| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/05/2003 03:22:58 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by soup:
on this subject i tried to save a printable 20x30 @ 288dpi image last night
straight off the camera - minimal editing to it.
win98se - 512M ram 78% free - p4 1.8ghz
error - could not save as jpg. not enough memory
i tried numerous saving methods to no luck and ended up scaling the image down to 16x24. anyone else run into to this
is there a way w/o losing quality to save large images |
With Win98SE, check your virtual memory settings; if you have a very small swap file size, you'll run into this. Your image size at 5760x8640 is really not THAT big.
I have saved larger files than this but am running XP Pro. I have the same main memory size (512MB) as you do.
Message edited by author 2003-12-05 15:23:31.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2003 03:34:17 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by Gordon:
...100% is the only 'pixel to pixel' view, everything else is resampled to show the preview, so is less reliable. Now, if you are printing it smallish (8x10 or less) you quite possibly won't be able to see this... |
I'm in a russian roulette state of mind after reading this. :-)
... |
Well, it isn't a hard and fast rule to define what is 'acceptable'. what I used to find acceptable in a print, is no longer acceptable to me - so it is difficult to give a conclusive answer.
However, the 100% preview is going to look much more like the final print than the 33% view, in all cases. |
Thanks for the feedback. This is a workable premise for me, at this point. |
|
|
|
12/05/2003 03:40:03 PM · #28 |
i'll check it out tonight when i get home, but i think the virtual memory is set to pretty large. although i'm not sure the pixel dimensions you posted are accurate - i dont have the image here.
i think those dimensions are for the 72dpi version straight off the camera.
i was however able to save the file as a PSD document with no probs - although it took a few minutes to write the file...
Originally posted by kirbic:
With Win98SE, check your virtual memory settings; if you have a very small swap file size, you'll run into this. Your image size at 5760x8640 is really not THAT big.
I have saved larger files than this but am running XP Pro. I have the same main memory size (512MB) as you do. |
|
|
|
|
12/05/2003 03:54:47 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by soup:
on this subject i tried to save a printable 20x30 @ 288dpi image last night
straight off the camera - minimal editing to it.
win98se - 512M ram 78% free - p4 1.8ghz
error - could not save as jpg. not enough memory
i tried numerous saving methods to no luck and ended up scaling the image down to 16x24. anyone else run into to this
is there a way w/o losing quality to save large images |
With Win98SE, check your virtual memory settings; if you have a very small swap file size, you'll run into this. Your image size at 5760x8640 is really not THAT big.
I have saved larger files than this but am running XP Pro. I have the same main memory size (512MB) as you do. |
How much room is on your scratch disk? That's more important than your ram... |
|
|
|
12/05/2003 04:20:06 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by soup:
i'll check it out tonight when i get home, but i think the virtual memory is set to pretty large. although i'm not sure the pixel dimensions you posted are accurate - i dont have the image here.
i think those dimensions are for the 72dpi version straight off the camera.
|
Number of pixels (i.e., resolution) has nothing what so ever to do with the dpi. So, 5760x8640 pixels, is 20x30@288dpi, or 40x60 @144dpi, or 4x6 at 1440dpi
Pixels don't have any size. They are a dimensionless unit, so don't change with different print sizes (unless you resample) They don't have a physical size until you express how many you plan to squeeze into each inch (the dpi or more correctly ppi value in this case) |
|
|
|
12/05/2003 05:12:39 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Thanks for clarifying that General. The tutorial linked to in the same post that said it was free spoke of using a $15 plug-in to PS 5 or higher. Apparently the tutorial is out-of-date. |
As Eddy says, there may be a charge for the automated plug-in. I was just referring to the technique of repeated resamplings at a small multiplication factor until the desired size is reached. |
|
|
|
12/05/2003 05:24:59 PM · #32 |
Just to see if it would work, I took this photo's TIFF file and upsampled it in one step to 200% using IrfanView, and it was accepted for a pretty large-size print. But I think that's because it's mainly smooth gradients and odd colors, and there's little detail to be rendered.
Blaze of Glory
 |
|
|
|
12/05/2003 06:09:08 PM · #33 |
not enough - i thinks thats the cause.
Originally posted by MeThoS:
How much room is on your scratch disk? That's more important than your ram... |
ahh PPI my error - never the less i guess i need another HD
the pixel size jumps from 3072x2048px at 72ppi to 8533x5689px at 200ppi?
Originally posted by Gordon:
Number of pixels (i.e., resolution) has nothing what so ever to do with the dpi. So, 5760x8640 pixels, is 20x30@288dpi, or 40x60 @144dpi, or 4x6 at 1440dpi
Pixels don't have any size. They are a dimensionless unit, so don't change with different print sizes (unless you resample) They don't have a physical size until you express how many you plan to squeeze into each inch (the dpi or more correctly ppi value in this case) |
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/28/2025 01:09:27 PM EDT.
