question about LARGE files in Illy

[crny1]

I have been doing some jobs that require some huge TIFF pictures that I then use in clipping masks. These pictures on average are about 450mb up to 1gb in file size. They have been resized by photozoom to the correct size I need for final output to print. When I have multiple TIFFS in one file the total file size becomes ridiculously big, newest one is just under 6gb. I am creating the file at 25% scale in Illustrator and then scale it up to 400% in versa before printing. My problem is when the files get this big the only way I am able to save them is in PDF format. Illustrator will error and not save for EPS. I have tried to export as a TIFF but at about 80% the computer runs out of ram, and its a healthy computer by Singburst. Illustrator even has a hard time handling the files that are this big.
What is the best way to go about this to make saving, opening and working with the files easier? I cant lose the quality when we print, so this is why I enlarge the photo first to the intended output size.
What am I missing and doing wrong? Thanks

 

[SightLine]

Instead of inserting the tiff images into the main working file, place them instead. Another nice things with this method is you can hop over to Photoshop and make and edit to the image and when you go back to Illy it will ask you if you'd like the images to be updated. Plus you are not having the huge original source image plus a duplicate of the image embedded in the illustrator working file. Of course this also depends on your RIP being able to deal with either native Illustrator ai or PDF files though. Flexi does this just fine but I have no idea on Versaworks. I'd also strongly recommend having the images and the working illustrator files in the same folder so if they are ever moved to another folder or drive then illustrator can still find them.

 

[neil_se]

I can't see why the TIFF files would possibly need to be that large. Have you re-sized them and then saved at a resolution well beyond the detail of the original image? Ie. If you take a 300dpi photo, enlarge by 4 times then resave at 300dpi, you've just divided each original pixel into 4x4 more pixels and not actually gained any detail over just enlarging and saving at 75dpi.

Unless I've misunderstood what you're doing, it'd just place the original TIFF in the Illustrator working file and rescale it there. Consider rasterizing the image at a DPI appropriate for the sign purpose/viewing distance (eg. 200-300dpi at 25% scale will be suitable for most sign types not viewed critically within 2m).

 

[crny1]

This is where being a newbie gets me and I need help.
The prints I am working with are in excess of 50 foot long and 20 foot high. Lets say I need a jpg that is 10ft by 10ft. currently I load the jpg into photo zoom and then resize it to what I need. When it saves the file is saved as a very LARGE tiff file. I have then been using this large file to put into the drawing. I have not been "placing" it but rather opening it in illustrator. When I create the file I do so in 1/4 scale and then scale it up to %400 in versa. I use the large file so that in production it is correct and not pixelated from over sizing it. I am sure I am doing it wrong or the hard way and I have never noticed until now that the files are getting ridiculously big and not saving. Hope this makes sense so I can start doing them the easier or better way! I hate waiting so long for a file to save........

 

[TimToad]

You are outputting billboard sized prints, what resolution do you think you need them to be at?

Better yet, what resolution do the people training you at your position think they need to be at? Is anybody there providing any guidance to you?

Or are you suddenly in the sign business after an order for billboard printing fell out of the sky and landed on your home?

I doubt you'll find many average shop computer systems able to work on, process and RIP 6gb files with much ease. This work does require a little bit of math and fully knowing what resolution and such your equipment outputs at. I'm assuming your running some kind of Roland machine because of the Versa reference.

As a general rule, we output things at a minimum of 150dpi and quite frankly have never noticed much difference when going over 300 dpi unless its a really small print. Cranking up the resolution on your artwork over what your printer prints at does NOT make a better looking print.

 

[crny1]

You are outputting billboard sized prints, what resolution do you think you need them to be at?

Better yet, what resolution do the people training you at your position think they need to be at? Is anybody there providing any guidance to you?

Or are you suddenly in the sign business after an order for billboard printing fell out of the sky and landed on your home?

I doubt you'll find many average shop computer systems able to work on, process and RIP 6gb files with much ease. This work does require a little bit of math and fully knowing what resolution and such your equipment outputs at. I'm assuming your running some kind of Roland machine because of the Versa reference.

As a general rule, we output things at a minimum of 150dpi and quite frankly have never noticed much difference when going over 300 dpi unless its a really small print. Cranking up the resolution on your artwork over what your printer prints at does NOT make a better looking print.

TImToad,

Let me answer your questions.
What resolution do I think they need to be at? I am not sure and obviously have been wrong and thats why I am having trouble. I never claimed to know what they should or shouldnt be.

