Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: kirmo on August 17, 2009, 03:52:36 pm
-
Need to print a picture about 44" x 360" (in my world it's 111,8 cm x 930,0 cm).
I have a Mac with latest Os with 8G RAM and plenty of disk space.
Printer is Epson 9900.
Tried straight from LR with resolution 240 and did not work.
All seemed ok, spooled and send the file to printer, but then the printer just
outputed the paper with no printing!
I made test print: with a bit smaller filesize and resolution 120, print size 71 cm x 600 cm
print came out with no problems.
I'll try tomorrow to make a bigger print.
Any known limits? Or what to check?
I have also CS4 and could print from it also - I just like LR more for printing than CS4.
Kirmo
-
Need to print a picture about 44" x 360" (in my world it's 111,8 cm x 930,0 cm).
Then you're gonna need a RIP cause the largest length the Mac driver supports is about 95". Has nothing to do with Lightroom nor CS4, it's a driver limitation. Most 3rd party rips can go well beyond that though...
-
Then you're gonna need a RIP cause the largest length the Mac driver supports is about 95". Has nothing to do with Lightroom nor CS4, it's a driver limitation. Most 3rd party rips can go well beyond that though...
Thanks Jeff, if so ... but I just printed from LR an 27" x 228". It´s on cheap paper as I'm testing for the limits.
Looks ok and no problems informed by LR/OS or printer.
Kirmo
-
Thanks Jeff, if so ... but I just printed from LR an 27" x 228". It´s on cheap paper as I'm testing for the limits.
Looks ok and no problems informed by LR/OS or printer.
Kirmo
mmm, wonder how that happened. Here's the official word from Epsons site ...
Q:
What is the maximum page length for the printer?
A:
The maximum printable page length is 90.5 inches when using the Epson printer driver. This may vary depending on the application, operating system, and driver/RIP being used. Using a RIP may allow you to exceed this limit as well.
I know I've tried a couple of times a while back to go over a hundred inches with no luck.
So you were printing with OS X 10.5.8? Which version of the Epson driver?
-
mmm, wonder how that happened. Here's the official word from Epsons site ...
Q:
What is the maximum page length for the printer?
A:
The maximum printable page length is 90.5 inches when using the Epson printer driver. This may vary depending on the application, operating system, and driver/RIP being used. Using a RIP may allow you to exceed this limit as well.
I know I've tried a couple of times a while back to go over a hundred inches with no luck.
So you were printing with OS X 10.5.8? Which version of the Epson driver?
I have MacOsX 10.5.2 with 8G RAM
I print from LR 2.4
Epson 9900 with version HW02995,1.12,A000
For the file: the pixel size 5282 x 43176 with resolution 120. This I manged to print.
The printer data of the output tells:
- print time 1:22 (one hour 22 minutes)
- total ink consumption 66.5 ml
- paper size 64297 cm2 (just cheap paper for testing purpose)
I just hang the picture on the wall, it's a full print of the image.
I'll try with a bit higher resolution like 180 and also I'd like to get
a bit bigger one - hight to full 44" which brings the length to 360".
I'm guesing it's more a issue on the file size, not a length issue.
The limit can be in any of the mentioned softaware - where is the first one?
Kirmo
ps. My Mac here is not in the internet and I'm using very slow gprs-connection
for internet with laptop. Email and very, very slow web browsing only.
-
There is also the Tiles Stitching method if you can print from Illustrator or CorelDraw. A similar method is used in Qimage to get beyond the driver's print length limit but with Qimage you have to find a Windows solution if you are on a Mac.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/)
-
There is also the Tiles Stitching method if you can print from Illustrator or CorelDraw. A similar method is used in Qimage to get beyond the driver's print length limit but with Qimage you have to find a Windows solution if you are on a Mac.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/)
Ernst, thanks, but I'll just use what I already have.
I'm close enough with current set.
With output size 42" x 314": resolution 100 prints wrongly but 80 gives right output (I printed just a small section)
Now I'll go for the full size 44" to find the limits.
The file for printing is 870MB. It's stitched in CS3 from several shots (Svalbard last summer).
Kirmo
-
I did not manage to make the big print. But this is enough
for this time. Maybe someone will update this info.
I tried 44" x 366" with resolution 80 printed halfway and then
computer freezed. Most likely run out of memory. Also
the output was not what I was hoping.
