Bug 114050 - Image compression seems to be rather slow and CPU hogging for high resolution images
Summary: Image compression seems to be rather slow and CPU hogging for high resolution...
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: LibreOffice
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Writer (show other bugs)
Version:
(earliest affected)
4.2.0.4 release
Hardware: All Windows (All)
: medium normal
Assignee: Not Assigned
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2017-11-25 19:01 UTC by Telesto
Modified: 2018-01-26 13:03 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Crash report or crash signature:

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Telesto 2017-11-25 19:01:23 UTC 
Description:
Image compression seems to be rather slow and CPU hogging for high resolution images

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Open the attached file
2. Compress the image to jpg 90; 200 dpi with any Interpolation filter (Lanczos)

Actual Results:  
Takes around 5 seconds to compress with a progression bar (and LibO unresponsive)

Expected Results:
2 second or so (FastStone image viewer/IrfanView)


Reproducible: Always


User Profile Reset: No



Additional Info:
Found in
Version: 6.0.0.0.alpha1+
Build ID: c24c32bf71b8e64bd0d36e511f554e1f6c015842
CPU threads: 4; OS: Windows 6.3; UI render: default; 
TinderBox: Win-x86@42, Branch:master, Time: 2017-11-22_23:15:41
Locale: nl-NL (nl_NL); Calc: group threaded

and in 
4.2.0.4


User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/52.0
Comment 1 Telesto 2017-11-25 19:02:39 UTC 
Sample file: attachment 137986 [details]
Comment 2 Buovjaga 2017-11-26 19:02:20 UTC 
(In reply to Telesto from comment #0)
> Expected Results:
> 2 second or so (FastStone image viewer/IrfanView)

I would rather see the bug summary and description be something like "implement image compression using algorithm blablabla instead of our current one".
Comment 3 Xisco Faulí 2018-01-26 11:40:42 UTC 
Hi Telesto,
Thanks for reporting this issue.
IMHO, this report is to vague and general i don't think anybody would work on it.
What's the goal here? being faster than FastStone image viewer/IrfanView) ?
Probably, if you test hundreds of pictures, LibreOffice will be faster in some cases.
OTOH, is 3 seconds of difference such a big deal? probably even the timing would be different with a different OS or HW.
I'd say: RESOLVED WONTFIX. Please, change it back to UNCONFIRMED if you disagree.
Regards
Comment 4 Telesto 2018-01-26 13:03:43 UTC 
(In reply to Xisco Faulí from comment #3)
> Hi Telesto,
> Thanks for reporting this issue.
> IMHO, this report is to vague and general i don't think anybody would work
> on it.
> What's the goal here? being faster than FastStone image viewer/IrfanView) ?
> Probably, if you test hundreds of pictures, LibreOffice will be faster in
> some cases.
> OTOH, is 3 seconds of difference such a big deal? probably even the timing
> would be different with a different OS or HW.
> I'd say: RESOLVED WONTFIX. Please, change it back to UNCONFIRMED if you
> disagree.
> Regards

True. Another proposal would be a progress dialog ;-). Now it's a 5 second hang..