[JTB]

I have posted this before but I 've seen many different answers.
Maybe there has been free time for you all to test the -hd option.
I render from MAX.
I use a dual core P4/3GHz - 2G RAM and when I try a 8000x6000 picture of a very simple scene of a plane, a cylinder, a box and a sphere with simple MXMs I get no picture with the -hd option, no matter how much I wait. I tried with 800X600 and it started to show but then -hd has no meaning.
Please send me your comments on -hd options if you use it.
Thanks in advance.

[Kabe]

I think I remember that -hd is limited to some amount like 512 MB or so.
AFAIK it doesn't lift the need to have enough RAM for the result, it seems
it's rather aimed to store data that are less often used.

As your image needs 4GB 848MB, I guess this is a no go. Even if it would be
possible, I assume that swapping 2.5 GB to HD won't render in geological
timeframes.

Whatfor do you need such a huge image btw?

Kabe

[JTB]

I think it should be possible since is was with earlier versions (beta).
The last project I am working on is 8 country houses and we want to make a big sign for advertisment which will be placed at the construction site.
This is the main reason.
If I get a 2000X1500 image with 96 DPI, no matter what application I use for resizing the image to a 1200x800cm / 300 DPI, I won't get decent results I think.

If there is any solution I will be glad to hear it

I would very much appreciate a NL or A-Team participation to this

[Kabe]

The last project I am working on is 8 country houses and we want to make
a big sign for advertisment which will be placed at the construction site.

If you would like an advertisement at the construction site, anything above
35-50 dpi is a waste of your time. This is for the simple reason that the
viewer doesn't look at that advertizement from 10 inches.

It's often overlooked that huge signs are normally constructed for big
viewing distances, so high resolutions only produce data that the eye can't
capture anyway.

Kabe

P.S.: Beta may have rendered it due to reduced accuracy / fewer internal data.

[aitraaz]

Print resolution at larger sizes has moved up to pretty high resolution these days, 35-50 is pretty hard to come accross.

As JTB says, if it were a construction site on a city street, and the printed panel were very large, i wouldn't feel too comfortable with 1200x800 @ 300 dpi, quite the contrary...

As Kabe says maybe it can be done with the beta, as it used a lot less internal stored data (i assume)...

[numerobis]

...the hd-option never worked right for me.
I think also with beta 8000x6000 would not possible - without xp64 and more than 2GB RAM - unless you want to render a plane and a box...
I'm still on beta and try to render a scene with 3,9mio polys and some textures (opteron dualcore, 2GB, xp32) I can't get more than 1200x900 with or without the hd-option. RAM usage with -hd is 1,5GB at the moment mxcl crashes...
Don't know how all these "breaking the barriers"-results are done - probably all under xp64.
Very bad memory management...

[Rochr]

Regardless of use, it shouldn´t have to be an issue rendering out in highres. Personally i would like to render out crystal clean 70x100 cm posters, but with Maxwell it´s not possible unless i buy my own Blue Gene.

Image enhancing software is simply out of the question. I´ve yet to see one where the end result doesn´t look like something shot with a cheap digital camera.

[Kabe]

Print resolution at larger sizes has moved up to pretty high resolution these days, 35-50 is pretty hard to come accross.

As JTB says, if it were a construction site on a city street, and the printed panel were very large, i wouldn't feel too comfortable with 1200x800 @ 300 dpi, quite the contrary...

Your 1200@45dpi don't work here because at that 3 m a 68 cm wide sign is not exactly a panel...

If we can agree that at 30 cm 300 dpi are enough, then it's geometric
fact that at 300 cm viewing distance you are at 30 dpi. Multiply by 1.5 to
care for print screen loss and you are at 45 dpi. The only relevant
exceptions are trade show type panels, which can be huge while still
needing to support narrow viewing as well.

That it is so hard to come across has the simple reason that most designers
know more or less about output resolution but have not the slightest
idea about the resolution of the viewers eye (and/or are bad in math).

The "300 dpi mantra" is nonsense, just take it or leave it.

