Quote - > Quote -   Any particular preference for wanting your render that large? It will add a significant amount of time to smoothing out a render to 'crispness'.

Well, 3840x2400, that's a mere 9.2Mp's, kind of tiny compared to what's considered to be 'normal' for digital photographs these days, even for smartphones. Besides, imaging technology that only allows me to make postage stamp sized prints (@ 300 ppi) goes straight into the bin. With these images I'm trying to find practical limits.

Generally I'm prepared to wait if the results are worth it, but unfortunately for now there's only one way to find out if they ever will be, and that's to wait...and wait...and wait ; )

Cheers!

The reason I mentioned the resolution was, for rendering purposes, most people's screens only diplay the average 1920x1080. Granted, we're probably among the minority where 1600p becomes normal, but unless you plan to print this or use it outside of a digital medium, having the resolution that large really just adds double the render time.

I usually render straight at 1920x1080 which takes long enough, but for my purposes, they rarely get printed and stay as digital images for web.

You're right about the megapixel equivalent though. My four year old cam does 12mp, which must be way behind the times as a photographer I bumped into the other day was using a 21mp(!!) Canon T something or other. And I thought the film equivalent of digital sat right around 16mp. Gosh...

Just curious!

crimsonworx.com; free ebooks and previews

I've bowed down to facebook: https://www.facebook.com/crimsonworx