Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_31.thumb.jpg.b7a41d6a0fa4e315f57ea3e240acf140.jpg

Photoshop CS4 opening TIFF and RAM message


Recommended Posts

Hi Folks,

Hoping someone can help me with this one as I am a bit puzzled. I have Photoshop CS2 installed on my windows 10 pc and had no problems with it.

It happily opens autosave.tiff files that deep sky stacker has created with no issues whatsoever.

However I have since got a copy of photoshop CS4 and I thought great, a newer better version. I installed it without any issues but when I try and open my autosave.tiff file that CS2 opens I get the message, Could not complete your request because there is not enough Ram.

Now considering that CS2 opens it without issue and that my pc is a HP250 with an Intel core i7 quad core processor with 8GB Ram running Windows 10 with a 2TB hard drive I know that it is not underpowered, also On another Pc the same thing happens.

I have tried altering the preferences tab to increase the performance setting regarding Ram useage and scratch discs etc but no joy.

Is it just the fact that CS4 will not open these types of files whereas the older version will. If that is the case then I will just use CS2 but it does seem strange that an upgrade gives less usage.

Has anybody else encountered this and if so how did you get round it.

Thanks in advance

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of things to check. Are you saving the DSS tiff in 16 bit or 32 bit ? CS2 would probably try to convert a 32 bit tiff to 16 bit before opening it. (I think CS2 couldn't work in 32 bit, long time since I used it) . What graphics card does the computer have ? A quick google suggests the HP250 uses integrated graphics, which probably means that the ram is shared between the processing and displaying graphics.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be a combination of Win10 and CS4, I've had similar problems with CS4 and a new high spec Win10 laptop.

Also get complaints about lack of resources and it takes longer to load images than CS4 on my old Win XP Pro, not found a solution yet :hmh:

Dave

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cornelius Varley said:

Are you saving the DSS tiff in 16 bit or 32 bit ? CS2 would probably try to convert a 32 bit tiff to 16 bit before opening it. (I think CS2 couldn't work in 32 bit, long time since I used it) . What graphics card does the computer have ? A quick google suggests the HP250 uses integrated graphics, which probably means that the ram is shared between the processing and displaying graphics.

Thanks for that. I think that you might be right there. I think that I just left the settings as they were in DSS and it must have been set to 32bit or something but I cant quite remember. Anyway I loaded up the file in DSS again and this time made sure that I saved it as 16bit and this time it does load into photoshop cs4.

It is weird though that cs2 does load it even if it converts it and when you select Mode it does show as 32bit, you would think that cs4 would inform us of this rather than just error.

Also yes the HP250 does have integrated graphics so I think the is a RAM share going on.

cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Davey-T said:

Could be a combination of Win10 and CS4, I've had similar problems with CS4 and a new high spec Win10 laptop.

Also get complaints about lack of resources and it takes longer to load images than CS4 on my old Win XP Pro, not found a solution yet :hmh:

Dave

I think that I will leave both versions installed just in case I have any other issues. Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, happy-kat said:

Best thing I did with (admittedly older) pc is install a dedicated graphics card with its own GBs of ram

Yes that definitely makes a massive difference in all kinds of areas and not just image processing. I had an old tower pc ages ago and by putting a really good graphics card in it made a massive difference to everything from gaming to processing.

I wouldnt want to do that in this case though as my laptop is very new so I dont want to mess with it.

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By astrobena
      Hey everyone,
      I was out recently in what felt like the first clear sky in years and got ~109 min of data on M31, minus 76 frames due to a 12mph wind, which left me with 69 min of data (each shot is 45 sec with ISO 200 tracked with skywatcher star adventurer). As mentioned in the title I captured all these images in a bortal 8 location, used an unmodified canon eos 400d and the skywatcher 75ed as the scope (with a flattener). I've attached my edit (warning: it is not great at all + slightly overedited to see what details are even there), and to be my surprise it looked very similar to an image of M31 with only 20 min of data which i captured a month earlier (both of which i used DSS and photoshop for). Now this may well have something to do with the way i edited it in photoshop or a different setting in DSS or just the fact that 49 more data doesnt make much of a difference considering im in a bortal 8 location, maybe you guys could help on that. I've attached the link to the original files (in the folder called 18.2.2021) as well as the stacked image from DSS (https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/12NT4TmLCXvTfOXNPE_l8UWPRpgO2VjLe?usp=sharing). I didnt capture any flat images but have dark and bias frames, all in their correpsonding folders in the attached link. It would be greatly appreciated if you guys could see if there is more data in this then i have managed to 'extract' using photoshop. (If you use different software and try and edit these files please tell me what you used) If there isn't then maybe do you guys have any images of M31 (or similar) from very light polluted skies that you could share here? (If so i would if you could share the full exposure time and gear that would be great)
       
      Many Thanks!
       

    • By ntaylorblanchard
      I think I need help with my Photoshop settings.   I've been processing my photos and been very unhappy/depressed with the results.  I then realized that they looked a lot better on my phone than on my PC screen.  I  did some testing and I discovered that Photoshop (CS4 -  both 32bit and 64bit) and the basic Windows viewer [the two things I've been using all this time to look at my images] are displaying poorer quality views of  my images than other viewers or programs.  (see attached images)  I think I just noticed this because I just got a CMOS OSC camera and was expecting a lot better than it seemed I was getting.
      Do I have something set wrong in Photoshop?  I really don't want to spend the money to get Pixinsight just right now (and the time to learn it) but I need to be able to see what the image really looks like while I'm processing it.
      At first I thought the problem was with my monitor, but since I do see the correct image with some programs I've concluded that the issue must be with Photoshop itself.  However, I have no idea at all how to fix it.
      I've uploaded two views of an early processing stage of an Andromeda photograph.
       

      This one shows the image as seen in Gimp, Irfan View, Windows Paint, on-line, the new Windows "Photos" or on other laptops, phones, etc.
       
       

      This one shows the image as seen in Photoshop or in the Windows Photo Viewer or Photo Gallery on my PC.  (I used screen capture to get this but it is accurate for what I see).
      As you can see above, the image I'm seeing in Photoshop has problems.  The main problem I notice is that the gradients of color do not flow smoothly but are concentric areas of flat color.  No depth or subtlety.
      Can this be fixed and if so what do I need to adjust in Photoshop or my PC?  I'm using Photoshop CS4 and this effect shows up in both the 32bit and 64 bit versions.
      Any help would be appreciated.
      Thanks and Clear Skies Everyone
      Taylor Blanchard
    • By Micksb
      Hi all, new to astronomy.
       
      Have bought a Williams 81,  canon D450 had it modified.  Celestron  advance gt mount.
      I want to use Eos backyard, (apparently it can only use 32 bit as there are no (canon)drivers for 64bit
      I need to buy a computer to run the above programmes 32/ 64 bit ?haven't a clue what requirements I need.or if a new computer will run it.
      I also need to buy a Photoshop programme. Think it needs  64 bit to run it 
      Need all to be compatible any help would be appreciated.
    • By Jon2070
      Hi everyone, my first post on here, still finding my feet with PS.
       
      I have the Noel Carboni Astronomy Tools Action Set, I am trying to remove the purple halos around stars in an image of the Large Magellanic Cloud, however when I use the tool it removes a lot of the colour in the nebulosity of the (dwarf) galaxy (I also used Defringe in Lightroom which had the same effect).
       
      I have tried to select the galaxy with the lasso tool and invert the selection and then run the action, however it applies the action to everything regardless. 
       
      I wonder is there a simple way to separate out the galaxy, run the action and then put the galaxy back in? Can it be done using a mask and then blended back in? If so I'm not quite sure how to do this.
       
      Thanks in advance.
    • By Xiga
      Hey guys
      I know we all have our own favourite way of doing star reduction (i have used Noel Carboni's action, and i also like using the Minimum filter in PS too) but i think i may have stumbled across another new way, and i actually quite like it! The NC action tends to darken the image a bit, and it also doesn't seem to work well on extremely large stars, and the minimum filter does tend to soften the stars a bit (which can look quite nice, depending on the image) but this technique, if anything, actually seems to tighten up the stars, and you also get an Opacity slider to play with as well, so you can set as little or as much of it as you like. Also, the minimum filter tends to obliterate really small stars, whereas this method doesn't seem to at all, so depending on what you are trying to achieve this hopefully might prove useful to some. 
      So here goes:
      1. Create a 'Starless' version of your image. For this i use one of Annie's Actions and finish it off by using the Spot Healing Brush on any remaining star remnants. 
      2. Put this Starless layer at the bottom and set the blend mode to Colour (the blend mode isn't critical here, especially if you've done the starless image carefully, but using Colour will always ensure you don’t lose any hard-earned detail).
      3. Add your Master Luminance (or what you had as your pre-star-reduction image before) on top of the Starless layer. Then duplicate it so that you have 2 of them on top of the Starless layer. So 3 layers in total. 
      4. Now change the Blend Mode of the Top layer to ‘Pin Light’.
      5. Finally, bring down the Opacity of the Middle layer. 70% - 80% seems to work well, and can have quite a big impact, especially so on really big stars, but i wouldn't go any lower than this. 
       
      I've shown a Before and After example below so you can see the effect. (apologies for the lack of resolution, it's from a very severe crop!) But i'd be really interested to see what others think of this, and whether or not the technique can be improved , or even if it's just to find out if it's actually no good at all! (i have no way of analysing images statistically, i simply rely on my own 2 eyes! lol). 
      I know my way around PS pretty well these days (all thanks to AP) but it's basically all down to trial and error, so i don't consider myself an expert by any means. Just wanted to let people know that in advance! 
       


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.