile in respect to RAM, Graphics card and computer technologies speaking, as the core engine keeps being the same as many years ago, and as you say very well, 6 years in actual computer technology and software is like 95 years old.

Quote
tetonimages wrote: To clarify, I have version 3 and got some sort of message saying there was an update. I let that load, then continued. No speed increase I could see.

You had FF 3.006 and now they have released the FF 3.007 so this is why you got that message, BUT in this update there was NOT any speed included (really I think that there has not been any speed increase added since FF 2.0) so there is nothing wrong there

If you go to this thread you will what included the 3.007 update ---> http://filterforge.com/forum/read.php?FID=5&TID=9505

Quote
tetonimages wrote: I am running Windows 7 with Photoshop CS5 in 64 bit mode. FF is loaded as a plug-in there.

I have the same, Windows 7 64 bit with Photoshop CS5 Extended in 64 bit mode, and FF is loaded as a 64 bit compatible plugin (although the plugin itself is 32 bit) and it works right.

I want to let KNOW that Filter Forge is NOT ALWAYS SLOW, is not a bad software at all, is just that the rendering engine and core parts that process the FF filters could be optimized and updated to the new technologies and be able to get benefit from the 2012 computer power.

Independently of the computer power, the render and preview speed depends and is tied to WHAT FILTER you are going to use and WHAT RESOLUTION you want to have the result of the filter, on small ones will be faster than on higher resolutions that would be slower.

There are MANY FILTERS that are very usable and FAST to use even on high resolutions, and also there are MANY FILTERS that are slow or very slow, and also many in between of both.

Quote
tetonimages wrote: After being frustrated it was taking too long on numerous filters I tried, I did a Google search on the Internet and found lots of instances where other people were complaining. I was curious if I was doing something wrong.

YES, is true I have also been frustated and wanted also to see if others are having problems of slow rendering and also have found that there are many other people that is complaining about the low speed and slowness of the filter forge when increasing a little the resolution and so after having tried the trial of Filter forge they decided not to buy it and look for other possible alternatives.

Also on some company forum employees thinking that is not worthy to buy FF for a company where the time is money and can´t spend so much time waiting for the slow render of FF.

I thought also that I could be doing something wrong but is not MY problem, it is FF rendering engine that is slow even with a very powerful CPU like a Intel i7 Quad Core 2600K.

Quote
tetonimages wrote I am working on 2754 x 4129 often, and even larger if I stitch together several images into a panorama. Yes, I have used a few of the filters that were tolerably quick, but it seems the ones I need for my photos are the slow ones.

YES, I also work with similar resolution that is ONLY 11 Megapixels and is the standard now for photos, and I also have the same as you making panoramas with the photos so it would be larger, and have also used some filters that make a fast result in a few seconds BUT then later other interesting and useful filters can take up to 15 to 20 minutes to make a render result of this, and for me this is intolerably slow.

Quote
tetonimages wrote I am hoping my post will highlight there are people out here having trouble using the software as it is written. I like the product for what it can do, but it certainly needs an engine update to take advantage of the money I spent on high end hardware. I use it when I can, as I paid for it already, but I don't think I could recommend it to anyone until they do a major overhaul.

I hope the same, and is true THERE ARE people out here that we are having trouble to use the program with the actual render engine. I also like and love the product, BUT also agree that absolutely NEEDS and overhaul and engine update or optimize it for speed or whatever could be done to make it faster.

I have also spent 1200 $ on high end hardware, but FF does not care about it, only uses the multicore CPU.

I have had the experience to recommend it to 3 other persons and told them to try this, and all the 3 persons after downloading the trial and some filters, told me that the software was very good and very interesting BUT was let down very much with a SLOW render engine and they could not wait so much time for applying the effects to a simple 10 megapixels photo.

So I think that it should be the highest priority for FF 4.0 to do something about the render speed. The competition is getting higher and soon will be other companies releasing other much faster softwares and FF will be behind them and will loose much.

Ramlyn, You don't see a difference in speed between FF and Nik + Topaz, BECAUSE you have an older machine.
If you use the same 3 software on a new machine, FF will be faster, as the CPU is faster, but Nik and Topaz will be WAY WAY WAY faster, because they use the CPU, GPU, more RAM etc...

Imagine you're now walking up a hill - That's hard work (Old computer).
Now imagine you have a bicycle. It's easier to ride up hill (FF on new computer).
Now imagine going up that hill in a sports car. That's ALOT faster and easier (Nik and Topaz on new computer).

Just some of the blunders you have to go through considering what limitations you have to work with in the software. I mean, there are those few software that would only take into consideration some of the resources and unfortunately, FF, which we all agree could use a lot more, has those limits.

I think that the way you could go around this is to change to another, but it is just too good to pass on.

Quote
Vladimir Golovin wrote in 2009 here: We investigated a CUDA port (we talked with nVidians and received with a pre-release CUDA card from them) but unfortunately our code doesn't lend itself well to the CUDA approach.

Quote

uaun wrote: Being able to use a texture generator that uses the GPU is AWESOME. Can you imagine if FF included OpenCL/CUDA support....would be darn awesome. I've begun to transition my FilterForge filters to Substance Designer, to avoid any such (speed) issues in the future with FilterForge. If, by chance, FilterForge changes this GLARING ISSUE SOON, I would continue using FilterForge, however, if they go without addressing this BAD ISSUE, I will likely eventually move to Substance Designer, and not use Filter Forge any longer. ____________________________________ I've already moved to substance designer, its far more powerful than FF, and is REALTIME. I still use FF on occasion, but its hard to go back to a cluttered system (without folders for organization), and the lack of realtime filter previews. I hope this changes in FF4.

