Question about bitmaps larger than 3000x3000 pixels

I am wondering if this restriction going away with version 2.0? Even cheapest cameras today have minimum 10 MPixels.

Thank you

Yes, I meant the license. What I really mean is that this restriction is obsolete considering any digital camera made today.

I bought a birthday gift to my kid: simplest camera for $89 and 10 MPixels resolution. When checking cameras at the store, I did not see even one camera with less resolution.

To jffmiller:

You see, I am a user and not a supporter. I am a family man. I need a better reasoning than just to support another “great company". Everything should be functional, reasonable, or pleasant to make me paying unless I am blind at the moment and do the stupid move like buying basic edition of FF.

I do not use the software today, by the way. I stopped using it on evaluation version because I did not have any time available to continue my photo processing. I was using just a very few plug-ins for sharpness. However, I have installed the purchased version just recently and all what I could do with it is just to say out loud – WTF!

3000x3000 is not a valid limitation, it is just a good way to piss off the customers. As I've mentioned earlier, the crappy camera which I bought to my kid has 10 Megapixel. The FF supposes to speed up the process but instead it adds an additional step like resizing. The right approach would be to keep up with a resolution of modern digital cameras.

I am back to the roots now. The Canon Digital Photo Professional and other more convenient tools are doing great. At least they are fully functional. I am still going to think about spending another $100 for upgrade just because I've already paid (donated?) $50 to the “great company” for absolutely unusable tool and I would like to make a use of it.

Carambole,
have to agree here with Jeff, the 3000 pixel limitation is more than generous enough for most, even for professional graphics work, regardless of the size of images that cameras are now able to capture. Unless you are literally printing poster sized images (A3 or bigger), there is absolutely no need to use an image that is so big. Even movies shot on film that you see at the cinema, including all the 3d animation and computer graphics, are usually only 2000 pixels wide, as the downside of working with such large images, far outweighs the benefits.

Firstly, a 3000 pixel image is too large to display on any monitor, with most only able to display 2000 odd pixels, your images will not even fit on the biggest of screens! Then the file size is enormous (25 megabytes, compared to 3 for a 1024x1024 pixel image), which not only consumes unnecessary hard drive space, but also makes the images too large to be emailed or shared online as well. Then, not only are you wasting hard drive space, but time as well, trying to open and process such large images, will take significantly more time, than if you were to work with smaller files. I suggest you think about how you intend to use the final image and unless you are going to print out poster sized photos, simply re-size your photos to a suitable size, so you can work with the Filter Forge version that you have.

Secondly, as others have pointed out, the size limitation of files in Filter Forge, varies from version to version. If you knew that you were needing to work with files larger than 3000 pixels, why didn't you purchase the appropriate version? You are basically complaining about something the software is perfectly capable of doing, providing you are willing to purchase the appropriate version.

Thirdly, I maybe going out on a limb here, but it seems to me, if all you require is sharpening of a few photos, then you are looking for 'image editing' software such as Photoshop, when Filter Forge doesn't actually fulfill that role. Filter Forge instead perhaps falls more into 'filter/texture creation' niche (its actually hard to define), but is meant to be used in conjunction with 'image editing' software and not instead of it. For example it lacks the ability to print or tools to crop an image as well.

The true power of filter forge is not the library or the free filters, you are able to download, but the fact you can actually create your own filters using the node based editor. Ask yourself, do i simply want to edit an image, or, do you want to create your own filters and textures? If you are simply looking to edit a photograph, really Filter Forge is not the proper solution. In which case, I suggest you Google 'irfanview' or 'gimp' and give them a try, or stick with what you have been using, as i think they will fulfill your needs more appropriately, yet cost you nothing.

Joe

PS Jeff, you can alter the resolution, at least in the Version 2 Beta. Simply decide what the final resolution needs to be and set the FF to render that size, then import your image and use the transform node!

I am sorry guys, but all of you are missing the point. It looks like all of you working with 300x300 pictures and trying to convince me doing the same.

Resizing it would be almost the last step of photo processing. If this is your first step then you probably doing something really wrong.

My steps are:
1. Fix the quality of the picture like levels, colors, and sharpness on RAW or TIFF format. Crop it if is necessary. By the way, even cheap cameras support RAW format already.
2. Add any desired special features to the picture
3. Resize if the picture for the web or leave as is if the picture for printing
4. Convert to JPEG
5. Backup processed pictures in RAW or TIFF.
6. Print JPEGs in the good shop and send them to the relatives, make gifts to the friends, or simply hang them on the wall.

The hard drive space is not an issue for years already considering the price of HDDs. I do not print 6x4 photos for years already.

I am using Canon software, light version of Photoshop, Corel Draw for HDR. The FilterForge is quite convenient for sharpening. There are filters available for this and they are less time consuming than Photoshop.

I am not a professional and do not believe I ever will be one. Photography is just my hobby. And it is not up to anybody to restrict me or anybody else with an artificially lowered resolution. My camera is Canon 40D and it has 10 Megapixels as well. I am not going to cut the resolution with the outdated software.

About the right version of FF. As I mentioned, I think I was blind at that moment and did not pay attention to the resolution on the comparison table. $50 looked very reasonable payment for time saved. However, I would not buy the full version of FF just because I prefer to spend that much money on better lens for my camera.

To GMM:
Printing letter size pictures for my walls, I am able to see the difference between 8 or 10 MBites. Other people are able as well.
> No, we're not planning to lift this restriction.
Consider my wasted $50 as a donation to you “great company”. I guess it is my last post here.

Quote
Carambole wrote: I do not remember the license agreement. Do I have a right to resell my basic version let's say for $25 to anybody?

According to the EULA, you can't resell it. However, you may be eligible for a refund. We already tried to look up your order using the email address in your forum profile, but didn't find anything, so please contact the support at http://www.filterforge.com/contact/ with details of your order (order number, license name, email address used for ordering, date of purchase.)