What res do you final at?

[M V]

What resolution do you guys render your finals at? I have seen a lot of answers to this question and I am curious on what you guys are delivering to clients. I read the other day that someone exports their finals at 2500 wide and I couldnt believe that. I usually aim for 4000-5000 because that usually gets me a 10-12 megapixel image. I also heard that some of the high end studios render at 7-9k pixels wide. I do understand its all about how the image is going to be used, but generally what do you guys aim for?

[eagle_ear]

"4000-5000", yup around there, then size down the image just a bit, so the image

congeals, pulls together. I read a matte painter saying that his images were done at double resolution than what the final would be sized down to, somewhere. Figure if this was good enough for hollywood, then should be good enough for architects and their clients.

[Brodie Geers]

Ya, I'm in that range as well. I could maybe go a bit less but I never know exactly what the final purpose will be so it's safest to just render large.

 

-Brodie

[ronll]

I agree, 4-5000 wide (or tall). The problem with higher res is that I find the post gets a little cumbersome and some of the paste-ins won't hold up. I also find that far fewer images are printed out these days, most are only shown on screen.

[mattclinch]

6k + in the shortest dimension.

[Iain Denby]

"4000-5000", yup around there, then size down the image just a bit, so the image

congeals, pulls together.

 

Eh? I can understand reducing it to get a smaller, perhaps more manageable file size. I don't understand 'pulls the image together'.

[Brodie Geers]

Eh? I can understand reducing it to get a smaller, perhaps more manageable file size. I don't understand 'pulls the image together'.

 

Some people recommend this as it can help with the aliasing - particularly if you're doing a lot of post-process work. For example, it can help blend the transition from a 2d person to the 3d rendering.

 

-Brodie

[Iain Denby]

Hmmmm. Can't see why. I'd like to see examples.

[ihabkal]

I can see why, I render 10K+ sometimes and the 3D is too sharp and too clean for photos. yet I see people rendering at 2k and pasting crappy tree photos and it look real because when they print it big the pixellation in the rendering works with the noise and pixellation of their crappy 2D trees and people.

[Scott Schroeder]

I actually talk to my clients so I can get precise render sizes. When you blindly render at these ridiculous image sizes and it only goes to web or a 2" print, you waste your time. Before the client even comes to you, they have the marketing down and know print sizes. If they don't you discuss a good medium or ask them for a similar previous project so you can judge.

 

Of course, I also smartly contract this up so if they decided to change sizes at the last minute I have the ability to charge extra.

 

Unless you are printing billboards, 10k is a complete waste of your time and on your render farm. And if most of the images you are producing are web only, why render at print size? Again, wasting time and resources.

 

It's simple math. The client will say they are printing sales brochures and with an image of 4"x6". 4"x6" times 300dpi print gives you 1200x1800 pixels you need to render at.

 

Render smarter not larger.

Edited September 19, 2011 by VelvetElvis

[Tommy L]

Eh? I can understand reducing it to get a smaller, perhaps more manageable file size. I don't understand 'pulls the image together'.

 

Its possible to balance AA settings with resolution. Can be a time saver for animation (oversize the render and use lower AA settings) but its not really a viable solutiojn for stills as there are no hard rules for it.

 

I tend to ask a client if they need it super big. If yes I ask why. If no I rener at 4k in the shortest dimension.

[erickdt]

I agree with Scott. Unless you've got unlimited resources there is no good reason to render an image larger than it needs to be.

 

E

Edited September 20, 2011 by erickdt

[frog_a_lot]

5K at longest edge wide usually, depending on time constraints.

[BVI]

3500 to 4000px prints perfectly at A1. Aerial views at 6000px to show off the detail.

 

DPI has nothing to do with resolution.

[Sketchrender]

"DPI has nothing to do with resolution."

Can you explain that, as i generally get High res photos to match into.

So i use the pront wizard in max and set the dim of the photo to the out put render, and always set to 300dpi.

I thought it was essential.

So enlighten me please.

Thank you .

 

Phil

[Jonathan Sanchez]

Agree with the "render smart" comments. Just use DPI and size it will be printed at to figure out what size to render. Sometimes you'll find that 3000 px wide is just fine.

Edited September 20, 2011 by sancheuz

[Iain Denby]

DPI IS resolution, as in, Dots Per Inch. The more dots per inch the higher the resolution

[Scott Schroeder]

3500 to 4000px prints perfectly at A1. Aerial views at 6000px to show off the detail.

 

DPI has nothing to do with resolution.

 

This is why arch viz is a laughing stock to the rest of the CG industry. Since you are so misinformed it's almost painful, let's go back to the basics. I'm dead serious that with a comment like that, you need to really wonder why you are in this industry.

 

To get your render size from print size, you multiply the print size (3"x5" for example) by your printers DPI (300 DPI in this case) to get your PIXELS needed to get the DPI. So a 3"x5" print would equal a 900x1500 pixel render.

 

And guess what? It also works in reverse! If you have a 2400x1200 pixel image that you want to know it's maximum print size, you can DIVIDE the pixels by the DPI. So 2400x1200 pixels gives you a max print size of 8"x 4" @ 300 DPI.

 

I'm stunned. Utterly stunned.

