How to manage a REALLY BIG graphic?

[Moonliner]

I have a dream and it's the size of a wall. A BIG wall.

maps.google.com has just added the keyhole satellite image data. What I would like to do is take a wall in my basement (~24x8 ft) find the center of it and paste up an 8-1/2 x 11 glossy satellite print of my house at the top resolution. Then move out in all directions adding segments until I fill up the entire wall making one giant image.

Now I could approach this as a simple cut and paste (ie with sissors) type affair but that seems a bit low tech. What I would like to do is create the image in the computer so I can paste all the images together correctly, add a few notations and then print it out.

Is there any not too expensive software that's good for dealing with humongous graphics?

[Name]

you might try the gimp(GNU Image Manipulation Program) www.gimp.org Its free and is about as powerful as photoshop(with about the same steep learning curve). It started as a linux program but has been ported to PC, and even possibly MAC.

[Kevy Baby]

I have a dream and it's the size of a wall. A BIG wall.

maps.google.com has just added the keyhole satellite image data. What I would like to do is take a wall in my basement (~24x8 ft) find the center of it and paste up an 8-1/2 x 11 glossy satellite print of my house at the top resolution. Then move out in all directions adding segments until I fill up the entire wall making one giant image.

Now I could approach this as a simple cut and paste (ie with sissors) type affair but that seems a bit low tech. What I would like to do is create the image in the computer so I can paste all the images together correctly, add a few notations and then print it out.

Is there any not too expensive software that's good for dealing with humongous graphics?Do you want to paste the images together before the output or are you talking about pasting them together after printout?

There are programs available for stitching the separate images together on the 'puter. I prefer Photoshop, but mainly because I already have it.

Your best bet for output is probably Adobe Acrobat (note: I say this using FULL Acrobat - I do not know if this feature is avaiable with the free Acrobat Reader although I would guess there is). There is a tiling feature in the output - that is probably the easiest method.

Resolution in going to be dependant on the original. While technically you can "upsample" the resolution, the results are worse than the lower resolution (IMHO).

[Moonliner]

Do you want to paste the images together before the output or are you talking about pasting them together after printout?



Ideally I want one mega-gig image stored in the computer that I can print on stadard paper, trim off the edges and put togeter like a big puzzle.

I could print the individule segments but I think it would be a challenge to trim them so there was no overlap or gaps on the final product.

I have a full version of Acrobat so I guess I'll try that first and see just how big of an image it will tile.

Thanks.

[Kevy Baby]

Note (since I clarified after I posted): I do not know of a way to ASSEMBLE the images in Acrobat (it may be doable, though I doubt it), I just recommend Acrobat for the OUTPUT.

Photoshop or GIMP areprobably you best bets for image assembly. Note that when working with large images, it will be RAM intensive. I suggest starting with inner-most image and working your way out. Don't try to assemble blocks and then going back to assemble the blocks - things may not line up properly.

[DisneyFan25863]

We use this program in school all the time for big posters: Poster (http://www.download.com/Poster/3000-2191_4-10357849.html?tag=lst-0-1)

[Betty]

I concur with Kevy Baby. Having designed graphics for the side of box trucks and billboards, it takes a LOT of memory. I have 2 gigs at work - on a 2.0 ghz and saving a file can take 10 - 15 minutes. It's difficult to work with because you want to save often - but not too often because it takes so damn long. Opening a file is the same... as it printing. We use a large format printer and printing can take 30-45 minutes for a poster sized print.

I would suggest you take maybe 9 images at a time... 3 rows of 3 - in photoshop or similar program. Start in the middle and work out. Lay them out the blocks of 9 and then assemble each block of 9 to the others.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Memory and CPU issues can easily be solved. Just get yourself a modest little setup like this one (http://www.edharriss.com/interview/cg_channel/Welcome%20to%20CG%20Channel_files/Alternate_Route_Render_Farm.jpg). :D

(egads, that's an STK 9730...must be, like, 4 or 5 years old. *shudder* the dark ages).

[Kevy Baby]

C'mon... if you're gonna do it, do it right and get this (http://www.apple.com/science/profiles/colsa/) setup. It's a supercluster of 1,566 64-bit, dual-processor Apple Xserve G5 servers that will do 25+ teraflops.

http://images.apple.com/science/profiles/colsa/images/image_page1-1.jpg (http://www.apple.com/science/profiles/colsa/)

[Ghoulish Delight]

But where's the storage?! And the tape backup. Are they protecting their data for crying out loud!?

[mhrc4]

and not to mention, its still an apple *shudder*

[DisneyFan25863]

and not to mention, its still an apple *shudder*

Well, having a supercomputer crash during a scientific operation isn't exactly the best thing that can happen ;)

[Kevy Baby]

But where's the storage?! And the tape backup. Are they protecting their data for crying out loud!?That's what floppy disks are for!

Well, having a supercomputer crash during a scientific operation isn't exactly the best thing that can happen ;)One of the reasons the system was chosen was for its stability. Let's not go down the Apple bashing road!

[DisneyFan25863]

One of the reasons the system was chosen was for its stability. Let's not go down the Apple bashing road!

Umm, Kevy, I think you read my comment the wrong way. I was saying they chose Apple because they didn't want the system to crash all the time.

"Well, having a supercomputer crash during a scientific operation isn't exactly the best thing that can happen "

As in, they chose Apple because otherwise, it would crash during a scientific operation.


I use a Mac, remember?

[€uroMeinke]

Yeah, but which of you invented liking Mac?

[Kevy Baby]

Umm, Kevy, I think you read my comment the wrong way.Indeed you are correct my friend. And for that, I extend my humblest of apologies.

(Man I can be kinda pissy when I first get home from work.)

[Kevy Baby]

Yeah, but which of you invented liking Mac?Oh neither of us invented it. Its just part of the indoctrination.

[Prudence]

Where's the challenge if your machine isn't in danger of crashing at any moment? No sense of adventure.

[DisneyFan25863]

Where's the challenge if your machine isn't in danger of crashing at any moment? No sense of adventure.

Eh, I get that rush everytime I open Microsoft Word for Mac. Buggiest software I've ever used, Windows or Mac. It literally takes up 80% of your resources, even without a document open.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

C'mon... if you're gonna do it, do it right and get this (http://www.apple.com/science/profiles/colsa/) setup. It's a supercluster of 1,566 64-bit, dual-processor Apple Xserve G5 servers that will do 25+ teraflops."Teraflops"??? Now you're just making stuff up. :p

[Ghoulish Delight]

flops = floating point operations per second. A "Floating point operation" is a mathematical operation involving non-integer numbers (i.e., decimals. Quite a trick in a binary context).

[DisneyFan25863]

Teraflop = 1000 Gigaflops, I believe.

Same as a Terabyte = 1024 Gigabytes.

[Ghoulish Delight]

To be precies 1 teraflops = 1024 (2^10) gigaflops.

[Kevy Baby]

Or to be EXTREMELY precise:

25 teraflops = 1 really freakin fast computer

(I hope that wasn't too technical)

[DisneyFan25863]

To be precies 1 teraflops = 1024 (2^10) gigaflops.

Whoops. Well, I did get the storage terms right.
:D