How to render XXL size for banner printing. 25200 pixels X 19800 pixels

[clivengu]

For the past 4 years I have been rendering at 1400pixel width slowly to 2500 pixel width... and lately I have been rendering at 3000pixel width (as Monitor size getting larger and machine getting faster)

 

Today I was informed by my client that they need 25200 pixels X 19800 pixels, 168”W x 132”H at 300 pixel/inch for their printing!!! Not just one 3D but Six! IM IN SHOCK!

 

I have never rendered anything this huge before. Previously I rendered something for a 2 storeys tall banner. but that is only at 3000pixel!

 

Anyway since they have requested for this, I will have to let them know if I can come out with this. I have already done the modeling, lighting, rendered the 3000pixels for all the views before. Now they just need it MUCH BIGGER.

 

But is it possible to render at this size?

 

Just to give an idea of my current machine & rendering time:

Dell Precision M6600

Windows 7 Professional 64bit

8Gb Ram

i7-2720QM. 2.2Ghz

Nvidia Quadro 3000M

3ds max 2011 + Vray

 

By using the above machine I render a 3000pixel width image in average 2 hours. Using Irradiance Map set to High, with Light Cache at default, Image Sampler adaptive dmc at default. Noise Treshold 0.005.

 

I cannot imagine how long it needs to render something 8x times larger than this. Can someone share some tips on maybe there is some setting I can adjust when rendering XL size to increase the rendering speed?

 

I am thinking, if the client willing to pay high enough for the large rendering, I will be getting a much more powerful desktop to do the job. Mayb quad xeon? What is the most powerful setup option do I have?

 

Please advice me what should I do? I need to get back to them if I can do this. Thanks!

[lambros]

The numbers that you are quoting, 168"*300dpi=50400, mean that the 25200x19800 pixel size is 150 dpi, not 300.

One thing I always do in these cases is use photo enlargment software. I would render as high as I could (maybe something around 6-8K) and then use software like Photozoom Pro to enlarge the picture at 25K. Since you have enough information at 8K, enlarged 25K would not look bad at all, especially when this is designed to be seen from a certain distance. Don't use Photoshop for that, you need special algorithms to preserve image quality.

Also, you could probably optimize the vray settings. Maybe post the settings along with a sample of your render? People here could help you lower the rendering time. I don't set the Irradiance map to High for example, I seldom find that the gains in picture quality worth the extra time.

[clivengu]

The numbers that you are quoting, 168"*300dpi=50400, mean that the 25200x19800 pixel size is 150 dpi, not 300.

One thing I always do in these cases is use photo enlargment software. I would render as high as I could (maybe something around 6-8K) and then use software like Photozoom Pro to enlarge the picture at 25K. Since you have enough information at 8K, enlarged 25K would not look bad at all, especially when this is designed to be seen from a certain distance. Don't use Photoshop for that, you need special algorithms to preserve image quality.

Also, you could probably optimize the vray settings. Maybe post the settings along with a sample of your render? People here could help you lower the rendering time. I don't set the Irradiance map to High for example, I seldom find that the gains in picture quality worth the extra time.

 

Thanks a million for your excellent advice. I tried the software you recommended and it really work amazingly. It may not be as detail as those "rendered" at full size, but who actually need such detail when printed this large!! At least it doesnt look like it has been blown up in size & zagged!

 

Correct me if I am wrong, usually there is no need to render at such a big size even for commercial projects for banner/advertisement etc? Anyone did that before? 25k Pixels rendered. Or almost all will be using this technique as well? Thanks again!!

[Frosty]

A 14'x11' banner is NOT viewed in the same manner as a 8"x11" print. Nobody can see a 150 dpi resolution from 20' away. In the wise words of Ralph Wiggum, "That's unpossible!"

 

An ill-informed client has been told the artwork needs to be 150 dpi by the printshop. They are simply requesting a rendering of this size because they know no different. As Lambros says, render to 4k and scale that mofo. Hollywood blockbusters are only rendered to 4k. Why would you render to 16X that resolution?! Your textures are likely going to pixelate past 4k anyway. I don't suppose you have a library of 10k textures at your disposal do you?

 

I'll bet your client will want this 25k image emailed to them too. Then they'll complain that they cant open the 1.5GB tiff. Now imagine adding your comp layers to that!

[clivengu]

A 14'x11' banner is NOT viewed in the same manner as a 8"x11" print. Nobody can see a 150 dpi resolution from 20' away. In the wise words of Ralph Wiggum, "That's unpossible!"

 

An ill-informed client has been told the artwork needs to be 150 dpi by the printshop. They are simply requesting a rendering of this size because they know no different. As Lambros says, render to 4k and scale that mofo. Hollywood blockbusters are only rendered to 4k. Why would you render to 16X that resolution?! Your textures are likely going to pixelate past 4k anyway. I don't suppose you have a library of 10k textures at your disposal do you?

 

I'll bet your client will want this 25k image emailed to them too. Then they'll complain that they cant open the 1.5GB tiff. Now imagine adding your comp layers to that!

 

This is the first time I received such request. It is the printshop who request that size from the client ( & the client request from me!!) Im surprise the printshop doesnt know how to manipulate the image size...and they are requesting for the exact size the printer need. Anyway, your information is very helpful and 200% make sense!! Thanks! So I guess I will just render 7000pixels & enlarge it to 25k pixel. The printshop should not complain about this anymore!

[Frosty]

Im surprise the printshop doesnt know how to manipulate the image size...

 

Bang on! Thats what should happen. as it stands, you are going to dilute an image and make the file size radically larger - as I stated about 1.5GB for a flattened tiff. Then you are going to try and get this file to your client somehow, hopefully you can physically go there or you both have fast bandwidth. Most offices I know, don't. You're wasting time and money sending a larger file at this point.

 

Then your client is going to try get the file to the printer. The above scenario is repeated and more time and money is wasted. Because the print shop refuses to enlarge the image on their end, which their post script printer does quite well.

[marius e]

AS mentioned - Ill informed client, and most likely the graphic designers or printers told him that, cause they are the MOST ill informed when it comes to that(regarding rendering size, cause they work in programs like corel which is vector and can stretch to any size). Please go and search the threads on this, it has been discussed.

 

PS. You are rendering, you are not taking photos with an 18mega pixel camera, you are also not working in a vector program, its pixel based, inform your client of this so that you wont be the moron but the people who informed him with the wrong info.

 

Think of an LCD tv. Look at it close, and the edges of what you are viewing look like crap, but stand back 4 meters, and it looks great, that is exactly what should happen.