Hi Paul, I see what you mean now. I am not a pro but just take what I have to say as IMHO with a pinch of salt :) Well, for that image you are doing, especially the coverage of view and viewing it in "dpi" via screen, I don't think there is much you can do. The pixels display by the monitor would 'fuzz' up the details for the white flower at that distance, even with a very good pitch high end monitor. You did a good job out of that image and its meant to view like that. For myself, when I see your image, I was not expecting the definition for any of the flowers, but an exhibit of what it is. If you need to see the pistles or stamens (thanks Mike :)), you have to go "Macro" with the view camera and focus on or near the center and that I believe you know already. We have to decide on a scene or the emphasis of an image or its compositional values and too bad we can't have it all together. In real life, even for photography, we have to go (Micro) with macro lens close up on flowers. As for higher per ray thingy with Vue, I guess it just gives better light on subject diffusion values or in general, better "ray tracing" details as far as anything to do with lighting and shadow. Takes up lots of time though and I think its only good for hardcopy prints....on screen, the clarity of it is mild (IMHO). This however have to go hand in hand with very high value pixels render. As for "antialiasing"...its has a good and 'bad' about it. Depending on what your final image is. It has this soft age thing that tends to blend to the next colour pixel and has its purpose for doing so but also create a diffuse or blur effect. Too much would make an image, overall fuzzy. Equalization, Unmasking and Sharpening comes in here, and its does almost the 'opposite' to some extend. Don't it right, you can get pleasing result, too much, you would loose most of your 3D rendering values. With regards to rendering in higher dpi, I am not sure but I guess it only takes up more Vue rendering time and no difference in display. Monitor is caple of only 72 dpi to 96 dpi and any higher makes no different. However, rendering at higher dpi vaule does give you hardcopy output which is also dependence on your printer dpi capability. I would normally render at the usual 72dpi or 96dpi. As for pixels, usually 800x600 pixels unless its something I would like to print or of commercial value, I would render them in 3300x2550 pixels or 2550x3300 pixels at 72 dpi and them have it resample in a Paint program to 150 dpi or 300 dpi. I have to emphaize here that when you resample, make very sure that the aspect ratio for the pixels must be the same and unchange, so what you are getting is, the new dpi value ( for better lpi where colour definition is more accurate)without changing the pixels (where the actual data picture value is). I read your post in another thread about better quality image for Vue and thought I answer it here. Vue finished image has what it gives and sometime is not what we expect. Its a, you see it, I like it kind of "keep it then" thingy. If you need sharp nd deep, the time of the day, lighting, environmental fog/haze setting and colour is of priority, where things get a bit on the harsh look which yield and give better clarity to sharpness. If things turns out hazy or 'powdery', an initial stage of "Equalization" is needed. After that, I would recommend "gamma/tone/contrast/brightness/intensity" adjustment. You have to have an eye for it, otherwise, it may not look right to others. Sharpening is the last thing you would ever want to do and after that is "unmask" (IMHO. Use this only as a last resort. I recommend KPT 6 "Equalizer" for any of your sharppening need as it has much better equalization control over lights, contrast, etc..when sharperning is needed. Its better than what PhotoShop, Corel Paint, Extensis, PSP and Painter can do, again IMHO. Hope you find the above useful.