Studio resolution

[Rblaque]

O.k., So im switching over to Inv. Studio to do my renderings now since digital immersion went out of business. So im basically training myself today on it and im getting the hang of it a bit......but my first rendering, i rendered it at 2048 x 1536 and Im getting quite the shoddy looking resolution. See example. Why so blocky and grainy, I opened it in a photo altering software to crop it a bit. Did that compromise the res. I also rendered it with "low anti-aliasing" maybe that was it

[Anonymous]

The grainyness you see is low anti-aliasing...

Cory McConnell

[Anonymous]

That looks almost exactly like a situation that would occure with little or
no anti-aliasing... Turning it up to medium or high AA (or whatever your
settings allow - such as 2x, 4x, 8x) would almost certainly remedy your
problem.

I doubt cropping the image was the problem... Unless by 'crop' you mean that
you changed the resolution or somehow skewed the image (e.g. MS Paints
Stretch/Skew tool).

Hope this helps.

wrote in message news:5565879@discussion.autodesk.com...
O.k., So im switching over to Inv. Studio to do my renderings now since
digital immersion went out of business. So im basically training myself
today on it and im getting the hang of it a bit......but my first rendering,
i rendered it at 2048 x 1536 and Im getting quite the shoddy looking
resolution See example. Why so blocky and grainy, I opened it in a photo
altering software to crop it a bit. Did that compromise the res. I also
rendered it with "low anti-aliasing" maybe that was it

[Rblaque]

Hey guys, thanks for the responses so far.

I set it to "High Anti Aliasing" and have the "true reflection" tab checked in Studio. Looks better but still pretty bad? See attached

1024 x 768

[JDMather]

There was a thread on this problem a while back - more to it than setting the resolution but I can't remember the thread or exact solution. In the example it was a very long pipe. Maybe the OP will recall the thread.

[Anonymous]

In the area of the cages you may be running up against the fact that the
width of a wire at your rendering resolution is ~1 pixel or less. Without
increasing the output size, no amount of AA will completely solve the issue.
These long vertical and horizontal edges/lines are always the most likely
areas to have AA problems. Notice that the increased AA solved most of the
problems in the back (upper) corner where the frame meets the wall.

Neil


wrote in message news:5566082@discussion.autodesk.com...
Hey guys, thanks for the responses so far.

I set it to "High Anti Aliasing" and have the "true reflection" tab checked
in Studio. Looks better but still pretty bad? See attached

1024 x 768

[Anonymous]

I think the main problem is that, as Neil mentioned, some of the graphical elements or 'lines' are quite fine (delicate) - in general, as a 'line' approaches horizontal or vertical on a monitor, the more dodgy it becomes. A non-antialiased edge becomes more jaggy with deeper/wider 'stair steps' between pixel positions. Same for an non-antialiased 'line.' A fine line has very little graphical substance and has viewer pixels to donate to anti-aliasing without destroying the line itself. This becomes more pronounced as the line appraoches horiz or vert.

You might try a view angle, such as iso, that removes those nearly-horizontal lines.

Nick Haselblad (Autodesk, Technical Publications, Technical Illustrator)

[Anonymous]

This is similar to the Digital VS Analogue situation in audio recording;
when the subtle (fine) nuances in the audio wave form are "smaller" than the
sampling rate there is an audible difference that occurs (how much
difference is up for much debate in the Audiophile community) in this
situation it is quite obvious though. :~)

[Anonymous]

You mean that I will have to buy the "White Album" again.

