Hi Thank you for your offer of help. I have just finished a very intricate drawing of a sorceress and noticed that I had mixed a layer and the mouth and nose needed to be rescaled. I have been trying to do these simple edits for 3 days! I tried your suggestion and moved both filters from normal to lower quality and did notice a slight increase in speed, however, the image was completely blurred out :( Thank you Dennis On 30 August 2012 22:17, Eneko Gotzon Ares <enekogotzon@...155...> wrote:

Hi Yes the filters. I mainly use blur and combined lighting but both of them make it impossible for me to continue to use Inkscape. Dennis On 30 August 2012 22:18, Josh Andler <scislac@...155...> wrote:

Thank you Chris I will check out the url. I have just completed a very complex image and have tried grouping several areas and applying filters to small areas as I go but, as soon as I apply a filter, Inkscape just grinds to a halt (alternating between open and not responding every second). I have used Gimp for several years and with my 8GB RAM I just fly through an image but Inkscape is a terrible disappointment :( Dennis On 30 August 2012 22:22, Chris Tooley <euxneks@...155...> wrote:

Hi That is great information, I will look into these work arounds but I am still very disappointed with Inkscape. After reading lots of positives about the program I thought that it would be very good. When I reach my final image with the filter effects applied I can no longer edit anything and converting to a bitmap image is like crashing your head into a brick wall:( Dennis On 31 August 2012 11:58, Nicu Buculei <nicu_gfx@...2342...> wrote:

I am using 0.48 but will check out 0.49, when possible. I have attached the image that I am currently having problems with. I completed the image and then realised that I had misplaced a layer and the nose and mouth needed extra work. That is when the trouble started! The image is so badly corrupted because I down graded the filters and now can no longer return to the original settings............ I have found that I can avoid the Inkscape 'export to bitmap' by saving a copy to Gimp and then exporting from there. This is lightning fast :) I checked the 0.49x download site and it says that there aren't any download files available? Dennis On 31 August 2012 14:01, Jasper van de Gronde <th.v.d.gronde@...226...>wrote:

On 2012-08-31 12:01, Dennis Melling wrote: On my computer, it took 25 seconds to convert your drawing to 600 DPI bitmap (907*789) with Inkscape 0.48 on Linux. Doing the same with GIMP 2.8 took 42 seconds. I have 2 GB RAM. The bottleneck is not the amount of RAM, it is the speed of the CPU.

On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 12:05 AM, Dennis Melling <dennismelling.rom@...155...> wrote: Really sad commentary that you blame Inkscape. The general experience with Inkscape here and elsewhere is that it is outstanding. You might want to look at the Windows ecosystem for why you are having problems. As far as a recommendation...Adobe Illustrator. It is the premier svg editor for the Windows environment. Absolutely the best thing for you given your context. Carl

It depends of course on the complexity of your drawings. What about replacing Windows 7 with Linux? I use Inkscape and Linux and they work very well together. I have had no trouble using Netscape and filters. Netscape is a wonderful program. I switched it after using Adobe illustrator. Graheme On 30 Aug 2012, at 15:10, Dennis Melling wrote:

I used Firefox on my computer until Chrome came along. The problem I had with Firefox is that, when scrolling, the page moved in jerks. Dennis On 31 August 2012 16:40, Felix E. Klee <felix.klee@...2933...> wrote:

From: Quick Silver [mailto:quicksilvercarrier@...660...] Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 2:36 PM To: Inkscape User Community Subject: Re: [Inkscape-user] Alternative to Inkscape for Windows 7 It depends of course on the complexity of your drawings. Is this the real cause of your trouble? The size of you SVG is massive compared to most I have produced and seen. It is almost bitmap size! I'm not sure how you produced this svg, but it is generating a ton of bits ;-) I'm sure this doesn't help. Paul PS Since the code is written to be portable, I doubt if the OS makes much difference. Browsers may vary a bit, but by any standards your svg loads very slowly. --- Paul A. Bristow, Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal LA8 8AB UK +44 1539 561830 07714330204 pbristow@...2746...

