Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Print size limits  (Read 9995 times)
kirmo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31


« on: August 17, 2009, 02:52:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Need to print a picture about 44" x 360" (in my world it's 111,8 cm x 930,0 cm).

I have a Mac with latest Os with 8G RAM and plenty of disk space.
Printer is Epson 9900.

Tried straight from LR with resolution 240 and did not work.
All seemed ok, spooled and send the file to printer, but then the printer just
outputed the paper with no printing!

I made test print: with a bit smaller filesize and resolution 120,   print size 71 cm x 600 cm
print came out with no problems.

I'll try tomorrow to make a bigger print.

Any known limits? Or what to check?
I have also CS4 and could print from it also - I just like LR more for printing than CS4.

Kirmo
« Last Edit: August 17, 2009, 02:56:55 PM by kirmo » Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5479


WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 17, 2009, 04:13:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: kirmo
Need to print a picture about 44" x 360" (in my world it's 111,8 cm x 930,0 cm).


Then you're gonna need a RIP cause the largest length the Mac driver supports is about 95". Has nothing to do with Lightroom nor CS4, it's a driver limitation. Most 3rd party rips can go well beyond that though...
Logged
kirmo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31


« Reply #2 on: August 17, 2009, 10:57:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Schewe
Then you're gonna need a RIP cause the largest length the Mac driver supports is about 95". Has nothing to do with Lightroom nor CS4, it's a driver limitation. Most 3rd party rips can go well beyond that though...

Thanks Jeff,  if so ... but I just printed from LR an 27" x 228". Itīs on cheap paper as I'm testing for the limits.
Looks ok and no problems informed by LR/OS or printer.

Kirmo

Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2847



WWW
« Reply #3 on: August 18, 2009, 02:36:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: kirmo
Thanks Jeff,  if so ... but I just printed from LR an 27" x 228". Itīs on cheap paper as I'm testing for the limits.
Looks ok and no problems informed by LR/OS or printer.

Kirmo


mmm, wonder how that happened.  Here's the official word from Epsons site ...

Q:
What is the maximum page length for the printer?
A:
The maximum printable page length is 90.5 inches when using the Epson printer driver. This may vary depending on the application, operating system, and driver/RIP being used. Using a RIP may allow you to exceed this limit as well.

I know I've tried a couple of times a while back to go over a hundred inches with no luck.

So you were printing with OS X 10.5.8? Which version of the Epson driver?
Logged

kirmo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31


« Reply #4 on: August 18, 2009, 05:09:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Wayne Fox
mmm, wonder how that happened.  Here's the official word from Epsons site ...

Q:
What is the maximum page length for the printer?
A:
The maximum printable page length is 90.5 inches when using the Epson printer driver. This may vary depending on the application, operating system, and driver/RIP being used. Using a RIP may allow you to exceed this limit as well.

I know I've tried a couple of times a while back to go over a hundred inches with no luck.

So you were printing with OS X 10.5.8? Which version of the Epson driver?

I have MacOsX 10.5.2 with 8G RAM
I print from LR 2.4
Epson 9900 with version HW02995,1.12,A000

For the file: the pixel size 5282 x 43176 with resolution 120. This I manged to print.

The printer data of the output tells:
 - print time 1:22 (one hour 22 minutes)
 - total ink consumption 66.5 ml
 - paper size 64297 cm2 (just cheap paper for testing purpose)

I just hang the picture on the wall, it's a full print of the image.

I'll try with a bit higher resolution like 180 and also I'd like to get
a bit bigger one - hight to full 44" which brings the length to 360".

I'm guesing it's more a issue on the file size, not a length issue.
The limit can be in any of the mentioned softaware - where is the first one?

Kirmo

ps. My Mac here is not in the internet and I'm using very slow gprs-connection
for internet with laptop. Email and very, very slow web browsing only.
Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2847


« Reply #5 on: August 18, 2009, 05:36:06 AM »
ReplyReply

There is also the Tiles Stitching method if you can print from Illustrator or CorelDraw. A similar method is used in Qimage to get beyond the driver's print length limit but with Qimage you have to find a Windows solution if you are on a Mac.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
Logged
kirmo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31


« Reply #6 on: August 18, 2009, 06:17:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ernst Dinkla
There is also the Tiles Stitching method if you can print from Illustrator or CorelDraw. A similar method is used in Qimage to get beyond the driver's print length limit but with Qimage you have to find a Windows solution if you are on a Mac.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/


Ernst, thanks, but I'll just use what I already have.
I'm close enough with current set.

