Hi, I'm new to this forum and also to Bryce, so if this question sounds stupid,..sorry...anyway I'm a little confuse as to rendering. When saving..to tiff, psd, jpg..etc....does the quality I set for render before I save to these files effect the quality of the file, or does rendering only effect what I see on my screen..or animations..

It affect all rendering outputs both onscreen (main workplace) and disk renders.

Do I just have to set the render then save to disk, or do I have to render it on screen, then save to disk.

You can choose either one as both will present the final image. If rendering onscreen, choose "save image as". If rendering to disk, the rendering dialog before it will handle the rest. Just choose a destination for the image file. Just choose one. I personally find rendering to disk is a "little" faster.

Great...thanks a much for your help.

I read somewhere ages ago, TIFF was the better format can't remember why! Agent Smith I believe gave the reason, was it AS or am I dreaming?

Only save renders as .bmp, .pict or .tiff files then use a 2D editor to convert. Bryce's compression of .jpg's, etc is not very good and the quality drops.

TIFF or "Tagged Image File Format" is great for archival purposes as it's generally lossles and supports cross- platforms. Images saved in TIFF format are generally huge in size. Good for storing purposes or if you want to print out high quality works.

As far as I can remember if you render to screen the resolution is always 72dpi and you can only change the resolution when you render to disk. Higher resolution is what you need if you want to print your pictures, and bmp format is one of the best to save in 'cos anything else will do some compression which equals destruction. 8) Catlin

You can always render to screen using bigger dimensions and then change the dpi ratio in a 2D program later on. Rendering to screen has the advantage of pausing mid render, then being able to save, and then pick up where you left off later on. Rendering to disk is all or nothing if I recall correctly.

I believe that you are both right Catlin and Pauljs...

I am fairly certain that changing the DPI setting in render to disk does not effect the amount of information stored in the image. It is merely a calcuation to derive the correct print size. The factor determining the resolution of an image is the number of pixcels. Rendering a 1024x768 image on screen has exactly the same amount of information as a 1024x768 image rendered to disk, regardless of the DPI set. If a 1024x768 image is to be printed however, it may only be printed at 3.41 x 2.56 inches (assuming a minimum desired print quality of 300dpi). Printing that image at that size will result in a 300dpi resolution even if printed on a printer with more than 300 dpi quality. Bitmap is definately the best format to choose as it does not have any compression.

Ok..so there is a reason why i took photoshop classes..and grumble at my stock agency guys. Render to disc.. 72dpi..not a bad idea..only if you want to keep it on yr comp. If you increase the dpi (pixels per inch).. you will get a very pixelated pix as there isn't enough info available for the image to fill in. If you render to disc.. you can change dpi as well as image size.. there isn't a hassle in that..when you do that render to disc option thingummy. If you print.. most printers like 300dpi ..required amt. Bryce gives you only two options..bitmap or tiff. Tiff is the best option.. it's a highest quality type file..and I think once Zhann asked that question.. jpeg or tiff. It's strange..but I've realized bryce tends to fill in the info required while rendering. Dunno how. Rule of thumb that i keep.. and it works.. to print..render to disc.. whatever size you require..at 300dpi. Be careful..sizes are huge. My file sizes are normally nothing less than 108 megs per image. To just use on the web, etc.. render on screen..72 dpi..it's ok. Another rule of thumb any one the digital world will tell you..you can downsize dpi and increase image size. You can never ever upsize image size without decreasing dpi..if you want a good quality image. You can never ever increase dpi. Bloody shame..true..but it all has to do with pixels and color storage info and all that stuff that makes color management classes so darn interesting..

The largest image I ever rendered in Bryce came in at a staggering 500mb, and it wasn't even one of my favourite images. It also took 6 days to render as far as I recall, so I am very glad I have more than one computer to play with otherwise I'd go nuts. lol 8) Catlin

If you increase the dpi (pixels per inch).. you will get a very pixelated pix Not always true. I know with PSP that I can change the DPI setting without rescaling/resampling the actual image. For practical purposes you don't notice it at all on the computer screen, but when you go to print it'll make a difference. The higher the number, the smaller and crisper the printed version comes out in relation to whats on the monitor. Thus render big first (such as 2550px x 3300px for an 8-1/2" x 11" print at 300DPI), and kick up the DPI to the proper level for printing. For most purpopes 150DPI works good, unless it's intended for close viewing - then go with 300DPI. Some special circumstances involving publication will even require 600 or more DPI, but it's not very often. Right now I'm taking a Photoshop class... I'm not certain if one can change the DPI w/o rescaling the actual image, but I would think it's possible (probably hidden in prefs if not somewhere obvious.) You're right about print sized images being freakin' huge. Some of those will even cause lag in 2-D graphics programs because of the memory requirements. Especially true if you do manipulations, etc. on more than one layer using bitmaps.