"Tim Cook" <z99### [at] bellsouthnet> wrote in message
news:4378ee2b$1@news.povray.org...
> Christoph Hormann wrote:
> > No.  you can already use that large images right now - your OS swapping
> > and address space permitting.  You don't do this though because the
> > performance loss makes it unfeasible. This isn't different with
> > 'on-demand' reading of image data from disk (except parsing might be a
> > bit faster in the latter case).
>
> No, I literally don't have any software that can read such a large
> image.  ^^;  Paint Shop Pro, GIMP, Photoshop, and so forth, can't read
> images larger than a certain size, I think around 32768 for either
> dimension, which the 500 m/pixel set definitely exceeds, horizontally...

The maximum image size supported by Photoshop is 300 000 x 300 000 pixels.  The
maximum file size is 4 GB for PSD and TIFF files, and 100 GB for PSB
(Photoshop's new "large document" format).  Obviously RAM will be a limiting
factor here, in terms practicality.  It's possible to get Photoshop to use
around 3 GB of RAM on 32-bit XP, and more on 64-bit XP (though Photoshop limits
the amount of RAM it uses to around 4 GB, and if you have a system with more RAM
than that then it will use it for cache data before writing to the Photoshop
scratch disk files).  If you don't have a lot of RAM, the HDD access is going to
slow things to a crawl.

There's some information about this here:
http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/320005.html
and here:
http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/331372.html

However, this is assuming you have Photoshop CS2.  And unless you're rendering
to very large output sizes, having the higher resolution maps may make no
noticeable difference to the result anyway.

By the way, nice image, I think I can see my house from here :)

Lance.

thezone - thezone.firewave.com.au

Post a reply to this message