Foiled by the 48 megapixel limit

OsirisPhoto

Damn.

Just when I thought I had my product sorted and ready for print, I find myself being crippled by Smugmug's 48 megapixel per image upload limit. :cry

The image I want to upload is 11400x8550 pixels (38x28.5" at 300dpi). My intent is to print it at 40x30". The image consists of 2 panoramas (same image) and several smaller images including a Smugmug calibration print which I planned to trim into individual images. In fact, Smugmug recommend doubling up images where possible to save on printing costs, if I recall correctly :dunno



Is this limit arbitrary or for sound technical reasons? The file size is well within 'pro' acoount upload limts. And, more importantly, is there any way to get past this without compromising image quality (i.e. throwing away pixels)? Much as I love the huge cardboard packing tubes the prints come in, I hate the idea of ordering double the prints that I need.. and at this size, they aren't cheap :scratch

Even just having 2 of the panoramas without the 'filler' images is way above the 48 megapixel limit.

I really hope that I can get round this because this just adds to the list of -ve points of ordering from the US :cry I was stung last week by UK customs for a Fotoflot order.. nothing they or I could do about it.. but it means that from now on, I have to add 17.5% + £8 handling fees to any quoted price.. and 1 week extra for delivery :huh So, halving my print orders would suit me quite well :deal

Andy

Hi, the 48megapixel limit is plenty large for any size we print Reduce it in PS to 7900x5925 and you'll be fine. The Lab will take care of any upsizing as needed.

It is not arbitrary at all, it's to make sure we can process all images efficiently.

Thanks!

OsirisPhoto

Hi, thanks for your quick reply Andy.. Side by side, would my down-sized then up-sized pano look exactly the same as my original?

Andy

Hyperbaric wrote:

Hi, thanks for your quick reply Andy.. Side by side, would my down-sized then up-sized pano look exactly the same as my original?

It will be gorgeous.

dbd

Evaluate the sharp edges of graphics.

Hyperbaric wrote:

Hi, thanks for your quick reply Andy.. Side by side, would my down-sized then up-sized pano look exactly the same as my original?

You might want to resize the individual images first, then add alphanumerics and line art at your <48Mpx scale. Then the sharp edges on letters will only by softened during the upsampling for the printer resolution and not at the lower resolution of the <48Mpx scale downsampling. The quality of the sharp white/color graphics edges is where you should look to evaluate the print quality. If you make a test full sized test print, please tell us how it comes out!

The interior of the images should still be gorgeous. Smugmug doesn't provide large enough prints to use the resolution you have captured your images in. XL. XXL, and XXXL have greatly improved panoramic viewing on Smugmug, but Smugmug still has no print capability at even the 48Mpx scale adequate for panoramas.

I keep an .html page with panoramic printing resources on my site at:
http://dbdimages.smugmug.com/gallery/1904509
for customers who want to order high resolution panoramic prints from 48Mpx digital downloads.

I tell customers who desire full resolution panoramas to contact me directly.

Dale B. Dalrymple
http;//dbdimages.com

OsirisPhoto

dbd wrote:

You might want to resize the individual images first, then add alphanumerics and line art at your <48Mpx scale. Then the sharp edges on letters will only by softened during the upsampling for the printer resolution and not at the lower resolution of the <48Mpx scale downsampling. The quality of the sharp white/color graphics edges is where you should look to evaluate the print quality. If you make a test full sized test print, please tell us how it comes out!

The interior of the images should still be gorgeous. Smugmug doesn't provide large enough prints to use the resolution you have captured your images in. XL. XXL, and XXXL have greatly improved panoramic viewing on Smugmug, but Smugmug still has no print capability at even the 48Mpx scale adequate for panoramas.

I keep an .html page with panoramic printing resources on my site at:
http://dbdimages.smugmug.com/gallery/1904509
for customers who want to order high resolution panoramic prints from 48Mpx digital downloads.

I tell customers who desire full resolution panoramas to contact me directly.

Dale B. Dalrymple
http;//dbdimages.com

Interesting reading, Dale. Many thanks <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/thumb.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" >

I have ordered both original file and down-sized 'double up' from SM, and will compare the two. I'll reserve judgement on whether there is a quality degredation issue until I see the proof <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/mwink.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" > I have already down-sized the text with the image, so I will focus only on the interior image. If I can't see any difference at arms length, then I'll be happy.

Still... would like an explanation for why pixel count is even an issue for images that are well within file size limits. Why is an 80megapixel/15megabyte file less palatable than a 48megapixel/15megabyte file? <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/ne_nau.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" > Not trying to be awkward.. just curious.

dbd

Hyperbaric wrote:

Interesting reading, Dale. Many thanks

Still... would like an explanation for why pixel count is even an issue for images that are well within file size limits. Why is an 80megapixel/15megabyte file less palatable than a 48megapixel/15megabyte file? Not trying to be awkward.. just curious.

The more pixels per byte, the higher the jpg compression ratio. Eventually, noticeable artifacts appear, often in sky or other nearly flat areas. Smugmug has an excellent guarantee, so they may want to limit the artifacts customers find in large prints.

For an example, look at the sky banding in:
http://dbdimages.smugmug.com/photos/75390754_AJtkL-O.jpg

In that case I wanted to show more resolution than 3XL but keep the download time down, so I allowed the artifacts in an image smaller than what I would sell.

Dale B. Dalrymple
http://dbdimages.com

OsirisPhoto

dbd wrote:

The more pixels per byte, the higher the jpg compression ratio. Eventually, noticeable artifacts appear, often in sky or other nearly flat areas. Smugmug has an excellent guarantee, so they may want to limit the artifacts customers find in large prints.

For an example, look at the sky banding in:
http://dbdimages.smugmug.com/photos/75390754_AJtkL-O.jpg

In that case I wanted to show more resolution than 3XL but keep the download time down, so I allowed the artifacts in an image smaller than what I would sell.

Dale B. Dalrymple
http://dbdimages.com

Edit: OK, the example I gave above is of a change in compression. My bad.

If I save the 97.5Mpixel image at JPEG10, I get a 15Mbyte file. If I save the 35.9Mpixel pano at JPEG10, I get a 5Mbyte file. Both are saved at JPEG10, so compression and therefore artifacts are the same. Both files sizes are OK, it's just the pixel count that is an issue.

Would the image look better, or at least same quality, if I saved a down-scaled version at JPEG11 or 12, i.e. less pixels but less compression and also bigger file size?

Again, not trying to be awkward.. just curious.

dbd

Hyperbaric wrote:

Edit: OK, the example I gave above is of a change in compression. My bad.

If I save the 97.5Mpixel image at JPEG10, I get a 15Mbyte file. If I save the 35.9Mpixel pano at JPEG10, I get a 5Mbyte file. Both are saved at JPEG10, so compression and therefore artifacts are the same. Both files sizes are OK, it's just the pixel count that is an issue.

Would the image look better, or at least same quality, if I saved a down-scaled version at JPEG11 or 12, i.e. less pixels but less compression and also bigger file size?

Again, not trying to be awkward.. just curious.

jpg compression produces artifacts and resampling to a different pixel count produces different artifacts.

In my example image, sized to be viewed at 100% on a screen, if I reduced pixel count by x4 and kept the file size the same by decreasing the jpg compression, the banding in the sky would be gone. If the new image were viewed at the same screen size as before, it would show coarse sampling artifacts because it would be viewed at 200%, or with 2x2 blocks of identical pixels. Different artifacts for different "compressions". What you suggest is even worse. With the same jpg compression ratio and the smaller file size the banding might still be there, too.

Both of your file sizes are not OK. JPGxx is not a picture quality. but perhaps a picture quality per pixel. Pixel count changes produce their own artifacts that JPGxx doesn't touch.

Dale B. Dalrymple
http://dbdimages.com

OsirisPhoto

Thanks Dale.. now my head hurts ...

I will need to just see what I see when I see it.

dbd

Hyperbaric wrote:

Thanks Dale.. now my head hurts ...

I will need to just see what I see when I see it.

Good Idea!

It is unfortunate that the big gorilla in the photo processing market, Photoshop, was designed with the point of view of the layout artist and publisher rather than the point of view of an image creator. This has been a traditional source of confusion to photographers. (We may always be a little confused, but we don't need to have tools that make it worse.)

Good Luck

Dale B. Dalrymple

OsirisPhoto

Andy wrote:

It will be gorgeous.

And it is

Another load off my mind Really fast turn around on this order too.. 7 days from order to delivery to UK

Thanks guys!