--
Dell 670 dual Xeon - 3.2
3gb memory, SCSI320-15k
XP-Pro, sp2
FX3400: Driver: 91.36
IV2008

"Albert Allen" wrote in message
news:5566198@discussion.autodesk.com...
This is similar to the Digital VS Analogue situation in audio recording;
when the subtle (fine) nuances in the audio wave form are "smaller" than the
sampling rate there is an audible difference that occurs (how much
difference is up for much debate in the Audiophile community) in this
situation it is quite obvious though. :~)

[Anonymous]

il giorno 26/04/2007 21.00 blaque ha scritto:

> Im getting quite the shoddy looking resolution. See example. Why so
> blocky and grainy, I opened it in a photo altering software to crop
> it a bit. Did that compromise the res. I also rendered it with "low
> anti-aliasing" maybe that was it

It looks like a problem of JPEG lossy compression algorithm.
Did you try to save the rendered image in a loseless format (BMP, PNG)?.

M.

[Rblaque]

I did not, strictly Jpeg, Ill try saving it as BMP. I gotta tell ya, the rendering time is long, but the Jpegs are only like 200 KB.....which is extremely small. Somethings up. SHouldnt render at that size, and take that long, and come up with a file that small. Like i said, ive xome from rendering in Presenter 3D, and my wiregrid models always came out crisp and tight, ive rendered 3ft x 3ft poster prints at 300 dpi for our tradeshow booths in presenter, and they were beautiful. Im sure Ill figure this out.....Ill keep ya'll posted.

[Anonymous]

il giorno 27/04/2007 14.00 blaque ha scritto:

> I did not, strictly Jpeg, Ill try saving it as BMP. I gotta tell
> ya, the rendering time is long, but the Jpegs are only like 200
> KB.....which is extremely small. Somethings up. SHouldnt render at
> that size, and take that long, and come up with a file that small.

This could confirm my suspect.
The rendering window shows the BMP, if it is ok but the saved image is
not, so the jpeg compression is the guilty.

For quality I always save as BMP (or PNG) and then convert to JPEG
using an image editor (such as TheGimp, that make you choose the
compression ratio and preview its effects and the related file size),
even since Inventor tells us nothing about the used JPEG compression
ratio.

M.

[Anonymous]

> You mean that I will have to buy the "White Album" again.

Yes, but the re-issue/re-mix will not have Revolution # 9 on it this time
(it will be replaced by What's the New Mary Jane)

[Anonymous]

I have always found the render out-put from Presenter 3D to exceed that of
IV-Studio. I thought it was just me.

--
Dell 670 dual Xeon - 3.2
3gb memory, SCSI320-15k
XP-Pro, sp2
FX3400: Driver: 91.36
IV2008

"MarcoA" wrote in message
news:5566697@discussion.autodesk.com...
il giorno 27/04/2007 14.00 blaque ha scritto:

> I did not, strictly Jpeg, Ill try saving it as BMP. I gotta tell
> ya, the rendering time is long, but the Jpegs are only like 200
> KB.....which is extremely small. Somethings up. SHouldnt render at
> that size, and take that long, and come up with a file that small.

This could confirm my suspect.
The rendering window shows the BMP, if it is ok but the saved image is
not, so the jpeg compression is the guilty.

For quality I always save as BMP (or PNG) and then convert to JPEG
using an image editor (such as TheGimp, that make you choose the
compression ratio and preview its effects and the related file size),
even since Inventor tells us nothing about the used JPEG compression
ratio.

M.

[Rblaque]

O.k., so i rendered it at 1650 x 1275 (150 dpi for 8.5 x 11 print) High anti aliasing. Saved the completed rendering as a Bmap and its getting better, the render time was up there, I got a 6MB bmap and saved it as a Jpeg to get a 1MB file. Just isnt comparing to my 150 dpi renderings out of presenter. Also, i would always render out Tiffs in presenter to convert to Jpeg, not sure if that has an impact. How much is a license of VIZ and how hard is the learning curve lol.

[Josh_Petitt]

Did you try PNG?

[Rblaque]

yeah, seems to give similair results. Ill just render them at 300 dpi (3300 x 2550) to get a good print. Which most printing firms request anyway. That takes over an hour in render time though. Some days ya just dont have that kinda time ya know ? lol