(help) I need VERY high resolution and DPI for large high quality art prints

Dave Savage

RexRed said:

I have another question also.
Your post isn't "another question", it's a ton of questions and it's going to confusing and time consuming to address them all so I choose this one: :cheese:

Why did David place the sphere in the scene for the camera to track and why did he re-size it then land it to the ground?

Why did he not place the center of the sphere at zero?

The picture object in my scene is a bit beyond zero a bit and my camera is looking there beyond zero and not directly at zero.

So my invisible sphere (which I tracked my camera to though I do not know why this is needed for large rendering) is beyond zero further into my scene so my camera points at my picture object. at an angle sloping down a bit.

The sphere is in the scene only as a demonstration and to give something obvious to match up at the end when it is stitched together.

The camera is tracked to the sphere so that the camera points to the very center of the scene which isn't necessarily going to be at the world center.
Yes, you can set your camera to world center and then set up your scene accordingly, it doesn't matter as long as the camera is pointed at the dead center of the scene when you are ready to render. Because the coordinates you will use in Pan V and Pan H are worked out from the dead center of the scene (ie: the center of where the camera is pointing) and not the dead center of the Bryce World.

Horo

@RexRed - we speak of the Perspective camera, not the Director's one. Camera angle 45 degrees, actually 135. The interface is built for this rotation so that the directions of X, Y and Z in the thumbnails make some sense. I set my camera at X=0, Y=30 and Z=-100 to start a scene. Then, left is left and back is back. This is not the better method than any other, it just makes more sense to some of us.

RexRed

I just sent my printer person an email saying that my render of 15000 x 20000 is adequate for this fine art printing.

I quoted you people here and also a few links online that corroborate your testimony.

I am wondering why when i rendered to disk and punched in the numbers of 15000 x 20000 I added 835 dpi just for the sake of it and the size in inches was quite a bit below the 90 x 120 cm canvas size.

Are you saying that if I send a 15000 x 20000 it will not have to be up-scaled in any way to fit this canvas?

I don't think you can make a 24 bit RGB color file in the 40000 pixel range this size exceeds the bmp, jpg files size limits.
I think my printer person is asking for something impossible to do with today's technology

There is also the issue that the more color bit depth the less sharp lines are.

I am hoping that when I render to disk that Bryce uses the render settings I specified in then render options.

I used fine art quality antialiasing.

This printer person also said that when his 8 bit grayscale 40000 x 30000 pixel file is converted to rgb in Photoshop it is a 6 GB file.

This may be why Bryce complained about it. :)

I feel like I am a victim of the loudness wars in graphics.

He is probably going to write me back in anger and say my 15000 x 20000 24 bit RGB files are completely inadequate.

Should I re-sample this file to a larger resolution size before I sent it off?

And if so the largest file I can make in a bitmap is somewhere around 30000 I think anyway.

How can he send me an 8 bit file that is 40000 x 30000 grayscale and only 13 mb?

Photoshop will not even allow me to save it as a bmp or jpg without reducing the resolution first even if i convert the file to RBG at any bit.

I told him in the email that if he knew anyone making 40000 x 30000 24 bit color files for printing on a 90 x 120 cm canvas please inform me.

I am out on a limb here and I don't feel very comfortable at the moment. :)

Thanks "tremendously" for all of your help here, I will keep you updated.

Dave Savage

RexRed said:

I used fine art quality antialiasing.

Oh heck!

Another helpful tip: Don't use Fine Art Antialiasing.
It is the very longest render time you can choose in Bryce. Go Premium and see your render times tumble. :)

Dave Savage

Just done a quick example on the render I'm working on tonight:

I only did a plop render because it would take too long to show a full first pass, so in all three cases the exact same sample from the render has been given one pass and I've highlighted the Bryce Estimated time (not usually particularly accurate, but a good indication).

The Premium Effect AA and the Super Fine Art AA examples used exactly the same settings for RPP and AA settings in the render options dialogue box. None f the Premium Effects were switched on in the Premium Render.

Super Fine Art AA rendering is by far the longest render time (and you've then got to add the time for the AA pass which Bryce doesn't add into it's estimate, whereas the Premium Effect render doesn't need an AA pass so the time difference is even more than shown in the figures here and you'd have to agree that for exactly the same render quality, why would anyone wait 40 minutes for a render they could get done in 29 seconds. :cheese:

RexRed

Making of Processor : From Sand to Processor or How a CPU is made
http://youtu.be/FQnJ2Z5Utg8
http://youtu.be/vK-geBYygXo

I just wanted to share this. I don't think this was made in Bryce but it is nice watching Intel's 3D offerings! Kinda makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Years ago when Intel was still making 2D training videos I sent them a Bryce 3D rendering and they wrote me back and told me I "brought their ideas alive" so they sent me a motherboard and CPU for free. They were both really nice 'til the technology grew beyond them and I eventually needed to upgrade.

Between Microsoft and Intel, they are my top favorite companies.

:)

RexRed

I am thinking of buying an Intel Core i7 5960X Extreme Edition Eight Core (16 core multithreaded) CPU.

I would like to use Bryce with it but I recall you all saying that render to disk does not utilize multi-cores.

It would seem my other option would be to use Bryce lighting with 16 PCs...

It has been a while since I used Bryce lighting.

Everyone here has said that render to disk is buggy and I agree, but, I have also had some luck with some very stable large scale renders with render to disk.

I have rendered a few scenes that are 15000 x 20000 pixels. One of them took a day and a half to render and it finished without a glitch (roughly 36 hours).

I would like to render scenes with volumes (I am a volume freak) but I have a feeling it could take a week (or more) to render such scenes that I currently have built on smaller scales.

Is there a way to get render to disk to recognize multiple cores? Can Bryce Lighting render files in the 15000 x 20000 (render to disk) pixel range?

I forget, does Bryce lighting use the render of Bryce itself or the render to disk option within Bryce?

Cut to the chase, what are you all using to render and would your computers help if I am stuck with using render to disk to render these very large files? If Bryce lightning will not render very large files through render to disk and breaking up scenes in patches is not an option I am really excited to pursue, it would seem I am suck with getting the fastest single core processor I can (this would really be a disappointment).

Horo

@RexRed - Lightning cannot render larger than rendering on screen. The render engine used is the one selected. Tiles are 100 x 100 pixels.

RexRed

Horo said:

@RexRed - Lightning cannot render larger than rendering on screen. The render engine used is the one selected. Tiles are 100 x 100 pixels.

Excellent response! @Horo (though bad news) it just means i need to learn to render in large squares. Haven't been able to do this yet Bryce is still a bit confusing for me.

I am going to try and scale down my render resolutions and see if i can do it still at large sizes.