markf

My question is, what pixel dimension do you professionals render stills at? (I completely understand the ppi and dpi thing and do not wish to get into that)

I render almost exclusively at 3000 pixels x 2000 pixels. My reasons for this are (not in any order of importance):
1) matches typical 35 mm camera aspect ratio
2) Commercialy available 2D people and trees etc are typically not large enough to use in the foreground of a larger size rendering.
3) Any thing larger is not needed for any of my clients. This size can make a good 11" x H print and can make a acceptable 36" x H ink jet enlargement
4) No one has ever asked for anything larger
5) Anything smaller seems like it starts to have printing and reproduction limitations. My clients never seem to be sure of how many diffeent ways they might use a rendering and expect a digital image to be relatively high res like a pro photo.

Am I correct in my reasoning?

I have not used much GI but plan to experiment and learn it soon.Possibly to include Vray. Perhaps this size is too large/ would take too much render time for that?

Thanks in advance for any input on this.

__________________
Regards,

Mark Frankmann
Open Range Imaging
www.openrangeimaging.com

Ernest Burden

I've gone over 3000 pixels sometimes, but usually render to 2800 or so on the long number.

And with annoying frequency I get emails from people in marketing firms who have been given my work and ask me for the 'high-res' version. I have a prepared explanation I send them back.

__________________
Ernest Burden III
AcmeDigital
architectural rendering

afterglow

i usually render at 6000x4000, or 5000x3333 (3:2). that way it's big enough for print or to go onto marketing boards and billboards and still look good. also it's easier to do your post (photoshoppin) with the detail in a high res image.

aaron-cds

3000 wide is what I go by. I used to do 4500 to get a 15" wide print at 300 dpi. I've been doing 3000 for a long time now and none of my clients have complained yet. 6000 - 5000 I'm glad I don't have to wait for those rendering times.

__________________
Aaron Coon, Conceptual Design Studio

Antisthenes

what is film?

__________________
The most necessary/useful piece of learning is that which unlearns what is untrue: 'evil'
may be acquiring Happiness through virtue which is based on knowledge!/?

Justin Hunt

6000, is just over kill and a wasit of time, in fact anything over 5000 is too much unless of cause in very specific situations. 4000 is a good balance for me.

JHV

afterglow

unless u r just rendering on one box, how is it a waste of time??

Justin Hunt

Simply, the added time it takes to render of the extra few extra 1000 or so pixels does not, in my opinion, equate to the supposed improoved image quality. Most clients and printers wouldn't pick the difference between a 4000 or a 6000 image. Seeing that time is money I'd rather save an extra couple of hours by rendering to 4000 and put a few extra dollars in my back pocket.

Even the money spent on a decent render farm to knock off a single 6000 image would be better spent spitting out 2 or even 3 4000 images.

JHV

martin walker

3000 in the longest dimension is usually fine (unless its for billboard stuff), and obviously 72dpi if its for web

We have had times were we have had to produce images at 150dpi due to time restrictions, butto be honest there isnt a great difference in print quality

DavidR

3412x2700 is our print std, but we may reduce it to 2xx after we test with Vray camera and DOF. We don't use DOF now, but it may add enough 'fuzz' that we can get away with lower res and it'll take some of the hit out of DOF calc too. We did some 8' presentation boards that were about 6000 wide, and some 12000 wide aircraft floorplans -long and skinny, so render times were very manageable.