VERY slow performance with CS4 + Save for web

Note: I have done a search for similar issues but can find nothing regarding CS4 and this particular issue. I'm using a MacBook Pro 2.4Ghz w/4GB of RAM and resources are aplenty when the issue occurs.
Issue
My problem is that under certain circumstances the 'save as web' function can take upto 3 minutes before the diaglog box appears. I've had this for some time but only in the last couple of days did I notice something that might be relevant:
Works
1. Open 3 large TIFF files @ 120mb approx (mine are 3 processed RAW files from Capture One / 4200x5600@300dpi)
2. Create a new adjustment layer for each image
3. Resize each image to 72dpi @ 800x600
4. Run a SmartSharpen & flatten layers
5. In each tab (for each image) do 'save as web'
6. 'Save as web' dialog appears in expected time
VERY slow
1. Open 3 large TIFF files @ 120mb approx (mine are 3 processed RAW files from Capture One / 4200x5600@300dpi)
2. Create a new adjustment layer for each image
3. Resize each image to 72dpi @ 800x600
4. Run a SmartSharpen & flatten layers for each image
5. In first tab do 'save as web'
6. 'Save as web' dialog appears in expected time
7. Close this document (tab)
8. Go to the next image (tab) and do 'save as web'
9. Dialog box can take anything from 20secs to 3mins to appear.
10. Close this document (tab)
11. Go to the last image (tab) and do 'save as web'
12. Dialog box can take anything from 20secs to 3mins to appear.
As I can easily go through this process for 50-60 images you can imagine that it can waste over an hour of my time waiting for Photoshop to get it's act together. I assume it's something todo with memory allocation, or that it's processing previews for all three tabs on the first 'save as web', but in any respect it's very annoying. There seems nothing obviously wrong resource-wise at the time of doing these.
Would be interested if anyone else has this issue!
Thanks!

I had the same problem when I setup a new computer this week. Here's what I had installed:
Photoshop CS5
Suitcase Fusion 3
The problem was that when I was in Photoshop and used the "Save for Web" export screen, the dropdown menu for the different export types (JPG, PNG, GIF, etc) would take an extremely long time to update the preview of the graphic.
After a few days of research , I found that Suitcase was conflicting with Photoshop. Here's how you fix the problem (or at least here's what I did with my situation):
Open Suitcase
Go to "Tools", click "Manage Plugins"
Deactivate the Photoshop plugin
This fixed the problem immediately and now my Photoshop" Save For Web" feature is working really fast. Hope this helps anyone else in the same boat.

Similar Messages

Photoshop CS4 Save for Web JPEG Colors are Off

Ok, I've scoured the web to see about finding a solution for this and tried every possible option and still I'm coming up empty handed. I have a website that I'm developing for a painter and have an image converted to sRGB, and the colors are where I want them to be. I use Save for Web, and every iteration suggested online for the, embed and don't embed, convert to sRGB and dont' covert, use document color profile, use windows, yada yada. Here's a recent example:
when i preview the image with Firefox, here's the difference:
The photoshop version is on the left and is the color that I want/need. The image on the right is firefox and saturated. If I save for web with embedded profile, safari is accurate, whereas firefox is saturated, so it's obviously discarding the icc and using some color space that I can't see in my file. I did notice that if I have my Custom, Proof and select Monitor RGB, then I can see what firefox will ultimately display and also what Safari will display if i have Embed ICC Profile unchecked in the save for web dialogue box.
I know that CS2 and CS3 were easier and less squirrely with color managing web files, but I think CS4 has some juju under the hood. Am I the only one out there frustrated, or like other web developers just accept the inaccuracy and move on? Since this is fine art, I'm doing my best to dial the color in, but it's been all afternoon beating on this.
Any ideas, I'm ready to install CS3 and see if my life will be easier, but I'm wondering if having Photoshop CS3 and CS4 will cause any issues.

