[robertstolpe]

I just upgraded to 10 studio running on Microsoft XP through Lightroom 3.3.

My second image I got this error message when trying to save "Unable to continue due to running out of memory.  Image is too large."  I shoot a Canon 5DM2, convert my RAW image to a DNG in Lightroom. Now my first image processed fine.  Second image cannot save.  Too big!  So how big is my TIFF?

Shot RAW image was 22 mb which became 41 mb DNG which converted to a PP 123 mb tiff.  Actually first image was slightly larger without a problem.

I am looking for a recommendation.  Will dump image and try again in pp 9 studio.

Processed fine in PP 9 Studio. So it seems like a bug. I like some of the new controls for 10 Studio. The PP 10 Studio appears to do a better job than 9 but aack! I couldn't save. May have to sit on the sidelines with 10 until a fix comes my way.

[PerroneFord]

I've also been hit with this and must say I am quite disappointed. I cannot even bring the RAW images in from my T2i. Every other program I use for photo manipulation, including the free ones, handle this file size without issue. I even paid extra for the Studio version of PP so that I could manipulate the RAW images directly.

Very disappointing.

[admin]

Hi there,

Sorry to hear you are having problems.   Portrait Professional has been tested against photos your size and larger and works ok.  The most likely explanation at this point is that there has been a problem with loading Canon raw files, which results in your picture taking up more memory than it should.  We have an improved raw loader for both Canon and Nikon raw files that can be downloaded for free from these links:

Canon and Nikon Raw loaders for Portrait Professional (Windows)

Canon and Nikon Raw loaders for Portrait Professional (Macintosh)

Would you mind trying that to see if the problem is fixed?  If not, the best way to proceed is to open up a support ticket.

Thanks for your patience,

Tony

[PerroneFord]

Thanks Tony, I'll give it a shot this evening.

[PerroneFord]

Sadly, this did not solve the issue. I am able to open and manipulate RAW files on this laptop with Canon's Digital Photo Professional, and Ifranview. i also cut feature lenght films on this laptop using Avid (Same software used to cut Avatar, Inception, Dark Knight, Spiderman, etc.)

It's a very capable 64bit laptop running Win7 x64. But Portrait Pro will not open a single Canon RAW still with it.

[hans-peter]

I'm experiencing the same issue/bug in the new PP version10. I used to process my 200MB 8000x8000 pixels TIFF portrait images (scanned from Medium Format Negatives) in PP version 8. I had no problems in version 8 although the large files I use were at the limit to the max size which could be handled in PP8. Some scans a tad larger e.g. 8200x8200 pixels also failed to process with the message "Could not Write Scanline" when saving the image to disk. Shrinking the image a tad to 8000X8000 pixels solved the problem in PP8.

Unfortunately in PP version 10 this does not help anymore. The TIFF images must be downsized to about of half of the original size. And that is unacceptable. I suggest ANTHROPICS delivers a patch to solve this problem.

As I'm a member and Frequent Portrait-Images Poster of the well known site PHOTO.NET I will also announce the problems with this version of PP version 10 on the PHOTO.NET forum if no solution is offered within a short period of time.

I'm running PP8 and PP10 on the same HP Pavillon M8170 DeskTOP PC under Windows Vista Home Premium 32 bits ServicePack2 4GB RAM

http://photo.net/photos/hpvandenberg

Hans-Peter van den Berg

[BClews]

hans-peter Wrote:...As I'm a member and Frequent Portrait-Images Poster of the well known site PHOTO.NET I will also announce the problems with this version of PP version 10 on the PHOTO.NET forum if no solution is offered within a short period of time...

Threats?  Really?

Look, it's a new release and they have their hands full at the moment.  Your input has been noted.  Let's give them some time to resolve all of the issues.

[PerroneFord]

Agreed. I don't think threatening is the correct course of action here, though I can certainly understand why someone who derives part of their living from the use of software would be angry at a significant loss of functionality.

What I don't know at this point is whether the 64bit version of the software has the same issues as the other versions. If so, then clearly that should be addressed quickly. If not, if could be argued that it gives the outward appearance that the company is trying to move advanced users to the most expensive version of the software by default.

Some clarification from the company via an official statement on the matter would be most welcome. Either that this is a bug that is acknowledged and is being worked on, or that the company intends to support files greater than 3500x3500 pixels in the 64 bit version only, or something else to this effect. As it is, we're simply left wondering what is going on despite the rather welcome efforts and communication by the admin of the forum here.

-P

[BClews]

Oh, I understand the frustration, but since he stated that he is still running version 8 and has no trouble with it I don't think there is a significant loss of functionality.

But I agree completely with your point. I'm sure there are probably users that are running only the newer version. And I agree with hans-peter that this needs to be fixed.

[admin]

Hi everyone,

We are working hard on trying to fix this at the moment.  This is the situation:  With each version of the software as we add functionality, and so the memory requirements do go up, but should be only by very tiny amounts relative to the image sizes.    It's possible for some medium format cameras that were just on the edge of working in v9 to have been pushed over into needing studio 64, depending on what one is doing. What we could have done is try and get everyone to upgrade to our more expensive software (studio 64) that can handle the large amounts of memory better.   However you might notice that I haven't mentioned this, because we currently believe this is an issue that we can fix and hopefully fix soon.  Again, we are sorry that you're having this problem and thank you for your continued patience.

Tony