Hi Sven -
My images are extremely long and relatively narrow, not anywhere near
square. A typical image size would be approximately 200K pixels in length
(height), by only 2K pixels in length, for a total image size of about 400M
pixels. I have some images over 600M pixels, while others are somewhat
Yes, some of these images exceed 200ft in length. You may be wondering what
they could be: images of well logs for oil and gas wells. These are
essentially strip chart (graphical) recordings of various physical
properties taken over the length of the borehole. They are rather
drastically scaled down already (typically 1 inch represents somewhere
between 20 to 100 feet) in the vertical dimension, and detail is important,
so further scale reduction is NOT practical. It is also impractical for
other reasons that are too complex to get into here to split the images up
into smaller sections.
Bottom line: Again, I must state that the problem I am encountering is NOT
related to the pixel count or file size! It occurs when the number of
pixels on ONE axis multiplied by the resolution exceeds approximately 187.5
feet in length.
Thanks for your comments re GIMP 1.3.x. Your positive impressions are
somewhat surprising to me, since comments from Tor Lilqvist (the primary
porter of GIMP 1.2.x to Windows), led me to believe that porting 1.3.x to
Windows was going to be very difficult. Something to do with library
interdependencies and lack of related tools under Windows if I remember
correctly. Since Tor's porting skills are far beyond my own, and he's been
involved with porting the GIMP for quite a while now, I tend to respect his
opinions. However, anyone can occasionally miss something, especially if
they are too busy with other things. Do you know anywhere I could find some
instructions for installing GIMP 1.3.x under Windows?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sven Neumann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Kevin Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "gimp users" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "gimp developers"
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 4:46 AM
Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] GIMP Image Size Limits
> "Kevin Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Thanks for your reply. My tile cache size is set to 1GB (I have
> > 1.5GB of RAM), which should theoretically help based on your
> > comments. Also, upon further testing I have found that the problem
> > I am encountering seems to be related to the physical dimensions of
> > the image, rather than the file size or pixel count. For example,
> > the GIMP is failing when the height of the image exceeds about 187.5
> > feet, regardless of whether using 72 dpi or 200 dpi.
> are you saying 188 _feet_ ? That would make about 162000 pixels of
> image height. How wide are these images? If I'd assume the same width,
> a single RGB layer would have more than 75GB of image data. Your
> operating system is not even able to address the amount of virtual
> memory you'd need to work with such a beast.
> > I would be very willing to try the 1.3x source track.
> > Unfortunately, I am limited to running under Windows at the moment,
> > and my understanding is that 1.3x has not yet been ported to
> > Windows, and that porting would be far too difficult for my amateur
> > level porting skills.
> this is not true; actually the situation is the other way around.
> While GIMP-1.2 needed real porting work, all the libraries required by
> GIMP-1.3 now officially support the Win32 platform and it shouldn't be
> too difficult to get the GIMP-1.3 source compiled on Windows.
> Salut, Sven
> Gimp-developer mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gimp-user mailing list