what size do you render stills?

[markf]

My question is, what pixel dimension do you professionals render stills at? (I completely understand the ppi and dpi thing and do not wish to get into that)

 

I render almost exclusively at 3000 pixels x 2000 pixels. My reasons for this are (not in any order of importance):

1) matches typical 35 mm camera aspect ratio

2) Commercialy available 2D people and trees etc are typically not large enough to use in the foreground of a larger size rendering.

3) Any thing larger is not needed for any of my clients. This size can make a good 11" x H print and can make a acceptable 36" x H ink jet enlargement

4) No one has ever asked for anything larger

5) Anything smaller seems like it starts to have printing and reproduction limitations. My clients never seem to be sure of how many diffeent ways they might use a rendering and expect a digital image to be relatively high res like a pro photo.

 

Am I correct in my reasoning?

 

I have not used much GI but plan to experiment and learn it soon.Possibly to include Vray. Perhaps this size is too large/ would take too much render time for that?

 

Thanks in advance for any input on this.

[Ernest Burden III]

I've gone over 3000 pixels sometimes, but usually render to 2800 or so on the long number.

 

And with annoying frequency I get emails from people in marketing firms who have been given my work and ask me for the 'high-res' version. I have a prepared explanation I send them back.

[afterglow]

i usually render at 6000x4000, or 5000x3333 (3:2). that way it's big enough for print or to go onto marketing boards and billboards and still look good. also it's easier to do your post (photoshoppin) with the detail in a high res image.

[aaron-cds]

3000 wide is what I go by. I used to do 4500 to get a 15" wide print at 300 dpi. I've been doing 3000 for a long time now and none of my clients have complained yet. 6000 - 5000 I'm glad I don't have to wait for those rendering times.

[Antisthenes]

what is film?

[Justin Hunt]

6000, is just over kill and a wasit of time, in fact anything over 5000 is too much unless of cause in very specific situations. 4000 is a good balance for me.

 

JHV

[afterglow]

unless u r just rendering on one box, how is it a waste of time??

[Justin Hunt]

Simply, the added time it takes to render of the extra few extra 1000 or so pixels does not, in my opinion, equate to the supposed improoved image quality. Most clients and printers wouldn't pick the difference between a 4000 or a 6000 image. Seeing that time is money I'd rather save an extra couple of hours by rendering to 4000 and put a few extra dollars in my back pocket.

 

Even the money spent on a decent render farm to knock off a single 6000 image would be better spent spitting out 2 or even 3 4000 images.

 

JHV

[martin walker]

3000 in the longest dimension is usually fine (unless its for billboard stuff), and obviously 72dpi if its for web

 

We have had times were we have had to produce images at 150dpi due to time restrictions, butto be honest there isnt a great difference in print quality

[DavidR]

3412x2700 is our print std, but we may reduce it to 2xx after we test with Vray camera and DOF. We don't use DOF now, but it may add enough 'fuzz' that we can get away with lower res and it'll take some of the hit out of DOF calc too. We did some 8' presentation boards that were about 6000 wide, and some 12000 wide aircraft floorplans -long and skinny, so render times were very manageable.

[aaron-cds]

unless u r just rendering on one box, how is it a waste of time??

 

Well, if you have a farm, I suppose it's not. We're just trying to save you some time and increase your productivity, but if 6000 pixels wide works for you, then fine. It's just not the industry standard.

[markf]

Thanks to all of you for weighing in on this.

 

This forum continues to be very helpful to me.

 

I will stick with the 3000 x 2000 untill circumstances dictate otherwise. I have been using Max standard lighting and my dual Xeon 266 typicaly renders this size in a couple of minutes.

 

I want to experiment with GI and possibly VRay and hope that I can keep the rendering times reasonable.

 

Thanks again!

[Matt Clementson]

I render @ 3508x2480 - this is A4 @ 300 dpi or A3 @ 150 dpi, so its a good general size for most print in our office.

[STRAT]

3000 in the long direction for me too usually

[markf]

I render @ 3508x2480 - this is A4 @ 300 dpi or A3 @ 150 dpi, so its a good general size for most print in our office.

 

Just to avoid confusion and because it is a pet issue with me so I can't seem to stop myself from replying:

 

substitute ppi for dpi. you are meaning pixels per inch.

 

look at image size in photoshop. there is no dpi

 

dpi , dots per inch, is for printers. pixels and dots are not the same thing. this confusion is very wide spread amongst printing shops, photographers, and all others dealing with size of digital image issues

[gfa2]

I have been using Max standard lighting and my dual Xeon 266 typicaly renders this size in a couple of minutes.

 

I want to experiment with GI and possibly VRay and hope that I can keep the rendering times reasonable.

 

If you haven't used GI then be prepared for your minutes to turn to hours...especially for one PC.

[markf]

Yes that's what I'm afraid of. I don't see how hour(s) long render times are viable in a production setting. My clients often request design changes and I like to be able to tweak things and experiment a bit. How do you all do this if it takes hours to render?

 

Perhaps this is best left for another thread.

[Matt Clementson]

substitute ppi for dpi. you are meaning pixels per inch.

Fair point - guilt as charged.

[Juan Altieri]

between 2800 and 3500 pixels long, it's ok

[gfa2]

How do you all do this if it takes hours to render?

 

For starters, using more than one computer helps. Vray and other GI engines have a feature called distributed rendering that lets you harness the power of mulitple PC to calculate renderings. This is different (and better in my opinion) than using a renderfarm to render stripes because DR is a process that you see in realtime on your screen. With stripes you have to wait until all the pieces are done and assembled to see the final product.

 

Also you kind of learn how to turn the quality down and you use much smaller resolution for progress images.

[markf]

For starters, using more than one computer helps.

 

I am familiar with what you are describing. I hope to upgrade to a newer machine. If I keep my dual xeon 266 would it be adequate/useful for the distributed rendering you describe?

 

Thnaks for your input!

[gfa2]

I use computers that range from P4 2.4 Ghz to Dual-dual core Opteron. So I'd say use just about anything that you can get your hands on. But I'd leave the 486's in the basement

[Tim Woods]

6000, is just over kill and a wasit of time, in fact anything over 5000 is too much unless of cause in very specific situations. 4000 is a good balance for me.

 

JHV

 

erm its not really. that is my average render size. sometimes goes way over that up to 8000px, once had to render at 12k to match wide angle photo. never lower than that tho. rednering at A3 means clients can crop, also the detail means its easier to cut around objects etc.

our photography once drum scanned weighs in at 10K pixels, so theres plenty of detail in there.

 

 

Well, if you have a farm, I suppose it's not. We're just trying to save you some time and increase your productivity, but if 6000 pixels wide works for you, then fine. It's just not the industry standard.

 

every company i know renders at that res. HD, smoothe etc etc and i have worked there, so it is industry standard as far as im aware . but they, as we do, have the luxury of renderfarms so the hit isnt an issue.

[aaron-cds]

I'll jump up to 6000 wide when I get a dual quad core system with 8g ram, along with a Nikon D2Xs. Currently, I have a D70 with a high-end assortment of glass. My problem with the D70 is the photos (unless I photo-stitch) are at a resolution that doesn't allow for rendering larger than 3000 wide. So there's that, the clients (so far) don't have a problem with 3000 wide, and the longer rendering times are too much of a hit.

[Tim Woods]

that is the other limit. unless you use large format photography, like you said, its difficult to get that rez. large format is great. but it means hiring a pro, waiting for delevlpoment, scanning, etc. but pro shots although costly, do make a lot of difference, giving you a great starting point for a great image.