Are there limits in either file size or image dimensions for the Neural Filters?

[Bobby G.23925299rj2f]

Ok, I know I do not have a top of the line computer, but I wanted use the Photo Restoration filter in the Neural filters, but it says "We've temporarily disabled this filter because of an error"

So I brought home my laptop from work since it is quite a bit more up to date, and at one moment the neural filters work, but then when I load the image I am wanting to work on, the Photo Restoration is disabled. I checked the file format, as well as the image modes on two different images and what I believe may be happening is that Neural Filters have either a File Size Limit, or a Pixel/Dimensional Limit.

I was able to crop out a small portion of the image I am working on and all the neural filters work just fine, It even detects faces with no problem. It seems to stop functioning when I try to edit the full size photo which is 34787px x 9629px or 28.9in x 8in at 1200 pixels per inch with a file size of 958.3M

Am I possibly correct in that I have hit a file or dimensional size limit for the Neural Filters and if so, is it documented somewhere as to what the limits are?

[AlanGilbertson]

What triggers the problem isn't the size, it's the aspect ratio. If I increase your vertical height to 18000 px, the filter runs fine., but it throws an error at the 8:29 ratio. I'll report this as a bug, because there's no documented limit on the image size, and there's no documented restriction regarding aspect ratio. (The filter when it does run, only processes the first 30k pixels of image width.)

From those dimensions, I'm guessing you're laying out a billboard or similar out-of-home display, so I have to ask why you are working with such an enormous image. That you're using 1200 ppi suggests a 1:24 scale, giving you about a 50 ppi output. Normally, for big outdoor displays you'd aim for a maximum 12 to 15 pixel-per-inch output resolution, so you seem to be way over that limit, making your image much harder to deal with. Unless the final product will be viewed from only a few feet away, that's about 4x what you need.

[Bobby G.23925299rj2f]

Thank you, I hadn't even considered the possiblility of the image's aspect ratio. I'm working on a preservation / restoration project for my high school from long ago. I have access to the school's graduation class photos dating back to the 1950's. Prints from the 50's are about 30in x 8in but increase in size over the years. Normally I would work at much smaller resolutions but since this is a preservation project I figured we would just max out the optical resolution on the scanner we are using. One of the unexpected benefits of it has been that we have been creating cropped prints of individuals for Alumni and their families. The project has been so popular that I have people offering access to graduation photos they have to add to the archive as well.

So your experience so far experimenting with it is I have a maximum width of 30k pixels (of course the image I am currently working on is 34k+), but I will try experimenting with modifying the canvas height to modify the ratio to see what I can do to make it work for now.

(Started by just changing the height from 9629 to 19629 and apparently pissed off the computer........................... I will try to play with aspect ratios on a smaller scale to see what I can make work)

Thank you, and as always, I am open to any suggestions anyone may have... 

hmm maybe slice the width in half, treat it as two photos then merge them after editing... Hmmmmm

[Bobby G.23925299rj2f]

Just a very small version of what I am working on...