Size does matter, but seems to be limited

[Leen Koper]

I consider myself to be extremely priviliged to be able to produce images and make a living of it!
I feel even more priviliged now, as yesterday I bought myself a topquality monitor AND an Epson 7600 large format printer. Now I can hardly wait for the day of installation.

However, now I will be able to print 24 inches wide, somebody told me Elements cannot handle images over 2.50 meters (equivalent to a little over 8 ft.) long. I couldnot find anything abou this in my manual.
I did enjoy myself in advance to print a wedding image with a length of 3 meters (10ft) for display in the window of my high street studio. Of course I could reduce the size to 2.50 x 0.50 meters and it will still look extremely impressive.

Is this true and if so, why?

Leen

[Peter Duniho]

"Leen Koper" <leenkoper@zeelandnet.nl> wrote in message
news:2ccd5f74.-1@webx.la2eafNXanI...

> However, now I will be able to print 24 inches wide,
> somebody told me Elements cannot handle images over
> 2.50 meters (equivalent to a little over 8 ft.) long. [...]
>
> Is this true and if so, why?

I don't know the specific limitations of Elements or that printer. However,
it is generally true that there will be *some* maximum size. The reason is
that computers use finite ranges of numbers to draw things. The exact range
will depend on how many bits are used to identify each pixel uniquely, and
the resolution of the output device.

More bits allows for larger images (typical sizes would be 16 bits, 32 bits,
or 64 bits), while higher resolution actually results in smaller images,
since the same maximum number of pixels takes less physical space. I
wouldn't expect Elements to have a limit on the physical size of the image,
but rather the number of pixels. The actual physical size limit would
depend on the resolution being used to print. That said, I don't have any
idea what the actual limitations of Elements are.

I doubt anyone would notice if you printed out two 1.5 meter banners and
hung them together, rather than doing a full 3 meters all at once. But if
you really wanted to try for a full 3 meters (rather than reducing down to
2.5 meters long), it's possible printing at a lower resolution would allow
for a longer banner.

Congratulations on the new printer. And here I was thinking my new Epson
2200 was neat. :)

Pete

[Jodi Frye]

Leen, thought I posted this but it disappeared...in my PE1 help file;

Photoshop Elements supports a maximum file size of 2 GB and maximum pixel dimensions of 30,000 by 30,000 pixels per image. This restriction places limits on the print size and resolution available to an image.

So, you got plenty

[Chuck Snyder]

Just in case someone thinks that we Elements folks are getting a bad deal on
the max file size and pixel dimensions....the same limits apply to big
sibling Photoshop 7.

)

Chuck

[Barbara Brundage]

Chuck, do you know for sure if it's the same in Photoshop 6/PE1 as Photoshop 7/PE 2? I'm guessing it probably is, but I was wondering if there had been any changes between the two.

[Peter Duniho]

"Jodi Frye" <lwsfrye@mybizz.net> wrote in message
news:2ccd5f74.1@webx.la2eafNXanI...

> Photoshop Elements supports a maximum file size of 2 GB
> and maximum pixel dimensions of 30,000 by 30,000 pixels
> per image.

Only 30,000 pixels on a side? I'm surprised it's so few. That sounds
large, but when you're talking large-format printers, it's not that much at
all. For a printer with a 2880 dots-per-inch resolution, that's less than
11 inches. Of course, scaling should get you larger, but still...that's not
as many pixels as it sounds like. :)

Pete

[Beth Haney]

But if it's a 30,000 pixel per side per image maximum, that'll get a 100 inch X 100 inch print at 300ppi. That's over 8 feet square!

[Byron Gale]

"Peter Duniho" <NpOeStPeAdM@NnOwSlPiAnMk.com> wrote in message
news:313F54C855586ABEFFF23C255810F270@in.webx.la2e afNXanI...

>
> Only 30,000 pixels on a side? I'm surprised it's so few. That sounds
> large, but when you're talking large-format printers, it's not that much

at

> all. For a printer with a 2880 dots-per-inch resolution, that's less than
> 11 inches. Of course, scaling should get you larger, but still...that's

not

> as many pixels as it sounds like. :)
>
> Pete

Pete,

It takes more than one printer dot to create an image pixel... at least,
that's how I've understood similar discussions in the past.

Stand by momentarily until smart people come along to answer more fully.

Byron

[Beth Haney]

I don't claim to be one of the "smart people", as you put it Byron, but I've had the same understanding for a while, too.

[Chuck Snyder]

Barbara, re max size in PE1/PS6, I believe that's what Jodi was citing in her answer to Leen's original post. I just checked in PE1, and it's the same; don't have PS6, but would opine that it's in the same boat.

Chuck

[Beth Haney]

Jodi has PS 6.0, so maybe she can verify Chuck's answer. Given that PS 6 and PSE 1 are "twins" and PS 7 and PSE 2 are, too, his answer sure makes sense.

[Barbara Brundage]

Hi, Chuck. Sorry I wasn't clearer. I meant does anyone know for sure if those are the same limits for the newer versions (PE2/PS7).

[Chuck Snyder]

Barbara, yes, those I checked myself - same limits on PE2/PS7.

[Barbara Brundage]

Thanks, Chuck!

[Jodi Frye]

For anyone wondering, PS6 >same help page as PE1, same limits

[Peter Duniho]

"Byron Gale" <hey-m0e_delete_everything_after_0e@comcast.net> wrote in
message news:FF2D3D996329DB578123C894EEDEF3F3@in.webx.la2e afNXanI...

> It takes more than one printer dot to create an image pixel... at least,
> that's how I've understood similar discussions in the past.

Well, it does and it doesn't. We've just had a couple of threads in which
people have written statements that agree with what I've written, and at the
same time have said that they disagree with me. So I'm not really
interested in starting that all over again.

However, the basic point is the same, regardless. No matter how many
printer dots you think it takes to create an image pixel, 30,000 image
pixels just isn't that big. Not when you are printing banner-sized images.
Even if you're only printing 3000 pixels lengthwise per 8.5"x11"page (image
resolution of less than 300 dpi), you only get 110 inches (just over 9 feet)
doing that.

That sounds like a lot, but for someone (like Leen) who's purchased a
large-format printer, that's hardly worth the trouble. Depending on where
exactly the limitation is implemented, one could lower the resolution of the
printout but again, why bother getting a high-resolution large-format
printer in that case? Pretty soon, you might as well be printing on a 15
year old, pin-feed dot-matrix printer. I've got an old ImageWriter II color
printer that can do 144 dpi just fine.

Most users will never run into this limitation. For those that do, it will
seem rather arbitrary and out-dated.

Pete

[Juergen D]

An image that large is to be viewed from a certain distance. I don't
believe you need to be anywhere near 300 dpi. That should give some
maneuvering room.

Juergen

[W Bobrowski]

You may need to consider rasterizing the output to the printer, rather than increasing the size of your original image. Try RasterPlus from GraphX <http://www.graphx.com/products/rasterplus_win_500.asp>?

Best regards,
Walt

[Jodi Frye]

Leen, please come back and tell us what you were capable of doing with Elements and your new printer. Details would be appreciated ( resolution, image size etc...) This is of interest to me.

[Richard Coencas]

At 240ppi, which is suffcient for just about any printer, using the rule of thumb of 2xlpi, yoiu can get over 10' x 10'. If you want to go larger than that I might suggest looking into Illustrator.