What res do you final at?

[Brodie Geers]

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

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.

.

 

Obviously printers don't have a PPI so I'm not sure why you would ask that. I guess you could ask them what DPI their printers are but that's still over the head of most clients.

 

Plus it assumes that all prints will be done in their office. If you assume 300 PPI as your basis the only time this information could have any influence is if they use very poor printers at, say, 300 DPI or lower. You could lower your resolution a bit to save render time, but given their poor printer quality you should assume that at some point they'll be outsourcing the prints to a marketing company or Kinkos. If they have good printers then 300 PPI will be fine (typically).

 

-Brodie

[mattclinch]

give them a nice big image and avoid all this hassle?

[Scott Schroeder]

To put the DPI/PPI to bed, as we've hijacked this thread, it's better to use the term DPI when dealing with a client who will print your images. And I'm not going to go through the math again. If your images are on the web only, all you need to do is ask the client what size the website will be and if they will be able to click larger images from the thumbnails or what not. Oddly enough, in these times were we all have 400 foot monitors, the most recommended website size is still 1024x768.

 

The whole point of my argument that lead to DPI/PPI was that if you are approached by a client to render an image and you just blindly render at 4k,6k,10k, whatever, you are wasting render time. If you need to render large, fine. But to render a 6k image that will only be an 800 pixel thumbnail on some website is wasteful. Or to render a 10k image that will only be printed at 8"x10" with a 300 DPI print is, again, wasteful.

 

Talk to your clients. Get informed of your image's uses before you render. That's my stance in all of this. Get away from having the stock, "We'll we'll just blindly render all of our image out at (insert image size here) and go from there." mentality. How many other jobs get backed up on your render farm because of that? I can tell you many stories from where I used to work where if stills and animations were due on the same day, the stills would always back up the animations and we'd damn near miss deadlines. Then, a few months later I'd the that 4k image series I'd clogged the render farm with being use only on the web and far less the image resolution.

 

This is especially important if you are a freelancer with limited computing power. Yes, I'm aware of online render farms. But to use those every time for just one still image, or series of images, that are way beyond the needed size is such a waste of your money and needlessly increases your budget.

 

Finally, even I get mixed up with DPI and PPI. The math is still the same though. Again, the link is for printing purposes.

http://www.rideau-info.com/photos/printshop.html

 

This one covers digital images and people changing the 72 DPI number in Photoshop to 300 DPI even though they have an image that is sufficient pixels sizes, say from a digital camera or render would apply. Again, the original math was and is still the same to figure out sizes needed. So you don't need to render out an image and change the DPI in photostop from 72 to whatever. Keep it at 72, your image size is what counts.

http://www.rideau-info.com/photos/mythdpi.html

Edited September 20, 2011 by VelvetElvis

[mattclinch]

interesting point. there is of course another school of thought which says that doing the absolute minimum you can get away with is not going to endear yourself to the client in the same way that someone else who will go above and beyond and show them all the added value they can get from having a larger resolution image.

 

just saying.

[Scott Schroeder]

interesting point. there is of course another school of thought which says that doing the absolute minimum you can get away with is not going to endear yourself to the client in the same way that someone else who will go above and beyond and show them all the added value they can get from having a larger resolution image.

 

just saying.

 

So if I post an image that's 2000x2000 pixels and one that was originally 10,000x10,000 pixels but scaled down to 2000x2000 pixels, you can tell the difference? It's not doing the minimum. It's being efficient. It's not telling the client that you'll have the image in a few days while you wait to render out an insane size that they'll never use, when if you talked to them you could have the image faster at the size they need it. That, and you aren't going to send them a huge image file that they'll have the rescale anyways making more work for them or clogging their web space with a 4k image that still is only being displayed at 1024k. You know those websites that have those thumbnails that take a long time to load because they've just scaled down a 20 meg image to a thumbnail.

 

To me, being concerned with the client's needs is more important than sending them a larger than needed image size.

 

All that matters is what the client will use the image for. For the billionth time, if they are only going to use the image at say 1024x768 pixels, what does it matter if you render larger? They are just going to scale down the image and you've just wasted render time.

 

Render smarter, not larger.

[David Arbogast]

interesting point. there is of course another school of thought which says that doing the absolute minimum you can get away with is not going to endear yourself to the client in the same way that someone else who will go above and beyond and show them all the added value they can get from having a larger resolution image.

 

just saying.

In my experience clients often do not fully comprehend or anticipate what they want or need. They can say they need a rendering for a specific print size, but later they'll change their minds and want something different. So, I'm all for "rendering smarter not larger" when rendering resources/time is absolutely critical, but otherwise I like to render large just because I know about 50% of the time the clients will want to use the rendering in a manner they didn't originally articulate.

 

Same is true for modeling. Seems like every time I try to cut a corner and not model the "backside" of a building, because the client insisted they only wanted frontside renderings, I get hit with a, "Since you've already modeled the building we want a full fly-around." They can be in the wrong, but to Matt's point, the client's being wrong isn't going to score any points towards client satisfaction and winning repeat work. So, it can be a challenge to balance giving the client exactly what they ask for and providing added value to help maintain or grow a client's satisfaction.

Edited September 20, 2011 by David Arbogast

[Scott Schroeder]

In my experience clients often do not fully comprehend or anticipate what they want or need. They can say they need a rendering for a specific print size, but later they'll change their minds and want something different. So, I'm all for "rendering smarter not larger" when rendering resources/time is absolutely critical, but otherwise I like to render large just because I know about 50% of the time the clients will want to use the rendering in a manner they didn't originally articulate.

 

Same is true for modeling. Seems like everytime I try to cut a corner and not model the "backside" of a building, because the client insisted they only wanted frontside renderings, I get hit with a, "Since you've already modeled the building we want a full fly-around." They can be in the wrong, but to Matt's point, the client's being wrong isn't going to score any points towards client satisfaction and winning repeat work. So, it can be a challenge to balance giving the client exactly what they ask for and providing added value to help maintain or grow a client's satisfaction.

 

 

See my original post in this thread, pages back, about how after the initial project sign off I have everything in the contract. Be it final size, what I'm to model based on views, etc. This way, if they do change their mind, I can charge them for it. But to just take massive change orders like that without extra charges is poor business. I understand at the same time you have to sort of pander to clients, but I've found that having a really good upfront dialog with them at the onset eliminates most last minute noodling as they are fully aware of things.

 

I have the client sign on each requested item. Say, stills vs animations, the view of the stills, and image size. This way, if I do get that request for an animation that wasn't in the initial contract, it's much easier to push a chargeable change order on them. I also explain the process to them so they understand this isn't magic and asking to move the cameras to the other side at the last minute is indeed a pretty big change as to protect their budget for this, I'm only modeling what I see in the initial camera view. The contract is really important, so make sure it's written properly. In fact, take a few contract law courses at a local college. I did, and it's been a boom to my business.

 

Talking with your clients solves most problems. If you sign off, then don't check in until the deadline, then you'll leave yourself open to all sorts of changes and client meddling. However, if the initial size is 2400x1200 and they ask for 2800x1600 I'll make it without charge. But if they ask for 4000x3000 at the last minute, then yes, an extra charge is coming. Again, when and where charges will come has been already discussed with the client so they won't get surprised.

 

When I worked for a company that had poor client dialog, we hit changes left and right. Now that I freelance and control the dialog, I've eliminated 99% of that hassle. And if I have a particular wishy-washy client, I won't request more work from them. Just because they contract you doesn't mean that they own you. I rarely have a client that didn't know what they were going to use the image for in terms of final size. And if they don't we make best guesses based on what they will use it for. Say for print, we'll choose an average size. But I will let them know that if a drastic change is needed, there will be an extra charge and that they have "x" amount of time before we hit the point of no return.

 

I agree it's tough to balance clients needs. But if I lose work because I'm not going to add in a full non-requested animation for no extra charge, then I can live with that. That's taking money right out of my pocket and working for free.

 

This doesn't apply in any other industry. When you go out to eat and order a steak, do they give you lobster thinking that you'll come back because they went above and beyond? No! You want what you order. You also can't ask for the kid's menu price for the main course.

 

I've always found this to be so true and so funny. Client vendor relationships in the real world:

[Tommy L]

I see what you're saying Scott, but I really dont agree. I render big because I know, even if my client doesnt, that their company may have multiple uses for the image. Multiple usage will always come and bite you. What if your client comes back and says 'we need it bigger' and you say 'thats a fee' and they say 'we dont have that in the budget for this project'

- Do you seriously say 'well thats just tough luck then, Im not going to push render'?

Or do you avoid all that and just make a large image in the first place. Alot of work is done (for me) in photoshop. Working at a higher res is just as easy as working at a lower one, low res PS comps cant just be upscaled. Same with animation. Same with music. Same with any digital (or analogue for that matter) product. Its a case of starting with high fidelity and downsizing later.

Easy for me to say I guess, I have great clients and a render farm to myself. Ive yet to meet an image I cant render high res in a few hours, overnight at most.

[Justin Hunt]

I dont know how many times I had requests from printers to send a 300dpi image rather than the 72dpi one they have, even after I have explained that the image is the correct size for their needs.

 

jhv

[Scott Schroeder]

I see what you're saying Scott, but I really dont agree. I render big because I know, even if my client doesnt, that their company may have multiple uses for the image. Multiple usage will always come and bite you. What if your client comes back and says 'we need it bigger' and you say 'thats a fee' and they say 'we dont have that in the budget for this project'

- Do you seriously say 'well thats just tough luck then, Im not going to push render'?

Or do you avoid all that and just make a large image in the first place. Alot of work is done (for me) in photoshop. Working at a higher res is just as easy as working at a lower one, low res PS comps cant just be upscaled. Same with animation. Same with music. Same with any digital (or analogue for that matter) product. Its a case of starting with high fidelity and downsizing later.

Easy for me to say I guess, I have great clients and a render farm to myself. Ive yet to meet an image I cant render high res in a few hours, overnight at most.

 

Yeah, I do say tough luck if it's an insane request as far as image size or requesting extras that were never initially discussed. If I deliver 2400x1200 and they are now asking for something huge, say 6k, then it's really bad business to allow yourself to do that work for free. Even an extra render causes extra overhead charges. If you constantly run into the red on projects because you keep making changes at the last minute for free, how can you survive? Name me one other business entity that does extra for no charge and is still a viable business model. Could McDonalds survive if they gave away an extra value meal with each purchase? Extra renders are no different.

 

As a freelancer you should bill in overhead (ie power costs), and if you've billed out for a 4k render that now is all of a sudden a 10k render, you are now in the red in overhead cost. It may not seem much for one image, but if you always operate that way then those extra power charges add up. Before you know it, you can't pay your utility costs.

 

I rarely ever have to deal with that, because in the initial project phase I'm aware of what they will use the image for, even multiple use. If it's multiple use images, of course, I'll deliver at the highest res they need and they can resize as needed.

 

However if we've only talked about web use at, say no larger than 1024x768, and all of a sudden they are asking for a 12"x16" print size, then of course I'll charge them. But, again, I've let them know upfront that changes like that require additional charges so they are not surprised by it. I do my best to educate the client so they can expect things. In all my dealings as a freelancer, I've never had a client who didn't know where my renders are going to be used.

 

But in the one case where I did stand my ground against massive changes requested for no charge and the client tried to take me to court, it never got past mediation due to the contract that was signed. I delivered everything in the contract, on time and to spec. I won the case easily, because you can't be expected to work for free with large change orders. That, and the client's signature on all of the deliverable expected.

 

For me, I don't have that big of a business yet to absorb making changes for free so I have to charge. It's not a wild charge, but it's still enough to cover the overhead needed to get that render out. I do agree with you Tommy in principal. And there is a fine line in keeping the client happy and being a, I hate to say it, pushover that works for free out of fear of losing business. If you always operate in the red, why work? You'd save money if you didn't work at all.

 

The initial phase is crucial for me. I know what to expect, the client knows what to expect and 99.99999% of the time everyone is extremely happy with the process. The contracts are always spelled out in plain English what is expected and changes require extras.

[erickdt]

This is why I charge for render time. The time it takes to render an image shouldn't come free. It's important that your client knows it up front. Then it's not a surprise when you ask for extra $$$ if they want a larger image than specified in the original scope of work.

 

E

[Tommy L]

Seriously? Render time costs practically nothing. I'd be kind of embarrassed to deliver a 1024x768 image. And Ive never had a client try to take me to court. You think render time is expensive? I think a client going else-where is expensive.

I think your argument makes sense if we were delivering a tangible product, but we dont. We deliver binary code and if you can deliver a better product for an extra $1 in electric bill then that $1 is a bargain.

