Comments: 26
bluesman219 [2010-01-22 06:22:52 +0000 UTC]
Great idea Ian. It worked well. Had never considered doing low quality renders.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
IDeviant In reply to bluesman219 [2010-01-22 14:24:58 +0000 UTC]
Works well with these total coverage types - 200 is adequate for full quality, but 50 just begins to introduce a hint of grain.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
IDeviant In reply to zweeZwyy [2010-01-22 14:23:07 +0000 UTC]
15 minutes to produce a poster-sized print! Would that they were all so undemanding...
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
IDeviant In reply to zweeZwyy [2010-02-01 20:52:55 +0000 UTC]
I've only rendered this print-size up to now, not submitted it! However, I have had a low-Q image accepted by both FAA and redbubble. But we need to be clear on terms: resolution is all about dimension, and the rule is 150 dpi minimum; quality (Apo) is the familiar parameter; quality (submissions) is all about grain, blur, jaggies... Still, judge for yourself with respect to the second 'quality': [link] Even at full-res, the low (Apo) quality still only provides texture rather than an unsightly grain. So, no mystery about prints: just render as large as possible!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
IDeviant In reply to zweeZwyy [2010-02-02 11:57:16 +0000 UTC]
When I submitted prints here, I submitted the (scaled-down) deviation first, then separately submitted the full-scale print to associate with the deviation. I haven't tried it the way you suggest, but I believe it's possible: you just need to choose a display size and perhaps disable download if you don't already. You could always try both methods and see which works best.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
LaPurr [2010-01-21 20:39:29 +0000 UTC]
Nice. I like this massive apartment building.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Aspartam In reply to IDeviant [2010-01-21 20:44:14 +0000 UTC]
It looks so good that it deserve to be tactile !
👍: 0 ⏩: 0