Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 29

Thread: PS: Question on huge size images

  1. #1
      Djekspek is offline
    Professional Artist Gracious Donor Djekspek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    736

    Default PS: Question on huge size images

    Hi guys,

    I have a question on huge maps and file sizes. I have a request to do an A0-sized map but I ran some tests and I dont think I my hardware/software can support this. I have decent stuff (vista / i7 cpu / 64bit / 6gb ram) and currently use PS CS3. Converting some old maps (15 layers or so) to this size was possible but sort of sort-of blew up my computer, and I couldn't even save the image afterwards. Also scrolling/panning took about 2 minutes with every step or so.

    I saw loads of tuning tips on PS sites I may be able to go through these (although I'm no PC tuning expert) and see what will work, but maybe any of you have experience with these large-map-sizes and pc-configuration (so I at least know it is possible to get this working, before I try loads of stuff)? Maybe its the CS3 version as I read CS4/5 has better performance with large files (and using the 64bit)...? any info appreciated!

    cheers!
    My portfolio site (fantasy-maps.com) | My work on deviantART | Fantasy maps on Google+
    Work posted by me can be used under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 licence, unless stated otherwise.

  2. #2
      Gidde is offline
    Community Leader Gidde's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,992

    Default

    The biggest res I've been able to manage reasonably (vista/AMD 4-core 64-bit/6g ram) was 4950*3150. Even then I had to keep my total number of layers very small, under 10 or so.

  3. #3
      Antheon is offline
    Guild Apprentice Antheon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Tyrol, Austria
    Posts
    39
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hm, the biggest image I've ever made was a city map with six or seven layers (max) with a resolution of 32000x32000 at ~90 dpi (or so I think as I tried it some time ago). I used our old workstations (Vista/6*Intel 2-core x64/12 GB RAM). The file (.bmp for curiousitys sake) was at least 20 Gigs big and I think it took about two hours to save it. But I would never do this again! I would work at the map and draw the important stuff, then divide it into several parts and try it then. Or maybe with vector graphic programs but I never tried it ... I'm sorry if that wasn't of any help. : /

    Edit: Done in PS CS3 & Vue 7 with external eSATA-drives
    Last edited by Antheon; 05-02-2010 at 07:47 PM.
    "Good must co-exist with evil to have meaning. Just as light needs darkness to be seen."


    Current projects: The Empyreum

  4. #4
      torstan is offline
    Community Leader Facebook Connected torstan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    4,149

    Default

    The largest map that I've worked on has been 10,000 by 7500 on a Mac with 4GB or Ram and using a 32 bit version pf PS CS4. It was slow, and a little jittery, but worked fine. One thing I found to be a huge help was having an external swap drive - in this case a fast (7200rpm) drive attached by firewire. That makes a large difference for large file sizes. Also, turning off maximise compatibility when you save it helps speed up the save time to something reasonable.
    Fantasy Map Blog | My food illustration
    Everything I post is free for use and redistribution under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 licence, except where noted otherwise in the thread.

  5. #5
      Redrobes is offline
    Software Dev/Rep Redrobes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    4,776
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Well you won the challenge and got a copy of ViewingDale didn't you so there should be few limits as to how big you will be able to map with that. I have a 160,000 pixel square map running (ok so its slow) but it can do it. That burns multiple 10's of Gig HDD space but it does not map quite the same way as PS or a bitmap editor so you may find that you will have to adjust your usual techniques. You will have to tile a really big image but the app will take the chore out of the composite of the tiles. What DPI are you aiming for - what final pixel size image ? 46inches at 300 dpi is only 14K pix which is no big deal at all. Because your 64bit you have higher max sizes than 32bit too. 6Gb is more than me not that it will make much difference anyway.

  6. #6
      Daelin is offline
    Guild Journeyer Daelin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    221

    Default

    My star chart map is 7500x5000 and that has around 300 layers. It does run rather slow, when zooming and such, but its not unbearable. And my machine is about 3 years old (Vista/AMD 4400/4GB.
    I've recently upgraded to PS CS5 and it definitely runs smoother than previous versions.

  7. #7
      Fransie is offline
    Guild Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    90

    Default

    If you want a resolution of 300dpi, you'd end up with a file of about 14000 x 9000 pixels. That's darn big. I strongly suggest to go the vector way, and give Illustrator or Xtreme a try. Obviously, you'll need to learn some new techniques to get good results.

  8. #8
      Redrobes is offline
    Software Dev/Rep Redrobes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    4,776
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Crikey this thread is more interesting than I would have given. Obviously my idea of what is big is way different to everyone elses. My star chart challenge entry (Map for print) was 8192x12288 pix and the map I made for Galrion commission was 12288x16384. The MeDem map is 40K square. I would say 4K is a good size, 8K is quite big but you need to get to about 20K before it gets app bustingly big. After that I would say you absolutely have to tile tho I would recommend tiling at 8K squares. Thats only a 2x2 set to cover your 14K square image.

    Gidde, if your machine is dying at 5Kx3K with 6Gb of RAM then something must be wrong ! I mean were talking a factor of 100x as big differences here. 5kx3k = 15Mpix and a big digi camera can take photos of that size and it doesnt have 6Gb of ram on board ! 15Mpix x 4 bytes per pix = 60Mb per layer so thats 100 layers of that to fill 6Gb. Sounds like a setup issue.

    16Kx16K = 256Mpix = 1Gb per layer or undo buffer if your on an old style app like PS or Gimp etc. This is more of a problem for these apps esp in 32bit land.
    Last edited by Redrobes; 05-03-2010 at 06:42 AM.

  9. #9
      Gidde is offline
    Community Leader Gidde's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,992

    Default

    i agree redrobes, but all my geek-fu plus a thread here failed to solve it my latest map hates me if i have more than 20 or so layers, and it's not even that big.

    i do need to clarify though ... my machine doesn't die, gimp does. i can zip through a ton of other stuff no problem while gimp chugs away.

  10. #10
      torstan is offline
    Community Leader Facebook Connected torstan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    4,149

    Default

    I found that gimp had horrible memory management as soon as maps start getting large. One thing to check is the dimensions of your layers. PS only uses memory for the areas of the layers that have something in them (I think). Gimp uses memory for all pixels in a layer, even if those pixels are totally transparent. You want to make sure that any layer in gimp is as small as possible in dimensions, rather than allowing all the layers to be the size of the image. I found that helped a lot when I was using it.
    Fantasy Map Blog | My food illustration
    Everything I post is free for use and redistribution under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 licence, except where noted otherwise in the thread.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •