Hi guys,

Am sellng one of my scenes I did in A:M and wanted some help on some Resolutions......

what size can I render at so it looks good @ 9" X 12" ......... 18" X 24" print?

any help would be great....

Depends upon a few factors, not the least of which being "how good do you want it to look?"

If this is going to be printed at a high end printer, I'd go 400dpi. Personally, 300dpi is usually good enough, but I'm the type who doesn't go lower than that unless it's going to be something enormous that's only going to be viewed from a distance.

Some of these new digital printers can do pretty good with lower resolution stuff. I'd ask your printer what they would recommend.

Thanks larg...

it's for a baby's room she wants an average size picture now am not sure if 640X480 is enough or do I render bigger?

Well, at 12x9, that would be less than 54dpi. I'm sure the baby would be okay with that, but the mom will probably expect more from it. :-)

This "dpi" thing comes up over and over...

Let me categorically state: DPI HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RESOLUTION. (Any resolution can be scanned in or printed at any dpi!)

The physical size of the image combined with how far away you are when you look at it are all that matters. If it looks good, it is good.

HDTV is 1920 X 1080 and that's pretty good. With up-rezing, HDTV will work for posters and even a billboard.

Thanks Martin...

I tried HDTV 1920 X 1080 and it worked well.......

It varies based on the output device where it will be viewed: monitor,TV, theater screen, billboard, magazine..... If it looks good, then it's enough

Just curious - which scene? Have we "scene" it here?

Now if I could just get Nancy to do the same....
Okay, I'll stop bugging you.

I think the dpi-problem is caused by Photoshop.
If your image has a resolution of 1024 px x 768 px with 72dpi you can put in a higher dpi-count (for example 300dpi) and will gain a larger resolution (8533 px x 6400 px).
I think this has to do with the displays. To work on a "300 dpi"-image on a screen which can do 72 dpi you have to convert dpi somehow. So to get the same informations on the 72dpi-display you have to increase resolution.
So in the end it isn't "wrong" it is just not the right word...

One way to get rid of the problem would be to give a second output option in A:M => dpi... but I think you dont have to programm that.
Converting large resolutions to higher dpi-counts works well too.

Dont let me die stupid if I am saying something totally wrong...

*Fuchur*

You will only get a larger file but fundamentally, if the file was rendered at 1024 x 768 pixels, that is the total picture information you will get. If you enlarge the image by increasing the dpi, you will not add new picture information. You will only get the same picture information with larger and blurrier pixels.

This is just technical issues. THis is not relevant and only adds confusion to the real issue. The real issue is actually much, much simpler than that.

Therre are no problems there. There are only confusions.

I think both Martin and Will recap the issue very well: "if it looks good then it is good" but I see that it is still not understood so let me try to add some explanations:

First -

The quality or precision of an image does not depends on the output DPI of any device and have nothing to do with the device being a printer or a display. It only have to do with the resolution in pixels of the image and the distance the viewer will look at it. I repeat: The only important factors are the pixels resolution and the distance of the viewer from the image. Don't even think in term of DPI because it is totally irrelevant.

The actual important criterion for deciding on an image resolution is the resolution the human eye will see. This is the only one criterion to consider. And this is why "if it looks good, then it is good".

If your image is designed to be, say, 5 inch wide when printed, then display it on your screen so it is about 5 inch wide and look at it from a normal reading distance. With modern high resolution screen, if it looks good that way, then it is good for printing. But if you really want to be sure, then display the image at twice its printed size and if it still looks good that way, then it is already more than good for printing.

Second -

DPI are only a byproducts of scaling an image to a specified printed size. Take your example 1024 x 768 pixels image. If you wanted to print it so it is one inch wide, then the printer would need to print 1024 pixel into 1 inch wide so the image would have 1024 DPI. DPI means Dot Per Inch. That is all.

Third -

Printers deal with LPI anyway. not DPI. They are not the same thing at all. An actual digital printing device may have 4000 DPI, it does not change the fact the the actual printing will be specified in LPI. A digital printing device only uses its DPI resolution to get a more precise LPI resolution. But DPI on a printing device are binary DPIs (that is black or white) while a DPI on a screen are 256 shade DPI. So they even though they are both DPI, they fundamentally don't mean the same thing.

Fourth -

A printer can print any picture with any resolution at any specified print dimensions on the paper. DPI is totally irrelevant. Just supply the image to the printer and specify the final print dimensions in inches and he will do the rest. You should not have to bother with that aspect of the printer's business. That is his job. Not yours. If the printer insist that you have to figure that sort of technical issues for him then look for another printer.

Fifth -

Good antialiasing does wonders. You can get away with much lower resolutions if you have good antialiasing on your image.

Thank you for the in depth explanation Yves......

Although true, it doesn't mean a picture taking with a 320x240 camera is going to look good when printed as an 8x10 picture unless it is hung on a pole across the street. I think we all understand the question and have all seen extremely poor examples of low resolution pictures printed larger than they should have been. Heck, I have a 10x13 from a "professional" studio that I can see pixelation on. Needless to say, I never went back to them again.

With the original question being for 9" X 12" ......... 18" X 24", I'm guessing that they will be placed in a manner that people will be able to walk up to them. You don't want to take away from what is being displayed because someone walks up and is distracted by the pixelation.

So, is HD (1920 x 1080) the final answer for the print size range in question?

James, you're at the mercy of subjectivity. Anything I say or you say (or anyone says) can be counterargued by anyone else with an opinion. HD is universally accepted. If you tell your customer you use "HD" then all is good in the world. In reality, HD is good for almost anything but, of course, 2200 X 1600 is "good" too, and so is 1800 X 1200, etc., etc. In fact, 320 X 240 is "good" too - in the situation you pointed out.

martin: have you ever settled for just "good" when "great" was so easily attained?

if you open up the rants section, we can talk about this in depth. ' ' )

-jon

Well, I hope DarkLimit posts back when he receives the prints.