 

Oh, and another thing....

 

USA based artists on this site complain all the time about clients not caring about quality and ignoring the local talent pool in favor of cheaper options, aka 'the Chinese' taking food off the table. The general response to 'how to fight the cheapness' has been to improve standards here so that the financial aspect is overshadowed by convenience, quality and impeccable service. I think the best deliverable possible is pretty much mandatory in chicago if you want to maintain a loyal client base. Especially now the big boys like SOM have a service contract with Crystal. You can stand out from the crowd and charge appropriately or pinch pennies on the electric.

Edited September 21, 2011 by Tommy L

[Scott Schroeder]

As a freelancer who works from home, you can really tell with my power bill when I'm in render crunches. We're talking a usual $50-75 per month up to at least $150. Electricity isn't just this magic thing that comes through outlets. Have your computer on 24/7 for a month and spiked at 100% CPU all night and see if your power bill skyrockets. Not to mention this neat little thing call AC that is required to keep the whole thing cool. You're telling me, if you freelanced, you'd be willing to eat that charge? If so, can I hire you as my render service? You think any company doesn't charge for overhead like building and utility costs?

 

Again, since I'm having such a hard time with why some of you cannot grasp this simple concept. If your client will NEVER use the image above, say 1024x768, you waste your time and energy rendering anything larger. What's so hard to understand with this? You really think you can tell the difference between a 4000x3000 image scaled to 1024x768 versus a raw 1024x768 image?

 

Answer me this. Why would you be embarrassed with delivering a 1024x768 image if that's what the client requested? Isn't impeccable service giving the client what they want?

 

I don't get it, I'll never get it. To me, rendering 400% larger than you need to is just a waste of resources. We'll just have to agree to disagree. It's just poor business to eat obvious overhead costs like power and to do work for free. I know of no other industry that's willing to give you more than what you request for free. Does it work with cars? Food? Cable? Is the cable company going to include HBO for zero charge? Can I get leather seats and the supercharged V8 in my car for no charge? If I order an 8oz steak, will they give me the 24oz instead at no extra cost?

 

I guess unless you run your own business and actually see overheads, budgets, bills and so on this will make sense. If you are in a larger company where that's all done elsewhere, maybe that's why it's so hard to grasp. I'm not afraid to lose a client who wants me to do extra work for free. Because if I work for free, why work in the first place? I might as well just pay the client for those changes. Here's your 4 times larger than requested image plus I'll throw in an extra 500 dollars just so I don't lose you.

Edited September 21, 2011 by VelvetElvis

[neil poppleton]

Larger the better when you can upload an image to your render farm, if available.

 

2 days ago we had a client come back to us and request a larger print size so it could go on the back of bus. Because we render as high as possible, we had it, problem solved and one very happy client, who will come back to us.....I hope.....

 

Its always good to have large print size for your own brochures and use aswell.

 

I always have thought start big and down size the images to suit, saves hassle in the long. Thats just my opinion and workflow for what its worth.

[BVI]

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.

I'm stunned. Utterly stunned.

 

Who do you think you are Scott? You come across as an ******* in most of your posts on this thread.

 

Your statements are incorrect regarding DPI as DPI is a printing terminology related to PRINT DOTS PER INCH and has not a digital term as has been pointed out. Good luck in the "industry" as you put it with your disgusting attitude.

Edited September 21, 2011 by BVI

[BVI]

Hey Scott - better ask for your money back for that masters.

 

You can read up on DPI and your associated misunderstandings here: http://www.dpiphoto.eu/dpi.htm

[erickdt]

Seriously? Render time costs practically nothing. I'd be kind of embarrassed to deliver a 1024x768 image. And Ive never had a client try to take me to court. You think render time is expensive? I think a client going else-where is expensive.

I think your argument makes sense if we were delivering a tangible product, but we dont. We deliver binary code and if you can deliver a better product for an extra $1 in electric bill then that $1 is a bargain.

 

Oh, and another thing....

 

USA based artists on this site complain all the time about clients not caring about quality and ignoring the local talent pool in favor of cheaper options, aka 'the Chinese' taking food off the table. The general response to 'how to fight the cheapness' has been to improve standards here so that the financial aspect is overshadowed by convenience, quality and impeccable service. I think the best deliverable possible is pretty much mandatory in chicago if you want to maintain a loyal client base. Especially now the big boys like SOM have a service contract with Crystal. You can stand out from the crowd and charge appropriately or pinch pennies on the electric.