So I made the final print 28" x 225" (71cm x 571cm)
resolution 100 and paper was Epson Premium Luster Photo Paper (260)
Total print time 1:20
ink consumtion 64.6 ml
Printed from LR 2.4
Local expert (Finland) told me that the limits are somewhere around 5-6 meters
without RIP's. My next prints will be much smaller, but new type of material Tecco
TBW150 textile banner - again a new challenge!
Kirmo
kirmo.wilen@valolla.fi
-
I did not manage to make the big print. But this is enough
for this time. Maybe someone will update this info.
I tried 44" x 366" with resolution 80 printed halfway and then
computer freezed. Most likely run out of memory. Also
the output was not what I was hoping.
So I made the final print 28" x 225" (71cm x 571cm)
resolution 100 and paper was Epson Premium Luster Photo Paper (260)
Total print time 1:20
ink consumtion 64.6 ml
Printed from LR 2.4
Local expert (Finland) told me that the limits are somewhere around 5-6 meters
without RIP's. My next prints will be much smaller, but new type of material Tecco
TBW150 textile banner - again a new challenge!
Kirmo
kirmo.wilen@valolla.fi
Kirmo,
why dont you create a file the size you want to print, with just 4 black dots (50 pixels size) at each corner of the print and leave the rest blank, you will not waist ink, the file size should be smaller.
If it prints, then the problem is the spooler file size and not the length restrictions.
Gonzalo
-
Kirmo,
why dont you create a file the size you want to print, with just 4 black dots (50 pixels size) at each corner of the print and leave the rest blank, you will not waist ink, the file size should be smaller.
If it prints, then the problem is the spooler file size and not the length restrictions.
Gonzalo
You still waste paper that way. To test lengths in real printing I made an endless loop of cheap paper and an image file with numbers per 50 cm. It is easy to see at what length the print strands then. A bit tricky at the point where you have to tape both ends though, it has to be straight.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
Dinkla Gallery Canvas Wrap Actions for Photoshop
http://www.pigment-print.com/dinklacanvaswraps/index.html (http://www.pigment-print.com/dinklacanvaswraps/index.html)
-
I went through this and found illustrator to be the answer. I was not however printing a 30 foot long print. When you tile your image in illustrator, it breaks the large image down to what essentially would be many smaller, spool managable, individual images. You never spool a large image then, so theorectically any size picture is printable( limit being your computer then I suppose). The one thing you must find and check is the "save paper" button. This will tell the printer to immediately print the next spooled image(actually the next section of your large monstrosity) without so much as a pixel of gap between the images. Voila! One long butt print. It's not necessary at all to tile either with large sizes tiles--in fact a hundred small ones might be better as you'll see after a few inches if your tiling set up is working as planned and if not--you can stop the printing and not waste more media. The 9900 I now have might have this capabilty built into the driver as I saw the save paper button and optimise enlargment check box--but I could be mistaken as I have yet to take the time to investigate.
The limit on print length is 90.5 inches and is not pixel based, it's inches based. And the limit is from photoshop-not the print driver. This might be why you have been able to print using lightroom. What your probably seeing now is a file size limitation totally bogging down the system. If you learn to tile then all the printer and ps will know is that your asking them to print a bunch of small, very managable pictures in a row--which they can handle forever no problem. Illustrator is probably a lot cheaper than a good RIP. I have zero knowledge on using Q-image to do this so maybe thats something you might want to check out.
Paul
-
Kirmo--
This post got me checking and indeed you can tile using the 9900 driver just as you would in illustrator. Pages 114-115 in the manual explain it For Mac 10.4. You will need to check the "roll paper banner" button and the "save roll paper" button just as you would in illustrator. Looks like your all good to go with what you got. I also have a 9900 and am very curious what the outcome for you will be. Good luck and let us know how you make out.
Paul
-
The limit on print length is 90.5 inches and is not pixel based, it's inches based. And the limit is from photoshop-not the print driver.
Sorry, this is wrong.
CS3 and earlier had what was referred to as the 30,000 pixel limit. It's slightly more than that (it's to do with 16bit limitations). So the limit in that sense is from Photoshop, but it's due to the pixels and not the length. One factor from the driver, though, is that the driver typically reports back the rastered pixel count (not quite, but close enough) which can exceed the original because if you send a job through at 240ppi it gets reported back at 360ppi and thus can break the limit. In the Epson driver, the option under Windows for "course rendering" removes the situation where the driver reports this back and causes a failed print.
CS4 removed that limit, changing it to at least 300,000 pixels.
-
Phil--What you are saying is also what I thought until I talked to epson support and the person I talked to made it real clear there was a 90.5 inches as far as the limit and that was it. I pretty much verified this when I was printing a very long panorama for the first time and if I remember right --at 360 pixels per inch--but it might have been 300, and the printer just stopped printing before the intended 96 inches happened. Ok I thought it has to be that total pixels limit thing and I just ran out on the 30,000 limit. I had no knowledge of the 90.5 inch limit at the time. So I measured what I did get printed and sure enough ---90.5 inches. So naturally I thought well lets go with 240 pixels per inch on the next try, thereby using less pixels, and then I would get my 96 inch print. You know what I got? 90.5 inches. So like the stubborn guy that I can be, I thought well lets try 180 pixels per inch. Surely that would be well under the 30,000 limit and would print the 96 inches. Know what I got? 90.5 inches. Now on my calculator 30,000 divded by 180 should have given me a 166 inch print capability. I should have easily been able to print 96 inches if that were the only limiting factor.
And if the argument be made that it's the 30,000 pixel limit at printer native resolution which is 360 pixels for epson, rastered as you say from no matter what you send it, 30,000 divided by 360 is 83.33 inches. By that argument all one should be able to print is that--but you can get 90.5 inches--a little over seven inches more. It was then I called support and found out 90.5 inches was the limit and I really also found it hard to believe the wheel chock was a PHOTOSHOP limit. They also walked me through iullustrator using tiles to get my print--which worked flawlessly by the way. So I believe I am correct in my statements Phil--which is not to say your not correct about a 30,000 pixel limit--it's just that this limit is a separate and concurrent limit to the printable length max of 90.5 inches. (By the way, technically this 90.5 in CS3 is called the page size limit.)This also explains why Kirmo could get more print from lightroom and not from photoshop on the same printer and image. Lightroom evidently has a different page size limit on the length. Each and every individual program has it's own page size limit.
Thats my story and I'm stickin too it! For now anyways.
Yes --CS3 is what I was using and still am, I should already be on CS4 but I'm not. My bad.
Paul
-
Okay, let's really stir up some s**t here...I've printed 24"x144"+ from InDesign and Qimage to a Z3100ps where the Printer Driver Dialogue box stated that the maximum length was 129". This same dialogue box appears in every application with the same info. So, i guess the application trumps the driver?
-
I don't know. I only know about what i'm using--epson drivers and photoshop--and thats the story with them. And according to epson support the page length the epson driver can print out is dependent on the application used with it. My experience pretty much backs that up. Other drivers and programs I couldn't comment on with any certainty..
Paul
-
I went through this and found illustrator to be the answer. I was not however printing a 30 foot long print. When you tile your image in illustrator, it breaks the large image down to what essentially would be many smaller, spool managable, individual images. You never spool a large image then, so theorectically any size picture is printable( limit being your computer then I suppose). The one thing you must find and check is the "save paper" button. This will tell the printer to immediately print the next spooled image(actually the next section of your large monstrosity) without so much as a pixel of gap between the images. Voila! One long butt print. It's not necessary at all to tile either with large sizes tiles--in fact a hundred small ones might be better as you'll see after a few inches if your tiling set up is working as planned and if not--you can stop the printing and not waste more media. The 9900 I now have might have this capabilty built into the driver as I saw the save paper button and optimise enlargment check box--but I could be mistaken as I have yet to take the time to investigate.
The limit on print length is 90.5 inches and is not pixel based, it's inches based. And the limit is from photoshop-not the print driver. This might be why you have been able to print using lightroom. What your probably seeing now is a file size limitation totally bogging down the system. If you learn to tile then all the printer and ps will know is that your asking them to print a bunch of small, very managable pictures in a row--which they can handle forever no problem. Illustrator is probably a lot cheaper than a good RIP. I have zero knowledge on using Q-image to do this so maybe thats something you might want to check out.
Paul
Paul,
Using the save paper option, and CS4 to cut the image, say in 3 parts, when printed (with no borders at 100%) you would have a seamless image?
Gonzalo
-
Phil--What you are saying is also what I thought until I talked to epson support and the person I talked to made it real clear there was a 90.5 inches as far as the limit and that was it. I pretty much verified this when I was printing a very long panorama for the first time and if I remember right --at 360 pixels per inch--but it might have been 300, and the printer just stopped printing before the intended 96 inches happened. Ok I thought it has to be that total pixels limit thing and I just ran out on the 30,000 limit. I had no knowledge of the 90.5 inch limit at the time. So I measured what I did get printed and sure enough ---90.5 inches. So naturally I thought well lets go with 240 pixels per inch on the next try, thereby using less pixels, and then I would get my 96 inch print. You know what I got? 90.5 inches. So like the stubborn guy that I can be, I thought well lets try 180 pixels per inch. Surely that would be well under the 30,000 limit and would print the 96 inches. Know what I got? 90.5 inches. Now on my calculator 30,000 divded by 180 should have given me a 166 inch print capability. I should have easily been able to print 96 inches if that were the only limiting factor.
And if the argument be made that it's the 30,000 pixel limit at printer native resolution which is 360 pixels for epson, rastered as you say from no matter what you send it, 30,000 divided by 360 is 83.33 inches. By that argument all one should be able to print is that--but you can get 90.5 inches--a little over seven inches more. It was then I called support and found out 90.5 inches was the limit and I really also found it hard to believe the wheel chock was a PHOTOSHOP limit. They also walked me through iullustrator using tiles to get my print--which worked flawlessly by the way. So I believe I am correct in my statements Phil--which is not to say your not correct about a 30,000 pixel limit--it's just that this limit is a separate and concurrent limit to the printable length max of 90.5 inches. (By the way, technically this 90.5 in CS3 is called the page size limit.)This also explains why Kirmo could get more print from lightroom and not from photoshop on the same printer and image. Lightroom evidently has a different page size limit on the length. Each and every individual program has it's own page size limit.
Thats my story and I'm stickin too it! For now anyways.
Yes --CS3 is what I was using and still am, I should already be on CS4 but I'm not. My bad.
Paul
Unfortunately, you didn't get the whole story which is not your fault (though Epson tech support should be better informed).
It's called 30,000 pixel limit, but it's actually closer to 33,000 in round numbers, and if you divide it by 360 you'll get your 90.5 inches. The problem is (was, since it's fixed in CS4) PS. It's to do with 16bit limitations at the time the printing code was originally written.
If you use CS4, you won't have this issue (it's been tested by me at 300,000 pixels and was stable, for example, and many other people of course), and LR also doesn't have this limitation.
I don't mind if you believe me or not - I'm just presenting the facts and I understand that I do so without presenting any credentials, but I prefer the psuedo-anonymity.
-
I believe you Phil. That actually makes perfect sense now to complete the puzzle. At 33,000 or close to that no. you would wind up with the 90.5(roughly). So what I was thinking that were two separate limitations because of the two seemingly different values, are really one and the same. Makes perfect sense. What I really need to do is get going with CS4, just been busy now using the computer and printer and didn't want to have to involve myself with a learning ordeal at this time.
Gonzalo--
I'm not sure at all if you "cut" your image in CS4 what that would yield. You might want to explain that a bit more. Again I'm still on CS3 so I might not have some answers for you. What I do know is that in illustrator and now with the new drivers that came with my epson 9900, you can "tile" your large picture into a series of smaller pictures which will then print consecutively on a long roll of paper. If you DO NOT check the save roll paper button there will be spaces between each of those pictures on that roll. Save roll paper will start the next picture seamlessly where the previous one left off. You might test whatever you are thinking with CS4 by breaking down a large image into 5 inch sections, and hitting save roll paper, and see what you get. If it doesnt work you haven't wasted much. I'm thinking the fact that your margins are always there on the top and bottom, even though you can print borderless on the sides, would prevent you from doing a seamless long print straight out of CS4. Please do let us know of anything you discover. I hope to be on CS4 this weekend so maybe then I can be more helpful then.
Paul
-
I believe you Phil. That actually makes perfect sense now to complete the puzzle. At 33,000 or close to that no. you would wind up with the 90.5(roughly). So what I was thinking that were two separate limitations because of the two seemingly different values, are really one and the same. Makes perfect sense. What I really need to do is get going with CS4, just been busy now using the computer and printer and didn't want to have to involve myself with a learning ordeal at this time.
Gonzalo--
I'm not sure at all if you "cut" your image in CS4 what that would yield. You might want to explain that a bit more. Again I'm still on CS3 so I might not have some answers for you. What I do know is that in illustrator and now with the new drivers that came with my epson 9900, you can "tile" your large picture into a series of smaller pictures which will then print consecutively on a long roll of paper. If you DO NOT check the save roll paper button there will be spaces between each of those pictures on that roll. Save roll paper will start the next picture seamlessly where the previous one left off. You might test whatever you are thinking with CS4 by breaking down a large image into 5 inch sections, and hitting save roll paper, and see what you get. If it doesnt work you haven't wasted much. I'm thinking the fact that your margins are always there on the top and bottom, even though you can print borderless on the sides, would prevent you from doing a seamless long print straight out of CS4. Please do let us know of anything you discover. I hope to be on CS4 this weekend so maybe then I can be more helpful then.
Paul
Thank you Paul,
Regarding cutting the image in CS4, which I also did in CS2, with an image of 360x120 cm, I divided it into 3 of 120x120, they were printed on a Lambda and mounted in 3 separate foam boards, as I could not find in Barcelona a foam of 360cm in length.
I will be testing next week a 7900 with the a color spectroproofer, so I will also try the save paper option on a smaller tiles.
Gonzalo
-
Okay, let's really stir up some s**t here...I've printed 24"x144"+ from InDesign and Qimage to a Z3100ps where the Printer Driver Dialogue box stated that the maximum length was 129". This same dialogue box appears in every application with the same info. So, i guess the application trumps the driver?
This is interesting. The PCL3 driver for the Z3200-PS doesn't know a length limit like that and I tested it up to 5 meter. Application to print from doesn't matter though Qimage can handle bigger files than Photoshop up to CS3 and longer lengths than Photoshop in general. The PS3 driver shows the 129" length limit and I thought HP at least doesn't exaggerate the lengths possible this time so I didn't check what it actually can do. On the plain Z3100 that is limited to the PCL3 driver the length limit indicated is something like 91 meters but it doesn't do more than 109". The only way to get beyond that practical limit is with the optional HPGL2 driver where no practical length limit is known yet but prints were made up to 17' and the driver indicates 91 meters as possible.
On the thread:
It is a pity that Steve's Digicam site was bought by another company and the articles by Mike Chaney are no longer carrying his name and hard to find there but Mike has written some good articles on large print making that are of use to everyone not only Qimage/Windows users. I will ask him to copy/rewrite them for his own site/forum http://www.ddisoftware.com/tech/ (http://www.ddisoftware.com/tech/)
Edit: there is already a copy of the article on print lengths: http://ddisoftware.com/tech/articles/febru...printing-large/ (http://ddisoftware.com/tech/articles/february-2006-wide-load-tips-for-printing-large/)
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/)
-
The only way to get beyond that practical limit is with the optional HPGL2 driver where no practical length limit is known yet but prints were made up to 17' and the driver indicates 91 meters as possible.
The only time I've used the HPGL2 Driver is for Illustrator line art projects, as I understand that it's a vector image driver rather than a raster image driver. Have you printed photographic images with it?
-
The only time I've used the HPGL2 Driver is for Illustrator line art projects, as I understand that it's a vector image driver rather than a raster image driver. Have you printed photographic images with it?
It came up in a thread on the Qimage list. For the past two years I have tested how the plain Z3100 with the PCL3 driver could print beyond the 109' limit. Someone else needed to print longer with the same equipment and raised the question on the Qimage list. I wrote that it wasn't possible. In the end he mentioned an advice from a HP serviceman to get the HPGL2 driver. He did and he could print longer from Qimage that way. As Qimage can't handle vector images and the question was about bitmap files it was clear to me that we were discussing pixels in this case. I didn't ask whether the driver used in the end was the HPGL2 driver or that installing the HPGL2 driver allowed the PCL3 driver to go beyond its normal limit. As far as I know HPGL2 can handle bitmaps etc in HP's PCL description.
Matt Nolan wrote this on that solution:
Success! Using the Z3100 HPGL2 driver I was able to print out a
3'x17' panorama using Qimage and it looks great. The driver offers a
maximum of 91 meters -- I didnt test it, but I suspect it may be
correct.
The next thing I want to test is Mike's suggestion of cutting up
gigapixel images in photoshop and then reassembling them in Qimage as
separate images printed on the same page. This is different than the
banner trick where Qimage cuts the image and tries to avoid the page
break (which doesnt work with the Z3100). So if this new technique
works, I dont see that there is anything standing in the way of
printing a 10,000 x 100,000 gigapixel image, or even larger, using
Qimage.
end of quote
There was someone who mentioned in a similar thread here that with the Z-PS models the HPGL2 driver is bundled and installed with the other software. Which may be the reason that the PS models do not have that length limitation with the PCL3 driver. At least my Z3200-PS can go beyond the 109' length limit. And possibly also allows the PS3 driver to go beyond the 129" limit while the driver menu says otherwise, the fact I expressed my surprise about in the message before this one.
One thing is sure, HP should have given a more transparent description on the length limitations in all the drivers it has for the Z models. By trial, error and accident the picture of what works and what not becomes clearer.
Cheers,
Matt
-
For the general pool of knowledge. (Epson 9900 & OSX 10.5)
Finally got around to try tiling a larger than 90.5" with Illustrator CS3. A couple of problems arose immediately.
1st - Illustrator converts 16bit to 8bit. Not a biggy.
2nd - Illustrator will not import images over 30,000 lpi.
So much for this 90.5" workaround unless I missed something.
Next tried tiling as described in the 9900 manual on pg 114-115 "Choosing Roll Paper Options," resulted in a 1 or 2 pixel overlap. Clear blue skies with a vertical overprint line kind of ruins the effect.
Onward to buy a full blown RIP that can print as well as Photoshop, proof Pantone Colors and postscript sharpen fonts for the price of a new computer.
Anthony Howell
-
Hello,
Has anyone had any further experience with this? Does SL (Mac) change the 90.5" inch limit? Or might this be addressed in the next Epson driver update?
Thanks!
Michael Morrison
-
To add to the pool of knowledge. The Canon IPF PS Plugin will print 60,000 pixels. The driver will print 59' although about 26' is the longest I have printed so far. I do believe that the limitation might be with software at this size.
This is on the Mac by the way. I do not know if there are limitations on Windows as to length with the Canon drivers.
Doyle
-
Hello,
I have a further data point for the discussion. I am running a Mac, 10.5.8 with 4 GB RAM, a 9900 with the most recent driver, and Lightroom 2.5.
I tried to print a 14" x 105" print today, with print resolution set to 360. The paper was cut to the paper size (108"), but only the middle 77" of the image was printed. The image is 8 bit. I reprinted it with print resolution set to 180, and the entire image was printed correctly, all 105 inches. Clearly there is not an inviolable 90.5 inch limit. This result speaks to a file size limit. Based on 14" x 77" x 360 x 360, the limit might be about 140 megapixels at 8 bits.
I have also printed, successfully, a 34" x 68" 8 bit file, most likely at 360, which would be about a 300 megapixels, in excess of the 140 limit of my first 105" attempt. Does this suggest that there is a more complicated formula that limits the printable length?
Best,
Michael Morrison
-
Hi,
thanks for the feedback. I'm still sticking to LR 2 and CS4 for printing photos.
The 71cm x 600cm (230" long) picture has now been on display for some weeks.
I'm putting more memory to my Mac. From 8G to 24G. I'll most likely have another
try. Just currently short of suitable paper and also need to check the status of my inks!
Just to remind that with LR2 there is no 90,5" limit. No plans to buy any RIP's.
I've been locally told that there is a limit around 590-600" when printing without RIPs.
I like to keep things simple.
Kirmo
-
I landed here while looking for an answer on same. My experience: Printing out of Photoshop CS4 to an HPz3200 from an iMac w/8GB of RAM, OS 10.6.2, image size 17" x 132" x 300 ppi…
I got a prompt that said "Photoshop cannot print this document because Documents more than 32,767 pixels in width will not print correctly…" Once the doc was resized to that pixel width, which happens to be 9 feet, it went through the printer like poop through a goose.
Not having LightRoom or a RIP, I opening the file using Nikon's Capture NX 2 where there was no issue at all printing at the orignal 132". Way cheaper than a RIP, but you gotta have native Nikon RAW files or convert to TIFFs.
-Another Phil
-
Ran a 12 x 2 foot pano with my 9800 a few months back on matt. Not a problem in printing or cutting, other than the print is much longer than I wish to handle more than occasionally... File was 180 ppi, about 26,000 pixels long and within the 30,000 pixel limit that I read somewhere on the web.
As I recall, the output res with the Epson driver under OS 10.4x for printing was at least 720 ppi if not 1440 ppi, whatever I normally have as my preset.
No problems with cut-off, image truncation, etc. It all went smoothly though it took awhile to print.
Of course, YRMV.
The only limitation I have found in printing long was that my Epson 4000 (an antique that's still plugging along today!) had a 42 inch, more or less, limit. When I tried to print longer, about 1-2 inches printed and the paper was cut and ejected. Took only a simple call to Epson to find out that I was out or range.
-
I went through this and found illustrator to be the answer. I was not however printing a 30 foot long print. When you tile your image in illustrator, it breaks the large image down to what essentially would be many smaller, spool managable, individual images. You never spool a large image then, so theorectically any size picture is printable( limit being your computer then I suppose). The one thing you must find and check is the "save paper" button. This will tell the printer to immediately print the next spooled image(actually the next section of your large monstrosity) without so much as a pixel of gap between the images. Voila! One long butt print. It's not necessary at all to tile either with large sizes tiles--in fact a hundred small ones might be better as you'll see after a few inches if your tiling set up is working as planned and if not--you can stop the printing and not waste more media. The 9900 I now have might have this capabilty built into the driver as I saw the save paper button and optimise enlargment check box--but I could be mistaken as I have yet to take the time to investigate.
The limit on print length is 90.5 inches and is not pixel based, it's inches based. And the limit is from photoshop-not the print driver. This might be why you have been able to print using lightroom. What your probably seeing now is a file size limitation totally bogging down the system. If you learn to tile then all the printer and ps will know is that your asking them to print a bunch of small, very managable pictures in a row--which they can handle forever no problem. Illustrator is probably a lot cheaper than a good RIP. I have zero knowledge on using Q-image to do this so maybe thats something you might want to check out.
Paul
-
Print size limitations seems to be universal question.
On Epson web site for 1880 printers, Epson states: The maximum printable page length is 590.55 inches when using the Epson printer driver. Using a RIP may allow you to exceed this limit. Epson was not forthcoming with details or explanations.
Today I failed to print a 46x36 image at 360 dpi and at 300 dpi. My dealer previously informed me Photoshop limits any dimension to 60 inches maximum, so I thought I was safe. I finally printed it at 240 dpi. Today my dealer said Photoshop limits are in pixels, not inches, but he did not know what limits are. From posting, is seems to vary?
Any suggestions for a RIP for Macs or other alternative?
John
-
Any suggestions for a RIP for Macs or other alternative?
John
I would take a look at the Colorburst RIP. They have a fully working demo for 15 or 30 days.
Doyle
-
Print size limitations seems to be universal question.
On Epson web site for 1880 printers, Epson states: The maximum printable page length is 590.55 inches when using the Epson printer driver. Using a RIP may allow you to exceed this limit. Epson was not forthcoming with details or explanations.
Today I failed to print a 46x36 image at 360 dpi and at 300 dpi. My dealer previously informed me Photoshop limits any dimension to 60 inches maximum, so I thought I was safe. I finally printed it at 240 dpi. Today my dealer said Photoshop limits are in pixels, not inches, but he did not know what limits are. From posting, is seems to vary?
Any suggestions for a RIP for Macs or other alternative?
John
PS CS3 and earlier had a pixel limit to do with 16bit limits - basically, it was 30,000 pixels in either dimension. Bear in mind that was rasterised pixels, so depending on the DPI and your paper size it was easy enough to go over it. CS4 sorted that issue out and the limit was increased to over 300,000 pixels in either dimension (and I did some testing back then and sure enough it works).
If you had a 46in image at 300dpi that would be well within the PS range, even back to CS3. What's the actual failure you're seeing? That might give some clues as to what's going on.