[David Arbogast]

DPI is a printing term that speaks to how finely the printer applies color/tone to paper. While PPI (Pixels per inch) speaks to the resolution of an image. If a printer can print to a resolution of 600 DPI, it doesn't necessarily follow that you have to match pixels to dots. A 300 PPI image will look fine printed at 600 DPI. I never use the term DPI to speak to an image's resolution, only PPI. I thought that was pretty basic, am I wrong?

[Tommy L]

Oh dear, lets not go down that road. Everyone DOES need to know what DPI and PPI are and how they relate to screen resolution and print resolution. But honestly, Ive sat a dinners before and listened to print guys and animation argue and argue and argue, but they are essentially agreeing with each other loudly and cant see the wood for the trees.

[Brodie Geers]

This is why arch viz is a laughing stock to the rest of the CG industry. Since you are so misinformed it's almost painful, let's go back to the basics. I'm dead serious that with a comment like that, you need to really wonder why you are in this industry.

 

To get your render size from print size, you multiply the print size (3"x5" for example) by your printers DPI (300 DPI in this case) to get your PIXELS needed to get the DPI. So a 3"x5" print would equal a 900x1500 pixel render.

 

And guess what? It also works in reverse! If you have a 2400x1200 pixel image that you want to know it's maximum print size, you can DIVIDE the pixels by the DPI. So 2400x1200 pixels gives you a max print size of 8"x 4" @ 300 DPI.

 

I'm stunned. Utterly stunned.

 

Simmer down a bit Scott. This stuff takes some time to understand and a lot of the info on the web is misleading.

 

Even within your own snarky post I'm not sure how accurate you are. You seem to be blending DPI with PPI and confusing the issue. DPI is set by the printer - hense 'dots' and not 'pixels.' You seem to mention this but then go on talking as if you're referring to PPI. So, in a sense the quoted person was correct - DPI is totally separate from image resolution which is dependant on PPI. A good printer will produce far more than 300 DPI. My Epson R1900 produces 5760 dpi x 1440 dpi. Again, that is the case whether I'm printing a 100px x 100px image at 11x17 (Very low resolution) or a 10,000px x 10,000px image at 4x6 (very high resolution).

 

Where 300 comes in is the common number given as a good basis for high quality good resolution images in PPI. So your math is correct, but it's referring to PPI, not DPI.

 

-Brodie

[Scott Schroeder]

DPI is an outdated printing term that we all still use as most people have heard of it. PPI is the more modern style. While there are differences, for simplicity's sake, especially when dealing with clients, you can make generalizations that they are the same. The key difference is PPI can be sampled and scaled, DPI is fixed. IE, when you print you can't upscale the print. DPI is typically used in printing, and most of our images get printed. Also, 10 pixels may take more than 10 printer dots to print.

 

If you use PPI when you print, you must make sure your DPI of the printer is equal or greater to the PPI of your image. Since you are taking 300 PPI images and printing at 600 DPI, then of course, you will not see any sort of poor quality print. You are correct that if you have a 10x10 pixel image, it doesn't mean the printer will use 10x10 dots in print. The printer will almost always use more dots. Which is the reason for using a greater DPI that your images PPI to ensure no odd printing issues.

 

For simplicity's sake, I stick to using the term DPI when dealing with clients as they have heard of that term and are more familiar. DPI is best used when you refer to when you physically produce the image, such as when you print it. Therefore, I always stick to DPI terms so I can ensure I get the highest quality print and the smallest image size rendered and not confuse clients. Because it can get confusing fast. I think I even confused myself.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_per_inch (DPI)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixels_per_inch (PPI)

[Scott Schroeder]

Simmer down a bit Scott. This stuff takes some time to understand and a lot of the info on the web is misleading.

 

Even within your own snarky post I'm not sure how accurate you are. You seem to be blending DPI with PPI and confusing the issue. DPI is set by the printer - hense 'dots' and not 'pixels.' You seem to mention this but then go on talking as if you're referring to PPI. So, in a sense the quoted person was correct - DPI is totally separate from image resolution which is dependant on PPI. A good printer will produce far more than 300 DPI. My Epson R1900 produces 5760 dpi x 1440 dpi. Again, that is the case whether I'm printing a 100px x 100px image at 11x17 (Very low resolution) or a 10,000px x 10,000px image at 4x6 (very high resolution).

 

Where 300 comes in is the common number given as a good basis for high quality good resolution images in PPI. So your math is correct, but it's referring to PPI, not DPI.

 

-Brodie

 

http://www.pptxtreme.com/help/psdimport/ResolutionExplainedPixelsDPIInches.html

 

So when a client comes to you and says, hey our printers are 300dpi and our final product is a full page 8"x10" paper, you can figure out what pixel size you need to render to.

 

It also helps when you ask the client what DPI their printers are. If you ask them what PPI their printers are, they'll look at you oddly.

 

This isn't rocket science.

Edited September 20, 2011 by VelvetElvis

[Brodie Geers]

I use the term DPI when dealing with clients as well (describing the difference is usually unnecessary but watching their eyes glaze over CAN be fun if you're a sadist). I just think that if we're going to berate and educate our friends here, the least we could do is use proper terminology.

 

-Brodie

[David Arbogast]

http://www.pptxtreme.com/help/psdimport/ResolutionExplainedPixelsDPIInches.htmlThis isn't rocket science.

^^Nice links Scott. And, nope, it isn't rocket science!