>> your logic
That's my rant and I'm sticking to it.
The OP wrote he doesn't want or need to discuss the pros and cons of embedding profiles in Web images, but for the sake of anyone else reading this:
1) Embedded ICC Profiles increase file sizes (about 4K per image).
a) I may have over 100 thumbnails and dozens of photos on one page,
b) Plus, I may have an image sliced into many pieces.
c) That additional 4k per image, per slice, will add up fast and may kill dial-up traffic.
2) Very few computers use color-managed web browsers or calibrated monitors anyway, and
3) Problems with matching/blending image's edges or background color with a filled box or page color.
d) If I tag the image — on Mac colormanaged browsers — the color will mismatch the box/page color on managed browsers because the tagged image is being Converted to MonitorRGB, and the untagged page or box color is having MonitorRGB Applied.
e) This matching or blending a pixel-based graphic to page color is a pretty big deal to do correctly in professional web publishing.
f) If I publish untagged sRGB images/graphics, the box/page color will match the images and blend correctly in all browsers.
I WILL QUALIFY my general recommendation about embedding profiles in pixel-based web images for the following reasons:
1) You are posting fine-art images, creative portfolios, and are not worried about adding 4K additional data per image, per slice.
2) You are not worried about having Mac visitors seeing graphic blends or photos mismatched to a background color.
3) You understand only properly-profiled monitors and color-managed web browsers will benefit from your embedded profile — and it is likely 99% of web surfers don't have either — however, if you are targeting the one percent who do, then there is your number one best reason for tagging web photos with embedded profiles.

CS4 - Save for web

When ever i do a design in illustrator Cs3
I tend to make proofs for approval using save for web
to give me a jpeg thats within 1000px x 1000px
sometimes my artwork is very large 120" x 96" and complex
and save for web cannot process a small jpeg out of is.. screaming not enough memory
even tho I have more then enough ram.
anyone know if Ai CS4 has a better save for web feature..

why don't you just export a 72dpi JPG with the "export" feature instead of the "save for web" feature? I imagine the "save for web" feature that was born out of Image Ready is a hog on memory and probably just has issues processing images that would never really be used for web. You can export a JPG @ 72dpi though straight from the "export" menu.
Hope that helps.

CS4 Save For Web not the right size

I'm having problems with Illustrator images when I use the Save For Web. The image size always comes out the same size as my artboard. In other words I set up a new document to be letter size, create my drawing within that document. My drawing is only about 300 px by 150 px. When I Save for Web my image is the same size as the document or artboard not my drawing. Is this something new in CS4? Do I have a preference set incorrectly? The only way I have found to get rid of the background is to adjust the size of the artboard manually. Is there a way to adjust the artboard to fit my drawing automatically, like cropping to an object in Photoshop?

CS,
Basically the same issue was up, and answered, recently here:
http://forums.adobe.com/message/2667045

Export PDF as JPEG fails with Adobe Save for Web AI Error

Hello,
We have an Illustrator Javascript program to convert a PDF file to a JPEG. It does some adjustments along the way, but I have boiled the script down so it just opens the PDF file, then uses the export method to export it to a JPEG file. The problem is the JPEG conversion is failing. When I run with user interaction layer set to DONTDISPLAYALERTS, as I normally do, it silently fails and continues; I do not get an exception, and the export method does not have another way to return an error. When I do display alerts, I get a dialog box saying:
Adobe Save for Web AI Error
Could not complete this operation. An unknown error has occurred.
It looks like this:
What's weird is if I open the same PDF file in Illustrator and select File / Export it works fine. I do get this error though if I select File / Save for Web & Devices. I'm not sure why the export method would do a Save for Web though.
The code looks basically like this:
// Set filename, docName, destFolder
file = new File(filename);
sourceDoc = app.open(file);
var fileSpec = new File( destFolder + "/" + docName +"_LARGE");
var exportOptions = new ExportOptionsJPEG();
var type = ExportType.JPEG;
app.activeDocument.exportFile( fileSpec, type );
For testing purposes, I have shortened the code so it is that, with the variable setting code above.
Any help is very much appreciated.
Thanks!
------Scott.