With output size 42" x 314": resolution 100 prints wrongly but 80 gives right output (I printed just a small section)
Now I'll go for the full size 44" to find the limits.

The file for printing is 870MB. It's stitched in CS3 from several shots (Svalbard last summer).


Kirmo

Logged
kirmo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31


« Reply #7 on: August 18, 2009, 09:42:36 AM »
ReplyReply

I did not manage to make the big print. But this is enough
for this time. Maybe someone will update this info.

I tried 44" x 366" with resolution 80 printed halfway and then
computer freezed. Most likely run out of memory. Also
the output was not what I was hoping.

So I made the final print 28" x 225" (71cm x 571cm)
resolution 100 and paper was Epson Premium Luster Photo Paper (260)

Total print time 1:20
ink consumtion 64.6 ml

Printed from LR 2.4

Local  expert (Finland) told me that the limits are somewhere around 5-6 meters
without RIP's. My next prints will be much smaller, but new type of material Tecco
TBW150 textile banner - again a new challenge!

 Kirmo

kirmo.wilen@valolla.fi
Logged
gcs
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 21



WWW
« Reply #8 on: August 18, 2009, 10:09:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: kirmo
I did not manage to make the big print. But this is enough
for this time. Maybe someone will update this info.

I tried 44" x 366" with resolution 80 printed halfway and then
computer freezed. Most likely run out of memory. Also
the output was not what I was hoping.

So I made the final print 28" x 225" (71cm x 571cm)
resolution 100 and paper was Epson Premium Luster Photo Paper (260)

Total print time 1:20
ink consumtion 64.6 ml

Printed from LR 2.4

Local  expert (Finland) told me that the limits are somewhere around 5-6 meters
without RIP's. My next prints will be much smaller, but new type of material Tecco
TBW150 textile banner - again a new challenge!

 Kirmo

kirmo.wilen@valolla.fi

Kirmo,

why dont you create a file the size you want to print, with just 4 black dots (50 pixels size) at each corner of the print and leave the rest blank, you will not waist ink, the file size should be smaller.

If it prints, then the problem is the spooler file size and not the length restrictions.

Gonzalo
Logged

Gonzalo Contreras del Solar
Photography of Water

http://www.tacomal.com
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2847


« Reply #9 on: August 18, 2009, 10:36:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: gcs
Kirmo,

why dont you create a file the size you want to print, with just 4 black dots (50 pixels size) at each corner of the print and leave the rest blank, you will not waist ink, the file size should be smaller.

If it prints, then the problem is the spooler file size and not the length restrictions.

Gonzalo

You still waste paper that way. To test lengths in real printing I made an endless loop of cheap paper and an image file with numbers per 50 cm. It is easy to see at what length the print strands then. A bit tricky at the point where you have to tape both ends though, it has to be straight.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Dinkla Gallery Canvas Wrap Actions for Photoshop
http://www.pigment-print.com/dinklacanvaswraps/index.html




Logged
pleverington
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


« Reply #10 on: August 18, 2009, 04:56:51 PM »
ReplyReply

I went through this and found illustrator to be the answer. I was not however printing a 30 foot long print. When you tile your image in illustrator, it breaks the large image down to what essentially would be many smaller, spool managable, individual images. You never spool a large image then, so theorectically any size picture is printable( limit being your computer then I suppose). The one thing you must find and check is the "save paper" button. This will tell the printer to immediately print the next spooled image(actually the next section of your large monstrosity) without so much as a pixel of gap between the images. Voila! One long butt print. It's not necessary at all to tile either with large sizes tiles--in fact a hundred small ones might be better as you'll see after a few inches if your tiling set up is working as planned and if not--you can stop the printing and not waste more media. The 9900 I now have might have this capabilty built into the driver as I saw the save paper button and optimise enlargment check box--but I could be mistaken as I have yet to take the time to investigate.

