Blur Effects Pathetically Slow

[Andacar62]

This is not a problem as such, just an observation. I just built a new i9 based Windows box with 128GB of RAM, an nVidia RTX3080, etc. It is super fast for just  about everything, but Blur is still really really slow. Granted I'm working on a very large image, but I don't see why Path Blur should take over an hour. Is blur just an inherently intense thing to do? Are Adobe's algorythms inefficient? What gives? Yes I have the cache levels set for very large images, have generous virtual memory, etc.

[c.pfaffenbichler]

This is a user Forum, so you are not really addressing Adobe here, even though some Adobe employees thankfully have been dropping by.

Please read this (in particular the section titled "Supply pertinent information for more timely and effective answers”):

https://community.adobe.com/t5/using-the-community/community-how-to-guide-tips-amp-best-practices/td...

[davescm]

What size image and what settings in path blur?

I just tried it on a photograph 6720 x 4480 pixels and 16 bits/channel. It took just a couple of seconds. Tried again on another 8380 x 2377 16 bit - again a couple of seconds

Finally, I tried it on a larger image 28346 x 8040 pixels again at 16 bits/channel. That took a bit longer, 67 seconds

System : i9-10920x, RTX2080ti, 128GB RAM and an M2 NVMe drive with 1TB free for scratch disk

Dave

[c.pfaffenbichler]

I guess one could get really »fancy« with Path Blur, use large numbers of Paths etc., and that might have an influence on the performance, so the OP may have to provide more meaningful information. 

[Andacar62]

The image is about 15000 x 18000 and I used several pathways. Like I said I know it's big but still I wondered why it took so long. I guess I  can try looking at  my settings again.

System:

i9-10900KF 
128 GB RAM

RTX 3080 with 10 GB
Samsung 980 Pro 1TB

[davescm]

One question I would ask is - do you really need to use an image with those pixel dimensions? If it is for a large print, such prints are rarely viewed close up and usually don't need any more pixels than a print for a book which is viewed much closer. The greater the viewing distance, the less resolution (ppi)  is required. 

Dave

[Andacar62]

Good question. It's not a photograph, it's a drawing with lots of detail and layers of color and effects that would get pixelated if it were much smaller.

[davescm]

Only you know the detail required in your image but do bear in mind that, when printed, what is visible depends on viewing distance alone. Good eyes can only resolve around 60 line pairs per degree. So printing any more information than that is wasted.

There is a formula to work out what ppi is required = 6878/viewing distance in inches.

So at two feet (24 inches) we will resolve around 286ppi but at  4 feet (48 inches) we can only see around 143ppi, anything higher is wasted.

So your 15000 x 18000 pixel document could be printed 58 inches x 62 inches if it is to be viewed from 2 feet away (although it would be unusual for such a large document to be viewed that close). The same physical size of 58 x 62 inches but viewed from 4 feet would only need 143ppi and therefore only 8294 x 8866 pixels.

That is why we don't need massive pixel sizes for billboards. They are simply viewed from further away.

Dave

[Andacar62]

Fair enough. I'll give it a shot. thanks! WShat kind of work do you do? I'm mainly an illustrator and writer.

Darrell

[Andacar62]

Here is something else I've noticed: The Drawing Mode choices are  ghosted out on my machine, and can't be  selected. Noty sure what the problem is here.

 

[davescm]

Hi

I'm retired now so get to work on whatever I choose 🙂 , which is mainly a mix of photography and 3d modelling scene production.

That last issue is a bug in version 22.3, I reported it in the link below:

https://feedback.photoshop.com/conversations/photoshop/photoshop-223-30-bit-display-and-advanced-dra...

Dave