[Tig] 8k IMAX scans... 16k next

[Bob Friesenhahn]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008, TSassoon at aol.com wrote:
> And Photoshop falling apart above 4K for matte paintings? Hello? I 
> can think of reasons to not use Photoshop, but memory management 
> isn't one of them. And the problem with higher-than-4K output for

Yes, this seems a bit unbelievable given that professional DSLRs often 
provide more pixel data than 4K and Photoshop has been used for years 
to support desktop publishing at 2400 DPI.  Resolution is really only 
a problem due to time consumed, storage space, and the problem of not 
being able to see what you are really doing.

While I am a fan of 64bits, 4K does not even push the envelope for 32 
bits.  For routine testing of 32-bit GraphicsMagick I typically test 
up to 18K resolution (full "IMAX" resolution) and for 64-bits there 
are no arbitrary limits and 64K resolution is easily workable given 
sufficient RAM.

> it's worse. The inefficiencies you speak of are usually regarded by 
> the VFX house as competitive advantages. After a long time, they may

Agreed.  The same as any other sort of business, the businesses which 
build their business with an eye for the future eventually prevail as 
the market leaders.

Bob
======================================
Bob Friesenhahn
bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer,    http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/