VSE separate images increases file size abnormally #41086

New Issue

Ângelo Brandão Benetti · 2014-07-15T19:19:12+02:00

2014-07-15 19:19:12 +02:00

In official Blender 2.71, by spliting a strip with a sequence of 722 images with Separate images function bpy.ops.sequencer.images_separate(length=x)
the .blend file jumps from 600 Kb to something near 132 Mb, without any packed file.

It seems a bit exagerated compared to the same steps done in 2.70a, where it increases from 570 kb to 4.4 Mb, much more reasonable.

System Information
Scientific Linux (CentOS like)
Linux lajeado 2.6.32-431.20.3.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP Thu Jun 19 14:01:59 CDT 2014 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
Graphics card: 0f:00.0 VGA compatible controller: NVIDIA Corporation GT200GL [Quadro FX 3800] (rev a1)

Blender Version
Broken: 2.71 hash: 9337574
Worked: 2.70a

Short description of error

Exact steps for others to reproduce the error
Based on a (as simple as possible) attached .blend file with minimum amount of steps

In official Blender 2.71, by spliting a strip with a sequence of 722 images with Separate images function bpy.ops.sequencer.images_separate(length=x) the .blend file jumps from 600 Kb to something near 132 Mb, without any packed file. It seems a bit exagerated compared to the same steps done in 2.70a, where it increases from 570 kb to 4.4 Mb, much more reasonable. **System Information** Scientific Linux (CentOS like) Linux lajeado 2.6.32-431.20.3.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP Thu Jun 19 14:01:59 CDT 2014 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux Graphics card: 0f:00.0 VGA compatible controller: NVIDIA Corporation GT200GL [Quadro FX 3800] (rev a1) **Blender Version** Broken: 2.71 hash: 9337574 Worked: 2.70a **Short description of error** **Exact steps for others to reproduce the error** Based on a (as simple as possible) attached .blend file with minimum amount of steps

Ângelo Brandão Benetti commented

2014-07-15 19:19:12 +02:00

Changed status to: 'Open'

Ângelo Brandão Benetti commented

2014-07-15 19:19:12 +02:00

Added subscriber: @AngeloBenetti

JT Nelson commented

2014-07-17 16:16:17 +02:00

Added subscriber: @jta

Bastien Montagne commented

2014-07-17 20:24:59 +02:00

Added subscriber: @mont29

Bastien Montagne commented

2014-07-17 20:24:59 +02:00

I cannot reproduce that here (linux64), neither with official 2.71 nor current trunk, I’m always getting same results (6.8 Mo for about 150 images - which I found already rather high, tbh!).

Bastien Montagne commented

2014-07-17 20:25:21 +02:00

Added subscriber: @Sergey

Sergey Sharybin commented

2014-07-18 10:46:52 +02:00

Please always attahc all files needed to reproduce the issue.

I can only think you've got really long sequence and separating it for a single frame, which leads to loads to individual strips. This would for sure bump file size dramatically.

Please always attahc all files needed to reproduce the issue. I can only think you've got really long sequence and separating it for a single frame, which leads to loads to individual strips. This would for sure bump file size dramatically.

Bastien Montagne commented

2014-07-18 16:27:25 +02:00

@Sergey would you consider bump from 500k to 6.8M (from 1 strip to 150) the expected amount of increase mem? That would make about 40k per strip, sounds a bit high to me, tbh…

Also, I can have a look at that myself, if you want (just assign it to me in this case).

@Sergey would you consider bump from 500k to 6.8M (from 1 strip to 150) the expected amount of increase mem? That would make about 40k per strip, sounds a bit high to me, tbh… Also, I can have a look at that myself, if you want (just assign it to me in this case).

Bastien Montagne was assigned by Sergey Sharybin

2014-07-21 17:40:27 +02:00

Sergey Sharybin commented

2014-07-21 17:40:27 +02:00

40K indeed looks a bit suspicious. Definitely worth checking. Please go ahead :)

Sergey Sharybin commented

2014-07-21 17:41:02 +02:00

Also guess "uncofirmed" should be removed now?

Bastien Montagne commented

2014-07-21 22:34:51 +02:00

Found the culprit - we copy everything from the old sequence into each new ones… including the stripdata, which for image sequences is an array with one item per image!

Following patch fixes this in the simplest way possible, not sure it would be considered good enough for master, Sergey?

P93: #41086

diff --git a/source/blender/editors/space_sequencer/sequencer_edit.c b/source/blender/editors/space_sequencer/sequencer_edit.c
index 973d6a9..dcf13db 100644
--- a/source/blender/editors/space_sequencer/sequencer_edit.c
+++ b/source/blender/editors/space_sequencer/sequencer_edit.c
@@ -1919,9 +1919,12 @@ static int sequencer_separate_images_exec(bContext *C, wmOperator *op)
 				strip_new = seq_new->strip;
 				strip_new->us = 1;
 
-				/* new stripdata */
-				se_new = strip_new->stripdata;
+				/* new stripdata (only one element now!) */
+				/* Note this assume all elements (images) have the same dimension, since we only copy the name here. */
+				se_new = MEM_reallocN(strip_new->stripdata, sizeof(*se_new));
 				BLI_strncpy(se_new->name, se->name, sizeof(se_new->name));
+				strip_new->stripdata = se_new;
+
 				BKE_sequence_calc(scene, seq_new);
 
 				if (step > 1) {

Found the culprit - we copy everything from the old sequence into each new ones… including the stripdata, which for image sequences is an array with one item per image! Following patch fixes this in the simplest way possible, not sure it would be considered good enough for master, Sergey? [P93: #41086](https://archive.blender.org/developer/P93.txt) ```diff diff --git a/source/blender/editors/space_sequencer/sequencer_edit.c b/source/blender/editors/space_sequencer/sequencer_edit.c index 973d6a9..dcf13db 100644 --- a/source/blender/editors/space_sequencer/sequencer_edit.c +++ b/source/blender/editors/space_sequencer/sequencer_edit.c @@ -1919,9 +1919,12 @@ static int sequencer_separate_images_exec(bContext *C, wmOperator *op) strip_new = seq_new->strip; strip_new->us = 1; - /* new stripdata */ - se_new = strip_new->stripdata; + /* new stripdata (only one element now!) */ + /* Note this assume all elements (images) have the same dimension, since we only copy the name here. */ + se_new = MEM_reallocN(strip_new->stripdata, sizeof(*se_new)); BLI_strncpy(se_new->name, se->name, sizeof(se_new->name)); + strip_new->stripdata = se_new; + BKE_sequence_calc(scene, seq_new); if (step > 1) { ```

blender-admin commented

2014-07-21 22:55:06 +02:00

This issue was referenced by 2e436173aa

This issue was referenced by 2e436173aae1ff715eb1d19aebbf7243ba4afc5c

Bastien Montagne commented

2014-07-21 22:59:59 +02:00

Changed status from 'Open' to: 'Resolved'

Bastien Montagne closed this issue

2014-07-21 22:59:59 +02:00

Bastien Montagne commented

2014-07-21 22:59:59 +02:00

Closed by commit 2e436173aa.

Closed by commit 2e436173aa.

Sign in to join this conversation.

No Label

Download

What's New

Blender Studio

Manual

Developers Blog

Documentation

Benchmark

Blender Conference

Development Fund

One-time Donations

VSE separate images increases file size abnormally #41086