The limit on print length is 90.5 inches and is not pixel based, it's inches based. And the limit is from photoshop-not the print driver. This might be why you have been able to print using lightroom. What your probably seeing now is a file size limitation totally bogging down the system. If you learn to tile then all the printer and ps will know is that your asking them to print a bunch of small, very managable pictures in a row--which they can handle forever no problem. Illustrator is probably a lot cheaper than a good RIP. I have zero knowledge on using Q-image to do this so maybe thats something you might want to check out.

Paul
« Last Edit: August 18, 2009, 05:17:58 PM by pleverington » Logged
pleverington
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


« Reply #11 on: August 18, 2009, 05:16:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Kirmo--

This post got me checking and indeed you can tile using the 9900 driver just as you would in illustrator. Pages 114-115 in the manual explain it For Mac 10.4. You will need to check the "roll paper banner" button and the "save roll paper" button just as you would in illustrator. Looks like your all good to go with what you got. I also have a 9900 and am very curious what the outcome for you will be. Good luck and let us know how you make out.

Paul
« Last Edit: August 18, 2009, 05:19:32 PM by pleverington » Logged
Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1630


WWW
« Reply #12 on: August 19, 2009, 08:11:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pleverington
The limit on print length is 90.5 inches and is not pixel based, it's inches based. And the limit is from photoshop-not the print driver.

Sorry, this is wrong.

CS3 and earlier had what was referred to as the 30,000 pixel limit.  It's slightly more than that (it's to do with 16bit limitations).  So the limit in that sense is from Photoshop, but it's due to the pixels and not the length.  One factor from the driver, though, is that the driver typically reports back the rastered pixel count (not quite, but close enough) which can exceed the original because if you send a job through at 240ppi it gets reported back at 360ppi and thus can break the limit.  In the Epson driver, the option under Windows for "course rendering" removes the situation where the driver reports this back and causes a failed print.

CS4 removed that limit, changing it to at least 300,000 pixels.
Logged

pleverington
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


« Reply #13 on: August 19, 2009, 01:05:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Phil--What you are saying is also what I thought until I talked to epson support and the person I talked to made it real clear there was a 90.5 inches as far as the limit and that was it. I pretty much verified this when I was printing a very long panorama for the first time and if I remember right --at 360 pixels per inch--but it might have been 300, and the printer just stopped printing before the intended 96 inches happened. Ok I thought it has to be that total pixels limit thing and I just ran out on the 30,000 limit. I had no knowledge of the 90.5 inch limit at the time. So I measured what I did get printed and sure enough ---90.5 inches. So naturally I thought well lets go with 240 pixels per inch on the next try, thereby using less pixels, and then I would get my 96 inch print. You know what I got? 90.5 inches. So like the stubborn guy that I can be, I thought well lets try 180 pixels per inch. Surely that would be well under the 30,000 limit and would print the 96 inches. Know what I got? 90.5 inches. Now on my calculator 30,000 divded by 180 should have given me a 166 inch print capability. I should have easily been able to print 96 inches if that were the only limiting factor.

And if the argument be made that it's the 30,000 pixel limit at printer native resolution which is 360 pixels for epson, rastered as you say from no matter what you send it, 30,000 divided by 360 is 83.33 inches. By that argument all one should be able to print is that--but you can get 90.5 inches--a little over seven inches more.  It was then I called support and found out 90.5 inches was the limit and I really also found it hard to believe the wheel chock was a PHOTOSHOP limit. They also walked me through iullustrator using tiles to get my print--which worked flawlessly by the way. So I believe I am correct in my statements Phil--which is not to say your not correct about a 30,000 pixel limit--it's just that this limit is a separate and concurrent limit to the printable length max of 90.5 inches. (By the way, technically this 90.5 in CS3 is called the page size limit.)This also explains why Kirmo could get more print from lightroom and not from photoshop on the same printer and image. Lightroom evidently has a different page size limit on the length. Each and every individual program has it's own page size limit.

Thats my story and I'm stickin too it!   For now anyways.

Yes --CS3 is what I was using and still am, I should already be on CS4 but I'm not. My bad.

