You simply reach/ exceed the maximum of what any Adobe tool allows - effective 200" in either direction at 300 DPI. Simply do the math. What you see is perfectly logical. 4000 DPI seems slightly insane for any use case I can think of, especially at those sizes. You wouldn't need that resolution to print a 100x100m mural, but well, I don't know what you need it for.
Thanks for your reply Mylenium. I passed on your comments and the user reported back that even adjusting the dpi to 300 yields the same results. The issue doesn't appear to lie with the dpi but the page size as the user is able to print to 11x17 using the same settings.
Even a 30m banner has recommended dpi of 120. For 100m banner 40? dpi?
It has EVERYTHING to do with the pixel dimensions of the image, so-many-pixels wide by so-many-pixels high.
The limit, already outlined by Mylenium, is 60,000 pixels in either of the two dimensions.
What he was suggesting—obviously—is to RESAMPLE the image. With the "Resample" box checked [ √ ], set the ppi to 300 ppi or less, and save that as a copy. That copy will print.
Changing the ppi alone without resampling the image is, of course, sheer nonsense.
As mylenium wrote:
What you see is perfectly logical. 4000 DPI seems slightly insane for any use case I can think of, especially at those sizes. You wouldn't need that resolution [even] to print a 100x100m mural…
That's 100 meters by 100 meters, or some 110 yards by 110 yards.
For a page size of 22"x34", you don't need more than 200 ppi, maybe less; but 300 ppi is doable.
You should read up on ppi v. dpi.
Actually, truetype may very well be the culprit here. I'd just flatten the entire file to a single layer and try that.
Using Photoshop for text printing is not the ideal process, ideally images should be built in PS and brought into InDesign with the text handled there.