3D Models
3D Print Models
3D Scans
Animation & MoCap
Textures
Materials
Skin Textures
2D Game Assets
Sound Effects
Brushes & Tools
Reference Photos
Stock Images
HDR Images
3ds Max
Maya
Blender
Unreal Engine
Unity
ZBrush
Cinema 4D
LightWave
Marmoset
SketchUp
FBX
DAE
DXF
GLBWhat are your goto AR and Pixel sizes?
56
I like 3x4 (2400x3200) and switch to 4x3 If I need the extra room. Images look fine on 4k monitors and the numbers are easy to scale up or down (for video).
When I started.. I was rendering 8-12k images without realizing it. Now my renders are faster; but I'm curious to hear what my peers and mentors settled on. Care to share?
When I started.. I was rendering 8-12k images without realizing it. Now my renders are faster; but I'm curious to hear what my peers and mentors settled on. Care to share?
! REPORT
I don't know if I really have a "go to" for AR, as much as this one size I keep it at because it's what I've gotten used to, and I use some renders for desktop backgrounds. Rez I tend to go high - it's going to either have a longer tech life as resolutions increase or I can just scale it down keeping the quality there while even hiding some imperfection or 2.
REPLY
! REPORT
kwerkx
Karma: 6,151
Sat, Dec 28, 2024That's fair. Luckily, I believe there is a natural top end in terms of resolution. At some point the average person won't be able to see the difference between OMG-K and Ultra-OMG-K resolutions and that's where it'll stay. Thank you for the response!
For me it's quite simple: 1:1 (AR) and 2400 x 2400 px. I started using these settings because 'rotica main promos are at 800 (width) x 800 (or more) (I developed my first projects for this platform) ... and then got stuck with these settings 
REPLY
! REPORT
kwerkx
Karma: 6,151
Sat, Dec 28, 20241:1 that's an interesting one.. tight with plenty of pixels. I really like how it came up spontaneously during your workflow. Thank you for sharing!
Pushee-Ri
Karma: 36,946
Sat, Dec 28, 2024I forgot to mention: I mainly make promos for my projects ... and the thumbnails are almost always 1:1:
'rotica/cgbytes: 300 x 300
renderhub: 400 x 400
etc. ...
That means I just have to scale down a main promo (800 x 800 etc).
Isn't laziness a beautiful thing?
Have a nice day
'rotica/cgbytes: 300 x 300
renderhub: 400 x 400
etc. ...
That means I just have to scale down a main promo (800 x 800 etc).
Isn't laziness a beautiful thing?
Have a nice day
I use either 5:4 or 4:5 because that translates to standard U.S. print sizes. Sometimes I go 16:9 for the occasional wallpaper. I render at 2000x1600px, but if I use the whole scene in a wallpaper I render at 2844x1600px, crop a copy for 5:4 ratio and do the border work separately in post. Those wallpapers still look great on a 40 inch modern television. My bedroom walls are covered in 16x20 poster prints from Shutterfly and they look amazing. Anything bigger than that would be..... creepy, you know? I can;t imagine anyone wanting to see a human-size character at say... twice as large. if I were rendering environments that would be a different story.
For close-ups and some portraits I go for more width, for full shots and *most* waist-up portraits I go for more height. The reasons why should be obvious to anyone familiar with portrait studies.
Back in the days I rendered at 1600x1280px and those still print nicely in a 20x16in poster print. Pre-2012 I was rendering at 1280x1024 and I'd never print those any larger than 10x8in. While they do hold sentimental value to me, I don't really share those anywhere currently.
What we will find is that as time goes by, the older stuff just isn't as appealing and not because it's at a lower resolution. It has to do with the overall quality of the composition. "Future-proofing" has been mentioned but you can't do such a thing when you're a growing artist. Your current stuff should always be ahead of what you did 10, 20, 30 years ago. The steps in progress will become smaller but they will still be there.
Also bear in mind that the video monitor standard is still 1920x1080. It is over 70% of the user base. And since smartphones, tablets and Chromebooks are ubiquitous, anything over 4k regarding imagery is wasted pixels.
For close-ups and some portraits I go for more width, for full shots and *most* waist-up portraits I go for more height. The reasons why should be obvious to anyone familiar with portrait studies.
Back in the days I rendered at 1600x1280px and those still print nicely in a 20x16in poster print. Pre-2012 I was rendering at 1280x1024 and I'd never print those any larger than 10x8in. While they do hold sentimental value to me, I don't really share those anywhere currently.
