Does anyone know the ppi output of Bryce 5? I want to make sure my renders are large enough for an 11 x 14 print, but I can't find the resolution stats for the various render settings. "Superfine" doesn't tell me if the image is 300ppi, or 100ppi. I checked the help file that comes with the academic version (I am now convinced that full versions? You aren't paying so much for the software as you are for the hard copy manuals) but I can't find anything about it.

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that Bryce's default resolution is 72 ppi. If, however, you choose the "Render to Disk" option (I think it's under the "File" menu; I'm not at my Bryce station), you can set both the dimension and the final resolution of your image.

Thank you so much. I had just started a render that's going to take a couple of days. I would have been really P.O.ed to find this out after the fact, or halfway through. Any chance it renders faster that way(to disc)?

Normal, superfine , etc are just how much it Anit-Aliases. Bryce's default as mentioned above is 72 dpi I beleive. To get the size you need to render at you must multiply the dimensions you want by the dpi you wish. (i.e. 11 X 14 at 300 dpi would require a render at 3300 X 4200) which something that big can only be rendered to disk. Warning: with render to disk, if it stops for any reason you'll have to start the whole render over...there's no save while rendering option.

Aldaron is right. If you want to have the picture you made printed, you have to render to disk, adjust the settings to your liking. What kind of print do you want...meaning kind of paper???

I use an Epson Photo EX, and make beautiful prints at 72ppi. on photo quality paper. At 1024x768, a ledger size paper (11x17) has about an inch to spare on the sides. Photoshop can change the resolution and sizes to some degree of clarity, but rendering to disc is the final option for glossy prints. Speed is same.

I use Xerox Color Xpressions 80 weight paper, which I take with me to my local Copy Cop. The prints come out beautifully. The paper is a nice bright white matte, with a silky finish If I want something fancier, I send my files to GicleeArt.com, though I have found some nice textured paper at my paper store recently. I may give that a try.

Resolution depends entirely on the type of output device. If your output is to be done on press, then you need resolution equal or greater to half the line screen (lpi). Most commercial printing is done at 133 lpi, some at 150 lpi. For that type of output, youi'll need 266ppi and 300 ppi respectively. (although, I've used as little as 200 ppi @ 133 lpi with acceptable results.) An inkjet only requires resolution of 150 ppi. If your render is small enough, you may be able to render normally, so that you can continue instead of rendering to disk.

I usually render at 1280x1024 and print to my Epson 760 at fit to page (about 55%) via PhotoPaint. My prints on the heavyweight photopaper are beautiful (1440 dpi resolution). I have in the past rendered images at 3200x2550 (11x8.5 @ 300dpi) on the standard desktop (i.e. Not to disk) without any problems. It took about 12 to 18 hrs per image based upon the complexity/settings. How big do you have to go to hit that wall?

umm but even if you render at 3200x2550 you are still rendering at 72 ppi if you are not going to disk are you not? I mean you may be able to get the actual size in pixels but not in ppi right? Print resolution with Bryce makes my head ache ;-).

Yes I am rendering at 72ppi. At my actual screen resolution (91ppi = SQRT(1280^2 + 1024^2)/18 in diag) my rendered image is 35.16 in x 28.02 in. This is what is indicated in my photoeditor for the completede bmp. I can tell the photoeditor in Image/Resample to maintain the image data size as constant, but alter the sample rate to 300 dpi. Then I resave the image as .tif (w/LZW on). Does not seem to make any difference though. It all comes down to data items per inch and both 1 pixel cluster (1R/1G/1B) and 1 halftoned ink dot are 1 data item. Please point out any holes in my logic. I am NOT an expert and am more than willing to admit error if it can be shown. Richard

Oi .. okay I am not sure if I am following right .. but .. you render at 72 ppi .. then you take the bmp into your image editor and tell it to resize just the ppi ? I use to do kind of the same thing I think in Photo Shop ..I would start a file in PS , a blank new file, set at the size and ppi I wanted .. then I would render the Bryce image at the right size but of course 72ppi .. then I would take the bmp into PS and select it , copy it and paste it into my 300 ppi file .. Seemed resonable to me LOL but then I was told that this would not work .. the image was just being resampled and that it would degrade in Print ;-() .. I promise I am not trying to be a pain here ;-) .. I really want to understand this because if there is anyway I can skip the render to disk thing I want to know .. ends up when I render to disk that I can not use my puter while it is rendering , otherwise for some reason Bryce becomes unstable, crashes and I end up losing the render .. it a major problem for me because I only have one putter..

