Okay, you got a large template to map....it is 2000 x 2000, the objects on that map are not that large but large enough, and about 7 of them.....now when you place your texture on it and then go to render it, you can still see in some software the detail of the pixel..... here is the question, if you create a seamless tile that is say 512 x 512 @ 300 dpi's and use that on the template, will that help increase the maps clarity or will it look exactly like a bitmap that is say 150 dpi's 512 x 512? basically how to get the best clarity without increasing the size of the map too much (kb) Sharen

DPI is absolutely pointless withing a computer texturing/redering/bitmap based application. 300 pixels is 300 pixels at any DPI. If you want to get rid of the pixellation of an object, you need to up the bitmap size, not the DPI.

DPI is only meaningful for hardcopy (prints). 512x512@1000dpi is the same PIXEL resolution as 512x512@1dpi. As a standard rule o' thumb, the texture map should be as large as or larger than the pixel resolution of the rendered image or area of the image that the textured object covers. If all else fails, double the texture map size and see if that removes pixelization. Then, take half of the difference (4000-2000 = 3000) and see if the pixelization is still there or not. Continue ad infinitum (or until you are satisfied!) :)

Okay, let's see if I got this straight, the best way to avoid the pixialtion, is enlarge the map, keeping the dpi at say 72.....and the dpi is really considered for hardcopy, so my concern for dpi, should be if I am going for a print, not CGI....I think I got that. Thanks Sharen

you just want to worry about the number of pixels you have ... how close they are together is not a matter for worry. For example some people like large 72 dpi images, some like smaller 300 dpi, but both images are 3000x3000 pixels square. I prefer smaller hi-res images, simply because of some of the quirks in Photoshop and the techniques that I use.

OT: When printing images You should always interpolate an image to the max dpi size the printer can handle, basically measure up the area you want the print to cover * the max rez of your printer, interpolate the image to that size and print. 9 Inches on the paper * 700dpi = interpolate the image to 6300 pixels. (Turn on keep aspect ratio before interpolation) I have printed out images that were only 800*640 to full A4 size with brilliant results. On many printers its also advisable to rotate horizontal images to vertical before printing as its takes a lot less time printing the image that way (i got a Canon BJC6000).

please also note that some ppl with poser have had trouble with 300 dpi maps freezing up the software.

I always render with 300 dpi in Poser.

Sorry guesswho- not the render size but some texture map sizes sometimes crash low resource systems or smaller comps. For example, a single character with a texture map of 4000*4000 pixels at 300 dpi is friggin too big and unnecessary. Same with some clothing textures. I wasn't refering to the final picture render size.

Right, geoegress, but it's not the DPI that's crashing the system, it's the pixel resolution (4000x4000). Again, the DPI has no effect on anything except when printing. All that value does is tell the printing program how many pixels will fit into an inch on a printed page. Try changing the DPI in Photoshop (or whatever image app) to 72dpi while retaining the 4000x4000 pixel resolution. Then watch Poser still crash. ;) Rendering at 300dpi is good if you intend to print the rendered image on a printer that does 300dpi (or better). But try this: 1. Render at 640x480@300dpi, save. 2. Render at 640x480@150dpi, save with different name. 3. Load both into Photoshop (et al) and see the difference in print coverage (File->Print Options...) on a standard sheet (8.5x11"). Both images have the exact same number of pixels, 640x480, and are the same size in pixels and filesize, aren't they? But they print with different sizes. That's what the DPI value is used for.

. bookmarking for future reference