Kabe

[tom]

That it is so hard to come across has the simple reason that most designers
know more or less about output resolution but have not the slightest
idea about the resolution of the viewers eye (and/or are bad in math).

The "300 dpi mantra" is nonsense, just take it or leave it.

Exactly. It's like talking about rendertimes without indicating the hardware

[Rochr]

That it is so hard to come across has the simple reason that most designers
know more or less about output resolution but have not the slightest
idea about the resolution of the viewers eye (and/or are bad in math).

The "300 dpi mantra" is nonsense, just take it or leave it.

Kabe

I can agree to a certain point.
But what exactly would you recommend for those of us that would need quality poster size prints that will be looked upon from up close?
Poking out peoples eyes?

300dpi is not at all nonsence, but it also depends on what you´re going to print. For some things you just need a very high resolution. I´ve lost count on how many times we have had to explain to people that CSI software doesn´t exist, and we can´t print out a quality 5x5 m billboard from a screen resolution render.

[aitraaz]

Yep, agree with Rochr. It depends on the scale, location, intention, quality, materials etc of the print, but writing the issue off as nonsense due to designers (what about printers?) ignorance regarding math and eye resolution is, to say the least, curious...

[JTB]

Sorry guys, I just had a simple question...

Is -hd working ok for you? I guess the answer is no.

Is there a way to make large format printing,(1200X800mm) for example, from Maxwell? The answer is no, unless I push the software to the limits and then use something like PhotoZoom or even Pshop.

Is this a matter of hardware too? I guess you could say so but since I use a dual P4/3Ghz - 2G Ram, I guess it is mostly a Maxwell issue.

So, what I want or what my client wants is not the subject of this discussion, even if 300 dpi is too much, I have tried to use maxwell for such signs on construction site and it was a failure.
Don't forget that a rendering close to the limits (2500X1500) for example, takes forever to clear up to an acceptable level. Even with a noise reduction like neat image I wouldn't be able to clear it 100%. So, by resizing the picture, I get a bit poor results.

My suggestion is to wait for RS2 when hopefully we won't have to discuss if maxwell is the tool for this kind of work.

[Kabe]

300dpi is not at all nonsence, but it also depends on what you´re going to print.

I said: The "300 dpi mantra" is nonsense, and it meant just that - people
repeating "300dpi" without even knowing it's meaning.

If you have read my complete post, then you may have seen my remark
about "trade show type panels". Yes, it depends on what you're going to
print, and yes, for trade show panels Maxwell might not be the right
choice. And also yes: As -hd is today, it won't save you.

However, as data requirements grow quadratic with resolution, a thorough
understanding of the requirements can help you to push the limits. If you
render just 200 instead of 300 dpi, you already have saved more than half
the data, If you can go down to 150dpi, you are at 1/4, and at 100 dpi at 1/9.

Many people aren't able to differentiate 100 dpi from 300 dpi from 1 m
distance, even if specifically asked, and most people won't notice. At 1m
this is already in the range of the eye's hyperacuity[1], so you need to
have perfect vision, take special attention and enough contrast.

If people concentrate on that, the visual message is lost on them anyway.

Just some food for thought

Kabe


[1] the eye's viewing resolution is up to 10x better than it's optical resolution

[Rochr]

300dpi is not at all nonsence, but it also depends on what you´re going to print.

I said: The "300 dpi mantra" is nonsense, and it meant just that - people
repeating "300dpi" without even knowing it's meaning...

And as i said, i can agree to a certain point.
In many areas of printing, 300 dpi is overkill, so in that sence, we share the same thoughts.

But i also say that highres in Maxwell shouldn´t have to be an issue. If the program had better memory management, people wouldn´t have problems rendering out with higher resolutions.

[Kabe]

But i also say that highres in Maxwell shouldn´t have to be an issue.

Yep, I agree.

I guess this will end up with some kind of tile/region rendering not too far
in the future, there is no realy need to keep all the sampled data for the
whole image in RAM all the time.

If the program had better memory management, people wouldn´t have problems rendering out with higher resolutions.

Well, they still have problems, because rendering high resolutions in most
packages cost more time (currently in M~R, it delivers better quality for
an unknown reason though).

Kabe