Jump to content
You must now use your email address to sign in [click for more info] ×

Recommended Posts

  • Staff

Affinity Photo has an arbitrary size limit of 256,000 pixels. We set the limit as editing images larger than that tend to cause disappointment.

 

Photoshop may have a limit of 300,000 but I have never been able to use an image that big in Photoshop.

 

What is your use case for such a large image?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're working on some Gigapixel images for a client.  The first was 300,000 x 180,000 pixels, which Photoshop managed ( with patience !), but they need to go bigger with the second.  Up to 400,000 ideally.

 

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...

Agreed w/ Tonser & seconded-- hard at work here on some historic NASA mosaics, we have a system built for it, yet your program simply tells us "no," for no plausible reason. I thought one of the points of AP over PS was that it didn't have the type of arbitrary (which I read: "unnecessary") limits that Photoshop imposes due to its legacy approach. Might you please consider in the next update arbitrarily REMOVING ALL LIMITS and simply replacing them with a warning??

If we can simultaneously open many images of more than 150kpx wide, we certainly have the memory to load at least one that's 400kpx +/-. We are only 10kpx tall. So ffs we should be allowed to do this. At the very least, why not base it on total px instead of lazily throwing an arbitrary limit on each dimension??

Would you like to be used on the highest-end/historic productions or not? We will gladly say "Made possible by Affinity Photo" if you're able to accommodate. As it stands now, having to find some other solution and you guys have no place in our pipeline. Apologies for my tone, I'm frustrated by these useless restrictions. No need to protect users from themselves, just pop a warning and make us click "okay" if something might crash our system. C'mon...

Edited by deep.studios
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forums @deep.studios

4 hours ago, deep.studios said:

No need to protect users from themselves, just pop a warning and make us click "okay" if something might crash our system.

Interesting.
What benefit(s) would you get in allowing the software to crash arbitrarily?
Most software is designed – up to a point – not to crash; at the very least its developers would like it not to crash, if at all possible.
So I am wondering what advantage you would have as a user knowing that the software allowed you to tell it to ignore its own built-in limits and, essentially, tell it that crashing was acceptable behaviour.
By way of explanation, maybe you can give us a workflow which nicely describes the sort of process where this would be acceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.