Is it ME or does poser 4 NOT render at anything other than 72DPI!?!? I decided to test this theory...normally in the past with P3 I would render as high as 2000 dpi depending on the image and the need for higher dpi, so I figured one way to find out if poser 4 was working right was to set it at a higher dpi, well I set that puppy to 3000 dpi and it rendered FASTER than at 72DPI! WHAT gives? I know somethings fishy cause I bring it into Photoshop and WHAM there goes that 72 dpi again! ARRRRGGGG! #$%@! PATCH PLEASSSSSEEEE!!!!!! PAN (red render)

Render to a New Window, and select the Pixel X Pixel resolution you want... From there, you can take the image into Paint Shop Pro or whatever and change the DPI.

....eh..sorry just really needed to vent. I did the work around technique but it just ain't cutting it. The image was not originally more than 72dpi so it shows when you bump up the resolution. Is there any word on this problem and when it will be corrected? Seems rather ludicrous that something like this would be "overlooked" in production don't you think? Perhaps they could create a new patch that would be a hold over until the real patch comes out...I mean if nothing else let's work on the resolution people! PAN~ Seeing 72dpi

PAN- This might be just repeating what Grey said, but the way I do it is to render to a new window at a ridiculous size (i.e. 6000 x 6000). Then, take it into Photoshop, adjust the dpi, and downsize the resolution. The bigger the original render, the better. Of course, if I had something worthy of that kind of resolution, I'd gladly share it, but I'm still in the "tinkering" phase. :-) Hope this helps! Jon

Maybe it's just my not being a Graphic Artist by trade, but the dpi of an image is just a bogus number. What an image file is is a mass of dots...rows and columns if you will. Nothing else really matters and is all convertable. It's like working in feet or meters...all the same thing, just a different measurement. 72 dpi means absolutly nothing without qualifing it with the image size in inches. Example: a 72 dpi image that is 8" x 10" is a file at 576 x 720 resolution...same thing...two different measuring systems. The same file is 2.88" x 3.6" at 200dpi...all the same "quality", if you will.

Fox, you're spot on. -FishNose

no no no no no this drove me nuts when i started... printing size vs screen size. the dpi is like the line/screen size. yeah, if you're doing a screen image picture, 100dpi is the maximum a screen can show. if you're printing.... that's a whole 'nother story. it's like 72 dpi is a real grainy newspaper image, and 300dpi is a better quality magazine image. its still made of tiny ink dots, but they're not as gigunda. if you print your 576x720 image at 72 dpi, you get a 8x10" image. if you print your 576x720 image at 200 dpi, then yeah, you get a 2"-whatever sized picture. if you MEANT to have a 200 dpi 8x10" picture, you have a problem! uh... see?

Foxhollow is right - with one notable exception. An image file is composed of pixels and only pixels. DPI and image size in INCHES-CM-PICAS-CUBITS or whatever, are irrelevant numbers unless you choose to leave an electronic display environment and actually print the file on paper. At this point you DO have to tell a printer how much paper to spread the file's finite number of pixels across. I believe that virtually all image file formats merely store the number of HxV pixels with no reference to this additional printer info. The single oddball exception to this seems to be the PICT file format, which does actually attach this printer info onto the image file and tries to incorporate this info to approximate the printed image size while displaying it on screen. Not being a PhotoShop user, (Corel) I only recently discovered this exception, and was therefore perplexed why all the PhotoShop users were so hung up on DPI while working in an electronic display environment. Bottom line in Poser is, if you need either higher DPI or a larger print size, just render a higher HxV pixel count in a new window. Then tell your printer how much paper to use (by setting either DPI or physical image size) when you get ready to print it. If you want to print an 8x10 inch image at 300 DPI then, regardless of what file format you are using, you must render your image at (8x300)H by (10x300)V or 2400x3000 pixels.

Fox, while strictly speaking you're right, the one thing that little number does is tell the printer the on-paper dimensions of you image. It doesn't do beans on screen, but unless you play some games in photoshop or whatever. it doesn't print right. It's funny, pre-patch poser 3 did the exact same thing. Odd for the same bug to crop up twice... PV

I wouldn't call it a bug, per say...No rendering program I use has any care what the dpi is. I'm sure there are some that do. And, yes, it is really a printed image thing..the dpi. But, I have no trouble printing anything at any size and any "quality" by just ignoring the whole dpi thing....same as I ignore "meters" and prefer to think in "feet". I do use a few calculations when printing to figure what resolution I want to render for the size pic...and enter the dreaded DPI figure into it. But, it more like wanting to always print to the paper at 300dpi and figuring what resolution I need for it...what some paint program chooses to call my image has nothing to do with it...it's virtually meaningless. Just a manner of thinking, I guess, and I find it to be less of a hassle is all.

Just a couple of notes, that are probably already known. Make sure you have the map size, for all of the lights, set as high as they will go (1024 for me). Anti aliasing does not effect the quality of the texture map, it only smooths out the edges of the object geometries. This message was brought to you today by CTRL+"R".

Well dpi must do SOMETHING because in my experience I have created text on some of the poser textures and found the higher the dpi, the clearer the text. If I leave it at 72 dpi it's pixelated and looks just plain ugly. Antialiasing does nothing for it either. For example I just recently created a shirt texture and applied a few words on it. I rendered it at a higher dpi in P3 and found it to be clearer than at 72dpi, I tried the same test in P4 and this time rendered the image at a size of 1000 x 1000 and found that when I took it into Photoshop and raised the dpi it look like a small image had been stretched to a larger size and then cropped down. Just plain nasty. As for trying antialiasing...it does nothing to make an image sharper...because pixels are squares it simply blends the egdes of an object with the background pixels so that you get the effect of a smooth edge..hence the blurry look. As for printing out...that's another nightmare. I'm an ARTIST not a mathamatician (or great speller for that matter) and I personally don't enjoy having to sit and figure out "THIS much by THAT much to get HOW much"...I would prefer to spend that time creating not calculating. I still ask again..."WHERE IS THE PATCH!" As for the original P3, it did have the same problem...however it was in the sense that it would reset itself back to 72dpi, you could however actually still RENDER at a higher dpi if you did so to a new window...and hit RENDER NOW instead of just OK (which would make it reset to 72dpi)...in my experience. PAN~ Thanks all for the advice, I guess for now I'll have to break out the calculator.....UG! Let's get that PATCH meta!!!

(I didn't see this message of Pan's the first time around...) I was playing with just this thing the other day - I was making digital versions of some of my old t-shirts just for laughs. I found that applying a gaussian blur helps make the text look more seamless, and certainly less pixilated. What I did was this: 1) Set up the text layer. 2) Had photoshop render the layer, with anti-aliasing. 3) Selected the text in the layer (do this any way you like - I used the "select empty space and inverse" method, with some touchup deselects with the good old magic wand tool). 4) Expanded the selection by 5 pixels. 5) Applied a gaussian blur. If the text is small, this is likely to be a very small radius blur, .3 or .5 pixels. Play with it for the desired effect. The result is nice sharp text slightly "fuzzed out" on the edges. The expanded selection is so that the gaussian filter has some room to feather the edges of the text. PV