Better yet, what resolution do the people training you at your position think they need to be at? Is anybody there providing any guidance to you? No one is training me. This is why I am asking on here.

Or are you suddenly in the sign business after an order for billboard printing fell out of the sky and landed on your home? I have been in the sign business for some time now but have just recently started with large prints.

I doubt you'll find many average shop computer systems able to work on, process and RIP 6gb files with much ease. I have 2 computers from SignBurst graphics and they are pretty stout machines. Not that I think they should handle those files but they aren't big box store computers.

I'm assuming your running some kind of Roland machine because of the Versa reference.Yes. I have a XC-540 machine, a laminator and a graphtec 8600 plotter.

These 2 sentences were actually worthwhile info.
As a general rule, we output things at a minimum of 150dpi and quite frankly have never noticed much difference when going over 300 dpi unless its a really small print. Cranking up the resolution on your artwork over what your printer prints at does NOT make a better looking print.

Thanks and I hope I have answered your questions. I am only looking for help like the other 90% of people on here are. I am a self learner for the most part but sometimes I have to resort to asking others.

 

[TimToad]

TImToad,

Let me answer your questions.
What resolution do I think they need to be at? I am not sure and obviously have been wrong and thats why I am having trouble. I never claimed to know what they should or shouldnt be.

Better yet, what resolution do the people training you at your position think they need to be at? Is anybody there providing any guidance to you? No one is training me. This is why I am asking on here.

Or are you suddenly in the sign business after an order for billboard printing fell out of the sky and landed on your home? I have been in the sign business for some time now but have just recently started with large prints.

I doubt you'll find many average shop computer systems able to work on, process and RIP 6gb files with much ease. I have 2 computers from SignBurst graphics and they are pretty stout machines. Not that I think they should handle those files but they aren't big box store computers.

I'm assuming your running some kind of Roland machine because of the Versa reference.Yes. I have a XC-540 machine, a laminator and a graphtec 8600 plotter.

These 2 sentences were actually worthwhile info.
As a general rule, we output things at a minimum of 150dpi and quite frankly have never noticed much difference when going over 300 dpi unless its a really small print. Cranking up the resolution on your artwork over what your printer prints at does NOT make a better looking print.

Thanks and I hope I have answered your questions. I am only looking for help like the other 90% of people on here are. I am a self learner for the most part but sometimes I have to resort to asking others.

Well, I'll have to give you extra points for chutzpah and gall. 90% of the people here are not newbies with an attitude while swimming in the deep end of the pool with sharks in it. This is not some sign school either. We all try to help each other, but the snarky rebuttals are not the way to get more or more informative responses from those of us sparing even a few minutes in our busy day to respond. No rear end kissing required, but spare us all the snark if you're going to use us as your teachers.

 

[scott pagan]

look into "linking" raster images rather than "embed"ding them in your ai/eps files. you will need the linked files in same directory or a "links" folder within the saved file directory. this will greatly reduce master file size and improve your workflow both in open/edit/saves, and RIP output. also check your final output size resolution. it sounds like your raster images are a bit large. i also work in 1/4 scale. i like to try to keep my raster images at 100 to 75 ppi at final size. you can cheat some images lower if necessary (or if there is nothing better to work from) helps if there is no text or fine lines. another tip is save those psd tif files with clipping masks as photoshop *.eps files. the image size will drastically drop while retaining the same image quality. re-link those images and save then compare the file size difference.

hope this helps!

 

[neil_se]

There's no need to resize them in Photozoom when you can just scale in Illustrator. The DPI (PPI) will decrease proportionately as the size increases, when you've got the image selected it'll display what the PPI is at that size so you can determine whether it's suitable.

For a 50x20' sign there's no way the image will be, or needs to be, 300dpi. That's just well beyond the detail of the original image when the original photo taken on a DSLR would have only been 5183x3456px (18 megapixel) or similar to begin with. You need to determine what DPI is suitable for your use, most roadside billboard skins here are printed at 10dpi.

Here's a short blog I wrote that might help clarify.
http://signsontime.com.au/blog/89-resolution-vs-size.html

 

[rossmosh]

Kind of drives me crazy when people talk about DPI in the digital world. There are no dots in the digital world. You only have pixels. DPI only exists in the physical world. DPI in the digital world is nothing more than a scale factor.

