Download a large JPEG from nasa (273MB)

Turn on hardware acceleration goy

You don't understand how memory works.

I already have photoshop, but that's not something I wanna use for image viewing

it has nothing to do with that you idiot. it has to do with xnview classic being 32bit.

nomacs has 64 bit version and large files just werk

I do, I just didn't expect something like xnview to be 32bit only in

ahahaha..... no

kek

OP here. Uninstalled xnview classic and installed xnview mp. the classic shell extension seems to still work so I'm happy.

Open in google chrome

32 bits should be enough for anybody

>>Open it in xnview

For what purpose?
Use the default image viewer, it's not even bad.

Attached: 1541014649299.jpg (720x602, 99K)

this thread and the image link proves it's not. brainlet.
except it literally is bad.
>can't open animated gifs
>terrible scaling filter
>no ICC support
but the issue is solved

yay -S feh
feh image.jpg

there you go

Fpbp

>>can't open animated gifs

Irrelevant since early 2000s.
Besides, you can use your browser for that.

Nomacs is top tier. Really underappreciated.

>Besides, you can use your browser for that.
only a retard would do that. kys

>can't open animated gifs
Works on Windows 10 with the default image viewer

> Installing a useless program to open a fucking image when every program nowadays can do that, especially your browser

I think YOU ARE the retarded here, faggot.
kys yourself

Whoever wrote your image viewer is retarded. Please tell me what it is so I can never use it.

Stop looking at the lights and look for a future.

I laughed then I was sad. I literally keep replacing SSDs and buy more and more RAM because of Chrome.

the fuck is the point of that?
it's blown up even more just because?

>using garbage package managers
emerge portage

Attached: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.png (746x468, 169K)

>you should use this program even though it doesn't have the features you want
Stop thinking everyone has the same priorities as you.

what?

OP here, xnview MP works like a charm

Attached: 1519563060404.jpg (1244x1440, 130K)

No one uses gif nowadays.
Stop being a faggot, faggot.

>No one uses gif nowadays.

Attached: 1531245077453.jpg (645x729, 81K)

Keep telling yourself that, retard.

Working here.

Attached: Pictus_Zgt2gY6cEU.png (868x693, 303K)

t. mad autistic

also works in xnview mp. it's very customizable and it works with looping webms as well.

Attached: 1535385104446.gif (700x704, 295K)

Should people still use GIF? No.
Do people still use GIF? Yes.
Also even IF nobody would use GIF anymore, as long as I do I'd want my image viewer to be able to display them.

try doing this with a webm. including the transparency (without hacks or needing scripts to view it)
gif still has its uses. webm is not a perfect replacement for it

>webm is not a perfect replacement for it
What can animated gifs do better than webm?

>webm is not a perfect replacement for it
Well, I didn't really think about WebM to begin with. More about APNG or animated WebP.

try reading the entire post.

webp is dead, but yes there are other formats in the works.

Imagine having an operating system so awful you need a dedicated image viewer to do something THE FILE MANAGER on macOS performs without issue.
The absolute state of wintoddlers

Attached: Screen Shot 2018-12-19 at 22.16.13.png (1920x1200, 2.78M)

finder still uses "Preview", the dedicated image viewer for that.

No, this is Quick Look, which does use the built-in image renderer on OS X/macOS. It's not Preview. Notice the "Open in Preview" button in the top right corner.
The post you deleted was correct, this one isn't.

At least we can choose which software to use to preview our stuff.

bro, I had a mac pro myself. quicklook opens the image in preview but without changing the GUI to that of preview, for a "quick" look at the image. open in preview is for when you need some of the editing tools of preview, which are not loaded nor are accessible from the quick look gui. but you're still opening the image in preview either way.

are you implying osx has no alternative image viewers, brainlet? or are you merely pretending to be retarded?

>macOS doesn't have third party image viewers
First: I'm not your bro.
Second: stop fucking deleting posts. This isn't r*ddit.
Third: Both Preview and the Quick Look function built into the Finder use Quartz ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartz_(graphics_layer) ) to render the images, because that's the quickest and easiest way of rendering images on macOS. But they're not the same application.

ok tell me what "more modern" format lets me losslessly save pixel art animations that can by played by pretty much anything

Attached: orin5.gif (61x61, 6K)

>Both Preview and the Quick Look function built into the Finder use Quartz
so the image being rendered is being done by the same thing the dedicated image viewer uses. tard

Attached: 1515706455478.jpg (277x296, 24K)

>First: I'm not your bro.
gtfo redditor.

Attached: 1538977463730.jpg (1235x871, 650K)

Not sure if that's what he meant, but you can shrink it down (via lossless optimization) to about 190MB.

>webp is dead
With FF supporting it from v65 onward, Safari is the only major browser left that doesn't support it (and never will). It might not be the best image format out there, but it beats JPG and PNG while having somewhat decent support.
I wouldn't call it dead quiet yet.

