Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Version 10 is sluggish when editing adjustment layer mask

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Version 10 is sluggish when editing adjustment layer mask

    Hi,

    I am evaluating acdsee ultimate 10 and so far am quite pleased and impressed with this product. I am using Windows 7 on shuttle system with an i5 and 16 gigs of ram..

    This evening I was editing the layer mask on an 85.9 meg acdc file. Brushing on the layer mask was extremely sluggish: it would take several seconds for it to register a brush stroke and in some cases did not actually make the change. I am attaching a screenshot of my memory usage and you can see that there are over 11 gigs free. Is there something I need to optimize with respect to the configuration?

    Thanks.
    --Phil

  • #2
    What does your CPU utilization look like when it's running sluggish?

    Comment


    • #3
      I do know that since Ultimate 9, ACDSee relies pretty heavily on the Graphics card for the newest edit features like layers, you might check to make sure the correct graphics card is identified in the options window for the Edit Tab. Also, I experienced a significant speed up of the Edit tab when I got a new computer with 2gb of onboard ram on the graphics card itself, my old PC was an all-in-one (Win 7) that would not allow an upgrade of the graphics card. That old machine's graphics card had only 512mb of on board ram, and as a result, that old AIO really struggled with the Edit tab on Ultimate 9. My new Win 10 machine runs ACDSee Ultimate 10 with alacrity. I believe that 1GB of onboard graphics ram is the minimum, though it RUNS with a 512mb graphics card.

      Reliance on the graphics card isn't unique to ACDSee. Photo editors are pretty mature as a category of software and many of the editors are starting to rely on the extra processing power that the graphics card can bring to the table, in order to speed things up a bit. The era when people could say that still photography didn't require much in the way of graphics resources is pretty much over.

      You might want to get ACDSee tech support involved if you feel your graphics card is up to the task. They may be able to offer some more specific suggestions or identify something other than a problem with the graphics card. You can reach them here:

      https://acdsystems.desk.com/customer...tal/emails/new

      Comment


      • #4
        @Robert: CPU utilization looks pretty normal -- in fact, I was surprised to see how little activity seemed happening.

        @Glen: Your explanation is eminently plausible: My video card only has 256mb! The minimum recommended by acdsee is 512, but 2gb sounds much better.

        Off I go to shop . . .
        Thanks!
        --Phil

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by TheTaoOfPhil View Post
          @Robert: CPU utilization looks pretty normal -- in fact, I was surprised to see how little activity seemed happening.

          @Glen: Your explanation is eminently plausible: My video card only has 256mb! The minimum recommended by acdsee is 512, but 2gb sounds much better.

          Off I go to shop . . .
          Thanks!
          --Phil

          Golly! I bet it DID run slow! What is amazing is that you didn't report stability issues. The ACDSee developers are doing a pretty good job, I think!

          Comment

          Working...
          X