YES, i agree with you morgantao, very well said

FWIW, I can tell you that the OP of this thread is one of the most highly respected members of the sign trade you could imagine. He has written numerous articles in our trade journals and his work has won many awards. If he recommends a product, the result is the sale of it many times to his admiring followers.

Here's a link to his website.

More like they programmed themselves into a corner.

Not the same thing but I remember a guy a few years ago who came to me with a picture of the Statue of Liberty. He had a hot dog cart and wanted a logo created. So he says to me ... "This is what I want, except instead of a torch, I want her to be holding a can of soda. And instead of a book, I want her to be holding a foot long hot dog. And behind her, I want the New York skyline. And in the sky I want the name of my company with the initials modeled after this ring I bought my wife."

$450 later, this is what he got:

The moral of the story is that nothing is impossible and the customer is always right.

I wonder how many people complaining on the speed have ever changed their memory usage limit from the default 60% value (in Tools > Options > Rendering).

GMM,
Will changing the settings in the stand alone version be in effect when you use the PS plug-in? And, how much more would you suggest over 60%?

MJackson

Here's a typical example on a Quadcore Win XP PC at default standalone settings in Filter Forge 3. Image size is set to 600 x 600. Rendering of the default preview takes 2 minutes 48 seconds. Not counting any other activity, if I tweak the settings 10 times, my system will need 28 minutes just to show me the results.

If I turn off anti-aliasing, the preview time is less than 20% of the time needed for a 5 sampling (the default?). However, the selection of any other filter or preset turns the anti-aliasing back on. It seems to me that just adding a checkbox to Options to turn off the anti-aliasing there instead of on a filter/preset by filter/preset basis would be a big help.

Fred, you are talking about a small web image. I am trying to modify 46 meg, 8 bit photo images roughly 11" x 16" at 300 DPI. They are coming out of a Nikon D4. If I can't get the program to handle a file of that size, I need to use other software. That's why I invested in a quad core system with 12 gigs of ram. Right now, I set FF back to defaults and it is crashing on files this large. I sent in a report and got back a notice it is a "known issue". I only sent in one report, but I bombed the program at least another five times trying different settings.

M. Jackson

Quote
tetonimages wrote: I am trying to modify 46 meg, 8 bit photo images roughly 11" x 16" at 300 DPI. Right now, I set FF back to defaults and it is crashing on files this large

Are you using FF in standalone mode or as a plugin for photoshop?

I myself can´t also make any large render on FF without have 98% of the times problems in Standalone, BUT the problems get solved many of the times when you use FF as a plugin

Quote

Fred, you are talking about a small web image. I am trying to modify 46 meg, 8 bit photo images roughly 11" x 16" at 300 DPI. They are coming out of a Nikon D4. If I can't get the program to handle a file of that size, I need to use other software. That's why I invested in a quad core system with 12 gigs of ram. Right now, I set FF back to defaults and it is crashing on files this large. I sent in a report and got back a notice it is a "known issue". I only sent in one report, but I bombed the program at least another five times trying different settings. M. Jackson

Mike, I never use the 600 x 600 size. Almost always work at 3,600 x 3,600 (12" x 12" @ 300 PPI). They don't crash my system but typical render time is 45 minutes to an hour with anti-aliasing turned off. I chose that size in my example to eliminate image size as a contributor to the slow performance being experienced.

In the last 5 posts or so there are the same issues reported for pretty much ever...

Memory usage of 1.5GB max, while the system has 6 or 8 or 12 GB.
Slowness with relativly small images.
FF going belly up with "bad allocation error" all the time....

For crying out loud, FF inc, DO SOMETHING!!!!

I'd say most of what you are writing now has been fairly well covered earlier in this thread. Apparently, someone at the home office is reading the thread, so that's good.

Instead of bashing them to death, I'd like to invite them to offer suggestions on improving performance if that is possible. GMM?

I used FF today on a smaller image and was using a different couple of filters. Some work fast enough. I thought I saw a thread or a blog somewhere in which the author listed some of the filters that are slow and some that are quick. Some of the filters were developed by third party users and they might not meet the minimum requirements. Maybe the developers at FF could rewrite some of the slow ones?

M. Jackson

Quote
stop whining and get into optimal filter construction already

LOL Sphinx, I agree whith you to some extent.
Alot for the filters can be made fater if they were optimized.
But there are alot of issues that are not related to filter optimization.

I, for one, don't mind much the render speed. Ofcourse I would love to see FF render engine upgraded, but it's not my main problem with FF and FF inc.

Take for example the thread about merging Carl's Gorilla filter with my Shadow and highlights filter. You yourself say the likely culprit is the memory restricion that FF has. Why don't they fix that?
And take all kinds of bug reports, such as alpha channel getting screwed up in blend. What's being done about that?

If you look at the list I posted above, only 2 items (GPU support and render engine) relate to filter speed.

I know, I just thought this iis as good a place to comment about your sig as any

BTW, you know that saying "You don't look a gift horse in the mouth", right?
Some of us still pay for the horse. We have the right to look at the cavities in it's teeth. And complain about them.