What are the file size limits under CorelDraw X7?
Hello Island; What do you mean limits? and are you talking Draw or PP?
George
Wondering about Draw and how large a file is workable/maintainable in the X7 version of Draw now.
Hello Island; Years & years back CorelDRAW had a 30"x30" limit, but I don't know if it has a limit it's sort of like a Cad file size. I have taken pictures of shopping centers and blowen it up to 100% scale, and I do vehicles all the time at 100%. I use a macro that I Bought from Jeff's web site ( http://macromonster.com ) Called SMAuto Size. You have to know the size of a object in the picture, I use a yard stick, and you draw a line the length of the yard stick and tell the micro it's 36" click the button and every thing in the picture enlarges to size. I hope this is some help.
Thanks George. I'm actually wondering about file sizes (in MB/GB) and not inches though.
I've been using CorelDraw since version 3 and have always pushed the file size limit to the limit (2 GB through version 5, frequently working with files in the 1.0 to 1.9 GB size)
Even though I know people advise me to use another tool for longer documents, I really like corel so I've been pushing it to the limit and at times a bit beyond creating large documents.
I prefer to work with images embedded vs. linked because it allows me to use effects fully, adjust tone, etc. all within draw to create a collage that all works together. It was easier when digital photos were 4 mega pixels each; now I end up working with photos that are larger than necessary until the final step of flattening everything down, as I don't want resample down to 300 dpi and then decide I want to enlarge slightly and end up with a sub-optimal image at 280 dpi or reducing sharpness by resampling multiple times.
So I'm wondering how large a file X7 can handle and be stable with.
CorelDRAW doesn't have limits, the limit was made for Windows. The 32-bits versions of Windows allows up to 2 Gb of RAM for each program, so if you reach this limit, surely Windows can't manage this file and the temporary files. Also, 32-bits versions of Windows only uses up to 3.2 Gb of RAM. For ths reason is so important the use of the Virtual Memory for prevent crashes and errors. The 64 bits of Windows can use all memory available, but only for 64 bits software, then only the 64 bits versions of X6 and X7 can use more than 2 Gb of RAM
btw why any file can have 2 Gb file size or more? The most probable reason is the use of too high resolution bitmaps. If you use 300 dpi images, you can create a big file (such as a magazine) but never had 2 Gb of file size. And if it's for large printing, remember that more size, less resolution, so you can have a file with 15x15 meters and never use 1 or 2 Gb file size
btw why any file can have 2 Gb file size or more? The most probable reason is the use of too high resolution bitmaps. If you use 300 dpi images, you can create a big file (such as a magazine) but never had 2 Gb of file size
If I knew exactly what I wanted before I started, I could have much smaller file sizes. What I've used Corel for now for a long time is to layout different sheets, booklets, magazines, and even a couple books and figure out where I want everything, how large everything will be, what will make the cut, what looks good next to what, toning adjacent photos, etc. using Corel as my idea pad and then going right to the final and print/pdf.
The issue for me is that let's say I start a layout and I have 5 photos across an 18" sheet. I adjust them, crop them a bit, lay some text over with a transparent color block fit to text that may change (so I may have to adjust crop), etc.
Then when I look at it the next day, I decide it's a little too busy and I only want 4 photos across.
If I had already reduced them to 300 dpi, then I would have to start over, reimport each of the photos, reapply any tone or color changes, recrop, etc.
Or, settle for a loss of sharpness through multiple resamplings.
So admittedly, I work with bloated files so that I can be free to make changes until the last minute and change my mind and not have to go back to the source and redo things. When everything is 100% set, I reduce the file size way down by resampling and final croping everything for a corel file to archive. I'm probably not going to change my mind less with age even if I try, so if I can throw some SSDs and more ram at it, I'll probably keep making Corel do the heavy lifting for me even though I know I'm stressing it more than I finalized everything before starting to work on a layout.
Island said: If I had already reduced them to 300 dpi, then I would have to start over, reimport each of the photos, reapply any tone or color changes, recrop, etc. Or, settle for a loss of sharpness through multiple resamplings.
Just "convert to bitmap" at 300 / 350 dpi. It's easy, and you can add a shorcut for fast convertion. Perhaps on screen you will see a loss of quality but the image will be printed correctly. If you see the image at 800 or 1200 dpi at 400% of the real size, you will see more detais on secreen but it's imposible to be printed with this quality. No matter if you use 600 dpi, 1800 or 4000 dpi, the printed results will have 300 / 350 dpi always
Island said:What I've used Corel for now for a long time is to layout different sheets, booklets, magazines, and even a couple books and figure out where I want everything, how large everything will be, what will make the cut, what looks good next to what, toning adjacent photos, etc. using Corel as my idea pad and then going right to the final and print/pdf.
Ariel said: If I had already reduced them to 300 dpi, then I would have to start over, reimport each of the photos, reapply any tone or color changes, recrop, etc. Or, settle for a loss of sharpness through multiple resamplings.
[/quote]
The problem (and maybe I'm making my life more difficult than needed, but I hate to sacrifice any quality if I don't absolutely have to) is the following:
Let's say I work for a day on a layout where images are 3.5"
If I resample them down in coreldraw to 300 dpi, I now would have images that are 3.5" x 300 dpi = 1050 pixels across
Now a day later, the text changes and I have more room, or the client says "we need to eliminate one photo - it's too busy, fill the space with fewer" or for whatever other reason, photos now want to be one fewer per page and 4.5" each instead of 3.5". Already resampled down, this would mean that the images at 4.5" would now only be 1050 pixels / 4.5" = 233 dpi which is less sharp than they could be. Quality is lost, or I would have to go back to the source images, reimport one by one, remember and reapply any adjustments that I had applied within coreldraw.
Jeff Harrison said: What I've used Corel for now for a long time is to layout different sheets, booklets, magazines, and even a couple books and figure out where I want everything, how large everything will be, what will make the cut, what looks good next to what, toning adjacent photos, etc. using Corel as my idea pad and then going right to the final and print/pdf.I use CorelDRAW in the same way. If you're nervous about corrupt files, you could save different file names from time to time so you have a backup in case something really goes wrong. [/quote] Yes, I do this too ever since on an early version I learned that corruption didn't show when I saved, only when I opened a file, so using the normal save and backup at that time, it was unlikely but possible to toast both the file and backup without realizing it until going to open it the next day and finding both corrupt. I've been very happy with X3 and X5 performance so far working with files from 44 to 52 pages and 1.1 to 1.9 GB in size. I believe I've only had to go back to a previous numbered file once or twice due to corruption since X3 came out, but I've actually used this to go back to a previous numbered file to retrieve elements due to changes so it's been not only a safety feature but handy as well. (e.g. when I rasterized a shadow over a powerclip and then wanted to change the element casting the shadow or when I rasterized a gradient so I could apply an additional oval vignette to give it two kinds of transparency and then wanted to make a change, I could go back to filename-33.cdr or filename-34.cdr based on the date on the file and get the element out of the "history" of saves.)
What I've used Corel for now for a long time is to layout different sheets, booklets, magazines, and even a couple books and figure out where I want everything, how large everything will be, what will make the cut, what looks good next to what, toning adjacent photos, etc. using Corel as my idea pad and then going right to the final and print/pdf.
Yes, I do this too ever since on an early version I learned that corruption didn't show when I saved, only when I opened a file, so using the normal save and backup at that time, it was unlikely but possible to toast both the file and backup without realizing it until going to open it the next day and finding both corrupt.
I've been very happy with X3 and X5 performance so far working with files from 44 to 52 pages and 1.1 to 1.9 GB in size.
I believe I've only had to go back to a previous numbered file once or twice due to corruption since X3 came out, but I've actually used this to go back to a previous numbered file to retrieve elements due to changes so it's been not only a safety feature but handy as well. (e.g. when I rasterized a shadow over a powerclip and then wanted to change the element casting the shadow or when I rasterized a gradient so I could apply an additional oval vignette to give it two kinds of transparency and then wanted to make a change, I could go back to filename-33.cdr or filename-34.cdr based on the date on the file and get the element out of the "history" of saves.)
Island said: Let's say I work for a day on a layout where images are 3.5" If I resample them down in coreldraw to 300 dpi, I now would have images that are 3.5" x 300 dpi = 1050 pixels across
On this situation you can use 400 dpi until the last change, but avoid to have big resolution images