I downloaded 11604 and extracted with 7Z to the same folder but, Windows said that it couldn't use this file. Could you tell me where the 1104 should be extracted to or how I can use use the extraction that I have in my downloads folder ? Dennis On 1 September 2012 00:43, alvinpenner <penner@...2467...> wrote:

I downloaded and unzipped the 44.7z file and overwrote it over my existing 0.48 (in the download folder). The program then uninstalled my existing 0.48 and reinstalled what I thought was the 44.7z but on opening my Inkscape it shows that it is still the 0.48. I am not an expert at computering and so 'where did I go wrong' ? Dennis On 1 September 2012 14:03, alvinpenner <penner@...2467...> wrote:

??? I now have the file unpacked and standing by in my 7z page which points to it being located at: C:\Users\Dennis Melling\Downloads\inkscape_r11604-201208132044.7z\inkscape\ when I look in my downloads folder it doesn't contain a file ending in 7z inkscape how do I move this unpacked file from the 7z software into my inkscape program I will overwrite my current 0.48 because I can always reinstall if I completely mess it up. Dennis On 1 September 2012 15:49, alvinpenner <penner@...2467...> wrote:

yes the unpacked file is sitting in my original inkscape 0.48 area but doesn't seem to be doing anything?? On 1 September 2012 16:31, Dennis Melling <dennismelling.rom@...155...>wrote:

perhaps one more question, when you say that you have a folder called: C:\Users\Dennis Melling\Downloads\inkscape_r11604-201208132044.7z\inkscape\ are you viewing this folder from Windows Explorer or are you viewing this from inside 7-zip File Manager? -- View this message in context: http://inkscape.13.n6.nabble.com/Alternative-to-Inkscape-for-Windows-7-tp... Sent from the Inkscape - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

I do have the Magic file, that is sitting on the 7z page as well On 1 September 2012 16:55, Dennis Melling <dennismelling.rom@...155...>wrote:

screen, including Inkscape.exe which I double - well, that is very strange, I just unloaded and ran the 7-zip version on Windows 7 (32 bit) and it started up with no problem - just to confirm, did you use the Extract button?, did you get warnings telling you that you were overwriting existing files? - which directory did you extract to? - just for future reference, here is the procedure I normally use, assuming I wish to overwrite my current version. I am going to assume that you have been viewing this from inside 7-zip File Manager and that you have not yet hit the Extract button. Then the procedure that I would use is as follows: - close everything - start up 7-zip File Manager - navigate to the 7z file called inkscape_r11604-201208132044.7z - perform a single-click on this file just to highlight it, not to open it - click on the Extract button to open up a file browser window - navigate to the location where you want to put these files. - be aware of the fact that this extraction procedure will automatically create a sub-directory called Inkscape when you extract it - so for example, if you choose the directory C:\Program Files\ to extract into, then you will end up with a folder called C:\Program Files\Inkscape\ and inside this folder will be the executable called Inkscape.exe - then click OK and you will get various warnings that you are overwriting existing files. -- View this message in context: http://inkscape.13.n6.nabble.com/Alternative-to-Inkscape-for-Windows-7-tp... Sent from the Inkscape - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

I cannot find any file that contains an exe!!! On 1 September 2012 17:13, alvinpenner <penner@...2467...> wrote:

I started from scratch and followed your instructions as written but couldn't find this exe file. As I said previously the exe file does appear if I double click the 11604 in the 7z window but I get the magic pop-up when I click on this. The exe file is 13082012. When I clicked extract in the 7z window and then directed the file to my local disc C/program(x86) I had lots of error messages. The result is a file cover entry in my inkscape program folder with the 11604 number but when I open this file it does not contain the exe file. The file name is inkscape_r11604-201208132044 On 1 September 2012 18:01, alvinpenner <penner@...2467...> wrote:

I am using 9.20. I will carry on trying and will let you know how I get on. Many, many thanks for your help and patience :) Best wishes Dennis On 1 September 2012 19:12, alvinpenner <penner@...2467...> wrote:

Hello Alvin I have tried, in various ways and using various sub directories to discover the exe file but, in each case I didn't see an exe file but a normal inkscape logo. When I click on this it takes me to the normal 0.48 screen. I am not on your inkscape list as such because I was directed to use email when I tried to apply a post and so perhaps you can tell me how I can now close this post ? Dennis On 1 September 2012 19:12, alvinpenner <penner@...2467...> wrote:

Thank you Alvin Regards Dennis On 2 September 2012 14:17, alvinpenner <penner@...2467...> wrote:

