rendering resolution

[sonofalion]

Guys, the theory goes like this:

I want a rendering which I'm going to print on an A4 paper.

If I want the printing resolution to be 300dpi (which is the standard for most printers), then my rendering resolution should be 3507x2480 pixels. You can also check this from the Print Size Wizard within 3dsmax.

 

So, would I really have to render at that high a resolution? Isn't it an overkill? Wouldn't a smaller rendering (half the resolution) give a printed image that you couldn't discern from the other one with the higher quality? Or is it just a matter of the right paper? If so, do you print on matte or glossy paper usually?

 

Excuse the question bombardment, but up till now I only had to render images that would be shown on-screen.

 

Have a nice day!

 

Paris

[STRAT]

for public or magazine print A4@300 dpi is a standard. but yes, if it's only for your own purposes then it's waaaaaaay overkill.

 

Generally, a 3500 pixel render would look most similar to a 2000 pixel render when printed out on A4. but, if it's for a client, you really want to render as big as you can afford.

 

Usually, i render at between 3500-4000 pixels per image for my clients. this size is great for A4, and still looks very crisp and clean up to A2 size.

 

And yes, the more expensive your printing facilities and paper quality the better your imagery generally looks. Exactly what printed output you'll be doing, both quality and sizewise, will be decided by the job, and if you dont posses the correct equipment, then just go to town to get a printer to print it for you.

[sonofalion]

Dear STRAT,

you are starting to shed some light to the darkness, but I am still a bit perplexed. You say that yes, I should render at that resolution, but at the same time, you declare that half the resolution wouldn't make much difference. Especially, you say, if the print is for your own use. What do you mean "my own use"? Have you tried this in your own printer to see the difference?

 

You also say that I should render as high as possible, but I don't think that you get anything if you render at a resolution higher that the aforementioned one. What do you think?

 

Paris

[STRAT]

You say that yes, I should render at that resolution, but at the same time, you declare that half the resolution wouldn't make much difference. Especially, you say, if the print is for your own use. What do you mean "my own use"? Have you tried this in your own printer to see the difference?

 

of course i've tried it else i wouldnt say it. the advise i give here in these forums is always from personal experience, not theory i read in books.

 

 

"my own use" just means when you're rendering for yourself and not a client.

Rendering at 3500 pixels compaired to 2000 pixels does result in similar quality A4 printed output, but not identical. To most people they wouldn't spot the difference, but a trained eye would, and the better the resolution the better the quality of print will be, and the more flexable you are at doing larger scale prints if required to.

 

(it's similar to peeps claiming you MUST render your finals as TIFF or TGA files for example. most of the time i render to JPG. even a trained eye wouldn't know the difference)

 

If you're just doing progress reports or wips for your clients then no need to render at a high res, but for finals? it's generally good practise to do so.

And as i mentioned above, find out what size and purpose your final imagery will be intended for. this will determine how large to render. if you dont know this, then go for the largest you can afford.

 

sometimes i'll get imagery back from a freelancer rendered maybe at 6000 pixels wide. this is overkill for me as i never need my prints this big, but the freelancer didnt know this. it's always good practise to render your finals as big as you can (within reason).

 

 

 

You also say that I should render as high as possible, but I don't think that you get anything if you render at a resolution higher that the aforementioned one. What do you think?

 

as i say, find out what your final images will be needed for. If, for example, the finals pics will only end up on a web page then you only need render at less than 2000 pixels. i've recently rendered some pictures to go on a 20 foot long billboard. i couldn't cope with the theoretical correct render size as my equipment is too slow, so i rendered out at about 8000 pixels wide. the final image quality at 20 foot long looked grand

 

it's also a case of experience and practise. you get a feel for this type of thing.

[sonofalion]

Ok, Steve, thanks a lot for sharing!

 

Paris

[Eric]

For print, I always render my images out at 250 pixels per inch. I typically size my images for 11x17 paper, with a half inch border all around, so 10x16 is my final rendered size. That's a 2500x3600 pixel rendering.

 

I once saw a comparison in a Photoshop WOW (I think that was the book) between a 250PPI (Not to be confused with DPI) and a 300PPI image. Honestly, unless you looked very, very hard, you could not tell a difference. And, the final 250PPI file size is half that of a 300PPI's file size.

 

I rendered an image for a billboard once. I think I settled on something like 50PPI or even less. The images are viewed from so far away, you really can't tell and anything higher would be seriously wasted for such purposes.

 

If you want to test this yourself, render out an image, any size, to be printed at 300PPI from photoshop. Then, resample the image down to 225PPI in photoshop, and print it to the same dimensions. See for yourself if there is any major discernable differences. I've done this before, and 300PPI was a waste of resources for my typical output.

 

In addition, how often will images rendered for 11x17 actually be printed in a magazine at that resolution? I gather not very often, so when they're scaled down, much higher than 300PPI would likely be easily attained.