Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    11
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    A1 size poster with 300 dpi

    Hi everyone, i'm new here. And i need some advices regarding resolution in pixels. I'm planning to take part in a contest, and it requires the size of the digital painting in A1 poster size with 300 dpi. But when i tried it out in photoshop to start a new file with that specs, the file resolution pixels goes up to 9900 x 7000 ++ (somewhere there, i didn't record down). By seeing the pixels amounts, it definitely will lag or even hang my pc for a big time while i do the painting. In fact, i'm still new in digital painting. So, i really hope some of you experts could give me some advices on how and what to do about this situation. Or there's only one way? Buy a new super PC?
    THanks everyone. Looking forward to hear from you all.
    Digitize the Digital, Change the Dragon to Cable.


  2. Hide this ad by registering as a member
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    5
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    I dont know how your photoshop is set up but 9900 is easly 25in or even more. For me 4000 is 11in possibly a bit more. Set it to 300dpi then go after the file size and take it back down to 11x17. That should help in taking the pixels down. If not then just take it down a bit more. I dont know why they would ask for 300dpi for no printer can really do that normal *75-100dpi is normaly used* I work at around 3000x2000 pixels at 300dpi on all of my digital images. Just fool around with it a bit more in trying to keep the pixel size down.
    If that dont work... well I dont know what to tell you. It should not lag really for I work large on a MAC laptop with 80% of the time with Newtech Lightwave *fullverson* open as well and it only lags when I hop from program to program. Then it works fine for me. Fool around with it a bit and see how it works.

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,173
    Thanks
    22
    Thanked 101 Times in 37 Posts
    That is a desperately large image. However (speaking as one who as opened and played around with that 100 mb jpg of the entire unicode set, which you could use as wallpaper for actual walls), as long as you are not working with large brushes you should not be experiencing lag. I do however feel that this would not be the case - you are presumably working at 20% or so magnification with size 100 brushes to lay down colour in which case your system would for instance be making a respectable multiple of ~7850 32 bit arithmetic operations per brush application. You could be using far larger brushes too. And if you whip out the smudge brush, well it's going to be lagtacular. For just laying down colour and not details, you really don't need to do this - just work at low res, bump up the image size, let the lovely bicubic interpolation do its work and refine as necessary. This is incidentally the modus operandi of the venerable Spyroteknik, in an effort to keep resources under control.

    The question you have to ask though is - do you really want to do this as a raster image? Could you be better off doing it in vectors, which are processor-cheap in terms of upscaling to any resolution, with the same mathematical precision at any size?

    Hope this helps.

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    52
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    yup, what Snarfevs said.
    Doesn't need to be more than a couple k until you're painting the finest, sharpest stuff. As most people use smaller and smaller brushstrokes the further they refine, the blow-up-and-fix-as-you-go method is generally fine, and looks good in print
    And using as few layers as possible helps with lag, too.

    Quote Originally Posted by RizyuKaizen
    I dont know why they would ask for 300dpi for no printer can really do that normal *75-100dpi is normaly used*
    Maybe I'm mixed up but I think 75dpi looks like ass in print. That's for moniters, not prints :p
    Maybe posters are 'allowed' to look dottier and yukkier close up than a3 fineart style prints, though.

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    11
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    hi guys.. thanks for the advices, although some of them are too technical for me to fully understand. hahaa... can i say that, even i use 100-200 dpi (or 300dpi), no matter what rezolution it is, it's still can be printed out in A1 poster size with high detail quality? Correct me if i'm wrong.
    Digitize the Digital, Change the Dragon to Cable.

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    11
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    hi guys.. thanks for the advices, although some of them are too technical for me to fully understand. hahaa... can i say that, even i use 100-200 dpi (or 300dpi), no matter what rezolution it is, it's still can be printed out in A1 poster size with high detail quality? Correct me if i'm wrong.
    Digitize the Digital, Change the Dragon to Cable.

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Practically Sarasota.
    Posts
    3,281
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 11 Times in 8 Posts
    9900 pixels on 300 dpi = 33 inches.
    7000 pixels on 300 dpi = 23.33 inches.

    Hmm.

    300 is what should always be used for print. Anything else is just stupid. A vector image isn't very helpful printed at 100 dpi.
    Anyways, go to Image>IMAGE SIZE

    Then, there is a spot for Pixels, inches, and dpi. When the dpi is set to 300, (Proportion constraints unchecked). Then, you go to the INCHES part, and you type in the dimensions in inches. Then, the pixels will appear automatically, for an X by X image, at 300dpi.