I am working on a drawing of a native American girl, have just put the combined lighting filter on this and the image will move around the page pretty fast. Maybe this is what I have been waiting for :):) Dennis On 2 September 2012 16:00, Dennis Melling <dennismelling.rom@...155...>wrote:

This is my latest image, on the latest development of inkscape, of a native indian girl on a PD background. Dennis On 3 September 2012 02:08, Chris Tooley <euxneks@...155...> wrote:

Oops, I dropped down from 23MB so that I could send it via email on my WiFi stick. My internet speed is 0.34mbps Dennis On 3 September 2012 10:08, donn <donn.ingle@...155...> wrote:

OK I will see if I can find what my GoogleDrive is Dennis On 3 September 2012 12:37, Gianvittorio Zandona <gianvittorio@...2962...> wrote:

Dennis, Going back to the Sorceress image it's definitely the filters that are slowing it down. It might help to understand how filters work in the SVG world, as it makes it easier to understand how the various workarounds that people have suggested will help. Filters are essentially bitmaps generated by performing a series of mathematical operations on each pixel in the rendered image. The more pixels that need to be rendered, the more maths there is to do, and the slower the rendering will be. Rendering to a bitmap doesn't just mean exporting to PNG though; every time Inkscape draws to the screen it has to render to a bitmap. If your filtered object takes up (say) 50 pixels in the rendered image, it can be drawn a lot faster than if it takes up 500 pixels, as there's only a tenth of the pixels to calculate. That leads to my first suggestions: 1) Zooming out will make things redraw faster, as will reducing the window size (I prefer to use a smaller window with undocked palettes for this reason, rather than running Inkscape full-screen). Try not to zoom in any further than you have to. 1a) When you do export to bitmap, higher DPI settings will lead to more pixels, more calculations and a longer export time. Try to keep the DPI and the export area down to the smallest you can get away with. If there is any transparency involved then Inkscape has to render the object(s) below, then render the objects above, then combine the two. So our 500 pixel object, as soon as transparency is added, will result in at least 1000 pixels being calculated and combined. Even if the opacity of your objects is at 100%, many filters introduce some transparency - blurs being the most obvious. Now consider many blurred and translucent objects stacked on top of each other - that's a lot of maths to do. That's why it can be beneficial to split your image into layers. Hiding layers means that they don't have to be calculated, and don't have to be merged with other objects, greatly reducing the amount of maths needed to re-draw the image. Bear in mind that you can also have sub-layers (and sub-sub-layers...) which can make it easier to manage drawings with lots of objects in. 2) Split your drawing into layers and hide as many as you can if performance is a problem. Sometimes you might want to use the filtered version of an object for reference, but don't really need to have Inkscape re-calculating it all the time. Select the object(s) in question, and use Edit > Create A Bitmap Copy to generate a bitmap with the filters "fixed". It may take a while to create the bitmap, but once done it will be a lot faster to render than the original objects. If I need to do this I do it for a whole layer of objects, so that I can then hide the layer, and put the bitmap onto the layer I'm actually working on. 3) Use bitmaps to let you "snapshot" your filtered objects for reference, then hide the originals. Of course, the fastest option is simply not to do all the maths. If you don't need to see the filtered version to make an edit, then don't make Inkscape draw it. My final suggestion: 4) Use View > Display Mode to turn off filters as much as you can. When you use filters or effects in The GIMP, the result is immediately fixed. If changes the colour of some pixels, then its job is done. The filter doesn't need to be re-calculated when you zoom in, but you also can't alter its parameters later on. Inkscape filters are "live" and get re-calculated for every pixel for every zoom, pan or change in the image. They are performing magnitudes more calculations than filters in The GIMP. The trick is to know and understand that difference, and try to structure your image and workflow so that you minimise the number of calculations it has to perform at any given time. I hope that helps a little. Mark -- Co-creator of *The Greys* and *Monsters, Inked* webcomics Website http://www.peppertop.com/ Facebook http://facebook.com/TheGreysComic Twitter https://twitter.com/TheGreysComic

On Mon, 3 Sep 2012 13:37:16 +0200, Lars Behrens said: +1 Fantastic explanation and advice. SteveT Steve Litt * http://www.troubleshooters.com/ * http://twitter.com/stevelitt Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance

On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Mark Crutch <markc@...2744...> wrote: I think inkscape's problem is it tries to render the whole image instead of only the visible part. That's why when we zoom in, the render process becomes increasingly slow. I maybe wrong about how inkscape works here. That's just a guess work according to my experience. Best Regards,

On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:59 AM, Auguste Pop <auguste@...155...> wrote: I don't believe that is the case, but as Jasper mentioned, it does have to render more than is visible on screen. Consider two objects right next to each other, both with Gaussian blur applied. If you zoom in on one of them you would expect to see the blur of the other object creeping in at the edge of the window, and mingling with the blur around the zoomed object. So Inkscape has to render at least part of the off-screen object, complete with blur, so that it can accurately display it bleeding into the window. The real problem is the number of filtered pixels to be calculated. A box that's 100x100 pixels at one zoom level will be 50x50 or 500x500 at others. Because filters are (generally) bitmap operations that apply to each pixel in the filtered area (and beyond), more pixels means more calculations, means slower redraws. Try this experiment: 1) Create a blurred object then zoom in far enough for the redraw to become noticeably slow. 2) Switch to outline view mode and full-screen Inkscape (F11). 3) Now switch back to normal view mode and time how long it takes to redraw. 4) Switch to outline mode again, and resize your window to be significantly smaller. 5) Switch back to normal view mode, and time how long it takes to redraw. Note that we haven't changed the zoom at any point, so if Inkscape is drawing the whole image, the timings from (3) and (5) should be similar. In my tests they're not, with (5) being significantly faster. That's why I don't use Inkscape full-screen or even maximised, but prefer to work within a smaller window and use floating tool palettes rather than docked ones. Mark -- Co-creator of *The Greys* and *Monsters, Inked* webcomics Website http://www.peppertop.com/ Facebook http://facebook.com/TheGreysComic Twitter https://twitter.com/TheGreysComic

On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Jasper van de Gronde < th.v.d.gronde@...226...> wrote: Regardless of the speed of the machine, it will always be possible to create an image with enough heavy-duty filters to bog it down, even if Inkscape's algorithms were to be optimised to the max. I wasn't trying to suggest that a 500x500 pixel object will always slow a machine down, just pointing out that there's generally less work to do when it's zoomed out than when it's zoomed in. If an object has a filter that renders slowly - whether due to computational complexity, inefficiencies in Inkscape's code, or a slow machine - zooming out will likely cause it to render faster, and zooming in will likely cause it to render slower still. Yes, a modern machine can fill the screen many, many times a second. But calculating what to fill it with can still be a multi-second operation, depending on the content. Mark -- Co-creator of *The Greys* and *Monsters, Inked* webcomics Website http://www.peppertop.com/ Facebook http://facebook.com/TheGreysComic Twitter https://twitter.com/TheGreysComic

I know that the sorceress is extra complex (the most complex that I have ever done because previously the majority of images that I have done on Inkscape have been simple cartoon sketches of things like faces) and I produced it on many layers with each layer containing groups of separate items. Like the wings: each ellipse is separate and each wing is separate but grouped on 1 layer. The face is loads of layers but I have spent days trying to slightly move some of the items (like the mouth). Simple, unfiltered images, are no problem at all. I increased the size of the svg because I found that I was losing detail when I did a small svg and then exported (via Inkscape) to png. The attached image was exported as svg and converted to png using Gimp (rapidly). When I am producing an image on Inkscape I often export some parts to Gimp (and vice versa) and find the editing such as colouring, lighting, deleting and cloning better on Gimp and easier to give the effect that I am looking for. I then export these items to one or the other to complete an image. The sorceress was done completely on Inkscape until I did the conversion to png on Gimp. Dennis On 31 August 2012 19:26, Paul A. Bristow <pbristow@...2746...> wrote:

It really is a terrible shame. It would appear logical to me to reduce the numerous features and concentrate on the basics of performance. If there was an open source alternative I would be there right now. I have just completed a dream catcher where I support Inkscape with Gimp and I had no problems, mind you you can't compare the complexity of the Sorceress with my dream catcher :):) I dream for better days :) Dennis On 1 September 2012 10:53, Geoffrey <lordgeoffrey@...45...> wrote:

Hi Steven, My simple comment was >> I loaded your SVG under Ubuntu 0.48.3 and it is dog-slow as well (i7 64Bit, 4 Cores, 16G) << On 02/09/12 04:19, Steve Litt wrote: