Resolution for posters

domdib · March 04, 2009, 06:30:05 AM

@oshyan centimetres. Yes, it makes sense they wouldn't print above 150 dpi above that size.

@mhall thanks again. On the font front, why not try Verdana, which is optimised for web display anyway? Tahoma or Trebuchet are other options.

reck · March 04, 2009, 07:21:04 AM

Quote from: PG on March 03, 2009, 06:09:44 PM
OK I tried it at 9000x6000 because I'm pretty sure it crashes whenever I go over 7000x4667, it did indeed crash even though it was only using 1.7GB out of 8....

Maybe this will improve greatly when we get a 64bit version of Terragen 2, hopefully by the end of the year.

PG · March 04, 2009, 09:24:11 AM

Quote from: reck on March 04, 2009, 07:21:04 AM
Maybe this will improve greatly when we get a 64bit version of Terragen 2, hopefully by the end of the year.

Yeah I hope so, it seems weird that it crashes because of the larger size when the consumed memory is so low though. Maybe it preempts how much memory it will use based on the number of subdiv buckets x how much, on average, one bucket will cost.

domdib · March 09, 2009, 02:21:08 PM

Alas, my plans to create a poster size image seem to be foundering on GI problems. Because of time constraints, I can only create this image in crops. Here are two crop slices combined in one image. Originally EXR at 4800 x 3600, then imported into Photoshop. GI Blur radius set at 800, as suggested in previous threads. I guess the problem can be postworked out (how exactly??), but I was rather hoping that TG2 would be able to cope with this. Any suggestions? Should I increase GI Blur even further, or is that a losing battle?

Incidentally, switching GI off, which is the obvious solution, is not an option.

RArcher · March 09, 2009, 02:34:05 PM

GI blur radius only really effects animations so increasing it will not likely have much of an impact in this situation. The only thing that you can really do to try and alleviate the problem is to use enough of a crop overlap that you are getting GI samples from both sides calculated in the image.

domdib · March 09, 2009, 02:53:29 PM

Thanks for the suggestion, and I may try it. The reason that I thought GI Blur radius worked here is that it was spoken of in this connection in another thread http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=5271.0, and when I tried it out on crops of a smaller render (800 x 600), it appeared to work, which is why I'm still mulling the possibility of increasing it further.

PG · March 09, 2009, 03:19:18 PM

Is soft shadows turned on in the sunlight node? Might be worth reversing that option.

domdib · March 09, 2009, 03:25:50 PM

Yes it is. I'll see what difference that makes to the render. Thanks for the idea.

EDIT
Unfortunately, removing soft shadows makes too much difference to the clouds (yes, there are some in the next slice)

Oh well, have to try something else....

Oshyan · March 10, 2009, 02:07:09 AM

GI blur radius does effect stills, but at the levels you have it at I don't think increasing it further is going to help. Increasing GI sample quality (and not necessarily GI relative detail) might help though. For example you might try GI relative detail of 1, sample quality 3 or 4, and blur radius 300-500. I'm not sure that would resolve it, but it's worth testing. If you were to go with a non-GI approach you would actually build a fill light rig to emulate your current lighting results. It probably wouldn't be too hard actually, judging by the image you've provided so far. The hardest area to fake GI lighting is clouds and I don't see any in your current scene so far.

- Oshyan

domdib · March 10, 2009, 05:54:09 AM

In fact, there are clouds in the next crop (which hasn't been done yet), and the lighting in them is quite important, so I'm afraid GI is important. I'll try the GI detail/sample quality change. Thanks!

domdib · March 11, 2009, 10:07:38 AM

Oshyan, I tried your suggestion re lowering relative detail and upping sample quality. Sadly, no dice, as you can see below - even after slightly adjusting the exposure of the second slice. I guess this image is just stressing the GI model too much, and I'll have to laboriously postwork the joins out as far as I can (any suggestions on the best way to do that in Photoshop?). I may have a shot at Rarcher's suggestion too, and also try cropping differently.

PG · March 11, 2009, 10:51:12 AM

What effect does soft shadows have on the clouds? If it fixes the problem then we may be able to work out a solution so you can keep the effect your looking for in the clouds.

RArcher · March 11, 2009, 11:00:55 AM

I can assure you that having a large enough crop overlap will both minimize the problem as well as make it much easier to properly composite the image together afterward. For a rough guide as to how much to overcrop, Moodflow posted some general guidelines a couple years ago:

http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=2261.0

domdib · March 11, 2009, 11:24:34 AM

@PG - it's kind of difficult to describe what effect it has, except to say it makes the clouds look less complex, and since I want to make them look complex, that's not so good. The other thing is that the current lighting in the scene is the result of extensive testing already, and I'm very happy with it, so I would rather avoid having to re-invent it. I think I'm going to try RArcher's suggestion first.

@RArcher - thanks for the link to Moodflow's post - this looks like the way to go for now. I just wanted to see if Oshyan's suggestion could work some unexpected magic.

Oshyan · March 12, 2009, 12:00:35 AM

It's interesting that this scene challenges the GI so much. It doesn't seem that complex, but then again it does have a lot of very bright surfaces that may be contributing. I agree with RArcher, having a good level of overlap in your crops will help. Photoshop also has a built-in stitching system that works pretty decently...

- Oshyan