Big Output resolution

[chiquito]

Hi, I´m trying to figure out a big resolution I need for some effects added to a series of photographs. Each render needs to have 7000x5000px @300dpi.

Will max support it? Has anyone had any big resolution issue?

thanks in advance

Martin

[alfienoakes]

That equates to about an A2 at full 300dpi..

 

What are you doing that needs that sort of res.. a poster..?

[chiquito]

Some images for a photographic porpouse, dont really know what end would they have, my guess would be magazine printing or similar, just chequing what size should it be, if doable in max.

[alfienoakes]

That is a very very high res if its for a magazine.

 

Some print guys get really caught up in this DPI thing, when in reality 200 dpi is adequate for most things.. If its a magazine that wants it at that size it must be so big its tricky to read it..

 

I would find out what their actual end size will be, ie if its an A4 picture in a magazine, then you would need a max image size of 3500 x 2480 at 300 DPI..

 

Could save your self a lot of hassle.. If it needs to be as big as they are saying, then you MAY have to look at vrimg.. I think thats the one anyway, will allow you to render bigger images.. Thats assuming you are using Vray of course...

[chiquito]

Andy, thank you for taking time in answering, yes its a mounstrous resolution.

But thats specifically what they are asking for. For what I understand, theres hardly any telling from a 200dpi upwards, its more to do with printing method, paper, inks and other variables.

Im deffinetlly looking into vrimg, to what is the advantage of it.

I was also considering using a render farm, the quotations I got so far seem reasonable, but dont know if they would handle the job correctlly in terms of size, or bucketing regions.

[alfienoakes]

check out this thread as well.....

 

http://www.chaosgroup.com/forums/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=40506&highlight=rendering+large+image

[ronll]

I have also found that printers usually request more res than they really need. Also if you think about it, if something is printed larger, it is usually because it is meant to be viewed from farther away in which case you can't see the pixels anyway unless you get up real close. If there are enough pixels to show the detail you want, then it can be printed almost any size. I have had 3200 x 1800 renderings printed as construction site signs and they are fine. Sure you can see the pixels if you walk up close. But the only reason you would walk up close is to see if you can see the pixels .

[BrianKitts]

That resolution is ridiculous.... this is one of my biggest peeves when sending stuff to printers. "It has to be at 300dpi" is the standard answer whenever you ask how big. Even more annoying is when you ask them how large the image needs to be and they only say 300dpi...... Great genius you want to give me the rest of the equation? I can make it one inch by one inch @ 300dpi, (300 pixels wide).... and I would have still given you what you asked for.

 

I normally render 8x10@300dpi (3000pixels wide) unless I know it's getting printed over 4' wide. In which case I'll go up to 5000. I would never bother render anything larger than that. I've had that printed on a sign @ 8' wide, and it looked great from ten feet away. If someone asks for anything bigger just resize it in photoshop to the size they requested to make them happy....even if you're rendering is going on a blimp, it will still look good at that size. I think I heard once billboards aren't even 72dpi. So that means 5000pixels could print about 69.4' wide.

 

Side comment, a photographer once told me that images are best viewed at a distance equal to the images diagonal dimension.

 

if you are using vray, read up on rendering to a .vrimg file, unless you're running 64bit w/ a ton of ram, you'll probably run out of ram and crash anytime you start rendering over 3000 pixels wide. And to answer your question about what it is, it writes out to file the rendered data everytime a bucket finishes a section, as opposed to storing the entire rendered image in a frame buffer wasting away precious memory.

 

http://www.spot3d.com/vray/help/150SP1/vfb_index.html

 

 

 

PS. second biggest peeve with print houses is when they demand a "hi-resolution TIFF" file. Right, because you can tell the difference in print between that and an uncompressed JPEG that takes up 1/8 the file space and carries the same amount of detail. Other than the fact that you'll make me overnight a CD cause you don't know how FTP works, and I can't send you a 300MB email

[ronll]

Nice to finally hear someone else with some sense on this issue. I've had the dpi argument with so many people I was beginning to think maybe I was the confused one.

 

Software such as Photoshop and several others have convinced people that dpi is inherent in an image. Dpi is dots per inch. There are no inches in a rendering, only dots. Paper and monitors have inches, but renderings do not. And as Brian points out, the size of the print (or monitor) has to do with how far away it is being viewed. Period. As renderers, we are (or should be) concerned only with how many dots we use to create an image, not how many inches. The ONLY reason a renderer should increase resolution is if more detail needs to be shown. If you render all of a building in one exterior view, you probably aren't going to see the door knobs. I don't care if you print it on a billboard, you still aren't going to see the door knobs. If you have to see the door knobs, then increase the number of pixels, not the inches.

 

Same thing happens with monitors. People buy big monitors thinking they are going to see more stuff. If the bigger monitor doesn't have more pixels, they aren't going to see more stuff. They are just going to see the same stuff from farther away.

 

Okay, I'm going to take a deep breath now.

[blowback]

Great genius you want to give me the rest of the equation? I can make it one inch by one inch @ 300dpi, (300 pixels wide).... and I would have still given you what you asked for.

 

Yes......finally.

 

When I need to go big, I just split the scanline......Not the best solution but It gets me there.

[alfienoakes]

Your not the only one Brian.. Hence my first couple of posts at the top..

 

Posters are generally.. or CAN generally ... be rendered at around 35 - 45 DPI.. as a rough guide.. When I say poster, I mean something that is going to be viewed as say a hoarding, or a billboard.

 

I recently did an image for a developer at around 40 dpi, and it looked great.. Up close, yes it pixelated, but you couldnt see the whole image from up close..!

[ronll]

Okay Andy, we 'Merkins sometimes have trouble with the English language. What is a "hoarding"?

[blowback]

temp framing or fencing around the site or opening = hoarding

[JonRashid]

Max actually provides you with a print wizard tool under the render tab. I used to have this same argument with print guys. For billboards hoardings etc I agree with all that's been said. However If you are doing a hi-res poster or magazine layout they may well ask for up to 600 dpi which can mean 3500 pixels even for an A4 size. Once it goes to print pixels are irrelevant. What is important is dpi. Photographs used to be only about 72dpi and newspaper even less. However quality magazines will demand higher res. If you have modelled those small details why not let them be displayed. With the power of modern PC's I have never worried about single frame rendering time. What you should be worrying about is when you have to provide HD animation at 1600 pixels