Rendering for a 4' x 8' Job Sign?

[SCShell]

Hey there,

Question for you all. (I have done a search and read all the posts to date; however, I am a little confused.)

The client has hired a sign contactor to provide a Project Job Sign with my rendering on it. The sign is 4' x 8', and I can only assume that the image will need to be around 5 or 6 feet long.

The original rendering I did was a 600 dpi (approx. 2500 x 1600 pixels) and looks great when printed on a 8.5" x 11" sheet. If I remember, the jpg was around 1.4 MB. The sign contractor asked if I could give him a rendering JGP which is roughly 6700 x 13,500 pixels.

Just as a test, I did a new rendering at 1200 dpi and the pixels and file size were the same as the original rendering, approximately. I also don't notice any real difference between the two when I zoom into the rendering. They both start to break up at about the same magnification.

Mr. Raiz has written that one could simply set the render size to it's ultimate print size and limit the pixels to 100. (His example was a 30"x40"x100 x 100, thus producing 12 million pixels total.)

Others have suggested keeping the rendering size small and using a higher dpi, and then using other programs to "RIP" the image to enlarge.

Any thoughts?
Your help is greatly appreciated
Steve

[Martin P]

I think I would place the 3D view on a sheet and actually make the view 5 or 6 feet long on the sheet, then tweak the DPI in render image size - I have no idea what the maximum image size is though?


I have never seen an image being bumped up from its original DPI with software (other than on CSI etc!!) to RIP it up, can you really do that?

[bclarch]

First, I would find out the actual image size from the sign designer. A fair portion of any job sign is usually taken up by the developer's name, the real estate agent's name, the contractor's name, the architect's name (one would hope anyway), etc. The actual image might not end up being as large as you think.

Second, I would agree with Leonid Raiz's approach under the assumption that the sign will generally be viewed from a distance. Think of the impressionists or pointillists. Their pictures resolve into distinct brush strokes or dots when viewed close up but are easily read from the proper distance. The job sign is meant to be readable by passersby, not by someone a foot away.

[cosmickingpin]

But you will not get any more information from doing so, unless we are talking about a non-digital photo. The result will look almost exactly like the original but will have a slightly (and only a slightly) less pixelated quality- you can then use photoshop to get a "sharpened quality" but even that will be limited. As you are not adding any additional information to the actual image all you are doing is splitting up the pixels already there. Now there may be super-advanced info generating processes (using advanced mathematics-algorythms, and perhaps advanced forms of crytopghaphy might accomplish this) out there but now you are getting into the realm of either George Lucas or Area 51 type of resources, I am sure they manage with those orbiting spy platforms somehow.

I think I would place the 3D view on a sheet and actually make the view 5 or 6 feet long on the sheet, then tweak the DPI in render image size - I have no idea what the maximum image size is though?


I have never seen an image being bumped up from its original DPI with software (other than on CSI etc!!) to RIP it up, can you really do that?

[SCShell]

First, I would find out the actual image size from the sign designer..

The actual rendering will be 4'x8'. The total sign is slightly larger for other info. (6' x 8')

Still investigating.
Thanks all
Steve

[archjake]

Mr. Raiz has written that one could simply set the render size to it's ultimate print size and limit the pixels to 100. (His example was a 30"x40"x100 x 100, thus producing 12 million pixels total.)
Steve

Steve,

I would do as Raiz states. This will assure that your sign rendering is crisp and not pixelated. I would make sure that your DPI is a minimum of 100. You might as well render the image at 150 and call it a day. The other option is to render an image half the size of what you need at 300 dpi. Save your rendering out as a TIFF so that you get a lossless compression. Jpgs will begin to distort images. Just burn your Tiff to a disk and give it to the printers.

You'll have to tell us where you sign is going to be. Is this the project in Nogales?

[SCShell]

Hi Jake,

Yes, Nogales. I did exactly what you suggested as one of the options. I did a 2' x 4' sized rendering at 300dpi. I did not turn it into a tiff however. (damn)

I also sent a 1200 dpi 1' x 4' one. I'll see what he does with them.
He did call me last night to let me know that they printed a half size job sign with the original rendering just for the ground breaking Thursday. They will get the full size ones up this weekend. He told me that his printer has some cool software to help.

I'll post a copy when I get it later today.
Steve

[luigi]

I guess I am too late to help, but you got good help anyways. For large prints (24x36 and higher) I usually don't do more than 100 to 133 DPI per the actual size of the print. What makes sense is to judge what you are actually rendering.


Example...I am rendering a rendering that has a single large image and your eyes focuses on the whole object (an example would be various walls of a building that makes the object, the walls are painted each with solid colors.) This rendering in no way would need more than 100 DPI (I would still do 133, I kinda like that number for renderings....)

I am rendering a rendering that has a lot of detail (detail will mean different things to different people, but I mean things that someone's eyes notices in small areas of the print) This I would render no less than 133, and I would even try a minimum of 150 as long as the file is still manageable.

I don't know if it is clear without actual live examples, but actually the eye doesn't recognize pixels that are more than 100DPI, but because of the image you see, some areas (detail) with 100 DPI will look weird.

Let us know how the sign comes out...