Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[lynn22]

do you plan on making the aspect/resolution presets also affect still renders too in a later version, or just video renders?

If not presets for all sizes in still renders than maybe a saved preference, i.e. when using a set of sizes they get saved with the file for future use.

[Steve]

OK the still image size is now part of the project settiings.  I've left it as a separate value from the movie rendering size.  That way you can render a quick image without disturbing the movie's settings.

V0.85 and earlier showed the progress of the entire movie as opposed to a single frame.  I couldn't decide which was better but maybe your right - you need to know both.  I'll see what I can do.

[Tanzim]

How about 2 bars, one shows the current frame, the other shows the entire movie?

[thecolclough]

How about 2 bars, one shows the current frame, the other shows the entire movie?

that's my ideal-world scenario.

steve, going back to the still-image resolution... (yeah, going there again...), maybe you could keep the actual resolution as a separate setting, but you could have the aspect ratio tied in to the movie?  eg. if you've set the movie resolution to 16:9 in 0.97c, then when you go to render a still, it still comes up at the default 400x300.  maybe you could set it so that the default for new projects is always 400px wide, but the height changes depending on aspect ratio, so if you set the camera to 16:9 then the default still size would be 400x225?

hmm, am i making any sense at all here?  probably not...

[Steve]

OK I've made a few more changes - you can click-drag on the image to move it around the window.  This works while it's rendering if you have Multithreading enabled otherwise it only works when it's finished.  For movies and still images.  I'va also added a few more preset sizes.  I'm still not sure what I want to do with respect to linking movie size or aspect ratio to still image size.

[onespirit5777]

I would like to be able to render 8000x8000 or larger with a minimum of 150dpi because I print my work on canvas. I know it would take a long long time to render something this large but it wouldn't be the first time. The fractal program I use lets me go as much as 10,000x10,000 if the calculations are not to advanced. It will glitch sometimes and render twice that but with no AA and I don't have a program I can load a file that large and perform a AA to it to make it smooth. I have the source code for the program but I don't know C+ otherwise I could fix the problem.

The largest file I have is about 960mb and its a bmp file so time to render isn't something I'm worried about.

[headwax]

There was a program around that let you render your still in quarters. Have a search for it.

[floyd86]

There was a program around that let you render your still in quarters. Have a search for it.

I searched for that program a while ago, but the site seems to be removed by the maker (mongoose?). So if anyone has a copy, please post it.

[VBSmiles]

I would like to be able to render 8000x8000 or larger with a minimum of 150dpi because I print my work on canvas. I know it would take a long long time to render something this large but it wouldn't be the first time. The fractal program I use lets me go as much as 10,000x10,000 if the calculations are not to advanced. It will glitch sometimes and render twice that but with no AA and I don't have a program I can load a file that large and perform a AA to it to make it smooth. I have the source code for the program but I don't know C+ otherwise I could fix the problem.

The largest file I have is about 960mb and its a bmp file so time to render isn't something I'm worried about.

sorry bub. dpi (dots per inch ) isn't a determining factor, ppi (pixel per inch) is. 150 ppi isn't very high quality ( in terms of photography anyway . 300 ppi is a better choice. )
why would you want a 53" x 53"  photo anyway? Even at 300 ppi you are talking about a 26" x 26" photo. ( 2 1/2' x 2 1/2') My semi professional camera at full resolution is only 3504 X 2336 ( magazine quality @ 300 ppi)

Note that ppi AND dpi are related to some degree, but somewhat independent from actual photo size in terms of resolution. A 300 X 300 will look great at 300 ppi, but it would be a pretty small photograph ( 1 inch x 1 inch ) If however you print this ppi on 150 dpi, you are doubling your size to 2 inches ( still small   with less quality)

HOpe this helps. I'll get more info for you if needed.

[onespirit5777]

Yes ppi not dpi - That is what I do when trying to get a bigger print. 150ppi is not the preferred for a good print but at least it is something to work with.

300ppi is really the min for a good print.

My bad on the dpi - I do know better

Thanks for the reminder.

[Steve]

V0.97 is a slight update.  It fixes a couple of annoying bugs and adds a thing or two that you might find useful:

Main Bugs Fixed:

#097-019 - ART AA renders are too bright.
#097-021 - Importing Object with Same Name can Crash.
#097-022 - Copying Modifiers without a Bound Shape Crashes.

New Fetures:

Still image render size is saved with a project so so you don't have to reset it each time you reload a project.

Click-drag to move large images around in the render window.

RayDepth attribute sets max depth rays are traced in the ART ray tracer.

AmbientOcclusion attribute enabled global use of background for ambient lighting component.

See the v0.97 Preview page for details (and to get your own copy:))

[neirao]

Steve..

fool question..

in the page for download, is write..."Download v0.97c Preview Executable"

.97C" ...

ok!

 thanks for this new version..

neirão - Brazil

[Steve]

Thanks, I've fixed it.

[VBSmiles]

( Might want to emphisize that AmbientOccluder is a scene attribute)

[thecolclough]

wow, another update already?  cool.  i'll have to grab a copy and have a play with AmbientOccluder later today!  am i right in thinking that's basically the same thing as Clay Rendering, or at least a similar idea?  or am i barking up the wrong tree...

- c