Image export size test

Pixero · 19 Mar 2009, 16:20

I've edited first post with jpg compression and shadows.

remus · 19 Mar 2009, 18:41

Core 2 duo E6750 2.66 Ghz
4GB
geforce 7800 (not sure about memory)
Vista 64 ultimate
SU 7
5600x3167

no AA: 9999x5655

thomthom · 19 Mar 2009, 20:09

Processor: Intel Core2 Quad 9450 3.3ghz (OC)
RAM: 8GB
Graphics card: Nvidia Geforce 8800GT 512MB
OS: Windows7 64bit
SU Version: SketchUp 7 pro

Maximum exported image:
With AA: 5650x3081 pixels.
Without AA: 9500x5180 pixels

I found that when SU failed to export I often had to restart SU in order to successfully export again afterwards.

thomthom · 19 Mar 2009, 20:10

@unknownuser said:

Maximum exported image: 4951x2750 pixels in .png format if that matters...

That might matter. Compressing the image require exptra calcualtiuons. And different compressions methods might give different results.
That would also be interesting to see. If saving to a raw uncompressed bitmap allows you to export larger...

Gaieus · 20 Mar 2009, 15:55

Made the topic sticky. Will chime in (and test) when back home.

Pixero · 20 Mar 2009, 17:05

Thomthom, interesting to see that you with double the amount of RAM and 64bit OS you can export approx the same max size as I can (with AA). One would think it would be much higher.

Gaieus · 20 Mar 2009, 20:53

Note that since SU is (only) a 32 bit application, it cannot utilize anything that's beyond it.

thomthom · 20 Mar 2009, 23:16

@pixero said:

Thomthom, interesting to see that you with double the amount of RAM and 64bit OS you can export approx the same max size as I can (with AA). One would think it would be much higher.

Since SU is a 32bit application I'm still under the 32bit limitations even though I have a 64bit system...

jeff hammond · 21 Mar 2009, 03:11

the old workhorse...

mac 17"powerbook
Processor: 1.33 PowerPC G4
RAM: 1gb
Graphic card and memory: ATI mobility Radeon 9600 64MB
OS: tiger 10.4.11
SketchUp version: 6.4.120 p

Width and height of your maximum exported image in pixels.

9500 x 7055

(in just over 20 minutes )

this pretty much shows the items in the list are irrelevant to image export size... well, except one of the entries

Daniel · 21 Mar 2009, 03:48

WORK:
Intel Core 2 Duo 2.66 GHz
3GB RAM
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT
XP Pro
SU Pro 7.0.10247
Image size: 5225 x 2878

HOME:
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.40 GHz
4GB RAM
NVIDIA GeForce 8600 GT
XP Pro
SU Pro 7.0.10247
Image size: 5550 x 3083

LAPTOP:
Intel Core 2 Duo T7500 2.20 GHz
4GB RAM
NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT
XP Pro
SU Pro 7.0.10247
Image size: 5000 x 2656

jeff hammond · 21 Mar 2009, 04:02

weird thing though: lots of different aspect ratios coming out..
what's dictating that?

[edit] nevermind.. it's just using the same aspect ratio as the sketchup window on whoever's computer. if you really wanted to get into it, everyone should be exporting at a certain ratio instead of locking to their window..

jeff hammond · 21 Mar 2009, 04:04

macpro quad:
Processor: 2X- 2.66 dual-core intel xeon
RAM: 7GB
Graphic card and memory: geforce7300 GT 256MB
OS: leopard 10.5.6
SketchUp version: 7pro latest

Width and height of your maximum exported image in pixels:

10,000 x 6590

crashed when i tried 12,000

[edit] 14,250 x 9390 with AA off
(28MB)

Pixero · 21 Mar 2009, 07:13

So as a little first round up it seems that on Windows no one can export higher than 5650 width.
On OSX its almost twice that with 10000 pixels wide.
Has anyone tried increasing virtual memory in Windows to see what effect that has?

remus · 21 Mar 2009, 08:29

From a theoretical point of view, i dont think changing virtual memory would help, as the limit is in sketchup itself i.e. SU is maxing out before it can use all the RAM available to it.

thomthom · 21 Mar 2009, 10:58

Don't think it's the RAM. It's the maximum single chuck of memory it can address. If you don't have enough RAM it will page it out to the pagefile, but the limit is how much memory (note: not RAM) windows 32bit applications can handle.

Daniel · 21 Mar 2009, 11:39

I know from experience that virtual memory does make a slight difference. In fact, for this excercise, my office computer had VM set at 6,000 mb and the widest image I could get ws 5,000 - I increassed the VM to 200,000 and was able to get a 5,225 wide image.

I'll admit that most of this computer jargon goes over my head, but looking at my own results I have to conclude that it is a combination of the processors and the video card.

thomthom · 21 Mar 2009, 12:01

I think that the results for PC are ca max 5000-5500px wide with AA on. And I think this is where SU hits the max amount of memory it can allocate on 32bit systems. Variation due to environment differences; aspect ratio, background apps etc.

Had it been hardware we should have seen much larger differences. Not just a few hundred pixels.

What's interesting is that OSX SU exports much larger with AA. Is SU 32bit on OSX as well?

jeff hammond · 21 Mar 2009, 13:09

@thomthom said:

What's interesting is that OSX SU exports much larger with AA. Is SU 32bit on OSX as well?

it must be.. the second export i posted is from a laptop i bought in 2003.. pre G5, pre 64bit

thomthom · 21 Mar 2009, 15:10

That's interesting how the architecture between PC ans OSX allows for different max export sizes. Another argument for SU going 64bit. ...at least compiled with Large Address Awareness marker.

jeff hammond · 21 Mar 2009, 15:52

@thomthom said:

That's interesting how the architecture between PC ans OSX allows for different max export sizes.

well, if you have the following:

-absolutely nothing to do this weekend
-a test machine
-a knack for experimenting
-understand languages such as "memory_info.BaseAddress = g_last->top_reserved;"

then you could mess around with this:
http://www.genesys-e.de/jwalter/mix4win.htm

.