Maximum Photoshop files size !

[JPS]

...did you know that Photoshop REFUSES to open files that are larger than 30'000 pixels ?
After having a 330° pano made of 22 JPG 12MP shots stitched with Panorama Factory -it took a h**l of a looooong time-, I tried to load it in a friend's PC, with Photoshop 7, and it refused absolutly to obey !?!
I then loaded the file in ACDSee, converted in *.PSD -thinking there was a problem with the *JPG file- and again, PS refused to load it...
I wrote an E-mail to Panorama Factory to explain, and the next day I got an answer from John Strait, saying that I had "encountered a fundamental limit in Photoshop" !
Well.. what happens whenever one want to make a 360 degrees panorama, with a good quality size ? Can you beleive that Photoshop, at the price they sell their stuff, has such a "bug" or more politely "fundamental limit" ?
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr !!!:mad: :mad: :mad:

BTW, I reduced the size of the file (for Web use) and here it is :
http://www.pbase.com/image/23170249

[Tom V]

I regularly make Photoshop psd files with many layers that get up to 400 MB in size. On my computer, they may take up to 30 seconds to open (estimate). I have 1.5GB of RAM using Mac OS 9.2.

Mac OS X allows up to 2 GB of RAM, and maybe Apple's new G5 computers allow up to 4 GB of RAM.

Since Photoshop is such a RAM-intensive program, storing the image in RAM, along with the "UNDO" image, and tons more in Hard Drive "virtual RAM", I can see where the computer's RAM limit may be a stumbling block for Photoshop.

Usually, when I make my most massive images, I break the image into segments anyway. I base my segments on the output device's physical capability. If the printer can only print 48" wide, I break my images up into 48" strips. I allow for overlap. Also, if the printer or host's computer cannot handle an image of such proportions, I segment the image to more managable chunks.

[JPS]

Originally posted by lumens
The limits in photoshop 6 are clearly stated in the help-file:

max. filesize 2 GB

max. pixelsize 30000 x 30000 pixels (which amounts to a 900 megapixel image!)
...

...in the case of panoramas, you might easily get a width of 30'000 pixels ! ...and the limitations are valid even if the heigth of the pic is only 600 pixels, for example, wich only gives a total amount of 18'000 pixels !

[crabby]

Hmmm Lumens, then I guess photoshop CS isn't your thing (yet). It has a great stitching tool.
Tom-the new G5's can hold up to 8 gigs of ram.
I am starting to get worried. I've been commissioned to produce an image and print it 3'x12', and it will be viewed up close. I haven't figured out how I'm gonna go about it, but it is definitely going to be many images stitched together. Can any of you calculus buffs figure out what my max ppi could be. I'm thinking of going with a Lightjet which the maximum size is 8' so there will be a seam in there somewhere.

[Tom V]

[i]...
Tom-the new G5's can hold up to 8 gigs of ram.
I am starting to get worried. I've been commissioned to produce an image and print it 3'x12', and it will be viewed up close. ... Can any of you calculus buffs figure out what my max ppi could be. [/B]

Thank you for letting us know the G5 handles 8 GB of Ram. I wonder if Photoshop CS can handle more image than PS7 can. In the NEW dialog box, I entered 36 inches x 144 inches x 300 ppi, and PS7 warned that it could not do that. It put in 208.333 ppi. That makes a 643.7 MB file in RGB mode. Suprisingly, you can make it CMYK mode with the same dimensions, and the file is 858.3 MB in file size. If you limit yourself to the printers' max size, you can make 36 x 96 inches at 300 ppi for a 965.6 MB RGB file.

Maybe you have to do it smaller, and scale it up with Fractals or something and print it from that. (I don't know what I am talking about.)

I use: Mac G4, dual 866mHz, 1.5 GB RAM, Mac OS 9.2.2
800 MB alloted to Photoshop

I have another 512MB chip sitting on the desk. When I finally make the jump to Mac OS X, I will install it, and my computer will be maxed at 2 GB RAM.

[JPS]

Originally posted by lumens
hmmm, calculus isn't your thing, is it?

If the panorama is only 600 pixels high than the max width is still 30000 pixels, resulting in a 18000000 pixel image which is 18 megapixels. That's still a big picture, 54 megabyte tall on your computer (at only 8 bit a colour).

I agree that a panorama could grow that big or even bigger but I personally don't think that photoshop is really about panoramas.
You're right about calculus... but it's just a matter of a few zeros plus or minus, isn't it ?
Now, about Photoshop, of course it's NOT about panoramas, but I thought it was about IMAGE TREATMENT... and you have to egree that a panorama IS an image !
There are quite a few very good stitching softwares, but they are only dedicated in making panos, so AFTER their job is done, we still need to work on it, and for that (and since PS is considered as "the best" -and the most expensive-) we need Photoshop beiing able to do it's job, whatever be the size of the image !

[Eddie the Gnat]

Just a note -

Photoshop CS seems able to break through this barrier. I've just created a blank image 40000 pixels square (4.47GB) and it seems quite happy. It does bring up a warning that the image may not be compatible with older versions of Photoshop.

Eddie

[JPS]

Originally posted by Eddie the Rat
Just a note -
Photoshop CS seems able to break through this barrier. I've just created a blank image 40000 pixels square (4.47GB) and it seems quite happy. It does bring up a warning that the image may not be compatible with older versions of Photoshop.
Eddie
...for the tips !!! ...now, I only have to break my moneybox to buy Photoshop CS ! :eek:

[crabby]

Thanks Tom, Eddie, and Lumens for doing some of my homework.
Lumens-The Lightjet 5000 prints with an LED laser onto photographic paper up to 4x8' at 305 dpi. I had a 4'x4' duratrans printed once and it was the best print I had even seen. For about $500USD it better be.

[JPS]

Originally posted by lumens
...
So asuming that photoshop will be able to do the job whatever the size is of the image is just not very realistic I'm afraid.
I never "asumed" that PS would be able to do the job, I only said that, due to the increase of image file's volume -and due to the price they sell their stuff- one should hope that Adobe will effectively do something about this restriction ! ...wich they did, according to some newer posts !