Please, please, please, please add a feature to sketchup that will allow up to 8000x8000 pixels or so.
I also have a laundry list of items with respect to Layout. Probably too late in the year to ask for everything though.
SketchUp will support 4096 x 4096 pixel images. I was about to suggest that you slice up your 8000 +/- pixel images and import them in pieces but I just tested that out and there seems to be a seam (accidental pun there) regardless of the image type or compression… You might still want to try that, maybe your hardware will render stitched images better than mine.
Back in the day when SketchUp would only support 1024x1024 images I stitched together aerial photographs all the time.
Out of curiosity, what are you doing that requires such high pixel imagery?
I am aware of the method of cutting a picture up, and it is painstaking and unnecessary. Seems that it is a simple request worthy of adding to the next software version.
When working with plan sets with rasterized images, not vectors, it is nice to be able to drop an image directly into sketchup with no losses.
Most commercial plan sets I end up working with are 40" x 32" and are high resolution rasterized images. In pixels that is 8400 x 6000. So actually, it would be nice to have import greater than 8000 x 8000.
My workstation can certainly handle the work with ease. It would be great if this feature was added. Again, I also have a long list of things that could be improved on both sketchup and layout.
Cheers,
You sound like someone who has Illustrator and Photoshop. You could place an Illustrator file as a smart object into a Photoshop file. That way the PSD file can be whatever resolution you want without destructing the contents of the Illustrator file. Then you can place that psd file into SketchUp. It will flatten it into a JPG, but you will always have the non destructed version that you could swap out as you feel necessary. When/if SketchUp ever supports the pixel count you are wishing for, all you need to do is update the Photoshop file resolution and reload the file from SketchUp.
What are your commercial plans rasterized from? I can’t imagine the point of creation for them is a raster based application.
I’m not trying to marginalized your feature request, but as with most people on this forum, I am not a Trimble engineer. If it were up to me SketchUp would support higher pixel count, so here is a +1 for your request. If you are just looking to voice FRs and are not really interested in discussing them or alternatives to what the actual request is addressing, just say so and I’ll let this thread be.
– Matt
Spot on, I am a novice adobe supporter as well. I appreciate the insight, and am always open to alternatives. I will give your other method a go.
Completely open to discussing alternatives, and I really do appreciate your thoughts. I am sure others with the same issues do as well. Keep it coming!
Cheers
Not in my wheel house but it is my understanding the specs discussed and spatial resolution are two different issues and in fact you can have an image that has higher resolution with lesser pixel content. Also, the US government has set the limits of resolution although it appears they are in the process of changing what they will allow. Many image users purchase images from space craft designers and system suppliers at different resolution pending on the intended use including I think Google is one of those? Of course what you can get is highly dpendent on the specific of the sensor package design on the space craft. Higher resolution implies higher cost just because of the additional processing as well as design.
As an aside, note that the PhotoMatch feature has no limit on image size, so when you export a high-resolution image from a Photomatch scene, the background is not resampled to 1024 x 1024.
Anssi
This has all got me to thinking what “support” really means. If SketchUp supports say a 4096x4096 pixel image, shouldn’t each pixel in that image be clearly rendered? I started with a much larger grid, but worked my way down to testing with this 32 x 32 pixel image with a checkerboard pixel pattern:
SketchUp should clearly have no problem supporting that. I initially thought I could import it into SketchUp and clearly see each pixel, but that is not the case:
So what am I missing? Does “support” mean “sorta fuzzily render”? Does anyone else see something different in the attached SketchUp model? I have both a Retina Macbook and an iMac with discrete graphics. “Use maximum texture size.” is turned on… I see the same thing on both machines.
32_import.skp (125.2 KB)
As @Anssi mentioned, PhotoMatch does not resample the 32x32.png image:
– matt
Again not in my wheel house, but you cannot expect to display full screen on your machine a image larger than it is capable of showing => it is constrained by the physical design of the display. So for the 4096 you will need the display to have at least 2897 x 2897 ( just used SRT(2) ) plus some margin for tool bars and margins. When you attempt to show the actual pixel you run into another physical limitation related to the Nyquist sample rate and the fact the radiation form a impulse type uniform illumination will give a sinx/ x pattern and cause a less than clear picture.
There is no standard for resolution , different folks use different definitions depending on application,
Ref http://www.theiatech.com/papers/Resolution_calculation.pdf
“Definition 1: Resolution can be expressed as the number of TV lines or pixels of the image
sensor used to record an image. The greater the number of lines, the greater detail or larger
field of view can be recorded with the camera. For analog cameras this is the usual definition.
The number of TV lines in the image can be 320, 480, 570, etc.;
Definition 2: Resolution can be expressed as the total number of pixels. With megapixel
cameras, the resolution is generally the total number of pixels, divided by 1,000,000, and
rounded off.;
Definition 3: Resolution can be the level of detail with which an image can be reproduced or
recorded. At the image sensor resolution is expressed as line pairs per millimeter (lpm)
commonly used by lens designers and optical engineers. As the total number of pixels on an
image sensor increases, the pixel size gets smaller and requires a higher quality lens to achieve
best focus. These high quality lenses, including those manufactured by Theia Technologies,
are rated for megapixel or multi megapixel cameras meaning the image will be sharply in focus
at the camera resolution it is rated for.;
Definition 4: Resolution can be specified in pixels per foot or meter at the object. This mapping
of the image sensor dimensions onto the object is most intuitive for calculating what level of
detail can be seen in the image. Fundamentally it is the horizontal field of view (HFOV) of the
camera divided by the horizontal number of pixels. This gives a pixels per foot number that can
be related to image quality. …”
So you can claim increase of pixels improves resolution depending on which you use but IMHO it does not. The ref shows the equations.