I have not tested exporting without passing any options. You have however created a variable to an empty options object but not passed it.
did you also try…
app.activeDocument.exportFile( fileSpec, type, exportOptions );

CS4 - Save for Web settings

I'd be grateful for confirmation that I am using the correct Save for Web settings to achieve the colour effect I want.
I am using an sRGB workflow as my output is for the web. I am using a NEC 2690 LCD display which is wide colour gamut but I am using in its factory set sRGB (and non-calibratable) mode. I have calibrated the NEC using my Eye One display and this shows as the default monitor profile in the vga card's driver but what effect it is actually having I am not sure (OS is Vista 32bit). My CS4 colour management settings are based round the sRGB Working Space. Normally I convert to sRGB all images before saving them in Save for Web.
I am trying to ensure that the colours I see in images at the Save for Web stage preview are what I will see on the web and in other non colour managed environments. Specifically, I'd be grateful to know if the following settings seem right for what I am trying to achieve:
Preset: JPEG High
Quality: High
Optimize selected (but not Progressive or Embed Colour Profile)
Convert to sRGB selected
Preview: Use Document Profile
In the past (pre-CS4) I've had problems with images outside of CS3 looking over colour saturated and I want to avoid this now.
Thanks for any help with this.

> I am trying to ensure that the colours I see in images at the Save for Web stage preview are what I will see on the web and in other non colour managed environments. Specifically, I'd be grateful to know if the following settings seem right for what I am trying to achieve:
> Preset: JPEG High
> Quality: High
That's good, though you you should still try to get the image filesize as small as possible without losing important image details. Many images can support a lower quality JPG setting so you should see how low you can go before you visually see a problem. No sense delivering a higher quality JPG if it's not needed. Higher quality = larger file sizes = longer download time for the webpage.
> Optimize selected (but not Progressive or Embed Colour Profile)
I prefer 'Progressive' as that loads an image in 3 stages (low->med->fullRez) and looks better on webpages instead of having images load top-to-bottom like a window shade.
> Convert to sRGB selected
Doesn't hurt to leave it on. Though you said you already converted them before saving for web.
> Preview: Use Document Profile
I think that "Windows (No Color Management)" will display a better preview of what to expect when the image is displayed on a Windows computer (95% of your visitors) using a web browser that's not color managed (ie: 99% of the windows web browsers - are there any?).
> In the past (pre-CS4) I've had problems with images outside of CS3 looking over colour saturated and I want to avoid this now.
The previous step should help with this in that you'll at least see what visitors using a decently calibrated monitor will see. But since there really is no standard that most of the world adheres to, you can only do your best to get things right at your end. You cannot control how the rest of the world adjusts or miss-adjusts their equipment.
Russell

CS4 Save For Web GIF settings confusion

Hi,
I am working on a new website and have run into a problem I just can't seem to solve: my navigation links are made using a GIF and for some reason the background color of the GIF is not matching the background color of the page.
The test page is here:
http://www.johnblaustein.com/webtest2/
Note that nothing in the page is working yet. If you look closely, you will see that the navigation image is a slightly different color than the background. Very slight, but different. (Once I solve this color issue, I will make each link into a separate button with slices.)
In PS, I have created a file as follows: new file (72dpi), fill background with the same color I use on the webpage: c4c0b4. Create new layer and add the type. The new file is in Adobe RGB, but I convert to sRGB before saving for web (although I don't think that matters). When I Save For Web, I started with the default GIF settings, but when I got the color mismatch, I tried any number of other settings. I read a post here that suggested turning off the background layer of the image before Save For Web, but that resulted in the text looking bad. I've tried different color settings (32, 128), matte settings and other settings with no luck. Convert to sRBG is always checked.
I like solving these things on my own, but I struck out on this one. I am here in the hopes that one of you gurus can tell me what I am doing wrong.
Thanks very much.
John