Paul
« Last Edit: August 19, 2009, 01:59:41 PM by pleverington » Logged
dct123
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126


WWW
« Reply #14 on: August 19, 2009, 05:45:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Okay, let's really stir up some s**t here...I've printed 24"x144"+ from InDesign and Qimage to a Z3100ps where the Printer Driver Dialogue box stated that the maximum length was 129".  This same dialogue box appears in every application with the same info. So, i guess the application trumps the driver?
Logged
pleverington
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


« Reply #15 on: August 19, 2009, 06:59:07 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't know. I only know about what i'm using--epson drivers and photoshop--and thats the story with them. And according to epson support the page length the epson driver can print out is dependent on the application used with it. My experience pretty much backs that up. Other drivers and programs I couldn't comment on with any certainty..

Paul
Logged
gcs
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 21



WWW
« Reply #16 on: August 19, 2009, 07:28:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pleverington
I went through this and found illustrator to be the answer. I was not however printing a 30 foot long print. When you tile your image in illustrator, it breaks the large image down to what essentially would be many smaller, spool managable, individual images. You never spool a large image then, so theorectically any size picture is printable( limit being your computer then I suppose). The one thing you must find and check is the "save paper" button. This will tell the printer to immediately print the next spooled image(actually the next section of your large monstrosity) without so much as a pixel of gap between the images. Voila! One long butt print. It's not necessary at all to tile either with large sizes tiles--in fact a hundred small ones might be better as you'll see after a few inches if your tiling set up is working as planned and if not--you can stop the printing and not waste more media. The 9900 I now have might have this capabilty built into the driver as I saw the save paper button and optimise enlargment check box--but I could be mistaken as I have yet to take the time to investigate.

The limit on print length is 90.5 inches and is not pixel based, it's inches based. And the limit is from photoshop-not the print driver. This might be why you have been able to print using lightroom. What your probably seeing now is a file size limitation totally bogging down the system. If you learn to tile then all the printer and ps will know is that your asking them to print a bunch of small, very managable pictures in a row--which they can handle forever no problem. Illustrator is probably a lot cheaper than a good RIP. I have zero knowledge on using Q-image to do this so maybe thats something you might want to check out.

Paul

Paul,

Using the save paper option, and CS4 to cut the image, say in 3 parts, when printed (with no borders at 100%) you would have a seamless image?

Gonzalo
Logged

Gonzalo Contreras del Solar
Photography of Water

http://www.tacomal.com
Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1630


WWW
« Reply #17 on: August 19, 2009, 08:17:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pleverington
Phil--What you are saying is also what I thought until I talked to epson support and the person I talked to made it real clear there was a 90.5 inches as far as the limit and that was it. I pretty much verified this when I was printing a very long panorama for the first time and if I remember right --at 360 pixels per inch--but it might have been 300, and the printer just stopped printing before the intended 96 inches happened. Ok I thought it has to be that total pixels limit thing and I just ran out on the 30,000 limit. I had no knowledge of the 90.5 inch limit at the time. So I measured what I did get printed and sure enough ---90.5 inches. So naturally I thought well lets go with 240 pixels per inch on the next try, thereby using less pixels, and then I would get my 96 inch print. You know what I got? 90.5 inches. So like the stubborn guy that I can be, I thought well lets try 180 pixels per inch. Surely that would be well under the 30,000 limit and would print the 96 inches. Know what I got? 90.5 inches. Now on my calculator 30,000 divded by 180 should have given me a 166 inch print capability. I should have easily been able to print 96 inches if that were the only limiting factor.

And if the argument be made that it's the 30,000 pixel limit at printer native resolution which is 360 pixels for epson, rastered as you say from no matter what you send it, 30,000 divided by 360 is 83.33 inches. By that argument all one should be able to print is that--but you can get 90.5 inches--a little over seven inches more.  It was then I called support and found out 90.5 inches was the limit and I really also found it hard to believe the wheel chock was a PHOTOSHOP limit. They also walked me through iullustrator using tiles to get my print--which worked flawlessly by the way. So I believe I am correct in my statements Phil--which is not to say your not correct about a 30,000 pixel limit--it's just that this limit is a separate and concurrent limit to the printable length max of 90.5 inches. (By the way, technically this 90.5 in CS3 is called the page size limit.)This also explains why Kirmo could get more print from lightroom and not from photoshop on the same printer and image. Lightroom evidently has a different page size limit on the length. Each and every individual program has it's own page size limit.

