I should handle a 10m x 10m file,
My conputer configuration：CPU 3800X， GPU 1660ti， RAM 32GB，SSD
CPU\GPU\RAM\SSD occupancy is very low.
But Photoshop si very laggy，even just dragging the picture.
Can you tell us more about what you are doing? Are you, for example, preparing a billboard to be printed and put on the side of a building?
As the viewing distance to an image increases, the required resolution decreases. So while the resolution of a graphic printed in a magazine may be 300 pixels per inch, the resolution for a billboard is dramatically smaller. And a smaller resolution means that the image can be much smaller in terms of pixel dimensions than you were possibly expecting.
We need to process the photographer's photos. This time the work needs to add some painting content. Our works are sold to art galleries that require high-resolution images.
Can you provide more details about size? When you say "10m" do you actually mean 10 metres?
8.26 metres×6.83 metres
Michael touches on the points that there are no hard rules per se about what "high quality" is.
What are the dimensions and DPI of the file you are working with? That is a very large physical dimension and a high DPI will certainly slow any computer down.
What is the expectation of the final produced piece? Are people going to view it generally from 1" away or 30 feet away? "High resolution" has different meanings. What is the clarity required at the general viewing distance.
In general, you are working on something that is roughly the size of a billboard. When you need to go that big, you will want to actually work at a scale like 1/8 the size. Then normally you let the printer know the final dimensions and scale of your digital file and they can prep it to print appropriately. Ask your printer and install how they accept files and how they process. They will be able to provide guidelines to help you get the best product.
Question: which one of these two prints needs more pixels than the other? Answer: none of them. The very same file works for both:
If the small print here is, say, 300 ppi, then the large one will be around 40 ppi. And they will look exactly the same, equally crisp and sharp.
Thanks, Michael. I've been watching and responding to these threads for years before I finally found a way to illustrate it. It's a simple concept, but takes a long explanation.
I don't know why "300 ppi for print" has proved to be such a persistent myth. Even when it does apply, for books and magazines viewed at less than arm's length, it's not a magic number. Nothing bad happens if you send a file to print at, say, 260 ppi. It won't necessarily be any less sharp visually.
300 ppi is a theoretical upper limit. Above 300, the file's original pixels are completely masked by the halftone screen. This is based on a standard screen frequency of 150 lines per inch (lpi). So it's not really about sharpness, it's about being able to discern the original pixels - at a theoretical level.
The basic confusion in all this, is that resolution is in fact an ambiguous concept: it can mean two different things. It can either mean total number of pixels, or it can mean density of pixels within a given area. Ppi is the latter.
There certainly is a lot of confusion out there about resolution. The problem is compounded by the fact that a bigger range of people, without training or experience in design, are now expected to create promotional material.