    Good luck with that.

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    1,605
    Thanks
    88
    Thanked 124 Times in 96 Posts
    300 dpi (actually ppi -- pixels per inch) has been a "standard" spec for years for digital images directed at final reproduction on offset printing presses using a 133 to 250 line halftone screen ruling. the general formula is screen ruling x 2 = dpi (2 pixels sampled for every halftone dot/rosette), but the ratio can go as low as 1.5.

    however, improvements in RIP software and plate imaging hard- and software have pretty much crushed that standard -- i've had very high-end printers tell me 200 dpi for 200LS work is just fine, and makes file size a lot more manageable. much also depends on the subject. with stochastic screening you can get even lower ratios, from what i've heard.

    but if the final reproduction method is not high-quality offset, there is really no reason whatsoever to work at those pixel dimensions.
    Continuity Break -- my sketchbook

    Shameless plugs!
    Kata femme -- a 3D model WIP, now updated!
    The Giordano Gambit -- Barsoomian Zingball at its best!
    Valkyrie Ascending -- now updated with the second in a series!
    ArmaRagnaGeddonRock-yer-Yuga! -- celeztial shitz 'n' gigglez
    I . Miss . America -- "colored [eyes] may hypnotize..."

    "In the end, Razputin, aren't we all just dogs playing poker?"
    -- Edgar Teglee

  10. #9
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    3,233
    Thanks
    860
    Thanked 849 Times in 457 Posts
    My advice is: If you decide to work smaller, go with a number than divides into what you are looking for.

    Exemple: You want your final image to be 12600 x 4800, divided it by two or four. Don't go for something that is 35,2% of the original. It will avoid undue fuziness when blowing up the image.

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,085
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Try GenuineFractals from www.ononesoftware.com (if I remember right) ... they have a trial version download which allows 30 uses, so use them wisely.
    Basically it's a really good up-scaling algorithm that keeps edges nice and sharp without blurring or pixellating like the default Photoshop scaling does.

    So you could just paint at 100dpi, then when you're finished, flatten the image and scale up to 300dpi using GenuineFractals - I've used it before, it gives really good results.

    They should probably pay me for advertising their program, but it really is that good.

  12. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    1,860
    Thanks
    77
    Thanked 19 Times in 11 Posts
    start off working at around 72dpi and up-res as you go. That's how Feng Zhu and Ryan Church does it! WOO!

  13. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    11
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Thanks everyone... for taking time to give me some advice. Really appreciate.

    MoP: Cool... I will definitely try it out this cool software. Thanks man...

    Denart: Is it really true that Feng Zhu started with 72dpi? How does he up-res as he goes? Finishing the whole painting in 72dpi first, and then scale up ? I don't really understand. Mind explain more specifically? Thanks man.... I really want to learn from the Pro. Does Feng Zhu or Ryan Church has any tutorial i can study from? If there is, it would be better. hehe.. thanks.
    Digitize the Digital, Change the Dragon to Cable.

  14. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    cold wet pit of northern oblivion
    Posts
    2,654
    Thanks
    114
    Thanked 92 Times in 92 Posts
    start out with your big basic blocks of colour or anything that requires large brushes at low dpi then as you get more detailled increase dpi as your brush size deceases to avoid too much lag.

  15. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    11
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by young paddy1
    start out with your big basic blocks of colour or anything that requires large brushes at low dpi then as you get more detailled increase dpi as your brush size deceases to avoid too much lag.

    hey young paddy1, thanks for tips.... will give it a try.
    Digitize the Digital, Change the Dragon to Cable.

Similar Threads

  1. Best catch-all size for digital portfolio size?
    By polypixel in forum Art Discussions
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: December 12th, 2010, 11:01 AM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: November 25th, 2010, 04:43 PM
  3. Art: [SIZE=4]Tadpoles are cute ![/SIZE]
    By skidfrog in forum Finished Art
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: November 13th, 2004, 03:59 PM
  4. working size vs. print size
    By doonboy in forum Painter
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 29th, 2004, 09:48 AM
  5. working size vs. print size
    By doonboy in forum Painter
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: July 22nd, 2004, 05:49 PM

Members who have read this thread: 0

There are no members to list at the moment.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Designed by The Coldest Water, we build the coldest best water bottles, ice packs and best pillows.