error opening tiff file 2.2gb and 30,000 pixels

[michaelr3127192]

I know there is a 2gb and 30k pixel limit on psd, but I want to open my tiff file and save as psb.

But it won't open.

Anybody got a fix?

fyi this is a saved tif file from an Epson V800 scanner.  Can't save as psd or psb...

Thanks!

[JJMack]

Can any application open it? Is it good or corrupted file?

[michaelr3127192]

I don’t believe the file is corrupt. It’s every one of 8 similar scans I did today, while all 200 1.3gb tiff files I’ve scanned in the past few weeks open with no problem.

[Test Screen Name]

What is the full error message when you try to open the larger file?

Can any other app open it?

[michaelr3127192]

"Could not open [filename.tif] because an unexpected end-of-file was encountered."

[michaelr3127192]

So, I partially solved this problem....and confirmed file size is the issue.

I rescanned one of the sheets of 4x5 film at 6000dpi instead of 6400dpi which produced a slightly smaller file in both the largest pixel dimension (28,xxx instead of 30,000+) and 1.9gb instead of 2.2gb.  PS 2021 opened this slightly smaller file with no problem whatsoever.

But I would like to scan at a higher resolution, open in PS, then save as a psb file.  Epson Scan will not allow saving in a lossless format other than tiff, and PS won't seem to import tif files larger than 2.0gb or 30,000 pixels.

There seems to be an assumption that psb files will be created by importing smaller files and increasing the size during the editing process, making the file bigger and necessitating saving as psb instead of psd.  But what if you are starting with a bigger than 2.0gb file and need to open it to get started editing???

Does anyone have a workaround for this?

Thanks!

[Test Screen Name]

You are assuming this is a Photoshop bug, and it might be that. But there is another possibility: that it is an Epson Scan bug. (That is, when scanning to a TIFF that needs to be more than 2GB, that the TIFF is wrong). Can you open that TIFF made by Epson in any other app ok? Worth checking for Epson updates too.

[michaelr3127192]

Thanks for your reply.  I'm not assuming this is a PS bug; I'm actually hypothesizing it is not a bug at all, but a design limitation.  It is well known that psd files cannot exceed 2.0gb or 30k pixels.  That is the reason psb format was created--to get around this design limit in psd files.

tiff files are limited to 4.0gb.

The problem--it seems to me--is that PS may limit the incoming size of tif files to 2.0gb or less--similar to psd format. But I don't know for sure if that is true, it just matches my trial and error experiments so far.

I will happily try opening my 2.2gb tiff files in some other program if anyone can suggest one they know for sure will open tif files that exceed 2.0gb!  [I've tried a few; haven't found any yet--Windows Pic Editor, Paint, etc..]

[Test Screen Name]

I don't have any suggestions, but here's something you can try. Photoshop can save TIFF files up to the absolute limit of 4GB. So you could try making one from a nice big PSB (or two joined), and see if you can reopen the TIFF you saved. The reports I read in the forums suggest this does work, and if so, it does suggest that your Epson-produced TIFF files are part of the problem.

[michaelr3127192]

Good idea! I'll try that.

[Per Berntsen]

The real resolution of Epson scanners is much lower than what Epson claims.

The Epson prosumer scanners have two lenses, one that scans the entire bed at a claimed resolution of 4800 ppi, and a higher resolution lens that scans a smaller area at 6400 ppi. These numbers are totally unrealistic for a scanner in this price class.

Tests have shown the real resolution of the first lens to be around 2200 ppi, so I would expect the the resolution of the second lens to be less than 3200. I have scanned a lot of 6½ x 8½" film at 2400 ppi - using 4800 did not resolve more detail or produce sharper files.

You can easily test this by making two scans – one at 6400 ppi, and one at 3200.

Then reduce the pixel dimensions of the 6400 scan so it matches the pixel dimensions of the 3200 scan, and compare them at 100%.

Using 3200 instead of 6400 will reduce the file size to a quarter, and will also allow you to scan in 16-bit, and still have files well below 2 GB. (actually just over 1 GB)

Scanning in 16-bit is strongly recommended – it allows for heavy editing without any quality loss.

Also, if you're scanning black & white film, scan in 16-bit grayscale, which will reduce the file size to one third of RGB. There is no advantage in scanning black & white film in RGB.

The Vuescan scanning software will let you choose what RGB channel to make gray from, the green channel is supposed to be sharper than the other channels, but I have not found that to be the case with my negatives.

[michaelr3127192]

Hi Per,

Many thanks for your response.  I am aware of the effective resolutions of Epson scanners and the hi/lo rez lenses.  I'm using the hi rez lens, which I understand has ~2,900 effective ppi.  However, I have not found any tests of scanning at the higher resolultion (say 6400) as compare to up rezzing in PS.  Do you have any sources on this?  If not, then I will continue to try to make my own tests.  But to do these tests, I need to open the bigger file in PS.  Hence, my issue as described above.

[JJMack]

May I ask why you need 812MP image?

[michaelr3127192]

Sure, I print murals, 72x120" and I want the closest viewing distance possible.  My own particular form of crazy.

[Per Berntsen]

You can scan a section of the negative for comparison, which will result in a smaller file that you can open in PS. But I still think it's pointless to scan at 6400 ppi, because there will be no quality gain.

And uprezzing in PS will not improve the quality either, especially not when you start out with mediocre quality, which is what you get with an Epson scanner.

3200 ppi will give you a file you can print 120 inches wide at133 ppi, but Epson scanners are not particularly sharp, so you may not be pleased with the result.

Careful noise reduction and sharpening may improve the image somewhat, I recommend Topaz DeNoise AI and Sharpen AI for this. (do not apply any noise reduction or sharpening in the scanning software)

I use an Agfa T2500 for my 4 x 5 negs, it has a true resolution of 2500 ppi, is much sharper than the Epsons, and its scans would probably look much better printed 120 inches wide than Epson scans.

It has a SCSI interface, takes 7 minutes to scan a 4 x 5, and I run it from a Windows 7 computer. I haven't dared to upgrade it to Windows 10, the scanner may not work.

Other options are to get drum scans from your negatives, or to have them photographed with a medium format camera with a macro lens and a 150 MP back. Files from digital cameras are much cleaner and have much less noise than scans, and are better suited for enlargement.

[michaelr3127192]

Thanks for your experience. I appreciate it!  To-date I have drum scanned 11x14 and 8x10 film for my mural sized prints.  I am currently experimenting to see how much I can push 4x5 film and doing my own comparisons of drum scans vs. the Epson.

[JJMack]

What is the closest distance that you can view your 6' x 12' mural and see the entire mural.  Yes at a foot or two away you may be able to resolve down and see all your 822MP but not all at once.   While the human eyes may have a 120 degree field  of view your  peripheral  vision can not resolve down to 300ppi.  One will not be able to appreciate your high resolution copy of your mural at a distance they can resolve all its pixels. In fact it may not even be possible for According to scientist and photographer Dr. Roger Clark, the resolution of the human eye is 576 megapixels.

[michaelr3127192]

JJ, as you correctly infer, I am not expecting viewers to take in the entirety of a 10' wide print from 13" viewing distance. But I like to walk right up to a print to see how sharp it is.  It's all about craftsmanship to me, like the joints and finish on a piece of fine handcrafted furniture.  My own judgment.  People be different.

[JJMack]

822M does not  mean the image will be sharp your 4x5 image would need to be sharp and you scanner would need to be able to resolve down well and be scan it well to create a good copy. Your 822MP pixels need to be high quality pixels.  822MP out of focus pixels is an out of focus image.  Can your scanner produce 822M high quality pixels. From what has been written here I do not know if it can.

[michaelr3127192]

JJ, no, I think the Epson V800 can produce around 180 quality mpx from a 4x5 film scan, but this is still way more than the best dslrs available, and I am seeing many dslr shooters making large prints (even w/o stitching multiple shots).  So I am exploring the tools of uprezzing and sharpening to see what is the max print size I can get from a 4x5 (to my own satisfaction of course, YMMV).  And I will be doing my own direct comparisons of drum scans and Epson scans from the same 4x5 transparencies.  If the max effective scan resolution is 2,900 (as I've seen reported) using the Epson hi-res lens, then scanning at 6400 will produce more pixels but not--as you indicate--more sharpness or more quality pixels.  Neither will uprezzing in PS.  In fact, the two approaches may (or may not) be indistiguishable.  This is a comparison I want to make for myself.

Of course, it all comes down to viewing distance.  From a distance of 3', data I have seen indicate a viewer will not be able to tell a difference in sharpness that would be obvious at a distance of 15".  And, as you have already suggested, "normal viewing distance" for even a 48x60" wide print is about six feet.  So there you go.

[michaelr3127192]

To be more precise, my calculations show I should be able--from a 4x5-- to print a 40x60" print at 240dpi and a viewing distance of 1.2' (14.4") that is as sharp as the human eye can resolve. Without any uprezzing or sharpening applied.

If the viewing distance is increased to 2.4' (29"), then I could print 72x120" (6'x10') at only 120dpi and the print will look just as sharp.

So it all comes down to viewing distance.  If one is willing to produce a print that looks like an impressionist painting from 1-2' viewing distance, much is possible.  If one is intent on having the shortest possible sharp viewing distance, then the going gets tougher.  This is why I've been primarily shooting 11x14 chromes for the past 10 years.

[michaelr3127192]

I think part of my particular motivation comes from the fact that I am nearsighted.  I started wearing glasses at age 8, and even though I am 65 now, I still take off my glasses to read b/c my uncorrected near vision is much better than corrected vision.  No need for reading glasses.  I focus on my view camera screen without glasses.  So I want to see print quality up close--like, nose on, tack sharp.  No matter what the size of the print.

I've gone into photo galleries before and been busted by the director as a photographer because "only photographers look at prints that close."  I do the same thing for paintings--I want to see the brush strokes and the techniques the painter used.  I hate seeing a beautiful photo print from across the room only to get close and it all goes blurry.  Poor technique, over-reaching.  But that's only my opinion, and I am very aware it is a minority opinion.  A very small minority.  Most people don't care.  And if a print will be hung behind a sofa or at the far end of a bed, most folks won't care.  And they probably shouldn't.  But it would bother me.

Probably more than you wanted to know....

[D Fosse]

It seems you have a good understanding of all the aspects of this, and Per's observations re actual scanner resolution match my experience (also Epson flatbed). All those pixels aren't real.

Personally, I stopped scanning when I discovered how much sharper a photograph could be, with detail I never saw in the scans. That was standard 35mm film or transparencies, though, easily shot 1:1 with a good, flat-field macro lens. I have personal experience with the Micro-Nikkor 60/2.8 and the Sony FE 90/2.8 macro. Both are razor sharp and will bring out every grain in the film (although, admittedly, 60mm is a bit too short).

Of course, with 4x5 originals your options are somewhat limited. To photograph them, you'd have to stitch. If you can afford a Phase One IQ3 you'd get some of the way, but still.

If you're handy, and you do this enough to make it worth the trouble, you could make a custom lens hood at the length you need for the required magnification ratio, and just stand the camera on end on a light table.

Still, all said, a bit of realism goes a long way. Lens technology has improved enormously in later years, and the old lenses for analog cameras weren't really all that sharp by today's standards. It could well be that you get more detail on a high-resolution 24x36 mm sensor today, than you got with an analog medium format camera back then.

[JJMack]

Your eyes are 65 years old and near sighted and you ware glasses.  Before I was 65 my eye doctor told me I was starting to develop cataracts and we don't wait anymore its time to replace your eyes lenses. What do you want to be nearsighted, farsighted or both on of each?  I chose to remain nearsighted ware Glasses and still be a little colorblind. Now that I'm 80 I do not see as well as I did when I was 65.  From where I stand your mural is beautiful I can still see.

My 1D Mark IV 16MP camera gives me all the pixels I need.  However I do miss my 300MM F2.8 images but that lens on the 1D add up  to a 10 pounder.  I can nor hand hold it these days. You will not believe how sharp an image the lens captures wide open at F2.8.    You want High Quality Pixels more than quantity of pixels. High quality Lens, Body, and Sensor.   Beats the iPhone every time but  is not as convenient,

[michaelr3127192]

I don't own a dslr, but just out of curiosity, and b/c I have a friend who is a digital shooter and sells a lot of 40x60" prints, I ran some numbers common to dslrs--with 54mpx (6k x 9k), you can print a 40x60 at 145dpi and a viewing distance of 2'.  I see this a lot in photo galleries.  It goes blurry real quick if you get within two feet of the print.  But "normal viewing distance" is around six feet, and it looks fine from that distance.  Heck, it looks fine from 3'.  So viewing distance trumps camera/film/image/file resolution.

Now, my question, getting back to your comment--I see/hear a lot of photographers/printers commonly uprez their files to 300dpi to print.  From my understanding, that shouldn't add much if anything to the quality of the print.  Why not just print at the 145dpi?  Is there a real quality difference or only an imagined quality difference?  I guess this has been addressed many times and in many places, but as a film shooter it's not an issue I've had to deal with before.  If I start printing from my 4x5 collection, however, it will be more relevant....