Does anyone have any experience setting up Photoshop to process an oversize image. I estimate about 7gb for the image I need to print. I've been told that photoshop is only set up to run up to 2 gb images.
#1
Photoshop CS
#2
2GB is the limit in Photoshop 7.0.1. There's no limit in Photoshop 8 ("CS").
#3
Thanks! Time to upgrade...
#4
There's no limit in Photoshop 8 ("CS")
I thought the limit was 8 gig in PSB and 4 gig in TIF
#5
Buko - no, PSB doesn't have a file size limit (well, 63 bits is the limit - but we don't have that much storage on the planet yet).
#6
PSB doesn't have a file size limit
Cool.
#7
The TIF spec appears to indeed be up to 4GB.
You probably already know this, but make sure you're working on an NTFS(PC) or HFS+(Mac) or equivalent file system. They allow file sizes around 16 Exabytes (theoretically) and 1 Terabyte, respectively.
Do any RIPS read the PSB format? I've never tried it, but ours won't read the PSD format.
#8
No RIPs will read PSB -- it doesn't have a composite image for them to read...
#9
So how does one print a PSB image?
#10
Well....?
#11
Pierre - you probably can't do it directly.
The OS print APIs only go to 30,000 pixels.
And the OS print spool typically fails beyond 2 GB of spooled data.
But you may flatten the image, save as TIFF and be able to print from a RIP.
#12
Or print the image in smaller pieces.
Neil
#13
....wonder how long it takes to output 7 GB...
Neil
#14
Too Long.
B)
#15
I wonder if, by any chance, Mr, Boroson will tell us what this is for? My curiosity is getting the best of me.
#16
Actually I'm outputting on a lightjet 5000 xl which is a photo printer that can print up to 72inch wide photo paper. The final image is about 12' square at 300 dpi. So yes, two pieces 72x144. I'm not sure how long it will take. The largest I've done so far is 50x50".
#17
The final image is about 12' square at 300 dpi.
Isn't that overkill?
#18
300ppi? Probably.
Neil
#19
No, not overkill because the original has information as fine as one pixel and when it's reproduced with an ink based process this detail disappears. The difference is actually astonishing! It's pretty standard for photographers who are moving to digital processing.
(yes ppi)
#20
Lee,
The point here is that prints that large are necessarily viewed at much greater distances than an 8x10. I don't know any photographers who would print a 12foot square image at 300ppi.
[EDIT:] Let me rephrase that last clumsy sentence: I don't know any photographers who would take an image at 300ppi in order to produce a 12-foot square print.
#21
Ah. But this is an image that you need to look at from very close. When you look from a distance you'll see the basic form, but the closer you get the more you start to understand how the image is made. And this is where it becomes difficult to describe. I'm essentialy making an image of the universe with all of the black removed and all of the objects (stars, galaxies, asteroids) condensed into a massive cluster.
#22
The entire universe? That WOULD be a big image. :)
#23
7gig to be exact.
#24
7gig to be exact.
Now we know eh.
#25
That one is going to have to be transported by means of a portable hard disk drive, and printing is going to be, er
problematic, to say the least.
#26
yes indeed. I thank you all for your help. Now I can move forward with confidence!
#27