1.6 gigabyte TIFF in photoshop CS5: possible or not?

[dirk_dom1]

<p>Hi!<br />I'm going to make a 8 foot by 2 3/4 foot print of a 6x 17 black and white neg. The neg is going to be drum scanned at 5.000 DPI which yields a 1.6 GB 16 bit TIF.<br />I have a computer with 3 GB RAM.<br />I need to do some burning and dodging on this image in Photoshop CS5.<br />Will my computer be able to handle this?<br />Would an 8 bit TIF yield sufficient quality?<br />Thank you,</p>

<p>Dirk.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[Craig_Cooper11664875449]

<p>Dirk,</p>

<p>Depends on what your computer is but either way its going to be taxing. Something I used to do with 6x7 4000 dpi scans on my previous computer was:<br>

1) ensure your pixel dimensions are in even numbers<br>

2) set your white and black points; maybe a little global contrast<br>

3) save this file separately<br>

4) resize a copy to 50% (which is a 75% reduction in area)<br>

5) do all your work on layers<br>

6) when finished, increase the size to 200%<br>

7) Select the lowest layer (background)<br>

8) reopen the previously saved version<br>

9) drag the original image to the layered version (must be just above background)<br>

10) flatten the image<br>

This allows you to work on a much smaller image - as long as you're not doing pixel work - much faster without losing image quality through scaling.</p>

[igord]

<p>I worked with 1.2 giga scans on the much weaker computer.</p>

[ljwest]

<p>RAM will be tight, but Photoshop has always been a master at handling files far larger than available RAM. Make sure that your scratch disk space (Photoshop preferences/options) is sufficiently large (maybe 2x the file size?), and preferably on a different physical disk than you boot and run PS from. That'll help avoid conflicts between your OS's virtual memory and PS's (aka scratch disk) which will slow things down.</p>

[richsimmons]

<p>What Craig and Larry said, plus don't have any unnecessary programs open that will eat up your RAM. And yes, I think an 8 bit photo would work. I've done what Craig says and it works pretty well. </p>

[peter_weimann1]

<p>The limit will be the max pixel of 30.000 on the longest side in tif and jpg format. You have to save it in the photoshop own large file format to work on it if it is that big and then go back to tif.<br>

Good luck<br>

Peter</p>

[eric merrill]

<p>I just tried creating a canvas in CS5. 30,000 is the longest side, which is 5 ft at 5000 dpi. Then, it wouldn't actually let me finish because it said my scratch disk was full. :)</p>

<p>At 5 ft by 33 inches, the resulting file is 138.3 gig at 8 bit.</p>

[MathewDH]

<p>In Windows 7 with CS5 I have routinely made panoramas that are about 30" x 96" and some have exceeded this length. resulting in the 30,000 pixel length warning. The warning though is about the final image not being viewable on all softwares. It can still be created in the format you choose and also be printed.</p>

<p>The scratch disc issue has to do with the memory needs when the stitching is processing. If you exceed the file memory cap or the disk space on the computer for temporary storage during the processing, then the processing cannot be finished and the file saved. I had these problems with my old Windows 98 computer. The file memory cap was about 1.1 gigs. Stitching five 18 meg tiffs could sometimes hit the file size cap during processing and the project could not be completed. So in 2010 I bought a powerful quadcore with lots of memory and disc drives. Then I went back to the old files and stitched them together. Brute power and file space will make everything possible and faster.</p>

<p>CHEERS...Mathew</p>

 

[ellis_vener_photography]

Try using the PSB format instead of TIFF.

[yuri_yupiter3]

<p>The first Photoshop version that allowed above 30,000 pixels was Photoshop CS and it became 300,000 pixels. Version 8 ie CS came out about 9 years ago in 2003. CS in 2003 and Beta CS in 2002 can make a TIFF larger than 2 gigs.</p>

<p>You can use an undersized computer for a file but you need a coffee break.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>From the numbers you quote it looks like you're having the scan made in RGB. Isn't a 617 film scanned 16 bit at 5000ppi rather more than 2GB, rather than 1.6GB?</p>

<p>But you should consider whether you really need all those pixels. For a print that size, a file of 200ppi would give as good a print as you'd want if you're printing on a RA-4 (digital C type) machine such as a Lightjet or a Chromira. That means a file of c.760MB (16bit) and a scan file at 3000ppi would be ample. Quick check- you need a linear enlargement of under 15x to make a 96" print from a 6.6" piece of film. 3000ppi scan and 200ppi output is 15x. For an inkjet print I might opt to use a file of 240ppi but even that requires a scan of "only" 3600ppi and a 16bit editing file of about 1.15GB. </p>

<p>I would want to edit in 16bit before converting to 8 bit for printing.</p>

<p>I don't want to minimise the task of processing files of these very large sizes, but you'll have a much greater chance of getting the job done with these file sizes than with a file in excess of 2GB. It may be that the best way to achieve files of these sizes is to scan at max resolution (assume this is 5000ppi) and for the scan lab to reduce the size to your brief. </p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>+1 to David's response of questioning whether 5K ppi is <em>really</em> necessary or even feasible. Most of the so-called hi-res drum scans I've seen don't actually contain any useable detail beyond around 3000 ppi. Also +1 to questioning how the scan gets to be over 1 gig in size? A 16 bit greyscale scan of a 6*17cm neg, even at 5000 ppi, shouldn't come to more than 750MB.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Rodeo Joe- I fretted a bit about the file size too, but concluded that he must be getting the scan done RGB. Frankly I'd rather edit in RGB anyway and the labs I use to print b&w want sRGB files anyway, so I guess I came to understand the approximate filesize; though I still think the OP is undercalling the size of a 5000ppi scan. Anyway, lets see what he thinks.</p>

[greg_campbell1]

<p>I suspect your computer (either the OS or PS) will be hammering their swap file(s?) almost immediately.<br>

Transferring your OS and a few apps to a shiny new SSD would help greatly. One of the SSD cache-drive setups would work just as well. Either option can be had for well under $100.</p>