 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Got it.
ingo
--
Met dank aan de muze met het glazen oog.
> Corridon posted the Faq in c.g.r.r. a few times. You might find a copy
>of it still at the deja news archives. If you find it send me a copy
>and I will post it in the faq group.
>
>--
>Ken Tyler
>
>mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thanks for the help.
Rik
Bob wrote:
> Only limited by computer memory I believe. What you are going to really have to
consider
> is that printout. Over 2 foot square eh? Going to take the image into a printshop on
> diskette? You'll probably want a resolution in the 5000 by 5000 pixels range, easily
> plausible. Maybe someone has done this, not me, and they would know better
instructions.
>
> Rik Kline wrote:
> >
> > Please pardon the novice question. Is there a limit to the size of an
> > image POVRay can render. I'm rendering an image of a chemical structure
> > for an exhibit booth. The image needs to be about 72 cm square.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > rik
>
> --
> omniVERSE: beyond the universe
> http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
> mailto://inversez@aol.com?Subject=PoV-News
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Jun 1999 16:57:35 -0400, Rik Kline <rik### [at] erols com>
wrote:
>Please pardon the novice question. Is there a limit to the size of an
>image POVRay can render. I'm rendering an image of a chemical structure
>for an exhibit booth. The image needs to be about 72 cm square.
>
>Thanks,
>rik
There is a limit on image size, but it is measured in the number of
pixels in the image, not the size of a printed copy in centimeters. In
other words, depending on what resolution you desire, it is possible
in theory to make a print in whatever size you desire.
I think that the maximum image size is possibly 64k x 64k pixels. This
gives more than enough potential resolution to handle your 72cm print
size. If you want to know exactly what size (measured in pixels) to
make your image for an excellent 72cm print, you can either consult
the printing FAQ mentioned by the others here, or you can visit these
links for some additional information:
http://www.imagers.com/
http://www.imagers.com/deviceguides.html
This is a commercial service bureau that has several pages of useful
information on their website regarding how to pick appropriate
resolutions, balance color, etc for digital images.
Lastly, if I understand it correctly, the maximum size of the image in
pixels is determined by the file format you save the image in, such as
Targa or PNG. Some formats might have larger sizes available than
others, I suppose.
Later,
Glen Berry
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Good things to know, I like to print out my images as I'm sure others do. Thanks Glen
B.
Glen Berry wrote:
>
> There is a limit on image size, but it is measured in the number of
> pixels in the image, not the size of a printed copy in centimeters. In
> other words, depending on what resolution you desire, it is possible
> in theory to make a print in whatever size you desire.
>
> I think that the maximum image size is possibly 64k x 64k pixels. This
> gives more than enough potential resolution to handle your 72cm print
> size. If you want to know exactly what size (measured in pixels) to
> make your image for an excellent 72cm print, you can either consult
> the printing FAQ mentioned by the others here, or you can visit these
> links for some additional information:
>
> http://www.imagers.com/
> http://www.imagers.com/deviceguides.html
>
> This is a commercial service bureau that has several pages of useful
> information on their website regarding how to pick appropriate
> resolutions, balance color, etc for digital images.
>
> Lastly, if I understand it correctly, the maximum size of the image in
> pixels is determined by the file format you save the image in, such as
> Targa or PNG. Some formats might have larger sizes available than
> others, I suppose.
>
--
omniVERSE: beyond the universe
http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
mailto://inversez@aol.com?Subject=PoV-News
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Please pardon the novice question. Is there a limit to the size of an
>image POVRay can render. I'm rendering an image of a chemical structure
>for an exhibit booth. The image needs to be about 72 cm square.
Some time ago I was going to render an image at 1024x768 over night. I
started it, and expected it to be finished by morning (It only took a few
minutes at 640x480).
However, next morning it wasn't finished, and my harddrive was full. I had
run the commandline:
[d:\povray\scenes]povray +itest.pov +w1024 +h7688 +a
I'm guessing it wouldn't been a problem if the partition hadn't run out of
space.
Try rendering the scene with Quality set to one first.