When talking about digital artwork, you only care about two things. Resolution and quality. To do large scale printing in you need high resolution images of a high quality.

As for making Illustrator files smaller, linking is the way to go. You will have to uncheck "Create PDF compatible file".

 

[crny1]

For everyone that has added valuable information, I sincerely thank you. I am starting to understand the photo part of it.

 

[Andy_warp]

The "resizing" in Illustrator is a half hearted approach at building lean production files.
You can do it, but if you are working the file at all in illustrator, it will have to re-render the preview at each step.

Not a big deal unless it is a huge raster image...wink wink.

The better approach is to clip most of the image in photoshop first...and orient it the direction you want it.
Omit as much extraneous info as possible.

Rotation in illustrator makes it re render too.

We also suggest placing files as psd files, they play nice with illustrator.

When we make illustrator do all of the heavy lifting on raster images...yes, it slows down.
Use the tool designed to prepare your raster images, photoshop.

You wouldn't use MS Paint to design a corporate logo, would you?

The more effort put in up front the less waiting you will do in your layout program.

 

[shoresigns]

Contrary to some advice given to you in this thread, you do need to print higher than 150-300 dpi. Here's why:

DPI is dots per inch. This is how many dots of ink your printer prints. DPI is set in Versaworks by your quality settings (usually with names like Billboard, High Quality, Artistic Quality and so on). The higher you set this, the smoother the ink will lay down which means less "ink texture", less issues with banding and an overall better looking print. Sometimes the higher quality settings will use more ink, but the main drawback is they take a lot more time.

PPI is pixels per inch. This is effectively how many pixels there are per inch when the image is printed (or displayed on a screen). If your image is 3000 pixels wide and you're printing it 30 inches wide, it's 100 PPI - simple math. A good rule of thumb we use is 300 ppi for fine art and prints on photo paper, 150 ppi for general sign printing and 75 PPI for very large prints. Sometimes if it won't ever be seen up close we'll go as low as 25 ppi. Anything around 75 or lower is where you'll be able to see the square pixels on the actual print if you inspect it up close.

Also worth mentioning is upscaling. When we have a raster image (like a photo) that's 3000 pixels wide and we're printing it at 48 inches wide to be viewed from up close, you'll be able to see the pixels since it's only 62.5 PPI. What we do is load it into Photoshop and resize it to 7200 pixels wide, which is effectively 150 ppi. Scaling up in Photoshop basically just adds more pixels between the pixels in a smooth transition (best way I can think of to explain it) so it doesn't make the image clearer, but it does eliminate the square pixel shapes from being seen in the final print.

 

[MuhammadOsta]

I have been doing some jobs that require some huge TIFF pictures that I then use in clipping masks. These pictures on average are about 450mb up to 1gb in file size. They have been resized by photozoom to the correct size I need for final output to print. When I have multiple TIFFS in one file the total file size becomes ridiculously big, newest one is just under 6gb. I am creating the file at 25% scale in Illustrator and then scale it up to 400% in versa before printing. My problem is when the files get this big the only way I am able to save them is in PDF format. Illustrator will error and not save for EPS. I have tried to export as a TIFF but at about 80% the computer runs out of ram, and its a healthy computer by Singburst. Illustrator even has a hard time handling the files that are this big.
What is the best way to go about this to make saving, opening and working with the files easier? I cant lose the quality when we print, so this is why I enlarge the photo first to the intended output size.
What am I missing and doing wrong? Thanks

the easiest shortcut for your problem is to work with the image inside the files without embedding it, this way allow you to use the image like a "place holder" where you use the image you want but at a low-quality then when everything in place.. just change to original quality. i do it all the time.
see the example below:
the original image is about 22mb, i load it in adobe ps, when save it as TIFF the following dialog appear (i'm using ps cs5)

now notice the file size difference:

now as long as the images is linked NOT embedded, this way work fine. at the end of your project you change the image files in the folder to the original files, update the file and you are done.

note: i never used this method to a file higher than 1.2gb.

 

[x2chris7x]

Just curious... Why does your final output need to be through Illustrator? I've noticed that if I embed a .tif in Illustrator (without doing any editing) and save as .eps the file size is much larger than the .tif file alone... If possible, you should work with these large raster images ONLY in photoshop and save out as a .tif with no layers and LZW compression.

 

[Andriy]

What's wrong with outputting through InDesign? The software is made for what he described.

