Exploding Image

  • 1
  • Problem
  • Updated 2 weeks ago
Photo of Paul

Paul

  • 1124 Posts
  • 893 Reply Likes

Posted 2 weeks ago

  • 1
Photo of Rick Stone

Rick Stone

  • 4483 Posts
  • 1999 Reply Likes
Wowzer indeed! You using that ultra high octane pixel powder again?
Photo of jasons

jasons

  • 156 Posts
  • 47 Reply Likes
Reboot your machine and try again.
Photo of Paul

Paul

  • 1124 Posts
  • 893 Reply Likes
In an attempt to fix it I moved back and forth between other images in the tray and this one, to no avail.

And then I thought I'd try something really simple, and pressed Undo, which fixed it..  And, just for the record, pressing Redo returned it to an 8.4 million px square image.

Interesting......
Photo of Paul

Paul

  • 1124 Posts
  • 893 Reply Likes
All I need now is a printer big enough to print it. :)
Photo of jasons

jasons

  • 156 Posts
  • 47 Reply Likes
Naaaaa ... Just a monitor big enough to display it LOL! 


Photo of Paul

Paul

  • 1124 Posts
  • 893 Reply Likes
It would only have to be a mere 19 million times greater pixel density than my 2K monitor.   I might need to build a small extension to my office.
Photo of Rick Grunwald

Rick Grunwald

  • 1249 Posts
  • 856 Reply Likes
Well you COULD get a prog that splits it on multiple pages so you can glue them together ...
Photo of Paul

Paul

  • 1124 Posts
  • 893 Reply Likes
That'd be a lot of glue
Photo of Joe Morgan

Joe Morgan

  • 5636 Posts
  • 2923 Reply Likes
Neat trick, is that the Carbonaro effect?

Because SnagIt's canvas is limited to 25,000 X 25,000 under normal circumstances.
Photo of Paul

Paul

  • 1124 Posts
  • 893 Reply Likes
Total px count for the image:


Photo of Joe Morgan

Joe Morgan

  • 5631 Posts
  • 2923 Reply Likes
Save it as a png.See how big the file is
Photo of Paul

Paul

  • 1124 Posts
  • 893 Reply Likes
Mind reader.

I was just trying to do that, but when I tried to undo again to get back to the mega image, undo was greyed out.  Dammit
Photo of Dubie

Dubie

  • 950 Posts
  • 730 Reply Likes
Sounds like some early arrival prankster Halloween ghost paid you a visit.


Photo of Daniel Foster

Daniel Foster, Snagit strategy lead

  • 861 Posts
  • 192 Reply Likes
LOL, it should be ready to display in Times Square!

That is not something we have seen before, as far as I know. Can you please send our support team the steps (as best you can remember them) that led up to the error along with the images you were combining? https://support.techsmith.com/hc/en-us/requests/new 
Photo of Paul

Paul

  • 1120 Posts
  • 889 Reply Likes
Hi Daniel

I don't think it's anything special about these images.  I have seen this happen on other images too.  It happens rarely but IIRC it's always when I combine images, even if (as I had to in 2018) it's a simple drag and drop.  

It happens when, having complete the merge, I move the cursor across the screen in some particular way.  I just can't nail down how.  I think it may be related to the fat that I use Windows split screen (50/50) on my 2K monitor.  I have seen one other misbehaviour in split screen mode, namely that when I drag an entry from the tray onto a file upload box in a web app such as WordPress's media library, Snagit hangs.

In both cases it's as if traversing the split screen demarcation point makes a SnagIt memory register blow it's stack, especially if I pause, or alternatively whizz across the join.  I put it down to the general instability of 2018 which used to crash with monotonous regularity for me.  2019 beta was so much more stable that I stopped using 2018 immediately.  But 2019 does still seem susceptible to this crossing the chasm issue.

It's not a lack of system resources:



I'm sorry I can't be more precise. Does that help?
Photo of Paul

Paul

  • 1120 Posts
  • 889 Reply Likes
I just reproduced it.  i will send the details to Support
Photo of Joe Morgan

Joe Morgan

  • 5607 Posts
  • 2913 Reply Likes
Now save it and let us know how big the file is. PLEASE
Photo of Paul

Paul

  • 1120 Posts
  • 889 Reply Likes
I leapt into a support ticket to record the events while they were fresh in my mind and by the time I got back to the image the size had reset itself.

My hunch is this is memory related and, given time, it heals itself. 

Next time I will try and save it, although WTF Windows will make of a 7 trillion px image is an unkown.
Photo of Joe Morgan

Joe Morgan

  • 5607 Posts
  • 2913 Reply Likes
Actually, you'll probably crash SnagIt.I wouldn't bother with it.

I'm currently giving Photoshop CC a run for its money.I took a 6000 x 4000 image and cropped it square. 4000 x 4000. It's 300 dpi.

I asked Photoshop to enlarge it to 300,000 X 300,000 pixels. Thats the maximum canvas size for Photoshop.
I used the setting preserve details. That may have been a mistake.I had to chose something.

I decided to turn on a timer to see how long it might take to convert the image. It's still converting as I type this response.
If I get a image out of this.I will save and give you the results.
I'll give the results either way.I'm sure Photoshop can handle it. I just think I should have chosen a photo without so much detail.
 
Photo of Joe Morgan

Joe Morgan

  • 5636 Posts
  • 2923 Reply Likes
Okay, some fun facts coming at you this morning Paul.

It took Photoshop about 6 minutes “I believe” to convert my 4000 x 4000 pixel image to 300,000 X 300,000 pixels using Preserve Details. And it did a surprisingly good job. More on that later.

2 hours and 7 minutes to complete the process. If I had more RAM memory. The process could have been much faster.

If my math is accurate. “I was shooting for very close {Not Perfect}”

If printed, the image would measure 275 Feet X 275 Feet. I should have changed the image scale in to inches. Took that number and done the math. Well, there’s a reason I didn’t just do it this morning. Read On.

File size...After watching Photoshop write to disk for about 2 hours as I watched television. I realized Photoshop must have exceeded my 16GB’s of RAM and was writing to virtual RAM on disk. Which is slow as molasses pouring in winter.

The cursor turns into a little twirling icon letting you know Photoshop is working on something like enlarging an image. It twirled for about 6 minutes and froze for 2 hours. That entire 2 hours, Task Manager indicated that Photoshop was utilizing disk space at varying speeds.

So, saving this file to PNG was off the table. I remembered there are limitations placed on Png size by Photoshop for this. Saving it as a PSD “Photo Shop Document” wasn’t going to work either. PSD’s are limited to 2GB’s.

Photoshop has a PSB format for this. “Large Photoshop Documents” It took an Hour and a half to save the file. Thanks to the virtual memory I’m sure.

So, Drum roll.......... File size 66GB



It would take another 2 hours to reload this image. If I had 128GB of RAM I could reload this image without delay.

I started to reload it, but decided pinpoint accuracy of this information wasn’t worth much. Considering nobody will ever print or create anything like this anyway. Well, never say never. They won’t be referencing this post for guidance, I’d bet the farm on that.

Here’s the real kicker. The quality blows me away. This thing been blown up to almost a 100 yards by 100 yards and it retained all the fine details on my monitor.

If you could print this thing, you would need to view from a very far distance. To judge how good, it actually looks. So, that’s kinda like trying to figure out how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop. I think that’s another unresolved mystery.

In the image below. I can’t tell the difference between the original image. Zoomed in at 400% zoom. And the one that grew to 275’ by 275’.

I opened the original in windows photo viewer and placed it next to the enlargement. WPV doesn’t tell you what zoom level you’re at. But I got it very close to the same dimensions. The right side image Photoshop Elements on my smaller monitor. Its scaled to 400% zoom.

The Enlargement is zoomed outward to 5.45% 

To think that any program could upscale an image that large. And preserve details so well, that I can rescale the image to varying degrees with this much clarity. Just Blows me away.


So your Ridiculous SnagIt image Paul, would most certainly crash SnagIt. How could it not? The SnagIt canvas is incapable of becoming that large. I don’t see how the render could complete.

Your image would be around 6,000 X 6,000 Feet. So over a Mile LOL.

File size would be 1,700+ GB. If it contained as many colors and had as much detail as my image.

 Pushing a Terabyte almost. You would need a lot of free space on your C drive for virtual memory to complete that task.

That, and countless hours/days/weeks of render time.

Oh well, now you some idea. Give or take some GB’s or Square Yards or Football Fields. The margin for error is Generous.

Regards,Joe    





Photo of Paul

Paul

  • 1124 Posts
  • 893 Reply Likes
Brilliant Joe.

I admire your relentless pursuit of this issue..

The only remaining question is whether my >1 mile square image would be visible from the International Space Station.
Photo of Joe Morgan

Joe Morgan

  • 5636 Posts
  • 2923 Reply Likes
I wanted to see what Photoshop could do with something like this. I was driven by curiosity.

My expectations were low. The key to resizing images in Photoshop is choosing the right setting for any given image. If you chose Automatic. You get great results. If you know what you should chose.  You get blown away.

Now I have another reason to love Photoshop.

I Love SnagIt to, but it can't deliver a lot of what I do in PS.

I'll pass an the football field sized photos in the future.Ones enough.