/j
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bob heeft geschreven in bericht <376A85BD.6B2558FA@aol.com>...
>Good things to know, I like to print out my images as I'm sure others do.
Thanks Glen B.
>
With what gamma setting should a picture for printing be traced? Tried a
grayscale with assumed_gamma 1 and display_gamma 2.2. It does not look
ood:( The near white parts have not enough density.
ingo
--
Met dank aan de muze met het glazen oog.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'm always using a typical assumed_gamma 2.2 and display_gamma 2.2, both the same for
almost every image I render with few exceptions and they print fairly well as is on my
Epson Stylus Color. I sometimes brighten or darken them no more than a few percent in
post-processing (Paint Shop Pro or Picture Publisher). Meaning I seldom need much
change. The printer used is probably a major factor, but if I try to use assumed_gamma
1.0 I'd get very low contrast images regardless of the printer settings; I opt for the
default more often than not too.
Keep in mind I'm a home-based person here, only took a file in to be printed twice
before and so I am very low tech when it comes to my prints.
ingo wrote:
>
> With what gamma setting should a picture for printing be traced? Tried a
> grayscale with assumed_gamma 1 and display_gamma 2.2. It does not look
> ood:( The near white parts have not enough density.
>
--
omniVERSE: beyond the universe
http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
mailto://inversez@aol.com?Subject=PoV-News
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I agree with you there, ingo the problem is most likely with the printer not
being able to replicate the colors and shades correctly. Printing at a
professional print shop will solve the problem (or should) because their
printers and/or rips will be able to handle the color correction themselves.
The ultimate is to get it imageset and then printed as CMYK plates... but
that would cost a small fortune and is only really good for large runs.
Usually I get good results using rip printing directly to a high-quality
Canon color photocopier (obviously it's one set up specifically for the
Canon Rip). It seems to be able to match the color correction quite well as
Photoshop corrects it for the purposes.
Hope this helps. (you should probably consult the print shop about the
problem)
--
Lance.
---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
Colorblind - http://listen.to/colorblind
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Bob heeft geschreven in bericht <376B02A7.DAE1FD19@aol.com>...
>I'm always using a typical assumed_gamma 2.2 and display_gamma 2.2, both the
same for
>almost every image I render with few exceptions and they print fairly well as
is on my
>Epson Stylus Color. I sometimes brighten or darken them no more than a few
percent in
>post-processing (Paint Shop Pro or Picture Publisher). Meaning I seldom need
much
>change. ....
Investigated it a bit more. Did a serie of renderings with assumed_gamma from 1
to 3 and printed them on transparent sheets. Dusted off my old densitometer and
measured the scales. The one with gamma 2.2 is perfectly linear, 50% gray is 50%
gray. Then had a look at the rgb values in the files with PSP and the hex tool
in XnView. Only the 2.2 scale is linear.
So with an assumed_gamma of 2.2 and display_gamma 2.2, POV-Ray does no gamma
correction (the same result as when you set no assumed_gamma at all). And the
printer I use (epson 440) has no influence on the gamma of the print.
Finally I took the grayscale in the darkroom and made a photoprint of it. Looks
good.
Lance Birch heeft geschreven in bericht <376b0567@news.povray.org>...
>......
>The ultimate is to get it imageset and then printed as CMYK plates... but
>that would cost a small fortune and is only really good for large runs.
>
The real ulitimate high end print would be a Fresson print. The problem is there
are only two suppliers in the world and they are very selective in the artwork
they print. And only one of them does color work. Doing it yourself is
impossible.
A simple straight forward way, with very good durability, would be printing to
slides and make ciba-crome prints (use the low contrast material).
There are other high quality processes like the ful color carbo print and the
gum print (the one I going for at the moment). Both are photographic processes.
ingo
--
Met dank aan de muze met het glazen oog.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jan Danielsson <Jan### [at] falunmailteliacom> wrote:
: [d:\povray\scenes]povray +itest.pov +w1024 +h7688 +a
At least you would have a very nice vertical resolution :)
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
