post with large files

[jamesklowe]

I've come to a bit of a hault when editing one of my photos..

Overall i've got 8 x 5x4 scans off an imacon at 16bit which are roughly 1.8gb each. and i need to compose them together but the computer i'm working on doesn't handle it. i'm working on a mac g5 2.8ghz/3gb ram

so far i've cropped the files to the necessary parts rounding them down between 800mb-300mb each (2 of each at 800mb, 600mb, 400mb, 300 etc. in total about 5gb worth). except the computer still isn't handling it- either freezes or crashes when i get to the last 2 files.

i tried to look up if i could work proxy off photoshop but no luck (if anyone knows if this is possible?). but i also figure i can do adjustment layers/grading etc. off a flattened jpeg version then move the masks back over to the original at the end to save time.

can anyone recommend anything? or what kind of system i might need to be able to run all this at once?

[J. Gilbert Plantinga]

I'm a little confused. How did you come up with 1.8 GB files from 4x5 with the Imacon - my 949 tops out at a little over 400 MB @ 2040 ppi. So are you adding layers to the individual files before stitching them?

[Joanna Carter]

Overall i've got 8 x 5x4 scans off an imacon at 16bit which are roughly 1.8gb each. and i need to compose them together but the computer i'm working on doesn't handle it. i'm working on a mac g5 2.8ghz/3gb ram

Think about it a moment:

8 x 1.8GB = 14.4GB. And you are trying to work in 3GB of memory? Even if you allow for paging files, that is going to be awfully slow as the processor has to keep swapping memory to and from disk.

As Gilbert says, those are very large files for a 4x5 scan; 500MB is much more likely but you will either have to delay any adjustment layers until after the stitching or flatten the layers in any files that need adjustment before stitching.

[jamesklowe]

hm let me try this again,

i've taken a photograph in 8 sections.
each section will be a combination of 2 photographs. making it a total of 16 photographs in total.

16 5x4 scans at 2040ppi, 200% at 16bit = 1.8gb each.
in total roughly 29gb

i've then cropped those 16 scans down to the essential parts i need. (its a whole lot of cars and people and i've photographed them in rows. the cameras haven't moved. only the cars. so they only take up a portion of the frame)

the closest cars in the frame are the largest files at around 800mb. and there are 2 of them. the next 2 are smaller, then next 2 are smaller than taht and the last are around 300mb.
in total about 5gb's of cropped photos

so far i've stitched 6 sections together. and then 2 left
but the last 2 are the files that are around 800mb and seem to crash the comp when i try open them

ideally i don't want to flatten anything cos of the adjustments i'll make later but if i have to then well.. so be it






here's the shoot layout:



(4 rows of cars. split into left and right. ie. 3 cars per shot except for the first row which only has 2)

i'll upload some smaller stills when i get to uni tomorrow so you can get a better idea

[Joanna Carter]

16 5x4 scans at 2040ppi, 200% at 16bit = 1.8gb each.
in total roughly 29gb

Just how large a print are you hoping to make out of this? I scan 4x5 film at 2400ppi @ 100% and that gives me a possible enlargement of 10x to 40" x 50" when printed at 240ppi.

Based on your layout, if all films were joined edge to edge and scanned 2040 @ 200%, they would make an image of around 340" x 408" !!!

ideally i don't want to flatten anything cos of the adjustments i'll make later but if i have to then well.. so be it

Just what kind of non-destructive adjustments do you think you have to make before the stitching?

[mandoman7]

Photography is about capturing what's in front of you with the tools you have on hand. The more you wander from those 2 basic ideas the further away you get from creating an image that's of any interest to someone else.
Photographers are often guilty of assuming that others will be interested in imagery that's created through technical wizardry. Sometimes it works, but the question always boils down to why did you create the image and why should anyone else be interested?

Personally, every time I see a chart posted of a lighting layout, or a digital production with dozens of actions, I look to see if the actual resulting photograph really has any life. Its a tricky balance.

[Joanna Carter]

Photography is about capturing what's in front of you with the tools you have on hand ...

And what has that to do with the OP's question as to how to create this humungous image, taken with the equipment he had on hand and attempting to process it with the equipment he has on hand ?

[Bruce Watson]

Hmm, let me try this again,

I've taken a photograph in 8 sections. Each section will be a combination of 2 photographs. Making it a total of 16 photographs in total.

16 5x4 scans at 2040ppi, 200% at 16bit = 1.8gb each. In total roughly 29gb

I think perhaps this number is your problem. You'll need to be using 64 bit hardware, OS, and Photoshop CS4 to do this well. Rumor has it that Photoshop itself can handle more than the 32 bit limit would suggest since it runs it's own virtual memory management system internally. But when doing this it's incredibly slow. On the order of hours for some operations such as file close. Of course the more layers you add on, the worse the time problem becomes.

If you really want to do this, I would suggest a killer 64 bit computer, at least quad-core, and like 128 GB of ECC memory, spend the money for the 15000 rpm SAS drives, 64 bit Vista, and 64 bit CS4. You'll need all the power you can bring to bear on this kind of a problem.

Good luck with it.

[Ron Marshall]

Are you applying layers before stitching? If so, stitch first then make corrections.

[J. Gilbert Plantinga]

Notwithstanding Bruce's hardware solution, I think the problem could be solved simply by not going to 200% until the end -- that's 1/4 the file size. And, to reiterate Joanna's question, just how big a print are you going to make from this?