SUCCESS!
Curt.... you were correct. I needed to create the new file in sRGB, not create the file in Adobe 1998 and then convert.
Here is another test, showing that the text box has completely disappeared:
http://www.johnblaustein.com/webtest2/nav-srgb-test
The text box is exactly the same size as in the original page I posted.
What I did is this:
Create new file to specified dimensions. In the New File dialog, for Background Contents, I selected my webpage color, c4c0b4. I clicked the Advanced arrow and selected sRGB as the color profile. I added white text, then flattened the image. In the Save For Web dialog, I clicked the Preset dropdown and selected GIF 128 Dithered and did not change any of those preset settings. I inserted the new image into a copy of the webpage and you can see that there is absolutely no indication of where the image ends and the page background starts.
I may not need 128 colors, so I'll play with that, but at least I know where the problem is.
So... thank you Curt!
What would we do without these forums?
John
By the way... I see your message was cut off in the forum, but the full message came to my email: "I am over my head on this subject. The only thing I noticed is that you are adding the color in AdobeRGB and then converting to sRGB. Will this give a slightly different color than using sRGB for the New Image from the start?"

CS4 Save for Web Annoyance

I recently installed PS CS4 and found the Save for Web feature added something very annoying. Every time I select it a dialog box pops up saying "Are you sure you want to erase all save for web preferences". Then you have to click Don't Erase or Erase and then it opens the Save for Web panel. There is no button on that dialog box saying don't show this again. So, how the heck to I disable that thing? It's incredibly annoying. I haven't been able to find an option in Prefs or in the Save for Web panel.

This occurs (on the mac) when you hold down the Command+Shift keys, and click Save For Web from the File menu (give it a shot). This also occurs when using a keyboard shortcut to Save for web that uses Command and Shift together. This is especially annoying since I change my Save For Web keyboard shortcut to Command+Shift+S.
A fix in CS5 would be much appreciated, or at least the ability to disable that pop-up somewhere...
Thanks!

CS4 save for web - jpg are pixelated

Hi all,
I'm attempting to save an AI file for web use with "Save for Web & Devices" for use in a web browser. Somehow my jpgs (quality is set at maximum) are pixelated.
here's a screen grab to see how the selections are set. There are a few new fly-out menus that I don't fully understand so maybe something in there needs to be tweeked.
thanks for the help
Pierre

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.
Under the Image Size tab, Anti-Alias needed to be checked.
thanks for the help Silk!

Very slow performance with Motion

Using Motion 3.0.2 on a new gen MacPro 2 x 2.4 Quad Core Intel Xeon and 8GB Ram OSX 10.6.4
I'm having very poor performance in Motion the system was set to use 80% of the memory so I tried bumping that up to 90% and there was no change. Could this be the performance of the graphic card because I have recently seen a post regarding the 5770 card could this be related to these new cards?
The performance has been bad when using lots of particles in a project but also when just using two lines of text in the canvas so I don't believe that it is because I'm running Motion to extreme.

Text is a real performance killer in Motion because of Apple's insistence on redrawing the vectors in every frame. Unless I need remarkable interactions or 3D stuff, I usually export text layers as movies and bring them back in for that very reason.
No one really knows how the 5770 and 5870 cards compare directly agains our older 4870s. The online test geeks do not supply enough information to be helpful in evaluating their applicability to Motion.
bogiesan

Radeonhd: very slow performance with 2D accel enabled

I have a Radeon HD 4850 in my desktop, and I'm having serious issues trying to get 2D support enabled with the radeonhd driver.
The driver works fine without EXA and DRI enabled. X seems smooth and snappy. I get a little tearing with X11 and Flash video, but I bought an ATi card; I kind of expect it. I see no discernable difference in performance between the radeon and radeonhd drivers.
However, if I turn the 2D accel options on, it feels like i'm using a pII or something. Windows tear all over the place, and everything in X slows waay down. I did some cursory seaching and it seems like this problem was solved a while ago and shouldn't show up in the up-to-date packages. I just ran pacman -Syu today; everything is synced.
I feel like I shouldn't be having these kinds of performance issues, which probably means I missed something somewhere when I was setting stuff up. I'm not a brand-new arch user but this card is new to me and I haven't fiddled with ATi drivers very much.
Anyone have any suggestions? I'm sort of at a loss here.
Last edited by f0nd004u (2009-10-08 10:33:13)

drm-radeon-module-git-r6xx-r7xx refuses to compile, breaks at the end:
==> Starting make...
make DRM_MODULES=radeon.o modules
make[1]: Entering directory `/tmp/yaourt-tmp-josh/aur-drm-radeon-module-git-r6xx-r7xx/drm-radeon-module-git-r6xx-r7xx/src/drm-build/linux-core'
sh ../scripts/create_linux_pci_lists.sh < ../shared-core/drm_pciids.txt
make -C /lib/modules/2.6.30-ARCH/build SUBDIRS=`/bin/pwd` DRMSRCDIR=`/bin/pwd` modules
make[2]: Entering directory `/usr/src/linux-2.6.30-ARCH'
CC [M] /tmp/yaourt-tmp-josh/aur-drm-radeon-module-git-r6xx-r7xx/drm-radeon-module-git-r6xx-r7xx/src/drm-build/linux-core/drm_auth.o
In file included from /tmp/yaourt-tmp-josh/aur-drm-radeon-module-git-r6xx-r7xx/drm-radeon-module-git-r6xx-r7xx/src/drm-build/linux-core/drmP.h:84,
from /tmp/yaourt-tmp-josh/aur-drm-radeon-module-git-r6xx-r7xx/drm-radeon-module-git-r6xx-r7xx/src/drm-build/linux-core/drm_auth.c:36:
/tmp/yaourt-tmp-josh/aur-drm-radeon-module-git-r6xx-r7xx/drm-radeon-module-git-r6xx-r7xx/src/drm-build/linux-core/drm_os_linux.h:36: error: conflicting types for 'irqreturn_t'
include/linux/irqreturn.h:16: note: previous declaration of 'irqreturn_t' was here
make[3]: *** [/tmp/yaourt-tmp-josh/aur-drm-radeon-module-git-r6xx-r7xx/drm-radeon-module-git-r6xx-r7xx/src/drm-build/linux-core/drm_auth.o] Error 1
make[2]: *** [_module_/tmp/yaourt-tmp-josh/aur-drm-radeon-module-git-r6xx-r7xx/drm-radeon-module-git-r6xx-r7xx/src/drm-build/linux-core] Error 2
make[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux-2.6.30-ARCH'
make[1]: *** [modules] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory `/tmp/yaourt-tmp-josh/aur-drm-radeon-module-git-r6xx-r7xx/drm-radeon-module-git-r6xx-r7xx/src/drm-build/linux-core'
make: *** [radeon.o] Error 2
==> ERROR: Build Failed.
Aborting...
Error: Makepkg was unable to build drm-radeon-module-git-r6xx-r7xx package.
I'm not really sure what to make of that, and the driver definitely won't work without that module. Anyone got an idea?
*EDIT: Nevermind, I'm dumb and tired and didn't pay attention to make when I was building this.
Last edited by f0nd004u (2009-10-08 14:28:58)

Very slow performance with queries sent to MS Access

Hi, folks,
I'm developing a site with JSP and MS Access and I'm having a lot of DB headaches. Since the site is still under development (not released yet), I'm using very small tables (like 20 rows, 20 columns).
The first problem was that every time I executed ResultSet.getXXX() it took 50-100 ms. This made a page with little data (200 values read) take more than 30 seconds to display (!!!). I solved this issue changing the old jdbc:odbc for a brand new (trial) Netdirect JDataConnect driver (I include this info mainly because I think that may be helpful for some people out there).
Now I have significantly reduced time consumption, but still the Statement.executeQuery() sentence has a terrible performance. I've measured 2 to 3 seconds for each query to return. I think that this is not logical for such small tables (What could happen with the 50,000 rows tables that we are planning to use in the future!).
As always, thanks in advance for any help.

It's been some days since my last post, but I have got valuable info in this time.
First, answering your question, Sun's jdbc:odbc bridge only supports one isolation level: TRANSACTION_READ_COMMITED (at least for MS Access), so it's not possible to try to change it.
However, I've discovered that a good solution to improve performance is to use another driver. Right now I'm using one from Atinav that dramatically improves performance (from 30 seconds to 300 ms).
The problem with this driver is that it only supports JDBC 1.0, so I can't even use a scrollable ResultSet.
Right now I think that I would be happy if I found I driver with a performance similar to Atinav's, but also supporting at least JDBC 2.0.
As always, thanks in advance for any help.

Very Slow performance with large files

Using iTunes with my AppleTV I've been in the slow and painful process of digitizing my dvd library and when converting the LOTR (extended edition) trilogy I ran into a problem post-conversion. They play fine in Quicktime 7.3.1, I can add them to the iTunes library but when attempting to edit any information within iTunes and attempting to save iTunes freezes for several minutes before working or crashing (odds are around 50/50). If I just add the file to the library and try to play it the movie doesn't show up on the AppleTV either which is even stranger.
Output format of the movie: MP4/H.264, native 720x480 resolution, 23.97fps, 2Mbps video stream, 128k audio stream(limit of winavi).
Output Size: 4.4GB
Length: 4hours 24minutes
Software versions: iTunes 7.3.1, QuickTime 7.3.1
OS: Windows XP Pro SP2(current patch level as of 7/15).

Is possible than iTunes have 4 Gb folder limits. I'm trying put a little of light over the problem because iTunes Help don't said.
Cheers

Very slow performance with 56K modem

I will be in a location with no high-speed access, so I bought a US Robotics 56K v.92 USB modem for my MacBook. It's taking 5 to 15 minutes to load even simple pages. Anything I can do to optimize performance?

In addition to what Dan said, see if changing the array size in sqlplus makes a difference. For example,
set autotrace on
(do fast query)
(do slow query)
set arraysize 100
(do fast query)
(do slow query)
We might see some significant differences in sqlnet roundtrips. On the other hand, things may be all screwy because your rows are so big that it has to do something different. You might get a buffer overflow. How big are your rows (all the columns together, and average size of table2)?
There may also be some pga strangeness going on. Are you using pga_aggregate_target?
Are you fetching over a network? Larger amounts of data may be mired in packet splits.
It may be necessary to trace if the explain isn't obvious.
Are you doing this in sqlplus or using some other tool?

New VM Server - Very Slow Performance with QuickBooks

Hello all,
Oh the dreaded performance issues!
Okay we currently have a virtual server hosted with a different company - it has two VPU's and 8GB RAM. The contract is about to expire so we're switching to a Microsoft Azure VM. This server is running Windows Server 2008 R2 - main purpose is
to host QuickBooks Enterprise v15 - with 10 users connecting via RemoteApp and/or RD.
So for the new Azure server we selected the A3 (4 cores/7GB RAM) option - running Windows Server 2008 R2 - I know old O/S - but still need for now. We also attached a new 250GB disk for additional storage of data/programs. The test users noticed
performance issues right away so we temporarily upgraded it to the A4 option (8 cores/14GB RAM) and although it is better there are still performance issues. For example to run a statement report in QuickBooks - viewing both connections side-by-side
- it is 2x faster on the current "live" server we have hosted with the current hosting provider. On the Azure VM we also tested installing QuickBooks on the C:\ drive and then on the attached 250GB disk - the F:\ drive - same performance results
on both.
This is a new VM...fresh install....just so strange why it would be slower than the 8GB server.
Does anyone have any ideas on where we can start to troubleshoot this?
Thanks so much!

I understand the performance seen by end users are low. However, do you know what is really wrong? Do you see Azure VM using almost 80% of CPU & RAM, if not adding more RAM & CPU may not really help you.
- How is the CPU usage of your on-premise node vs Azure VM
- How is the memory usage of your on-premise node vs Azure VM
Do you have any specific characteristics for Disk IO requirement? Can you check IOPS on on-premise vs Azure?

VERY slow performance with CS4 + Save for web

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for