What we will find is that as time goes by, the older stuff just isn't as appealing and not because it's at a lower resolution. It has to do with the overall quality of the composition. "Future-proofing" has been mentioned but you can't do such a thing when you're a growing artist. Your current stuff should always be ahead of what you did 10, 20, 30 years ago. The steps in progress will become smaller but they will still be there.
Also bear in mind that the video monitor standard is still 1920x1080. It is over 70% of the user base. And since smartphones, tablets and Chromebooks are ubiquitous, anything over 4k regarding imagery is wasted pixels.
REPLY
! REPORT
kwerkx
Karma: 6,151
Sat, Dec 28, 2024I like how your favorites relate to print sizes, I have to give 5:4 and 4:5 a try. And your point about "future-proofing" and artistic growth is an insanely powerful point! Thank you!
Pinspotter
Karma: 5,566
Sat, Dec 28, 2024Well, here's the thing. I technically don't have anything against a 4k render, what matters is the context. If it's a render of a super-detailed spaceship, that scales very well. Characters, not so much. 3D character renders sometimes don't age well. About half of my old ones hold up, just barely, because they're stylized. The more realistic characters I don't even really look at anymore. They were amazing to most people 15 years ago, they're boring now. But the stylized ones have "character" and hold up better.
Yep I have had print formats in mind for a very long time. Still do it despite not selling prints anymore. Around 10 years ago I was gearing up for my first artist alley appearance at a comic convention, and working out various print sizes was a nightmare. I attended again a year later and by then the 5:4 ratio was my defacto standard. It just works so well with simple print formats. Sure, you can do A-series formats but good luck printing those at home! And good luck framing them. For some reason, around that time I thought it was necessary to do the same formats the comic artists do. Well, those artists not only have a large body of work, but they buy prints in bulk because they are able to sell them in quantity. Those prints are 11x17 and that is a really weird aspect ratio. I'm small potatoes and am using an entirely different medium in an entirely different style. And it's a lot easier to transport 8x10s in a binder. I print all 8x10s myself using a Canon photo printer on Canon matte photo paper. They look fantastic.
Now, when you meet more regular illustrators and painters, you'll find that they use all kinds of aspect ratios. It's literally all over the place. It's a nightmare trying to frame a lot of those prints. Over the summer I went to a convention in Boston, and picked up a cute watercolor painting reproduction of the Gwenpool character. That print is 11x14, the frame cost as much as the print itself (lolwut)
I tried 1:1 prints at 4x4in back in the days, Shutterfly was marketing them as "Instagram Photos" and the company was giving the prints away in stacks of 100, just pay for shipping. Grabbed a bunch of them (like 1000 in total). They didn't sell at all. They do look good for close-up face shots of my characters but nobody was interested. Probably too small. So I was throwing a few in with the 8x10 purchases.
Yep I have had print formats in mind for a very long time. Still do it despite not selling prints anymore. Around 10 years ago I was gearing up for my first artist alley appearance at a comic convention, and working out various print sizes was a nightmare. I attended again a year later and by then the 5:4 ratio was my defacto standard. It just works so well with simple print formats. Sure, you can do A-series formats but good luck printing those at home! And good luck framing them. For some reason, around that time I thought it was necessary to do the same formats the comic artists do. Well, those artists not only have a large body of work, but they buy prints in bulk because they are able to sell them in quantity. Those prints are 11x17 and that is a really weird aspect ratio. I'm small potatoes and am using an entirely different medium in an entirely different style. And it's a lot easier to transport 8x10s in a binder. I print all 8x10s myself using a Canon photo printer on Canon matte photo paper. They look fantastic.
Now, when you meet more regular illustrators and painters, you'll find that they use all kinds of aspect ratios. It's literally all over the place. It's a nightmare trying to frame a lot of those prints. Over the summer I went to a convention in Boston, and picked up a cute watercolor painting reproduction of the Gwenpool character. That print is 11x14, the frame cost as much as the print itself (lolwut)
I tried 1:1 prints at 4x4in back in the days, Shutterfly was marketing them as "Instagram Photos" and the company was giving the prints away in stacks of 100, just pay for shipping. Grabbed a bunch of them (like 1000 in total). They didn't sell at all. They do look good for close-up face shots of my characters but nobody was interested. Probably too small. So I was throwing a few in with the 8x10 purchases.
