Maximum image size

[Roger.E.Eller at sealedair.com]

On 07/02/2006 at 06:30 PM, Sarah Reichelt <sarah.reichelt at gmail.com>wrote:
> It's related to the number of pixels rather than the size of the
> image. I have a 3 MB JPG that's 6572 x 8293 pixels. That will not
> display correctly and resizing the image object makes no difference.
> However a 9 MB file that is only 3303 x 3015 pixels will display
> perfectly. I want to do some tests to confirm the exact point at which
> the problems occur: it does not fail just because one of the
> dimensions is over 4096 pixels, as I can display an image that is 3048
> x 9280. So the limiting factor must be the 2 dimensions multiplied.

Sarah,

I would be very interested in knowing the exact recipe that produces this 
"scrambled cable channel" effect with large images in Mac OS. I have an 
application that works 95% of the time, but certain large images will 
fail. I've noticed that sometimes the image is fine at first, but the user 
needs it rotated 90 degrees. They rotate it, and BAM, scrambled image.

Prior to the release of 2.7.x of Rev, I was told that the image handling 
routines were going to be reworked in 2.7 (for Mac and Win). Yes, Windows 
has problems too, but different... large file size images cause 
significant slowdown of the app. Anyway, I contacted Runtime and was told 
that the image routine improvements did not happen in 2.7, but resources 
were instead focused on improved vector graphic features like 
antialiasing. I wonder if this problem is back on the agenda or forgotten 
again in favor of the next cool, but unnecessary feature of the day. When 
our customers demand that our apps work correctly, yet the engine has a 
serious design flaw, what can we do besides wait for Runtime to fix it?

Roger Eller <roger.e.eller at sealedair.com>