I have 2 GB so should be enough. I used a jpg at 300dpi. I will try as png. I have seen image "walls" that are panned over. see: Any posts to a how to for vegas?

You can also use 6 dpi.

And 20000 dpi works equally well.

Really.

Why? Because Vegas couldn't care less about print resolution, all it cares about is pixel dimensions.

Try converting the JPG to PNG format. I have successfully used PNG images in Vegas that were larger than the one you're using.

Regarding the dpi issue - I agree that Video is concerned about pixels rather than dpi, but my understanding is that there is a direct relationship between the two when SCANNING - hopefully someone can confirm this.

i.e. supposing we are scanning a picture measuring 1" x 1" (~25mm x 25mm)

If we set resolution at 6 dpi, we will get a graphic measuring 6 pixels x 6 pixels
If we set resolution at 300 dpi, we will get a graphic measuring 300 pixels x 300 pixels

and so on ..... so its possible to do a calculation based on how much you want to zoom in on your 50" x 37.5" image

tried conversion and output of original to a png file .No go. Does the red background being displayed mean something for Vegas? I seem to remember reading something somewhere.

More resolution = more pixels

Red background in some (Flash based) applications indicates that they can't handle the alpha channel. Probably not relevant here though...

Peter, I'll be glad to confirm this.
My rule of thumb (like yours) is that 1" @ 100 dpi = 100 pixels.
Therefore, an image that's 6" W. x 4" H. at 150 dpi = 900 x 600 pixels.
This is slightly larger than required (for both NTSC & PAL) so you have some room to zoom and/or crop if needed.

Mike

The reason I used 300 dpi is because I want to be able to have a good quality picture when I pan and zoom into an individual picture on the larger picture. I reasoned I needed a higher res to get a better looking image. I may not be right. Feel free to correct/educate me if I am wrong.

However, as it goes now it doesn't work at all. I really thought using a big background with lots of other images on the background would work. Vegas is saying NOPE DOPE!

rj

The point about DPI is that once you've done your scans you can stop talking about DPI. It doesn't have any bearing on any NLE anywhere in this or any other world.

Carry on...

Rob Mack

How tight do you plan on zooming into the image? Have you tried scanning at 150dpi and making a smaller image?

I think it means "No"

Consider that, even though your jpeg is only 100 megs (a very wild guess) when compressed, it has to be uncompressed when Vegas uses it. That's a LOT of memory.

There are other ways to approach this, like parent/child layers with smaller tiles of images on them.

Rob Mack

I was counting the stills in his example and there were 18 or so horizontally, starting with one at full frame size. That means he'd need about 12000 across if he did them all as one image. Assuming he wants to do exactly the same thing.

If you did it with parent/child layers I think you could have the majority of the images at a much smaller size. You only need to zoom in on a few.

Rob Mack

I drudged up an old post I made a few years back. Perhaps some might find this useful:
Dots per inch (dpi) isn't useful, as Kelly has already stated, but it CAN be converted to something useful. What is useful? The measure of the total pixels in your video frame, still photo file, or other image.

There are two common ways to express the total number of pixels:

1. Give the number of pixels in the horizontal direction and also the number in the vertical direction. For instance, NTSC DV 4:3 video is 720 pixels by 480 pixels.

2. Give the total number of pixels. This is simply the result of multiplying the two numbers given in #1: 720 x 480 = 0.346 megapixels. Digital still photo cameras are usually specified in this terminology.

Now, in printing, dots per inch is often used, because to make a picture look good on a piece of paper, you have to stuff a certain number of dots into each square inch of paper. If you don't, the picture looks grainy, like newspaper. Based on how your eye perceives things, and on the technology of printing, it turns out that pictures start to look pretty good when you put about a 150 dots (horizontal) by 150 dots (vertical) into each square inch.

Now, with that as background, here is how you can convert dots per inch into one of the two measures (#1 and #2) that are useful when dealing with video: you simply multiply the dpi times the size of the image. So, if you scan a physical photograph (using a flatbed scanner, for instance) and you scan at 200 dpi, and the picture is a 4x6 photo, then the total pixels is 200 times 4 = 800 by 200 time 6 = 1200. Thus, the resulting file will be 800x1200 (or 1200x800, depending on how you rotate the image) and the total pixels will 800x1200 = 0.960 megapixels.

Thus endeth today's lesson. There will be a test at start of class tomorrow.

Isn't the question here really: Is there a pixel size limit to images on the timeline, or is the limit set by available RAM on the specific computer ?

Just try waiting!
If that fails try turning off Waveforms and Thumbnails. With very large stills the thumbnails can take forever to generate.

Whatever you do, do this panning and zooming thing in its own project and render it out.

Bob.

rjkrash,

The youtube example was done by JIMH, one of this forums members. You could ask Jim how he achieved his example.

Bob (farss)

I tried waiting. I can understand a thumbnail taking a while but when previewing the image from the explorer i get nothing either. However, it seems to try in that it changes the Display size to 15000x11250x32 is a black screen but then quits after amount of time specified for still image length.

rj

I thought that name looked familiar...

Rob

rj, here's a http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=499388link to a thread[/link] that you may find interesting.

In the thread JimH says "I've used some VERY big jps. The end morph sequence in my end of season cross country video used a mosaic that was 12,000 x 8,000. I had to reduce the size from an even bigger version because my machine croaked (AMD 4800+ x2, 2 gig ram). But I was advised by Spot that the limit is the computer, not Vegas. Here's a low rez YouTube of that end sequence:"

Hope this helps

Alan

I hope y'all are still checking this thread because I think I may have found something. I tried several different sizes of images and file formats and finally got one to work.

I started at 15000x11250 167Mb as jpg ---wouldn't display
then 12000x8000 76Mb as jpg --- wouldn't display
then 10000x7500 55mb as jpg --- wouldn't display , in fact crashed Vegas on 2 machines
then 8000x6000 31MB as jpg --- works!

So i guess there is a limit. not sure if file size or pixel size. And if others have done larger maybe it was in a different version.

Using
Vegas 7.0e (build 216)
Windows XP Pro SP2
Intel Core2 Quad CPU @ 2.66Ghz
2.00 Gb of RAM

could someone try a GT 8000x6000 on a Vegas 6 system and see if this is something with 7?

Any comments?

The easiest thing to do is throw in another 2 gig of ram. That should bump you up a few notches. I just rendered a 1 hour 33 minute project with about 300 still jpg's, some HDV clips, Digital clips, S-video clips, and a bunch of fx's to NTSC widescreen in 4 hours 5 minutes with 4 gigs of ram. The jpg's varied from 500k to 5000k in size, most of them 2200 x 2200.
JJK