Do you think it´s necessary, in a vector software, to create a project bigger than 227 inches?
If you create a project using a smaller size and this size is proportional to the final big size..then when printing you can reach thos big size you want. For example, in the Illustrator Print Dialog Box...you can set custom media size up to 25000 inches..fit the artwork to page and print directly or print to PDF.
But you can even leave this adjustment to the printer RIP so it can handle according it´s output specifications. Since the project is vector based you wont lose quality when increasing the size.
Does it suit your need?
While I do agree there are workarounds. What is the need to work at small scale though? Why not 1:1 full scale? This assures greater accuracy and eliminates any question of myself or one of my employees scaling something to the wrong percentage or havign to calculate things. Some design elements are also just flat out easier to work on when they are much larger such as fine adjustments of points. When a peice of artwork is a could of inches across or less it gets more diffucult to select fine details when you are already at max zoon and the details are small. If the arwork is larger, max zoom becomes much more effective on fine details. Also if there happens to be placed raster artwork, if at full size and 100% zoom, you immediatley know how it looks at full size. If it's scaled you will not really know for sure until the raster elements are rendered at their final full output size.
I guess my point is why not allow it? Also - not all RIP's are created equal. Some cannot very well cope with scaling some vector effects. Seems best to let the native application do any modifications (scaling included) to the artwork versus some other program that may or may not do it quite as well.
Are you using Illustrator for floor plans? I tried drawing a few once but the line and shape tools didn't refresh the background when scrolling which makes using Illustrator really annoying. Illustrator CS6 still has the same problem as in CS3, CS4 and CS5. When I heard they remade everything I was looking forward to using the line and shape tools again but nothing has changed yet. Please fix Illustrator CS6 Adobe.
PS The pen tool doesn't have this problem but only the control points scroll the screen (*The refresh works here though).
While I agree that the line/shape tools not refreshing the screen while scolling is also highly annoying at times I do not see how that issue is in any way even remotely related to the feature request of an expanded canvas and artboard. Maybe starting a different feature request or bug report thread on that would get that issue more attention Glen.
I'm having the same problem. i have no intention to print, i just want to make a 1:1 scale floor plan of my office so we can easily design. I could just scale it down and convert feet to inches, but that's a lot of unnecessary math! I find it strange that i cant just have 1 inch equal 1 inch. how do interior designers work? do they use a different program? i decided just to open Cinema 4D and work from there since it allows me what ever size i want.
Perhaps the "answers" lie in a need to be able to use a "scale the drawing" tool?
Perhaps the real limitation is math needed for ability to zoom-in deeper? (I don't think so)
And of course if one mixes in any pixel/bitmap features, artboard size makes more sense as pixels don't resize well to a larger image like vectors; so scaling with pixels involved may create problems? (They can be addressed)
I'm not trying to explain away why Adobe does not do any of the requests in this thread....because it can all be done in this day/age of higher performing CPU's and GPU's and HDDs and GB's of RAM and screen resolution. We are no longer in the days of DOS and 1980's....and the coding is not very difficult either now.
Most request "can" be done, it is whether Adobe thinks it is needed for their customers...who are asking for it here. C'mon Adobe listen and do....please.
+1. Yes we need to lift this silly limitation. We use AI for US and we currently we hit the limits at ~60 screens, which is nothing for a CRM software. Add on top of that variations of the same screen.
Scaling doesn't work. We need rules, units and the pixel grid to act normaly, not to mention Align to Pixel...
That won't work for web design.
1 person found this helpful
Agreed with MixManSC1. Please adobe, allow 1:1 scale. Us large format designers are really frustrated with this maximum artboard size limit in illustrator. I work with billboards and large scale environmental graphics and hate dealing with printing errors when printers accidentally scale artwork incorrectly (not to mention the maths involved).
You dont ever do 1:1 scale architectural drawings unless its for parts design. Otherwise most programs, including the all powerful AutoCAD will lag and crash. I have never as a Landscape or Interiors designer used Illustrator or InDesign for architectural drawing unless as a client presentation on scaled down poster presentations.
I feel the same way about billboard design, vector is scalable, but i just want to know how to set it up for optimum results. As powerful as my computer is, im not going to force it to render 1:1 scale. Its ludicrous and unnecessary. If you are that keen, design it on multiple boards or go hand do it, that's how silly the idea of 1:1 is.
I am in the sign industry and while most of what I do can be done 1:1, larger projects require scaling. Yes there are work-a-rounds, but the bottom line is that in this day and age I find no practical reason for this limitation.
It would just be nice if the software got updated like the company promised personally to me. I was told and promised to that there would be some updates to bugs but I'm still waiting. I hope it wasn't just lies. I trust Adobe is still working on the bugs.
I also hit the ceiling here, and wish I could go bigger. I'm designing 300dpi wall-coverings, and some walls are big. Yes, I can design at half scale.. but why MUST I?
The limitation of 227 inches is annoying! And why 227 inches? Why not 225 or 230 LOL. So freaking random. Anyway, I am an artist that does large scale murals and paintings and it would help to scale in real world. I have done the ratio conversion of 1/6, 1/4, and 1/2 scale YES I can do it but I find myself worrying about the accuracy rather than the design. and I have gotten burned by my own mishap calculations. Some artist are not very good with math such as myself. Go ahead and call me stupid for not understanding basic math , (I don't care) but the reality is that some of us cringe at calculating ratios!.....
In 93 at work I had almost run out of storage space and was asking for more Gigs. I had an computer engineer tell me that I should never use more than 3 Gigs in my life time on my PC. That the problem was I should manage my file sizes in a better way. "You artist don't understand HOW big a Gig is." he stated. I believed him because he was a computer engineer even though my gut told me otherwise. Occasionally I talk to him and sometimes remind him of 1993. He grumbles and changes the subject.
And why 227 inches? Why not 225 or 230 LOL.
its not 227 inches.
I think you will find its 16384px
16384px / 72 = 227.55555......
and why 16384px?
my guess would be something to do with the following sequence.
4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, 16384, ....
on that note, I still have no idea why we can't just go to the next number in the sequence.
Use a scale of 1/10....easy to calc (move decimal one place) and any error shows as a BIG mistake so easy to catch
Works for all vector stuff....not so well for bitmap stuff
I agree, my team converts large plot plans CADs in to AI for oil refineries with lots of detail and we need a much bigger artboard. It seems silly that there is this restriction.
We have to create several artboards and then stitch it back together in Photoshop for the diagram. It is a really inconvenient way to work and we would like to see this restriction lifted soon.
i agree, we want the option to edit the artboard size... when creating wallpaper that is several metres wide and tall, it is impossible to get it on Illustrator. Course, Adobe doesn't really care about that what their customers think, they just worry about trying to look good, and if they can't look good then they don't seem to want to get involved.... so probably not a lot of chance any of the staff will be getting involved in this discussion, i suppose, let alone getting anything changed - even though this thread was started in early 2012!!!
I've been thinking about getting our software guys to decompile the software and change it manually, i'm sure there must be a way to do it somehow. Would make it a lot easier if Adobe just responded to their customers though, and even if they can't do something, they could at least explain WHY they can't do something... instead there is this dire silence from the Adobe quarters, and as usual nothing happens. I found a bug a while back and got Adobe on the phone and went through it and they couldnt't be bothered to try and fix it, they just showed me a different way to get a similar result.
seems such a small thing yet it makes the whole of Adobe look bad, even though it may be just one person not doing their job
Interestingly, I just found this thread when reporting on an issue I'm experiencing when trying to animate large size Illustrator artwork within After Effects CC 2015. AE CC 2015 is chopping the edges off of an AI CC 2015 file and the 227x227 limitation could be a contributing factor. If I could "expand" the canvas and artboard size to 250x250, maybe the edges wouldn't be cut off? (This file only has 1 artboard and it's maxed at canvas size.)
There are workarounds to this issue, but they all involve breaking apart the artwork and re-creating within AE to some extent.
I'd like to see an option to increase the canvas size, I work with the large files at times and this can get pretty bloody annoying to work at 50% or 10% of full size... Getting team members to remember, or to read notes at the RIP to enlarge has caused problems in the past. I'd be happy if the Canvas size doubled or even tripled its current size, even if this was option when creating a new document. Just a thought.
I agree. This is a feature I would love to see too. I am doing landscape design. Another option would be a calculator tool that would display your lines and objects into whichever conversion you want (i.e. 1 inch of artboard displays 8 feet in the calculator tool).
May I just add my support to all of the above, particularly Tomy-Rex and Doug-s. We have constant issues when editing the fine details in vector artwork for maps and heraldry with high level of detail. It appears Adobe is failing to answer or even acknowlege bug fixes that are inconveniently outside of the needs of mainstream consumers. However our costs in time are substantial. Please can we have somebody senior at least address this conversation? I would like to be proven wrong about this
Hello Mr Illustration perfectionist!
Thanks for continuing to update this discussion. For everyone's interest, i messaged one of the support team directly and she replied to me saying that -
"By making the canvas infinite, there is a great chance of making an adverse impact on application's performance. Users can work on something smaller in dimension, then print at a larger output dimension. Many designers work with a percentage of the final dimension, like 25%. Also, the larger your scale, the more likely you can reduce the PPI, a billboard at 300ppi would not be necessary. File sizes get rather large at that point.
Illustrator caps the artboard at 227.54” W/H which is, I believe, around 18 feet and it has been limited to that for as long as I can remember. The request isn’t new but there’s more to a change than just changing the max # range. Performance is a big one."
- i received this reply within a couple of days of sending, so i don't know why no-one in Adobe has responded to this thread which was started in 2012. I'm following up as it doesn't really make sense - i have a high end desktop PC with about 20GB of RAM... don't thikn making the artboard size bigger is going to have a massive impact on it's performance LOL
There are many things that will impact performance.
mine are normally extremely detailed textures and meshes.
if I get a little to carried away it will cause major slowdowns.
even with 24GB ram
this is all on an A4 page.
so on the thought process offered above by the support team, maybe we should drop the canvas size to A5. and we should all just work at scale for everything.
what a cop out.
I'm hearing it more like:
"the setting that limits the canvas size is buried so deep in the programs code that we don't know where it is. we have not really changed anything that deep in the core structure since 1989 when we had to port it to windows. we hope we never have to as we don't really know how it works. that code was written over 25 years ago."
but its ok in photoshop.
I just created a 10 x 10 Meter Document at 300DPI.
its a little laggy but would be fine to stitch some smaller images together or something.
why can photoshop handle it, but illustrator can't?
I agree... at the end of the day, illustrator and photoshop etc are big, heavy programs as they are, and if you want them to run smoothly at all then you'll get a computer that is man enough for the job. If you're aren't bothered enough to get a decent PC then you're not serious enough to be worried if you get lagging. The other thing that occured to me - if the user could set the canvas size, they could actually speed illustrator up by choosing a smaller canvas then usual - if you're only working with A4 size documents all the time, this would be a big plus point. As you say, many things can impact the performance - why on earth choose to limit the canvas size of all things?
to be fair, the best option might be to rewrite the program from scratch using all the feedback and experience gained over the years. No one on the support team really seems to know how any of the old Adobe photoshop programs work....
I just caught this thread in early 2016 and - I must admit - it gave me a bit of a chuckle.
Every vector in an AI file and every pixel in a PS file takes up space (not to mention that AI support rasters and PS support vectors). And by "space", we're talking bits of data. A 208-inch by 208-inch image at 144 DPI in PS will require 3.4GB of storage space whether it's a full scale drawing or a 1/12 scale drawing (assuming 24-bits per pixel and that the PS document is flat). Granted, a high end computer can handle that; however, even if the software limitations for artboard and canvas were to be removed, there's still a ceiling when it comes to hardware.
Of course, the day when a new computer has 1PB to 3 PB of storage instead of 1TB to 3TB as well as 16TB of RAM instead of just 16GB is likely going to come to pass. So, full scale, large scale documents are likely to happen! Just not yet.
But then again, even if one can have their 10 ft by 40 ft billboard full scale within AI or PS, we'll have to view it at what - 10% to see the entire image on our desktops? Unless, of course, we have the luxury of a 10ft by 40 ft video wall.
Your comment about Photoshop is correct. Large sized documents do consume large amounts of hard drive space. This is not as much of an issue in Illustrator. Of course there will be the few designers that will use 5 million layers, filling every square inch with compounded objects. But even if this were the case, AI would not even come close to PS in data consumption. PS keeps track of every pixel which adds to the total file size. In AI a solid 50x50 inch square only calculates the 4 points in space, stroke, fill and color. For my type of work (landscape design) I could create a single layered image that size and barely push 5mb. The data being used wouldn't change. Just the scale. The point of this in case you are wondering is the ability to design a scale space using its actual dimensions. To anyone else, this may seem arbitrary but for me its a necessity due to the accuracy needed. Also, if you where going to suggest using a cad program, the cost and learning curve for my limited use wouldn't be worth it. I am a graphic designer being asked for cad designs not the other way around.
Real world example:
PSD file needs a 1" white, contour cut, margin around it and it needs to go up on a wall. I can't add the contour cut at 1:1 because the size is too large. I can't create it at 1:20 because the jpg image will degrade going from small to large.
There's no rational argument against making it so we can't work in large format.
Have you tried switching to PSB instead of PSD? I would have mentioned that earlier, but I didn't want to open up things to additional topics. The PSB format is a "really large Photoshop file" and was specifically introduced to accommodated the larger images sizes we're seeing (mostly from DSLRs).
I'm curious? Why are you using JPEG?
As far as a high quality print goes, you simply need your DPI to be 1.5 times your LPI and you're good to go. If working proportionally and at a lower print size, increase your DPI proportional to how much you've decreased the width and height.
If you're not sure you're getting the numbers right, ask your service bureau for a template file.
Image is actually a PSB but if I said “PSB” in the thread someone would have corrected me and said ‘PSD’ (has happened so many times).
’m using jpg because the image was downloaded from a stock website and has a difficult outline (it’s a few colors of ink dropped into water and it looks like smoke or something). Our wide format printer needs the image to stay as rgb (it’s to reduce color loss when the roland printer interprets the colors to cmyk) so it’s just a huge photoshop file but basically a jpg (for all intents and purposes). In addition PS CC automatically sets your file type to PSB once you reach a certain threshold for filesize/image size etc. That happened with all four images I’m trying to work with.
We need a vector item with a joined-path stroke, we need to add our the roland versaworks spot color to get a contour cut. The printer outputs the image and then we feed it again to get cut, after it dries. I can’t achieve this inside of photoshop because PS is raster, not vector.
I think I can work with 150dpi so at 1:20 scale I think I can place a 300dpi image into the ai file. However, the rip for the roland printer we use doesn’t have great proofing measures for quality before output and we’re trying to reduce un-needed waste.
Thanks for your time.
Don't get me wrong, I can totally appreciate what it's like to be able to work at full scale.
The day is coming. Just... not right now.
try ctrl+f for paste in place, this will eliminate the error you are seeing about objects falling of the drawing area.
I'm not saying its not annoying and it should not be an issue, but it may stop you from getting too annoyed!
The canvas size limit is a pain, I like to do my racing vinyl wraps in 1:1, I can do this in Corel Draw no problem. I would rather use Illustrator instead as I have alot of Graphic Styles setup and like to use them on my wraps, it's a hassle going from one piece of software to another and having to rescale since Illustrator can't do 1:1 for the size i'm working with.
2 people found this helpful
That's another thing that annoys me - Adobe maintain that increasing the canvas size will make Illy to slow and laggy, but no other design program seems to have these limits, and they are generally not much faster or slower than Illy. Coreldraw? fast as anything, not a problem, serif programs? nothing to worry about... Inkscape? Xara Xtreme? Skencil? Gimp?.... ok these programs may be lacking in design capabilities, and may not have the vast amount of options and tools that Illy has, but they doln't have stupid canvas limits which means you have to scale anything you do that's too big... Thought Illy was the best vector design program out until I came across this limitation.
Like if you agree
know it all
I have no idea what you are referring to.
And no idea what tone of voice is inflected in the "eh?"