The closest thing would be APNG.

windows has had an integrated image viewer since 1999, try again

>Not sure if that's what he meant, but you can shrink it down (via lossless optimization) to about 190MB.
no that is not what I meant. shrinking is not necessary when the image viewer is 64bit.

webp has already been surpassed before it became a thing. better formats are in the works and they're going to get more support. it's just a matter of time I guess. but webp won't be it.

the default image viewer cant show images pixel perfect. they are always blurry.

AVIF? That's still only a draft and they also need to do a lot of optimization before it comes close to usable.
BPG or HEIF? Inherited the patent problem from HEVC. Sure, Apple supports it, but Safari is far from being the biggest player in the browser market. Same goes for Microsoft.

What else is there? FLIF has zero support and is far from having a mature encoder. Guetzli is dead. Pik is still in the research stage. Guess there are also JPEG 2000 and JPEG XR. Software-wise I think they have more support than WebP, but it doesn't look good as far as browsers go.

>giving commie sjws or Google kikes access to your image info just because
No u kys

>useless
you don't know what that means, huh?

>when you use chrome to render pngs you're really using firefox
>"no, they just both use libpng"
>so the images are rendered by the same thing. tard

what a dumb analogy that is not even applicable

We're all bros here, chill out.

>buy

>he thinks when he opens a file in a program, the memory size will equal the filesize

Attached: Death.jpg (700x876, 308K)

gimp

It shouldn't take more than a few megabytes to open a picture of ANY size.

>he thinks a program displaying a 273MB image is going to consume 64GB RAM

that is not what I thought you mongoloid

wrong

xnview mp
/thread

read the thread first, next time.
>/thread your own post
fuck off back to plebbit actually.

why do you virgins use alternative image viewers on windows?

read the thread

Plus it has Automator so you can do all sorts of cool stuff with Services in Finder.

its because the app has a software limit to how much it can commit to memory at a time just like Google chrome, which likely can be changed.

no you nigger. read the thread, it's because xnview classic (unlike MP) is 32bit only.

are you retarded? 32 bit means it can address up to 4gb of ram, which is obviously plenty of space for it to commit an image to memory to load, its just the retarded dev thought no one would ever have such a large single image, so they put a software limit in place for how much an image can take up in memory, trust me i have seem this many places before in shitty software.

the link posted here to their forum has the dev himself say it's because classic is not in 32bit.

an actual software dev could easily tell you why it actually is, he had to hardcode a set value for max memory allocation from the heap as with all programs and as said earlier they likely did not account for massive images ever existing like this This specific case gas nothing to do with the software being 32 bit vs 64 bit since the picture in question is no where near the max addressable memory of 2^32 basically 4gb of ram. Retards.

ref

I really don't care, go to the forum thread posted here and talk to the dev.

I mean when you zoom in on the image it's blurry as shit. why is NASA uploading upscaled blurry images?

>originally defending absolutely incorrect point
>gets called out for not knowing shit about the topic yet attempting to appear as though you do
>suddenly realise is actually retarded
>gives le epic rebuttal to save face
>>idc
autism speaks, unfortunately.

Attached: shoes2.jpg (264x191, 6K)

it's not blurry when I zoom in to 100%. what software are you using?

talk to the dev, retard. I can't tell you how he built his shit, but if he says the issue is being 32bit, I have no reason not to believe him.
newsgroup.xnview.com/viewtopic.php?t=35165

ah shit
I was using firefox but never had a problem with it until now. windows 7 photoviewer is fine with it though

Nigger the image in question is 43200x21600. At 32bps, that's 3.7GB.

The max user accessible memory in Windows is 2GB, or 3GB if you change the kernel split with a boot parameter.

Now shut the fuck up and try to learn something.

i reviewed it and can tell you why it is. They simply did not want to update the 32 bit version and change their hard coded memory allocation limit since 32 bit is on the way out anyway, whereas 64 bit is modern so that is updated and thus they upped the max memory allocation. Again it has no actual relation to it being 32 vs 64 bit, just that the dev has no purpose to update an older 32 bit software when 64 bit is modern

>The max user accessible memory in Windows is 2GB, or 3GB
not him, but this can't be right. do you mean in 32bit software?

Yes, this is for 32bit Windows. For 32bit processes on 64bit Windows, you get a bit more but still not enough. For 64bit on 64bit Windows, there's no problem.

4gb actually and since when are we talking about a 3.7gb pic, op mentioned a 273mb file, obviously if we were talking about 3.7gb then no shit 32 bit can not handle that, you just regurgitated my reason for that from my above response but in a far less coherent and misunderstanding manner.

The file is 279340899 fucking megabytes you retard. Have you never heard of image compression? Or do you think you can load a JPEG into memory and display it directly?

God damn shut the fuck up

>279340899
In my blind rage I wrote megabytes instead of bytes, but yes. It's ~270MB compressed and 4GB uncompressed.

this.
dumbass

lmfao when you compress an image the data is LOST e.g. jpeg, therefore its the same size when loaded into memory which you can do directly, you actually seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how this all works. Back to I.T. WIZARD skool, high school drop out compsci 2 hard 6 me edition.