[Cloudman]

Hi
I am currently rendering a scene to be used as an exhibition backdrop. The organisers have requested that the image be approx 11100 pixels (350mm at 800dpi). I don't have a great deal of time left to render the image so I'm running it at 8000 pixels and planning on upscaling it in PS as part of the post work. It this going to be ok?

Thanks in advance.

[numerobis]

i would scale it in 10% steps and not at once (and apply an unsharp mask after 3-4 steps)
Or you could try if you get better results with an app like PhotoZoom Pro (they have a watermarked demo version http://www.benvista.com/downloads)

[JamesColeman]

800dpi??? That's got to be a mistake or a typo...

In any case, remember that you don't need a high SL in order for the render to look OK at print resolutions. SL14 is as high as I go when printing, SL12 is usually satisfactory, especially on a poster when it's not being scrutinised close up or by Maxwell experts.

[numerobis]

i think it's 80dpi at 11.100pix width (3:2)
...or ~110.000pix and 20GB @ 800dpi /8bit

[Cloudman]

They've asked for:

"Scale 1:10 (35.2cmx30cm), High print quality (at least 800dpi)"

That's straight from their spec document. I must say I thought it strange also. Basically I imputted these into PS as a new document dimensions and looked at what the pixels came out as.....11087 x 9424, or to put it another way, 392.22cm x 333.34cm @ 72dpi

Thanks again for your help.

[sandykoufax]

800dpi? not a 300dpi?
I've never seen that high density.

[JamesColeman]

They've asked for:

"Scale 1:10 (35.2cmx30cm), High print quality (at least 800dpi)"

That's straight from their spec document. I must say I thought it strange also. Basically I imputted these into PS as a new document dimensions and looked at what the pixels came out as.....11087 x 9424, or to put it another way, 392.22cm x 333.34cm @ 72dpi

Thanks again for your help.

I can confirm that the resolution they've asked for comes out as 11087 x 9449, but that "scale 1:10" is perplexing. As it's an exhibition backdrop I would assume what they mean is 352cm by 300cm @ 80dpi (which comes out as the exact same resolution). Why they've asked for this scaled I don't know, as it doesn't make any difference to the pixel count, which is what will matter to any render engine.

Without knowing the viewing distance it's hard to say for certain but on an image that big (if it really is going to be >10 square metres) 80dpi might look OK, but you would need a lot of RAM to render that resolution (nearly 105MP).

As you've already started rendering I think it will look OK when enlarged because of the viewing distance and physical size of the image, but if my client sent me specifications like that I'd tell them to be straight with me and stop needlessly complicating things.

[brodie_geers]

Tom did a nice test here which showed using Irfanview (free software) and resizing with the B-Spline setting worked very well for enlargement.

http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/view ... =irfanview

In other news, there are few things that are more frustrating than a client asking for a huge image at a ridiculous resolution.

-Brodie

[Nova66]

In other news, there are few things that are more frustrating than a client asking for a huge image at a ridiculous resolution.

I had to laugh when I saw your comment. I just went through a similar thing with a client. They wanted an image that would have amounted to 60,000 pixels wide. It was at the tail end of a project so it wasn't like we needed to do any extra modeling but boy was it frustrating trying to explain to them that what they had asked for was totally impractical, not to mention unnecessary for the viewing distance they had in mind.

Sorry, just venting
Andrew.

[brodie_geers]

In other news, there are few things that are more frustrating than a client asking for a huge image at a ridiculous resolution.

I had to laugh when I saw your comment. I just went through a similar thing with a client. They wanted an image that would have amounted to 60,000 pixels wide. It was at the tail end of a project so it wasn't like we needed to do any extra modeling but boy was it frustrating trying to explain to them that what they had asked for was totally impractical, not to mention unnecessary for the viewing distance they had in mind.

Sorry, just venting
Andrew.

I rest my case