Re: [PanoToolsNG] Re: >2gb images?
- On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Zoran Zorkic <zomba@...> wrote:
>Sorry I wasn't more clear - I don't remember the TIFF options that
> >--Original Message Text---
> >From: Roger Howard
> >Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 15:34:20 -0800
> >On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 2:44 PM, bohonus <bradford@...<bradford%40vrseattle.com>>
> >> --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com <PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com><PanoToolsNG%
> 40yahoogroups.com>, "Zoran
> >> Zorkic" <zomba@...> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I finally got to make >1gp stitched images, but I'm at loss how to
> >> them in Photoshop?
> >> > The final image is under 4gb.
> >> > 3.6gb 24000x44000 16bpc 3 channel tiff
> >Photoshop CS4 here opens 3+GB TIFFs fine, though many apps can't.
> Not here, and not for some other people.
make/break this support, but Photoshop can generate TIFFs up to 4GB and will
read those; but it can't read *all* 2-4GB TIFFs. I'm not sure if this is
related to the compression method, tiling vs strips, planar vs. interleaved
samples, or what.
> >Do you really have 16 bits worth of useful data in those tiles? If not,How about the strips vs. tiles? try using the -s and -t options.
> >on memory and storage and drop them down to 8bit per channel.
> At the moment it's only ~12 bits, but I hope to work out the kinks in my
> workflow and do HDR later.
> >Is the TIFF compressed? If not, try compressing using deflate/ZIP - that's
> >pretty good for 16 bit data and may well help Photoshop open the file by
> >bringing it down under 2GB, where some of the mysteries seem to stop
> >(Photoshop seems to have no problem with <2GB TIFFs, but seems to have
> >problems with SOME TIFFs that are 2 to 4GB).
> It's compressed already, uncompressed comes to 5.9gb.
> >IIRC, some large TIFFs are not openable in Photoshop for some reason - do
> >you have tiffinfo installed? It's part of tifflib. If you have tifflib,
> >might also try using tiffcp to convert the TIFF to another flavor.
> Yeah tried that one first, thinking I didn't compressed it by error. Tried
> other compression options, all yeild the same result :/
>Or you could use Photoshop tiling as I mentioned before and just skip rightI'll certanely look into Photoshop scripting, but I'm not sure how well
>past this all :)
> it'll scale.Well if your goal is to get the file into Photoshop anyway, I'm not sure why
> Sure, up to 2 gp feasible, but more, I doubt it, unless I threw ungodly
> amount of ram at it :D
you wouldn't just do it directly in Photoshop - it greatly simplifies the
workflow with large files. Photoshop scaling is well known - run it on a 64
bit system with lots of main memory, put a fast volume as scratch. Granted,
opening and merging in throusands of tiles wont be as fast as with more
dedicated apps, but ultimately you're hitting a wall with your workflow that
you wouldn't if you did it directly in PS. So do you want fast and not
working, or somewhat slower and working?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]