 

[x2chris7x]

What's wrong with outputting through InDesign? The software is made for what he described.

Nothing... I guess... I never use InDesign though. To me it just seems like an extra un-needed step to place or embed your .tif in Illustrator or InDesign. If your only using Illustrator to make a clipping mask, then why don't you just create a mask inside photoshop... Save as .tif. Done.

 

[SightLine]

We just really never use eps files anymore. Most RIP's now accept PDF files and even native Illustrator ai files. The only time there are potential issues are with certain effects and gradients.

Also on eps files and even PDF files - uncheck that box for the preview image when saving and it will make a slightly smaller file. These days though even files sizes are really not an issue when you can get 4TB drives for a hundred bucks. I do like Andy's note for both cropping and doing any rotation of placed (linked) or embedded raster images in Photoshop beforehand. This takes a lot of the load off of Illustrator and makes the files again smaller. Another thing is we work almost exclusively in RGB (Adobe RGB color profile) and Pantone Solid Coated colors, RGB also makes for smaller files and has a much wide color gamut than when designing in CMYK... I realize not all RIP software does so well with this though but I think some of that might be due to profiling, using canned profiles optimized for someone else's machine that has a different average environment or maybe some RIP's just are poor at translating the RGB colors.

 

[Andy_warp]

Why is this pixel stretching software being used? All of these same steps can be done in photoshop.
Upsampling can be achieved, and you can keep everything as native .psd or .psb (the compression is the best balance of quality and size reduction)

Don't use jpegs...don't use tifs, and for the love of god can we all stop jacking with .eps files?!

The trick is to overshoot...(by a factor of 2) add a schmutz layer of 1%ish Gaussian noise, and down res to your final output.
This will break up upsampling artifacts.

300 ppi at size for a 50' x 20' image is asinine. Depending on the type of image 75ppi at full size is typically sufficient.
You might want to bump it up to 100-120 if raster text or logos are present. That stuff should be vector anyways!
We have gotten away with printing "good" digital photos at as low as 30 ppi. It's all about the output, not numbers, that tells you if its good or not.
You can take a perfectly good image, and screw it up by making it conform to a "magic" resolution number.

Also...indesign?!!! NO!!!!!! It is NOT suitable for the grand format type of work you are doing...
It rasterizes and embeds gradients and effects that should stay vector.
We have to rebuild every indesign document in Illy.
Save indesign for catalogs and publications. (It's actual function)

Photoshop is suitable as a layout tool if you layout is a large image with 1 small logo, or text line.
It's rare that we do this, typically if it only knocks out to white.

If there are critical spot colors...it is always Illy.
The reason being we can isolate that element and change it in the rip.
You can't do that cleanly with pixels.

I am fully self taught, and understand what you are up against. I taught myself how to build great color profiles from some key guidance from contributors to this very site.
These are big boy prints, you need to develop your own big boy workflow!

There are many people here that will tell you to just flatten everything, and go to print.
I feel that your clients, and the trade as a whole, deserve better.

I swear by color profiling, and more importantly process control. Take as many variables out of the equation as you can.
We printed all of this booth interior from 2 client supplied .PSB files.

http://venturebeat.com/2016/06/15/inside-the-zelda-theme-park-at-nintendos-e3-booth/

Stick with it, building a functioning workflow can be rewarding and cut down on chaos

-A

 

[visual800]

I have been doing some jobs that require some huge TIFF pictures that I then use in clipping masks. These pictures on average are about 450mb up to 1gb in file size. They have been resized by photozoom to the correct size I need for final output to print. When I have multiple TIFFS in one file the total file size becomes ridiculously big, newest one is just under 6gb. I am creating the file at 25% scale in Illustrator and then scale it up to 400% in versa before printing. My problem is when the files get this big the only way I am able to save them is in PDF format. Illustrator will error and not save for EPS. I have tried to export as a TIFF but at about 80% the computer runs out of ram, and its a healthy computer by Singburst. Illustrator even has a hard time handling the files that are this big.
What is the best way to go about this to make saving, opening and working with the files easier? I cant lose the quality when we print, so this is why I enlarge the photo first to the intended output size.
What am I missing and doing wrong? Thanks

I tell you one thing that may help those TIFF pics are pointless take each tiff pic and convert to jpeg in another screen and then drag them back to your layout, there is nothing wrong with using jpeg......as far as your layout do NOT make it to size but scale it down considerably. save at 300dpi