Thats my story and I'm stickin too it!   For now anyways.

Yes --CS3 is what I was using and still am, I should already be on CS4 but I'm not. My bad.

Paul

Unfortunately, you didn't get the whole story which is not your fault (though Epson tech support should be better informed).

It's called 30,000 pixel limit, but it's actually closer to 33,000 in round numbers, and if you divide it by 360 you'll get your 90.5 inches.  The problem is (was, since it's fixed in CS4) PS.  It's to do with 16bit limitations at the time the printing code was originally written.

If you use CS4, you won't have this issue (it's been tested by me at 300,000 pixels and was stable, for example, and many other people of course), and LR also doesn't have this limitation.

I don't mind if you believe me or not - I'm just presenting the facts and I understand that I do so without presenting any credentials, but I prefer the psuedo-anonymity.
Logged

pleverington
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


« Reply #18 on: August 20, 2009, 07:10:24 AM »
ReplyReply

I believe you Phil. That actually makes perfect sense now to complete the puzzle. At 33,000 or close to that no. you would wind up with the 90.5(roughly). So what I was thinking that were two separate limitations because of the two seemingly different values, are really one and the same. Makes perfect sense. What I really need to do is get going with CS4, just been busy now using the computer and printer and didn't want to have to involve myself with a learning ordeal at this time.

Gonzalo--

I'm not sure at all if you "cut" your image in CS4 what that would yield. You might want to explain that a bit more. Again I'm still on CS3 so I might not have some answers for you. What I do know is that in illustrator and now with the new drivers that came with my epson 9900, you can "tile" your large picture into a series of smaller pictures which will then print consecutively on a long roll of paper. If you DO NOT check the save roll paper button there will be spaces between each of those pictures on that roll. Save roll paper will start the next picture seamlessly where the previous one left off. You might test whatever you are thinking with CS4 by breaking down a large image into 5 inch sections, and hitting save roll paper, and see what you get. If it doesnt work you haven't wasted much. I'm thinking the fact that your margins are always there on the top and bottom, even though you can print borderless on the sides, would prevent you from doing a seamless long print straight out of CS4. Please do let us know of anything you discover. I hope to be on CS4 this weekend so maybe then I can be more helpful then.

Paul
« Last Edit: August 20, 2009, 07:47:49 AM by pleverington » Logged
gcs
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 21



WWW
« Reply #19 on: August 20, 2009, 08:18:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pleverington
I believe you Phil. That actually makes perfect sense now to complete the puzzle. At 33,000 or close to that no. you would wind up with the 90.5(roughly). So what I was thinking that were two separate limitations because of the two seemingly different values, are really one and the same. Makes perfect sense. What I really need to do is get going with CS4, just been busy now using the computer and printer and didn't want to have to involve myself with a learning ordeal at this time.

Gonzalo--

I'm not sure at all if you "cut" your image in CS4 what that would yield. You might want to explain that a bit more. Again I'm still on CS3 so I might not have some answers for you. What I do know is that in illustrator and now with the new drivers that came with my epson 9900, you can "tile" your large picture into a series of smaller pictures which will then print consecutively on a long roll of paper. If you DO NOT check the save roll paper button there will be spaces between each of those pictures on that roll. Save roll paper will start the next picture seamlessly where the previous one left off. You might test whatever you are thinking with CS4 by breaking down a large image into 5 inch sections, and hitting save roll paper, and see what you get. If it doesnt work you haven't wasted much. I'm thinking the fact that your margins are always there on the top and bottom, even though you can print borderless on the sides, would prevent you from doing a seamless long print straight out of CS4. Please do let us know of anything you discover. I hope to be on CS4 this weekend so maybe then I can be more helpful then.

Paul

Thank you Paul,

Regarding cutting the image in CS4, which I also did in CS2, with an image of 360x120 cm, I divided it into 3 of 120x120, they were printed on a Lambda and mounted in 3 separate foam boards, as I could not find in Barcelona a foam of 360cm in length.

I will be testing next week a 7900 with the a color spectroproofer, so I will also try the save paper option on a smaller tiles.

Gonzalo
Logged

Gonzalo Contreras del Solar
Photography of Water

http://www.tacomal.com
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad