Ummm, well that known fact isn't completely true. In actual fact, Photoshop will *not* handle many of the large images that we work with at all, whereas the GIMP will do so with no problem. Photoshop has an inherent 32K maximum pixel limitation in both height and width that the GIMP is not saddled with.
Photoshop may process reasonably large images somewhat faster than the GIMP
can, but the GIMP can handle huge images that make even the latest versions
of Photoshop roll over and croak.
How huge is huge, Kevin?
Over the past two days, I have edited two TIFF images, 12500 x 7800 pixels, greyscale, using Photoshop 8. It was business as usual (meaning, fast and stable as usual). Loading and saving took as long as I expected for a file of this size (95MB).
Prompted by this thread, I tired one of these files in Gimp 2. What a looooong wait for even the simplest tasks, such as zooming in and out. I then tried my trusty old Gimp 1.2. It was somewhat better than 2, but very, very slow. Pulling menu's down took tens of seconds. No, using Gimp, on Win 2k, for a file this size, is just not practical. I expect it will go better on my Linux box at home, but even if it was two times faster, it would still be unpractical.
Which is why I would like to know how huge huge is, on what hardware, running which OS, which version(s) of Gimp, and processing what tasks.
rgds Jaco _______________________________________________ Gimp-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
