Framemaker 2015 slow to load files with graphics

Jpg is a really bad choice for screen captures. Text and gradients and solid color areas will all suffer. Use PNG or BMP 

fm 2015 is 7 years old and 5(?) versions ago, so you can't rule out operating systems or other software that has been drastically upgraded/improved since 2015.

But if you MUST stay on 2015, replace the JPG images with new PNG to resolve the issue.

Download fm 2022 trial and see if you have the same issues.

I recall a similar issue in Fm 2015. Screen captures that had been run through SnagIt, had drop shadows, and were saved as JPG were SLOWWWWWWW.

Those that were direct screen captures using OS utilities, pasted from the clipboard into FrameMaker (thus NOT referenced images) did not noticeably slow down screen refresh. Not even when there are 5+ images per page.

Perhaps you can test this behavior in your environment.

-Matt

My FrameMaker 2015 has internal number (Help > About) 13.0.5.547

I have all my fm files and graphics on the SSD of the laptop - and I do not see a delay in loading a file, even with many graphics (png, jpg) in it. However I note during scrolling a slight delay (subsecond) of the appearance of a graphic in its frame.

I have the same problem since I upgraded from version 7 to 15 even if there is no graphics, just text. I have taken my computer to an expert who has upgraded to a solid state drive but the same problem. It takes at least 30 seconds or more to load a file. Some files load fast but 90% of them load extremely slow.

Hi Tom,

Is this slowness in loading happening after any specific updater of FM?

Also is it possible for you to share a sample file/book that is getting slow in open.

Thanks

Kunal

I also have and reported on this issue after the final patch of 3 (3.1). The problem still exists for me in patch 4. The weird thing is, it was fine for patch 1, 2 and 3.0.

Any format that includes a preview/thumbnail that FM honors is faster during edit (this includes EPS & PDF; not sure about others). Unless the import filters have changed, JPEG is previewed at full resolution (any progressive encoding doesn't help). If you aren't re-scaling and cropping in a raster editor, what you get from modern cameras is usually way too many pixels.

Formats that are inherently more compact in their uncompressed form are faster. For example, use vector formats rather than rasterized images thereof, up to a certain level of complexity.

EPS tends to be optimal, performance-wise, and supports mixed type, vector and raster content. The thumbnail is pretty coarse (72 dpi) but that can be worked around with the scaling trick. Also, unless rendering to a Ps or PDF workflow, what gets output (such as to an HP printer in PCL mode) is the coarse preview.

There's a remote possibility that your problem is some obscure optional feature of JPEG (unusual color space, XR, 2000, odd transfer function, etc.).