[Steve Jepson]

Sorry for the same old question, but after many years of using Maxwell, I am still not satisfied with the image quality I am getting for exterior rendering.
Got any tips?

I would like to see a similar image file that represents the best I can hope for @ say 4080x2040 pixels (smallest I have any use for) and 8160x4080. http://screencast.com/t/61FJa8T2NWyW

This is an example of the type of scene I would like to be able to render with exceptional clarity. Never mind the modeling and bad materials. It's a work in progress.
This is just an example of they type of scene I need most often. http://screencast.com/t/uzYofVkEfk

[Mihai]

I suppose these are for printing? I'm not sure I would get that obsessive with having completely smooth, uniform colored surfaces. Which SL was that first example rendered to? If you were to print that, how "noisy" do you think it would look? Take a screenshot and post it as a png, because most of what is "noise" there are jpeg artifacts. Even a digital photo at ISO 100 would have some amount of "noise" if I were to look at it at 300% zoom.

Photo at 100 ISO with 400%:



Do you see something that looks like noise in the shadows? Yes....
Would it be a problem when printing this?......nope.

[Steve Jepson]

Yes. It's for printing I am making the renderings for.

I need to make 11"x17" and 24"x36" prints on high-gloss paper that will knock your socks off. Print Resolution of my older HP Designjet 800 PS (24") is 2400 dpi.
I have role of glossy photo paper to make the prints on. I sometimes send out the image files for printing on a better printer.
For the very few times when I need prints like this, I need them to be as clear as possible. Also, these images are rarely for the sake of art. They are mostly just technical images. Clay Models. The only material that is not some simple default
( perhaps I need a better material for clay model) is the glass windows. Mostly to assess the geometry in the scene. I want it crystal clear. A bad look for other kinds of images.

My strategy has been to render the image about 25% larger than the print so the pixels will be tighter rather than stretched. Perhaps this makes no sense. ?

In any case, it is this type of large house size scene render most often with Maxwell. I just want to know how to get a scene of this size as clear as possible for my prints.

Little objects like a jewelry under a light tent can have fantastic clarity. I want that same quality for my houses. Would it help to shrink them down to the size of a ring and put in under a light tent?

This is what I want to match for render quality. Shown are two smaller size images. 1 at 100%, and the other at 200%. http://screencast.com/t/uabKN6GP

http://screencast.com/t/ZddxmlRbRV

Perhaps my expectations are not realistic. ? Does anyone care to show me a rendering of a house at about 5000x2500 ? Or I could provide you with a model to fuss with if you want to show me the best that can be done with it in Maxwell Render to a sample level of 20 or so.

[eric nixon]

Hi, judging by the hdri your using, and the fact that there are no special materials, I'd say the light is causing the noise, I mean the hdri has all different artifacts in it & clouds.. You need much more high quality hdri, or maxwell sky.

[Steve Jepson]

Thanks. I will give that a try.

[tom]

Render sizes below would be sufficient:

11"x17" @ 300 dpi
3300 x 5100 px

24"x36" @ 300 dpi
7200 x 10800 px

[AlexP]

Print resolution is never related to printer internal resolution (marketing bull..it), because you need several ink dots per one pixel (about 6-8) to achieve perceived color per "virtual pixel" therefore inkjet printer will give about 100-150dpi real print resolution on photo paper. I'd bet you will not see difference between 4000x2300 and 8000x4600 resolution render printed on 30" width paper and watched from 1.5m away.
Moreover eyesight quality is about 5-15Mpixel so you can really re-think used resolution you need.

[Steve Jepson]

Print resolution is never related to printer internal resolution (marketing bull..it), because you need several ink dots per one pixel (about 6-8) to achieve perceived color per "virtual pixel" therefore inkjet printer will give about 100-150dpi real print resolution on photo paper. I'd bet you will not see difference between 4000x2300 and 8000x4600 resolution render printed on 30" width paper and watched from 1.5m away.
Moreover eyesight quality is about 5-15Mpixel so you can really re-think used resolution you need.

Thanks your that information. I am only somewhat familiar with the idea of Addressable dpi. " The HP DesignJet 800PS printing system has a true resolution of up to 2400x1200-dpi on glossy paper, enabling graphic designers to proof, print and present (from letter to poster size) the ultimate in photo image quality."

Not the ultimate quality by today's standards, but still way a head of a common ink-jet printer.

[Mihai]

As mentioned you need to first know from which viewing distance people will look at these. Are they going to use a magnifying glass pressed against it? Probably not.
If it's going to be half a meter away at least, you can get away with maybe 150dpi. Expensive magazines are usually printed at 300dpi but are ment to be looked at from maybe 20-30cm. If you were looking at it from 10 cm, you would maybe start to see individual dots. Maybe. So using 300dpi as a rule for deciding the rez, when it's ment to be looked at from at least half a meter away - you are wasting a lot of pixels and render time (2x rez means 4x pixels in the image, so 4x longer render time). And if you are really looking to remove any trace of noise and you can't stand even "normal" digital noise found in a 100 ISO photo, then run a denoise filter in PS with conservative settings, to make everything super smooth. But in my opinion it starts actually looking fake...

[Steve Jepson]

As mentioned you need to first know from which viewing distance people will look at these. Are they going to use a magnifying glass pressed against it? Probably not.
If it's going to be half a meter away at least, you can get away with maybe 150dpi. Expensive magazines are usually printed at 300dpi but are ment to be looked at from maybe 20-30cm. If you were looking at it from 10 cm, you would maybe start to see individual dots. Maybe. So using 300dpi as a rule for deciding the rez, when it's ment to be looked at from at least half a meter away - you are wasting a lot of pixels and render time (2x rez means 4x pixels in the image, so 4x longer render time). And if you are really looking to remove any trace of noise and you can't stand even "normal" digital noise found in a 100 ISO photo, then run a denoise filter in PS with conservative settings, to make everything super smooth. But in my opinion it starts actually looking fake...

The 11"x17" images are in a narrow hallway 3' wide. What captures the attention of the viewer is not the subject matter, it's that the image is supernatural. Impossible definition and detail to get from a camera at that range. So yes, they do look at the image as close as they can. They lift their glasses, look as close as they can and say "wow that's and incredible rendering". Photo-realism is not the objective. If it were a photo, it would go competently unnoticed because the subject matter is usually quite boring.