 

Seriously. And I haven't heard one complaint about it. Not since I started charging for render time and not when I raised the price a few years ago.

 

IMO your argument displays a race to the bottom mentality.

 

I guess my situation is a bit different though. I freelance primarily as a designer who uses visualization to illustrate my design ideas (as opposed to somebody else's). Also, all of my freelance relationships are based on previous working relationships. All of these factors combine to make it difficult for me to be replaced by a low rate, overseas visualizer.

 

E

[BVI]

Charging for an excessively high rendering is understandable (ie Billboard) - but doing 1024px as a final is ridiculous. I remember in the early 2000's people charged for anything higher than 1024px I even remember a guy who used to charge if you wanted plants in your 3D, however PC's have come a long way since and at 3000px should be a reasonable deliverable for anybody.

[mattclinch]

this is a service industry. we provide a service to clients. you form lasting relationships with clients by giving them a good quality of service and a high end product. potentially, educating the client as to WHY your product is more valuable to them than your competitors is part of that.

 

if people here are complaining about render times at higher resolutions i suggest you look at your workflow.

[marius e]

One of those interesting threads haha!

 

Most of us have our settings that we always use, and that we know are going to do the job. DPI, PPI, screen resolution, old printer, new printer the list goes on and on......really doesnt matter much if atleast you have some kinda idea what quality you want to output.

 

I have printed images on crappy, better, and very expensive printers and to say the least, they all look the same. (I am generalising, just incase we have a sensitive printing expert from Oce or alike)

Obviously there are slight differences, but the machines that the arch firms use, are all of the same quality, as is the crap where clients get their stuff printed, which is a chain store printer company, they have the same equipment.

 

Dpi, ppi, etc is all pointless if your render quality isnt good to start with, aliasing, general GI sollution, render size. I would say the most imortant is a reder quality vs print size. And I think that is what Nicolas(BVI) was getting at (correct me if I am wrong).

 

Most of my renders are at 2800-3600px, depending what its used for, and the render times.............FROM MY experience, an 2800px render with MY setting prints fine on any printer. Now if I had to render that same image at 300dpi, it will take me most likely 10 times the time, and I will most likely have to do changes afterwards and then rerender. I say you render to good quality, time charged for and as mentioned the purpose of the render.

 

Anyway, I find that a 3000px render is a nice size for post work as well.

 

My process would be:

Print size assistant - Paper size A3 - Dpi 200

 

Works for me, its more about settings in max, rather than print settings, as I already know that the size I am rendering at is goin to be fine on A1 sheet of paper. Who wants to devide this with that to get a paper size and so on, might be a perfect sience, but 3d max is not a perfect science.

 

You might have a camera that shoots 300dpi images, but if your settings is crap, the 300dpi image printed out is still goint to look like crap.

[M V]

When I started this thread my intention was not meant to start a bloodbath discussion about PPI or DPI or electricity bills.

 

I agree with Scott that a high res render that will run all night should be charged more than the same rendering done at 2000 wide that runs in an hour because time is money and more time cooking should be factored into your costs. I worked at a laser cutting shop for a year and they had electricity built into their costs, so why shouldn't we?

 

What I guess I was looking for was a magic number range and it seems to be 2500-6000 pixels. 2500 for small budget stuff and 6k for large projects, large format prints, and 'good' clients - wink wink. Thats all.

 

If a client comes back and says, "hey, can I get a larger res for a billboard" (and they didnt tell you that upfront), then you need to decide, do I give this guy a freebie because he was a good client and will have more work in the future, or was he a total pain to work with and I lost money on this project and should recoup some loss here. Its your business.

 

I think the important thing that comes out of this discussion is that quality needs to be #1 and make sure you understand what your client is going to do with the image. It probably doesnt make sense to let a render cook all night at 7k if they are only going to use it on a web page or printed at 5" wide. We do need to join together (instead of against each other) and agree that the only way we are all going to survive this economy and compete with our competitors overseas is to provide high quality, high-end graphics, and exceptional service and the occasional high res freebie.

Edited September 29, 2011 by valerostudio