PDA

View Full Version : best resolution to render



lreyes
05-04-2011, 10:35 PM
I have a Dell studio 9100 with Nividia card and 12 gigs of ram. What is the best setup to get the ultimate resolution both on avi. Which is the best camera properties to use and what anti alias to use. I guess this is a dumb question, but I want to get the best there is, as I do animation for TV on public access and want to get the best. I guess I do not have the best graphics card and monitor. I am using 1680X1050 (native)resolution on my monitor.

Igu4n4
05-04-2011, 10:58 PM
Well,.. not exactly sure what you're asking because you're talking apples/oranges.

What do you mean by get the best resolution?

If you're talking about screen resolution to work in. You're already there, ie: native resolution for your monitor. Your graphics card can handle higher resolutions, but your monitor cannot. If you want a higher resolution to work in ie: 1920x1200, you'll probably need a 24-27" monitor, or even higher, 2560x1600 you'll probably need a 30" monitor.

if you're talking about output resolution, then it depends what you're outputting to, and it's a cpu issue at that point, because sd:720x480, or 720p:1280x720, or 1080p:1920x1080 are all incremental pixel dimensions that will take longer to render each step up. You're working in Television so I'm sure this is obvious to you.


Having re-read your post, I'm starting to think you really mean, what are the best hardware specs and rendering settings to get the best quality outputs? Your hardware is fine, you're running an i7-quadcore, you have plenty of ram, and a decent ATI card, and that card will only help you in your working, not your rendering. You could do with a bigger monitor, as you're not going to be able to see a whole full-hd frame when you're working. I would also think about investing in a second monitor. Dual monitor workspaces are much more efficient than trying to do everything on one monitor.

As for render settings, that's a whole other thread because it can be dependent on what you're working on. The Perspective camera is generally faster, than the classic, but sometimes not. The Antialiasing in the perspective camera can be dialed up or down depending on how fine the detail in your scene is, and whether you use adaptive sampling or not.

I guess what I'm saying is that there is no single answer to your question, but if you look through the rendering threads, you will get an understanding of when, what settings are the best, and when not.

Steve.

lreyes
05-04-2011, 11:35 PM
You have answered some of my question, and it is the monitor that is what I need. I did buy a better larger monitor 21 inch but returned it to the store because the speaker on that monitor was a very tiny ones that Icould not hear it good, I would have had to buy external speakers which I do not want. The monitor I am using now has a good load speakers attached to the monitor, so I am stuck with it. It is hard to find a monitor with good speakers attached to it.

I put some of my animation on my web site www.leoreyes.com if you care to see my resolution on some of my stuff, remember, I am not that good yet on doing animation, as I am doing both video and 3-D. Yes, I do need a better monitor.

Serling
05-07-2011, 01:33 PM
"I do animation for TV on public access and want to get the best."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

What resolution does your cable tv provider use to "cablecast" your show? Is it HD (720p/1080i/p) or SD (480i). Once you know that, you'll have the right raster dimension to use.

Now, as I work in broadcast TV, I've found I get good results for broadcast with Classic Enhanced Medium Anti Aliasing using the default (.1) Adaptive Sampling. It's been my experience that Classic Camera renders faster than any of the other advanced cameras.

But depending on the need to have it now and providing the object I'm rendering doesn't have a lot of fine detail, I can often get by with PLD-4 pass and AS .1.

Best thing to do is experiment with the different settings on a still frame render (F9) until you get what you like.

Paul_Boland
05-07-2011, 08:13 PM
You shouldn't limit your sound quality to just what your monitor can provide. I have a lovely, but small and compact, set of external speakers with subwoofer and the sound quailty (and BASS you can really feel) out of them is astounding!! My monitor doesn't have speakers built in but if it did, I wouldn't give up my external ones.

Also, just to add about resolution vs monitor size. I have a 24" monitor which has a native resolution of 1920 x 1080 (in other words, Hi-Def), but at that resolution icons and fonts are so small that it is impossible to work in it. I run at 1440 x 900 and it's great! If you really want to use an ultra high resolution like 1920 x 1080, get yourself a MONSTER sized monitor.

a sandwhich
05-07-2011, 09:48 PM
I'm going to have to second the part of about the sound. My monitor does have built in speakers, but they are nothing compared to my external, especially when I am listening to some lostless audio. But I do not second the part about the lower pixel density display. Most of the time you can change font and image size instead of complete resolution. I would go for the 2560x1600 or two smaller 19280x1080 monitors if you are buying new ones. Physical size doesn't matter much to me, but that may be due to the fact that I sit a foot and a half away from them.

Paul_Boland
05-08-2011, 12:40 PM
IBut I do not second the part about the lower pixel density display. Most of the time you can change font and image size instead of complete resolution.

True, but I'm not just talking about icons and text on the Desktop and in folders, I mean application interfaces too. Lightwave's interface at 1920 x 1080 was very hard to work with because the interface elements were so small. And all the tiny icons in toolbars in Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Photoshop, Premiere, etc... No way! I dropped the resolution back and at 1440 x 900 on a 24" monitor (and me sitting about 1 meter back from the monitor), it's perfect. I think to work at such high resolutions, software has to be designed to take into account that interface elements will be so small.

a sandwhich
05-08-2011, 05:23 PM
I might have been lying about the foot and a half. I can count the pixels in that period from where I am. My retinas are probably fried crisps right now.

tomjacobs
05-10-2011, 09:13 PM
I currently run two 24 inch monitors at 1920x1200 resolution. Two is better than one but I would recommend a video card with at least a gig of memory at this resolution. Also, in Windows you can adjust the of the desktop items if they are too small. I like the smaller items because it gives me more real estate, but I am also sitting about a foot, or 1.5 feet, from the screen.