[steverey13]

Howdy all,

I recently posted about rendering an image with a resolution of 10800 x 8100. At the time I was running on 2 gigs of RAM, which is not enough. Got a new computer with 8 gigs of RAM, quad core processor. Problem solved, sort of. I can now render at that resolution, but it takes twice as long at half the sampling level to get a fairly decent image. I need opinions about this situation. Here is what I am aiming for:

All the renderings must be at 24" x 36" size for printing. These will be on display at an art musuem for public viewing.

So, at this printed image size, do you feel that this high of a resolution is necessary? Do you think a compromise between lower resolution and higher SL will yield a better image?

I've experimented a little between the two, but time is running short. The sooner these images can be produced the better.

FYI, a 48 hour rendering at the high resolution reaches a paltry SL of 6. All opinions are greatly appreciated.


Steve

[Mihai]

I would find out first what the dpi of the printer is which are going to print these renders. Will they print these at 150dpi (300ppi)? If it's lower you can render at lower resolution.

Another solution would be a render farm service like the Ranch:
http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/view ... hp?t=24699

[ingo]

As mihai from Uzbjeckiazutjenikitzistan pointed out you need to know the resolution the company that prints the rendering uses.
Otherwise do you have enough detail in the modell that makes the high resolution look good ?

[steverey13]

The model has high detail, so thats part of the necessity of the high resolution. The printer is a plotter that can print at 300 dpi. I was more wondering if you think it is worth some loss in detail (say the loss that would occur from shifting from 300 dpi to 200dpi) to reach a substantially higher SL. As for trying ranch computing, I contacted them and renderings at 10800 x 8100, reaching an SL of 18 would require 14-15 hours per render (which is couple thousand dollars per render.)

Anyway at the lower SL marks, the images have an apparent image quality lower than the images with lower resolutions due to more noise. With lower res, the edges aren't as crisp but there's less noise.

I guess it's more of a judgement call on my part but I was hoping that you could tell me from experience if there's a substantial enough difference bewteen 300-200 dpi to justify super long render times and do you think that a higher SL is more important for image quality than strictly high resolution and have you found an appropriate compromise?

[Bubbaloo]

Personally, I always render my "final" renders out at 10k-15k pixels. I want to see all the little details of the render.
Don't forget, when you render at lower resolution and then enlarge it, you are also enlarging the noise.

[numerobis]

...and renderings at 10800 x 8100, reaching an SL of 18 would require 14-15 hours per render ...

15 hours on the ranch?!?

[Bubbaloo]

A 10k render would not need an S.L. of 18 to be clear. S.L. 10 to 12 would probably be very clear. Depending on glass/caustics in the scene.

[caryjames]

Hey Bubbaloo- for us slow ones what do you mean by 10k-15k pixels?

Are you rendering everything at 10000 x 15000 pixels?

If so how long are you letting things run, and what kind of a beast of a computer do you have?

[Bubbaloo]

No,no! 15k or 10k is the length x whatever the height is.

My computer was top o' the line about a year ago.

Dual Quad Xeon 5355, 16 GB RAM.

Now I want an i7 of course...

[caryjames]

Thanks Bubbaloo... gotcha! My computer was middle of the line when I got it 2 years ago.. Dual Xeon 5120's (or something like that). I have been rendering everything 2000 x 2500 or similar. If I had the $$ I would be upgrading . I have to figure out what in hell an i7 is .

[Mihai]

Steve, I think 200dpi would be enough, maybe even less. You could still get photographic quality printing from that. People aren't going to look at it with a magnifying glass. Also as Brian mentioned it's not certain you need to render to SL 18. If you have time, try rendering just a region at your full resolution, then the same region at half the resolution and print both at the same size to get an idea of the difference in quality.

[Bubbaloo]

I have to figure out what in hell an i7 is .

It's da shizzle.

[zoppo]

I have to figure out what in hell an i7 is .

http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/view ... hp?t=30173

where is the drooling smiley ...

[kami]

Steve, I think 200dpi would be enough, maybe even less. You could still get photographic quality printing from that. People aren't going to look at it with a magnifying glass. Also as Brian mentioned it's not certain you need to render to SL 18. If you have time, try rendering just a region at your full resolution, then the same region at half the resolution and print both at the same size to get an idea of the difference in quality.

good response. in my eyes, those "300dpi" are overrated. They might be needed for a print brochure, but for large prints, I am rarely using more then 100dpi. you should be fine with 200dpi or even less.

[pwrdesign]

steverey13, do a "pack and go", zip it and upload the file so I can download it.

It would be interesting to let it run for a night in our farm to see what SL it can reach! I'll send back the finished MXI.

Of course I wont spread the model/mxs etc etc...

Regards Patrik