Which app Renders the biggest and best image for the buck?

[tsturm]

Our office needs to render an image which is over 20,000 pixals across.

ArchiCAD cannot do this. It seems the DPI box in the sizing box is just a teaser. AC renders nothing bigger than 72 ppi. and maxes out at 4048 x 4048 pixals.

Of all the other applications that are out there. Could anyone provide a rough break down on Renders based on
cost,
speed to render,
ease of use and scene setup,
networkability
and features like radiosity?

thanks

[Dwight]

Whatever are you making? An ad on the lunar surface?

Even billboards don't need anything near 20,000 pixels since they are printed at 25 dpi.

Artlantis does let the dialog box accept 20,000 pixels, but considering your need, perhaps a file expander like Genuine Fractals might be more appropriate. This application successfully makes up data while preserving edge sharpness…

More details, please......

[Dwight]

A quick check of Cinema 4D shows that it can only render to 16000 pixels.
This application provides the best balance of cost and ease of use but can exploit a dual processor for stills only - net rendering can only be accessed for animations.

It also has a direct export feature allowing smooth import of ArchiCAD files...

That will be some big image.....

[stefan]

Even in the unlikely case you really need such large images, most renderers will have memory problems with this.

3ds max (and VIZ) have an option to do a tiled rendering, so it doesn't get rendered in one pass.

Anyways, if you have such high needs, tools like Cinema4D, Lightwave, 3ds max, XSI & Maya come to mind.

---

A full comparison of all these tools with pricing and pro's & cons? That's a very big question and not easily answered.

Maybe if you tell us what you intend to do, we can give a more informed answer.

[tsturm]

the project is a mural in a hall.

the graphic is over 10 feet long.

people will be walking along the hall and close to the image.

so the 25 dpi on the lunar project will not do. too much break up of the image and not the desired affect at the three foot viewing range.

I have done other types of images before which were rendered smaller and then let photoshop double or triple the pixelsl to get the image smooth enough to view. then the image was too blocky.

I used to have a large arsenal of renders at my disposal. i have let the versions lapse and need to get up to date on the current versions of rendering applications.

i thought that someone out there might have some general information on my list. I used to be able to make an educated response to this type of question. it has been six years since my rendering high point. lately i have just been doing con docs. now comes along this mural. so I asked for some suggestions for a new rendering app based on high quality.

overall. i take it that AC is NOT going to the suit the needs. I have not used Artlantis or Cinema. I used to use Renderman when it was running on the Mac. I hear it is coming back though.

Any render which accepts the colors and programed textures from AC export would be the best to start out with. does this mean Cinema 4d or Artlantis?

does Cinema have the instant feed back that Artlantis does? saw a demo of Artlantis monthes ago. seemed nice to see the pattern repeat changes on the fly.

Only animation which we may do would be Virtual pictures. you know. Panoramas. I would presume that Cinema and Artlantis can do these types of pictures?????

thanks for the comments.

[Dwight]

And how is this mural to be printed? Have you consulted the printer about resolution? I really think that you are overdoing it....

But never mind. The major problem problem with large images seen at close range is that their texture maps aren't up to the task..... you'll need to revisit any texture that is not procedural - like a shader - because the pixel sampling will look bad - videoed - and blocky not because of the rendering resolution but because of the actual texture map resolution....

Think of it this way: in a material texture, you've assigned a real size to a pixel. Once the real size of the printed image exceeds the pixel map size, the computer must anti-alias the difference - it makes something up, usually resulting in "staircasing" or "blur." Tha's why textures look smeared in extreme close ups....

So rendering smaller and artificially building pixels using a routine is a valid way to go since "interpreted bicubic" analysis does a better job of smoothing the made up data.

Photoshop is an inferior way to pixel double because more specialized tools like Genuine Fractals maintain smoothness in the flats and sharpness on the edges using a non-uniform sharpening algorythm....

Both Artlantis and Cinema can handle your needs, more or less ..... good luck.

[Anonymous]

if you want a render your scene send to me i will rend for you

just say me on what you wnat to print that ?x? meter or Inch or what you want

if you want GI Ray trace what you want .)

if you need to see what i mean see that www.vuejardin.com

[Anonymous]

Hi there,

good ol' ElectricImage will render at 32k x 32k.

Francois

[Anonymous]

Dwight wrote:
And how is this mural to be printed? Have you consulted the printer about resolution? I really think that you are overdoing it....

Terrence,
I think Dwight makes a good point about checking with the printer or service bureau. Its been quite a few years since I've done any significantly large format output so I may no longer be qualified to offer "expert" advice.

As far as "overdoing it" goes, I think I'll have to agree. In the past I've produced good quality large format prints (roughly 3'x4') from relatively small 1000-2000 pixel images. The trick lay in the output device's "RIP". If memory serves me correctly, I believe it was a NovaJet printer using a "SeeColor" RIP... don't know if SeeColor is still around but I'm sure there's something similar and even better by now.

Anyway, it's possible that you may not need to go down the software road your currently heading. 4048 pixels might just do it.

Dan K

[stefan]

Considering software, most rendering software is in one way or another capable of rendering an ArchiCAD model. I know, since I've tried most of them in my personal "Render Study":
http://www2.asro.kuleuven.ac.be/asro/English/HOME/SBs/render/render.htm
If you export the ArchiCAD model into the *.3ds or *.OBJ or *.VRML or *.LP format, you can retain the mapping coordinates and most software can handle at least one of these formats (or a file-conversion software can do this).

The default ArchiCAD texture-maps are not good enough for these large resolutions, so you better spend some time learning the rendering software to master it's lighting & material-capabilities and (maybe) buy some high-end texture-collections, like Marlins, 3D-Total, ImageCels or others.

I take it if you have experienced Renderman, that you know (at least something) about shaders... Most modern 3D-animation software uses a similar concept, although most of them don't do this directly with programmed code: some even do it visually: connecting blocks that are in fact shaders, to form a complex material shading network: Maya, XSI and (to a lesser extent) 3ds max (some of them actually use these shader-code in the background).

I'd say Art-lantis will be the cheapest & fastest solution, but you might cross it's limitations. It's certainly one of the cheapest solutions and works well with ArchiCAD.

I (personally) would go with either:

• 3ds max and one of it's several render engines: default scanline, Mental Ray (included in the software) or the optional VRay, Brazil or FinalRender.

• Cinema4D with it's fast rendering engine and now also a good ArchiCAD connection.

And for such a large image, I'd say you probably won't need much more then 50 dpi.