Author Topic: Massive 90k pixel rendering size  (Read 3727 times)

2018-08-16, 16:53:59
Reply #15

lupaz

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
I don't understand why everytime someone comes with a question about a massive render, the general opinion is that the client is stupid.
They may want to see a huge image from a foot away. It's not about ignorance. It's about money.
As someone above said, charge higher. $1 per pixel? 90000px = $90000


2018-08-17, 13:18:46
Reply #17

agentdark45

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 505
    • View Profile
Render at 640x480 and then resize in photoshop?

The client clearly doesn't understand DPI and resolution based on viewing distance.
Vray who?

2018-08-17, 13:57:22
Reply #18

matsu

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
I've done 4x5m banners, and the client insisted on 150 dpi. Problem was they asked for this AFTER I had already made the images in normal print resolution (6x4k px) with hundreds of layers and stuff.
I scaled the images up in Photoshop, to the desired resolution. Client was happy that the file has "150dpi" when they look at it in PS, and the prints look great.

2018-08-19, 20:18:00
Reply #19

Dfenton

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Well thanks for the tips guys! I’ve disabled all but the most necessary render elements and also purged the scene down to the main components required for this specific view.

I do agree about the unecessary desire for a high dpi when it is not needed at this scale, and I think I’ll render lower res and upscale. Lolec - that Gigapixel software looks very interesting and I’ll try it out. Thanks!

Also agreed that these client demands are an opportunity to charge accordingly - it can be a win / win.

I’ll report back on how this goes next week.

2018-08-19, 20:35:51
Reply #20

sprayer

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 723
    • View Profile
You may use PhotoZoom Pro with s-spline interpolation, this is best up-scaling method for photos imho

2018-09-07, 17:57:55
Reply #21

Dfenton

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Well, to report back on this:

In the end I split the image into tiles and rendered each at 10,000 px long using Max's blowup function, combined them in PS and upscaled the whole thing to the ridiculous 90k. I tried upscaling in AI Gigapixel (which is brilliant for quality by the way) and also Photozoom, but they both could not deal with the vast original file size for some reason. So I used PS's upscaling algorithms and it all looked rather fine in the end. Although even opening and working with the 90k px file was pushing it for my machine. Even with an upgraded 128GB RAM!

D.

2018-09-07, 18:15:33
Reply #22

mferster

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 429
    • View Profile
Hah, thanks for the update! I'm curious to see what the final file size was in the end.

Was the client happy in the end?

2018-09-07, 18:30:15
Reply #23

Dfenton

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
I gave them a flattened .PSB  (had to be PSB not PSD) file which was 17GB and also split the final it into nine .TIFF tiles for their graphic designer to reassemble - each 800MB each.

They were happy in the end! It's going to be hung high on the outside of a showroom building apparently, so nobody will ever inspect it up close! But the guys hanging it up there will be impressed by the pixel clarity, no doubt.


2018-09-17, 18:26:16
Reply #24

Ondra

  • Administrator
  • Active Users
  • *****
  • Posts: 8907
  • Turning coffee to features since 2009
    • View Profile
hm, it still shouldnt be possible to have more than 65k bitmap in 3dsmax, even in theory with infinite RAM... I have to actually try it one day :D
Rendering is magic.
Private scene uploader | How to get minidumps for crashed/frozen 3ds Max | Sorry for short replies, brief responses = more time to develop Corona ;)

2018-09-18, 02:21:26
Reply #25

lupaz

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 431
    • View Profile
Just curious... Is it possible to use mipmaps with corona?

2018-10-17, 15:57:30
Reply #26

Dfenton

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
hm, it still shouldnt be possible to have more than 65k bitmap in 3dsmax, even in theory with infinite RAM... I have to actually try it one day :D

Ondra, do you mean it shouldn't be possible to render anything larger than 65k px? I hit RAM limitations way before that, which necessitated the 10k px tiles.

D.

2018-10-22, 09:40:41
Reply #27

3dboomerang

  • Active Users
  • **
  • Posts: 136
  • Head of 3D
    • View Profile
    • 3DFLOW
I had the same problem ALL the time when we had to send banner images to the print-shop. Anything more then 60dpi for > 3meter banners is rediculous. Try 40dpi even. Who looks at a 3meter banner at 150DPI quality??? That's like observing the banner from 50cm away like you would look at an A3 format render.

Those print shop pple are sometimes annoyingly wrong. And the client doesn't know so they just follow whatever sounds best. Frustrating aye!

Check what your standard high rez output is, mine for clients is 4000 pixels cause it's a good in between solution for alot of output sizes:

4000pixels is 33cm on 300DPI= good for A3, A4, A5
4000pixels is 68cm on 150DPI= good for ACAD plans or small posters
4000pixels is 142cm on 72DPI= for computer screens or larger posters (not banners)
4000pixels is 340cm on 30DPI= good for large banners

if you really need to go larger:

6000pixels is 510cm on 30DPI= good for large banners
8000pixels is 680cm on 30DPI= good for large banners
10000pixels is 845cm on 30DPI= good for large banners
12000 pixels is 1020cm on 30CPI= good for large banners

I don't even go over 4000pixels rendering until the banner size is larger then 500cm on it's longest side.

Print shop pple, although it's their damn job, recieve photo's from photographers for designer stores etc on 300DPI or 600DPI in 4000pixels cause the camera's simply shoot that high, if not higher. I'm sure these are amateur-Nikon-camera sizes.

They don't understand how rendering works. They lazy ;)

Grts