maximizing image display rate
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I am trying to consecutively display images as rapidly as possible without encoding the images in a video format. The images in question are 8-bit grayscale PNGs between 10k and 10M in size; the entire image set can easily fit into RAM.
The fastest image viewer I have found for GNU/linux systems is feh, but its maximum display rate on my system is ~23/s for 25-kB images and ~10/s for 2-MB images.
Disk I/O is not rate-limiting since copying the files to a RAM disk has no effect on the display rate. The refresh rate of the monitor is 60 Hz, and is therefore is also not limiting. I conclude that the rate-limiting process is some aspect of graphical rendering, about which I know little. How could I determine which aspect? What, if anything, could be done to improve the display rate (alternate image viewers, optimizing GPU caching, disabling unneeded functions in X11, hardware replacement, etc.)?
x11 graphics display images image-viewer
asked Oct 19 '17 at 23:06
user001
1,47231936
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I am trying to consecutively display images as rapidly as possible without encoding the images in a video format. The images in question are 8-bit grayscale PNGs between 10k and 10M in size; the entire image set can easily fit into RAM.
The fastest image viewer I have found for GNU/linux systems is feh, but its maximum display rate on my system is ~23/s for 25-kB images and ~10/s for 2-MB images.
Disk I/O is not rate-limiting since copying the files to a RAM disk has no effect on the display rate. The refresh rate of the monitor is 60 Hz, and is therefore is also not limiting. I conclude that the rate-limiting process is some aspect of graphical rendering, about which I know little. How could I determine which aspect? What, if anything, could be done to improve the display rate (alternate image viewers, optimizing GPU caching, disabling unneeded functions in X11, hardware replacement, etc.)?
x11 graphics display images image-viewer
asked Oct 19 '17 at 23:06
user001
1,47231936
If the limitation was necessary because of graphical rendering, it wouldn't be possible to watch videos. Image viewers are not really built for what you want (the use case is "users watches one image for minutes or at least seconds"), you may have to write your own image viewer to show one image per display frame. Tinkerting with GPU caching, X11, or hardware shouldn't be necessary.
– dirkt
Oct 20 '17 at 6:18
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
I am trying to consecutively display images as rapidly as possible without encoding the images in a video format. The images in question are 8-bit grayscale PNGs between 10k and 10M in size; the entire image set can easily fit into RAM.
The fastest image viewer I have found for GNU/linux systems is feh, but its maximum display rate on my system is ~23/s for 25-kB images and ~10/s for 2-MB images.
Disk I/O is not rate-limiting since copying the files to a RAM disk has no effect on the display rate. The refresh rate of the monitor is 60 Hz, and is therefore is also not limiting. I conclude that the rate-limiting process is some aspect of graphical rendering, about which I know little. How could I determine which aspect? What, if anything, could be done to improve the display rate (alternate image viewers, optimizing GPU caching, disabling unneeded functions in X11, hardware replacement, etc.)?
x11 graphics display images image-viewer
asked Oct 19 '17 at 23:06
user001
1,47231936
I am trying to consecutively display images as rapidly as possible without encoding the images in a video format. The images in question are 8-bit grayscale PNGs between 10k and 10M in size; the entire image set can easily fit into RAM.
The fastest image viewer I have found for GNU/linux systems is feh, but its maximum display rate on my system is ~23/s for 25-kB images and ~10/s for 2-MB images.
Disk I/O is not rate-limiting since copying the files to a RAM disk has no effect on the display rate. The refresh rate of the monitor is 60 Hz, and is therefore is also not limiting. I conclude that the rate-limiting process is some aspect of graphical rendering, about which I know little. How could I determine which aspect? What, if anything, could be done to improve the display rate (alternate image viewers, optimizing GPU caching, disabling unneeded functions in X11, hardware replacement, etc.)?
x11 graphics display images image-viewer
asked Oct 19 '17 at 23:06
user001
1,47231936
asked Oct 19 '17 at 23:06
user001
1,47231936
asked Oct 19 '17 at 23:06
user001
1,47231936
asked Oct 19 '17 at 23:06
user001
1,47231936
1,47231936
If the limitation was necessary because of graphical rendering, it wouldn't be possible to watch videos. Image viewers are not really built for what you want (the use case is "users watches one image for minutes or at least seconds"), you may have to write your own image viewer to show one image per display frame. Tinkerting with GPU caching, X11, or hardware shouldn't be necessary.
– dirkt
Oct 20 '17 at 6:18
add a comment |Â
If the limitation was necessary because of graphical rendering, it wouldn't be possible to watch videos. Image viewers are not really built for what you want (the use case is "users watches one image for minutes or at least seconds"), you may have to write your own image viewer to show one image per display frame. Tinkerting with GPU caching, X11, or hardware shouldn't be necessary.
– dirkt
Oct 20 '17 at 6:18
If the limitation was necessary because of graphical rendering, it wouldn't be possible to watch videos. Image viewers are not really built for what you want (the use case is "users watches one image for minutes or at least seconds"), you may have to write your own image viewer to show one image per display frame. Tinkerting with GPU caching, X11, or hardware shouldn't be necessary.
– dirkt
Oct 20 '17 at 6:18
If the limitation was necessary because of graphical rendering, it wouldn't be possible to watch videos. Image viewers are not really built for what you want (the use case is "users watches one image for minutes or at least seconds"), you may have to write your own image viewer to show one image per display frame. Tinkerting with GPU caching, X11, or hardware shouldn't be necessary.
– dirkt
Oct 20 '17 at 6:18
add a comment |Â
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f399236%2fmaximizing-image-display-rate%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
If the limitation was necessary because of graphical rendering, it wouldn't be possible to watch videos. Image viewers are not really built for what you want (the use case is "users watches one image for minutes or at least seconds"), you may have to write your own image viewer to show one image per display frame. Tinkerting with GPU caching, X11, or hardware shouldn't be necessary.
– dirkt
Oct 20 '17 at 6:18