HELP!!! - Max RIP size???

[GraphiXtreme]

I have a very large file that I am trying to just open up in Wasatch and it seems to fail every time. I've tried EPS files of postscript 1, 2 and 3 and they all fail to fully open...no error message, they just don't import I guess. This is a very big file, the overall dim's of it are like 72" x 144" which I need to further upscale in the RIP by 2X for a final size of 144" x 288". The EPS files saved at different PostScipt settings are: ps1 file is 3.61 GB, the ps2 file is 652 MB and the ps3 file is 353 MB. I could save as a bitmap file, but I'm having trouble just getting it to size correctly when I output from Corel.

BTW, my original file contains mostly pictures that are at 200 dpi, with the intended final output at 100 dpi. I designed the file at 1/2 scale as I was having a lot of trouble getting it to render in anything close to a reasonable amount of time at full size. Half-size was still a PITA, but a bit better. Ideas....?????

[bob]

Why EPS? Other than preserving precise vector and text acuity, there's no real reason to wrangle a behemoth EPS file.

Even at that, you can make a TFF or JPG with close, if not exactly the same, sharpness. The only real downside is if you're laying down a lot of spot black. The bitmap vesions tend to lay down massive amounts of ink apparently trying for CMY black instead of K.

Corel Draw is a bugger when trying to exactly size bitmaps. But if you keep it as a CDR file you can open that file in Corel PhotoPaint and do either an export or a save as, depending on how you have things set up, as a bitmap of your choice and it will be exactly the size and resolution indicated on the Image->Resample... and Image->Paper size... dialogs.

[eye4clr]

Looks like overkill on the file resolution to me and/or your computer just isn't up to it. Could also be font problems or some corrupt element in the eps. You shouldn't have any problems running an eps.

For clarity, let's define resolution...
To start off on the right foot, there is no relationship between the printer resolution and the file resolution. Seriously.

There is the resolution of the print - on the printer; this is dots/inch. The file is pixels. The 2 are not related AT ALL. Think about how the term resolution is used here. You could have 14000000000 dots/inch and 10 pixels/inch and it would look "low res" becuase you'd see the pixels on the print. Just the same, you could have 14000000000 pixels/inch and print at 360 dpi and it might look a little rough because you'd see the dots. So, resolution as a term is used to describe both.

To determine how many PPI (not dots) you need in your file, base it on the dimension of the print. Because the whole issue of having enough resolution is driven by viewing distance, this is a pretty useful tool. The "rule" is to stand back a distance from the print equal to the diagonal measurement of the print. This is the proper viewing distance.

Before I start talking numbers, don't trust a word I say here. Test this for yourself and keep the test print to educate your customers. Start with an image that YOU SCAN AT 300ppi. This must be real scanned pixels not an image that has been altered in Photoshop. Have the dimensions be about 1-2 ft.; although this really doesn't matter. Downsize the resolution in steps and save each version as a unique image. Make one 200ppi, another 150ppi, 100ppi, 75ppi, 50ppi, 40ppi, 30ppi, and 20ppi. Nest them all up and print them out side by side. Oh yeah, another thing to notice is the change in the file size. Cutting the ppi by half shrinks the file size by 70-75%, not by 50%. Again, see for yourself.

Ok, here is the real test.... stick it up on the wall and stand at arm's lenght. Which one is the lowest you can use and still be sell-able? Now, step back one step and the whole thing changes. Bet you'll be happy with something much lower than you expect. Now step back 2 steps. They will all look the same.

For the dimension that you're talking, I'd say 50-75ppi will be fine. Billboard printers consider a 25ppi image to be the upper limit of thier needs.

Hope this helps. Go easy on the ppi and you'll be a lot happier for it.

[GraphiXtreme]

Thanks for the education. I understand the difference between file and printer resolution being entirely independent of each other. I ended up using a JPG file that I ended up resizing in the RIP. It was probably overkill in file DPI, but this was my first job of this magnitude. I finished printing out the 9 panels and they all look pretty darn good. The reason I was messing with a behemoth EPS is because I couldn't get Corel to output anything that made sense to me. I finally got it to work alright, but I'm still not sure what I really needed it to be in this case. The text looks VERY sharp, much sharper than I expected it to be.

The thing about when I was trying to export it, the max size I could get it to output was 100.0 inches, with varying pixel count depending on what I input for resolution. I can't find anything that says that there are size limitations. I did end up opening the CDR file in PP, which took an excrutiatingly long time to open up...like an HOUR or better!!!

[eye4clr]

Every desktop app has size limitations.

Quark is something like 48", Illustrator is what...16'. Anyway, they vary but everyone has a limitation. Resizing in the RIP is one of the reasons to use RIP.

The eps shouldn't have been a problem. It definately is the right format for mixing text with photos. Your text is so sharp as a direct result of this. And the great thing is the added dimension doesn't effect the file size.

Another thing you might try is making a PDF from Corel. Or, better yet through Distiller. You can resample the ppi down if needed and compress the text and vector. This can dramatically shrink the file size and kinda preflight the file prior to the RIP. If you use Distiller, just make sure that the compressions are Max Quality, not Medium.

[GraphiXtreme]

For clarification, I used a JPG file for the final output, not an EPS file. I wanted to use the EPS, but it never would import, so I abandoned it and used a JPG.

I had a problem one time scaling DOWN in the RIP, so I'm a little gunshy when scaling either way too much. In that instance, it was a 4' x 20 panel and I scaled it down for a sample print of like 6" x 48" or so. What it did was ONLY print the solid background, nothing more, nothing less.

In this case, I had to resize the JPG file from like 16" in the small direction to 144" in the same direction, seems like it was over 800% increase. The JPG output from PhotoPaint didn't want to go any bigger for some reason. Could be partly my naivity in the whole process, but I suspect it also has to do with how big it was as I've not had this trouble before.

[eye4clr]

I know this is the easy answer, but.... neither Corel nor Wasatch has been the most dependable in my experience.

Next time give PDF a try to keep the file size down and keep vector intact.

[GraphiXtreme]

I've tried PDF's in the past with mixed results. Sometimes they are fine and other times the RIP doesn't import them properly. It comes up with a pseudo-error message, something to the effect that the colors aren't going to look right...which they don't, at all.

[eye4clr]

While do i actually hate to do this, I gotta knock Wasatch for that. Most RIPs don't have much trouble with PDFs. In fact, busy prepress and graphics shops often have rigid policies of making incoming files PDFs to streamline and standardize workflow. Not to mention preflighting.

[drivingforce]

I dont know why you would be having that problem as we very often are working from file sizes that big or bigger. I was having an awful time with Wasatch earlier this year and it turned out that the fix was in reloading the software over itself. something became corrupted and was causing problems. while it didnt make much sense, I reloaded the software and it cured all my problems.