I'm looking into the dpi vs ppi issue and will post what i find here. PhotoPaint (Corel) does what I described quite well. The only difference that can be seen is in the properties listed where the actual image dimensions are reportede in inches as appropriate for 300 dpi in lieu of the 72. The image size (i.e. total information data points content remains unchanged.) No degradation happens. I believe this is because PP deals in an image as data point by data point info and treats the inches/centimeters, etc as output scaling function. Regardless, will p-ost what i find out. I tend to let my machine run Bryce renders without any other functions in the background. Multitasking (especially with any heavyweight apps is just asking for trouble, Burning a CD while surfing the internet and running business spreadsheets, wanna bet you get a coaster?! Sorry, I would not advise too much extarneous usage during a render, especially if the model is big. Richard

You can do that (resample the image at a new ppi), but it does degrade the image, and you have to mickey around with it to get it right again. I did it with one of my images that was published, and it came out not too bad, but I did have to make adjustments to the resampled image, otherwise there is some pixelisation, depending on how much it is resized. The best thing to do is render at the desired ppi and output size. What I do, that works very well, is render at the second largest size I plan on printing (I like to have a choice of sizes available), usually 8x10, and I will resize the final image to 5x7 and 11x14. If I render and work at 200 to 300 ppi, this works out just fine. All I have to do to the resized images is run them through the sharpener a bit. If I were to try this at 72ppi...they wouldn't come out as nicely, and I'd have to do some serious filtering to get them to an acceptable quality.

Hmmm... I suspect the confusion here is caused by a simple piece of missing information. That piece is that it makes absolutely no sense to speak of resolution without also specifying the output device. When one says that Bryce renders at 72 ppi(pixels per inch) this is based on the implicit assumption that the output device is the user's monitor. The usual standard for such a device is 72ppi (although this may vary, usually to 96ppi). Printer resolution is usually stated as dpi (dots per inch). This is not quite the same thing as ppi but for our purposes may be considered approximately equivalent. The second most common standard for printers is lpi (lines per inch). That figure may be converted to ppi or vice versa. So if you have an image file with ppi dimensions of 800x600 that would display as 11.11"x8.33" [(800/72)x(600/72)] on a 72 ppi monitor screen. The same file would display as 2.66"x2" [(800/300)x(600/300)] on a printer with 300dpi resolution. Therefore if you want a final print of 11"x14" you must first determine the resolution of the printer that will be used. Assuming this to be 300dpi Bryce must render the image at 3300x4200 [(11300)x(14300)]. Antialiasing is a method whereby individual pixels are coloured at the border between two different colours. By altering the ratio or mix of these coloured pixels on both sides of this boundary we achieve a smoother blend between the two, thus minimizing jagged edges. It is really a matter of our perception rather than reality but it works well. Higher resolutions, and thus more pixels, will allow a smoother visual gradient between the two colours and this in turn will be interpreted as superior. Other than that, I do not think resolution is a factor in the antialiasing process. There are other factors besides resolution that determine the quality of the final print but as this discussion is about resolution I will leave it at that. By the way, while it is true that image editors such as Photoshop can be used to alter resolution one must take care when doing so. Reducing resolution is not too bad as one is simply discarding information. But when you increase resolution you are expecting to create additional information that does not already exist. Within modest limits this can work reasonably well but if you become too ambitious the results are rarely satisfactory if you are expecting a reasonable facsimile of the original. Of course, what is acceptable to one may be a disaster to someone else so as they say, "Your mileage may differ." In the end, if you are working towards a largish print you will probably have to render to disk- unless you have an incredibly huge monitor (grin).

Excellant answer! Much appreciated. The one little point is that Corel's PhotoPaint deals with an image as pixel by pixel data not an inch by inch and scale data item. Using PhotoPaint's Resample command to reset resolution WITH the Maintain File size option checked will alter only the scale factor data in the image data files header lines. It does not in any way alter/delete/add to the image data (pixel by pixel info). This makes it a very useful tool to me. I run at 1280x1024 32 bit and render at 1280x1024 (makes better wallpapers for me that way) Bryce render well beyond its displayed image area (equivalent to being off the desktop in effect). I usually do a quick partial render at 50% to verify the final image composition and then, if happy, run the render at 100%. Works well. I did my renderotica callender renders the same way and they worked abs the same as my regular ones. Whats more fun is my monitor is 91 ppi not 72.

Have you ever try rendering with the Render animation? When i use this method so i can use Bryce Lightning, Bryce is saving the render has avi. When i open in Corel Photo-Paint and do a copy paste since i want the picture out of the AVI i get a 102 DPI out of it. Better then the 72 DPI you get with the normal screen render. And i agree with Jval. If the output is web, so having the default render for 72 DPI is ok. For printing depend on how big is the print, i am rendering a picture to disk the size of 36 x 24 inch at 300 DPI (this is movie poster size). But if i would render the same picture at 8.5 x 11 inch (letter size of course), with what i have read, the DPI render to disk would be around 200 to 240 DPI. I am printing with an Epson Stylus Photo 1280. DenisG