Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: image size restriction  (Read 7519 times)
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« on: October 13, 2006, 12:02:59 PM »
ReplyReply

I have donwloaded and experimented with both beta 3 and 4.  I love it.  Great controls.  My major disappointment is that it won't handle my very large images.  I do panoramics and mosaics.  I frequently have images as large as 8,000 x 20,000 pixels.  As best I can tell, LR doesn't display (or even import) images over 3,000 x 8,000 pixels.  I hope they fix this in the final production version, otherwise I am outa luck.

fike
Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5512


WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 13, 2006, 12:44:26 PM »
ReplyReply

The actual hard limit is 10,000 pixels in either direction. Remember, Lightroom in its core is designed for raw digital capture. Aside from some exotic scanning back pano cameras (Steve Johnson comes to mind) there really are no cameras that capture more than 10K.
Logged
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #2 on: October 13, 2006, 01:53:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The actual hard limit is 10,000 pixels in either direction. Remember, Lightroom in its core is designed for raw digital capture. Aside from some exotic scanning back pano cameras (Steve Johnson comes to mind) there really are no cameras that capture more than 10K.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80264\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yeah, I know, but there are alot of people doing pano stitches these days and they are left out in the cold.  Pity our poor spherical panoramic head carryin' selves.  

The 10,000 doesn't seem right.  On Beta 4 I was getting blank images at 3,000 x 8,000.

fike
Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5512


WWW
« Reply #3 on: October 13, 2006, 01:56:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The 10,000 doesn't seem right.  On Beta 4 I was getting blank images at 3,000 x 8,000.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80281\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


PSD or TIFF? PSD needs to be saved with max compatibility on...
Logged
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #4 on: October 13, 2006, 03:57:00 PM »
ReplyReply

PSD.  But I am not sure about the max compatability flag.  I will need to go back and check.  What is default?

fike
Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
fike
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1373


Hiker Photographer


WWW
« Reply #5 on: October 16, 2006, 07:50:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
PSD or TIFF? PSD needs to be saved with max compatibility on...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=80283\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I checked this weekend, and I have been leaving max compatibility on.  strange that I am getting blank images at 3,000 x 8,000 pixels.

fike
Logged

Fike, Trailpixie, or Marc Shaffer
marcshaffer.net
TrailPixie.net

I carry an M43 ILC, a couple of good lenses, and a tripod.
bob mccarthy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 372


WWW
« Reply #6 on: October 24, 2006, 08:59:32 AM »
ReplyReply

I was using LR for med format scans successfully, I ran into a brick wall with LF scanned at 2400 dpi. Any idea if this is going to be fixed?

Bob
Logged
Ian Lyons
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 127


« Reply #7 on: October 24, 2006, 01:24:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I was using LR for med format scans successfully, I ran into a brick wall with LF scanned at 2400 dpi. Any idea if this is going to be fixed?

Bob
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=81972\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


There is no fix for the 10,000 pixel limit, at least not this side of 64 bit OSs being the norm.
Logged

FredT
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31


« Reply #8 on: October 26, 2006, 12:39:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There is no fix for the 10,000 pixel limit, at least not this side of 64 bit OSs being the norm.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=82022\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
?  I don't understand.  Photoshop, Bridge, iView, GraphicConverter, etc. all handle much larger dimensions with ease.
Logged
shed
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 10, 2006, 04:59:38 PM »
ReplyReply

This is one of the reasons that I am now using Aperture instead of Lightroom. My DSLR files fall well short of the 10K limit, but MF scans and digital stitches don't, and I need to be able to include them in my software and archiving.

Major moot point at the moment.

ilyons, why would there be no fix for it until 64bit computing, Aperture can handle them already, so one would assume that Lightroom could and should be able to handle them.
Logged

Regards,

Andrew
Henrik Paul
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 87


WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 11, 2006, 04:53:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There is no fix for the 10,000 pixel limit, at least not this side of 64 bit OSs being the norm.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=82022\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

From a programmer's point of view, I really can't imagine why this would be true. I'm not really sure how the images are loaded and stored to the computer memory, but I've seen stranger things done with a computer. Sure, things might be a bit harder to program and some duct tape might be included, but it's not impossible to overcome these kinds of things.

I really hope that ilyons isn't an Adobe programmer, because "can't be done" is something I would not expect to hear from this kind of a company. Naturally I could be wrong, because, as said, I don't know how Lightroom is designed, but I would like to have a more detailed explanation.
Logged

You are welcome to look at my thoughts of and about photography at http://www.henrik.paul.fi/
markdfink
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


« Reply #11 on: July 12, 2007, 09:01:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Has there been a change in the maximum file size that Lightroom will handle with version 1.1? I also do a lot of panoramic photography and regularly create images MUCH larger than the 10,000 x 10,000 limit that version 1.0 had.

I realize that Lightroom is primarily for converting RAW files from the camera, but the other features make it equally good for maintaining a library of images post-production. This one lack of support for large images is what has kept me from buying Lightroom.

Thanks,

Mark
www.pinnacle-vr.com
www.northernlight.net
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5512


WWW
« Reply #12 on: July 12, 2007, 04:09:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Has there been a change in the maximum file size that Lightroom will handle with version 1.1? [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127798\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

nope. . .And I doubt it'll come in a dot release.
Logged
Christopher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 944


WWW
« Reply #13 on: July 12, 2007, 07:21:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
nope. . .And I doubt it'll come in a dot release.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127893\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's just sad.
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad