Loading Profile...
Seadragon conversion error for large file
Unexpected error: http://seadragon.com/view/4bj
I tried this a few days ago, and retried today.
I've seen another similar error posted, but your reply implies it was due to a timeout error that has been fixed. But my problem persists. The source image is a 24000x13500 jpg.
I tried this a few days ago, and retried today.
I've seen another similar error posted, but your reply implies it was due to a timeout error that has been fixed. But my problem persists. The source image is a 24000x13500 jpg.
I’m frustrated
3
people have this problem
I have this problem, too!
Tell me when someone solves it.
The more people who report this problem, the more it gets noticed.
The more people who report this problem, the more it gets noticed.
The company marked this problem solved.
The best solution from the company
-
Hi guys,
We've got great news -- we were able to fix these out-of-memory errors! We went ahead and retried the images that failed, and I'm happy to report that all of them worked this time!
http://seadragon.com/view/4bj
http://seadragon.com/view/6ok
http://seadragon.com/view/9ix
Now you can finally bring on the super-large images! Let us know if you encounter any more of these errors. Otherwise, happy zooming!
I’m happy
The company says
this solves the problem
-
Inappropriate?Oops, I misread it, the problem at http://getsatisfaction.com/livelabs/t... hasn't been solved. So this is probably the same thing. What we have in common is large files, which you'd think Seadragon was built for.
I've noticed that a lot of the other images under http://seadragon.com/view are "normal" sized - a lot of them easily fit on a screen. I'm not sure why people are submitting images like that, and why they'd like to zoom in on them. Conversely, it's strange that Seadragon is choking on files that it's most suited for.
I’m undecided
-
Inappropriate?Peter, if you're the one that created that image, would you re-export it as a PNG file? That would be far more appropriate for that particular image type and should result in a higher quality image as well as smaller filesize.
I, like you, have been mystified by people loading regular sized images into Seadragon, but I suppose people work with what they've got. Also, remember that not everyone has as high a resolution screen as you. :)
The failure of large images to convert is disappointing but I think that a slight distinction deserves to be made between Seadragon (the viewer) and the deep zoom tools dll that is being used to convert the files. It's not the viewer that's failing but the conversion tool that's running out of memory. If the converter was given more memory to create the dzi image, the viewer should be able to keep up just fine.
If you aren't able to convert the image to PNG and we don't see the memory issue addressed right away, you might (if you have a Windows machine at your service with a nice chunk of RAM installed) try to use Deep Zoom Composer to try converting the image on your own machine. Perhaps you'll have more memory at your disposal than is currently allocated to each thread on the Seadragon servers.4 Comments Add a comment
This solves the problem
-
Nathanael, I tried a) rerendering the image in PNG and b) converting the JPG to PNG. In both cases, I got a larger file. So much for that.
As for Deep Zoom Composer, does that play well with an Ajax deployment? I kind of like the ease of use of posting a file to Seadragon, letting it do the work, then including a javascript snippet in my web page. -
Sorry to hear about the re-rendering to PNG not resulting in a smaller file. I expected simply opening the JPG and saving to PNG to result in a larger file, though, simply because JPG artefacts would already have been introduced.
As to Deep Zoom Composer, yes, you can export your projects as a Seadragon Ajax deployment. I suggested it only because the success or failure of the conversion would depend directly on your own machine's capabilities, rather than how many resources the Seadragon.com team feels is appropriate to give to each conversion running on its servers.
The downside to using Deep Zoom Composer is that you need to upload the entire project up to a server somewhere (not really a problem to me, but you may well feel differently) and also that you are currently forced to choose either
- a Seadragon Ajax output or
- a Silverlight 'Deep Zoom' [Seadragon Silverlight] output
I'm sure that it's possible to mix and match the components of the Seadragon.com viewer and the files output by Deep Zoom Composer (as long as you've exported a composition and not a collection) to come up with what looks like a regular Seadragon.com embed but which uses the dzi output generated by your (theoretically) larger chunk of RAM, but this is more trouble than I have gone to yet.
To sum up: there's possibly a way to get around the current resource restrictions on conversion at Seadragon.com. If you don't care to bother with it, don't. :) -
Nathanael, my PC has 1.25G of RAM. Do you think that's enough to process files larger than what Seadragon.com will handle?
-
Apologies, but I think that will have to be answered by the Live Labs guys. I haven't yet found where the limit is on Seadragon.com, nor do I have a chart of amounts of RAM vs. # of pixels. When in doubt, try it out. :)
Ian, care to clue us in? -
Inappropriate?We definitely want to support huge images... as you say, that's the whole point! Our tools do work at such sizes (and beyond), but we're still sorting out the configuration on the server, and of course there are always exceptions. Keep them coming and we'll fix them as we can.
I’m excited people are pushing the boundaries
-
Inappropriate?Just ran into this same problem for http://seadragon.com/view/6ok while trying to process http://www.burgon.org/seadragon/oldmi.... The file is 14967x7056, and 25.8 Meg, created with Microsoft Image Composite Editor (ICE). I hope to see this working on Seadragon soon, I love the concept! Meanwhile I'll be playing with ICE's export to HD View Tileset and Deep Zoom Tileset.
I’m anxiously awaiting a fix.
-
Inappropriate?I'm sorry I can't give specific guidelines for what will work and what won't. The largest image we've seen is this 650 megapixel shot, which started out as a 1.3 gb tiff:
http://seadragon.com/view/1bu
...so surely your images should work. They don't (yet), and they are failing with out of memory, but we haven't gotten to the bottom of the problem yet.
I’m looking foward to more predictability
-
Inappropriate?I'm also getting the same error "Sorry, an unexpected error occurred" at the end of the "Converting..." phase.
http://seadragon.com/view/9ix
It's a 22MB JPG file, 15324x6664 (~100MP)
Any ideas what went wrong? Is it my image? Should I convert it to another format?
1 Comment Add a comment
This solves the problem
-
It's also out of memory unfortunately. Sorry about that; the contents of the image can cause wildly different memory usage patterns. We're still looking into this as resources allow. Thanks for your patience! You can try using a scaled down version for now? (Scale both width and height by 50% and try that.)
-
Inappropriate?Hi guys,
We've got great news -- we were able to fix these out-of-memory errors! We went ahead and retried the images that failed, and I'm happy to report that all of them worked this time!
http://seadragon.com/view/4bj
http://seadragon.com/view/6ok
http://seadragon.com/view/9ix
Now you can finally bring on the super-large images! Let us know if you encounter any more of these errors. Otherwise, happy zooming!
I’m happy
The company says
this solves the problem
3 Comments Add a comment
This solves the problem
-
While this *is* great news, the JPEG artifacting is out of control on http://seadragon.com/view/4bj and especially visible because of the nature of the image (keep your eyes trained on the blue and purple bits). Did you tone down the JPEG quality of the tiles to solve the memory problems on larger images?
Also, in any configuration of deepzoomtools are tiles comprising smaller resolutions of a given image derived from the preceding zoom level (assuming working from largest to smallest), thus compounding JPEG artifacting or is every zoom level's tiles generated fresh from the initial image? -
Nathanael,could you be more specific about the artifacting you see? Is it more noticeable when zoomed out or zoomed in? I think I may see some blurriness when zoomed in, and some coarsening of color when zoomed out, but generally I'm not bothered by any of it.
-
No, we didn't modify the JPEG quality. I'm not 100% knowledgeable about the details, but I believe the fix was a "striping" technique that reads only portions of the JPEG file into memory at any given time. This shouldn't affect the quality; the same artifacts would have been there.
I'm also not 100% sure about the second question, but I'm pretty certain they're derived from the original image and not from subsequent scaled-down versions.
Btw, the image you link to would probably be better off as a PNG, since it's more of a vector-type image than a photographic one. That would also prevent any artifacting you see. -
Inappropriate?Well done. I'll try some more test cases and report back if there are still problems. Originally I had used Google Maps to display very large images, but I greatly prefer SeaDragon - especially now that it should be working. Good work, guys.
I’m happy
-
Inappropriate?We don't accumulate JPEG artifacts as we build images.
EMPLOYEE
EMPLOYEE
EMPLOYEE
