View Full Version : Image Resolution for Screen shot of logo

05-31-2012, 02:41 PM
Ok, so I am doing a screen shot of a logo and using it to make a bumper sticker and other signs from.
What is the best settings under Render globals that I should use to make it a very good image. I have played with lots of settings and gone through tutorials but I need an opinion on the best high pixel setting. I am still new to lightwave but am learning. Thanks all.

Using lightwave 11.

05-31-2012, 02:59 PM
That is difficult to say because its all relative to size. However, I am confused on how exactly you are obtaining your source image.

If you are taking a screen shot, whatever size will be usually 72 ppi. This is NOT adequate for printing. If you are rendering from a model that is different. You need between 130-300ppi AT FULL size.What that means is if you need to render 5x5 in inches, that would be 5x300 by 5x300 so 1500 by 1500 for 5x5. If you need it to be double that size you double your resolution.

Lightwave is easier than scanning because if you are scanning, you have to have double dpi to later blow up your image cleanly following a formula.

I wish I could help more but it has been a while since I have dealt with print graphics so someone may have to correct me.

05-31-2012, 03:18 PM
So to give more detail I made a logo in modeler and was pressing F9 to get images. I am attaching a screen shot of the settings I am using. The print service I am using says to use at least 300 pixels per square inch. What setting do I change to get that? Thanks

05-31-2012, 03:21 PM
I forgot to attach it. Here it is.

05-31-2012, 03:37 PM
First, find out the size of the destination media - the bumper sticker, in inches.

And as ShadowMystic rightly quoted, the number of inches in each axis / direction should be multiplied by 300 (this will give you Dots Per Inch) as a minimum rule; higher can mean better under some conditions.

Ask the people printing the stickers what their ideal lpi (lines per inch) or ppi (pixels per inch) or dpi (dots per inch) rating is - one of these will mean something to them.

When you know this, you can set your camera resolution / render resolution to this. You may also need to include bleed.

05-31-2012, 03:38 PM
Firstly it's referred to as "300 dpi" per inch not 90000 dpi per square inch. So if you are going to make an A4 print to the very edge of the paper. You need 11.69 inches x 300 = 3507 pixels, by 8.26 inches x 300 dpi = 2478 pixels

So in the Width & Height boxes you put in 3507 & 2478 or 2478 & 3507 depending if you are using landscape or portrait.

A3 = 3507 x 4956 in the width & height
(if you divide the figures by 300 you will get the size of an A3, to the edge of the paper. If you are going to the edge of the paper you may need some bleed for printing, say 150 pixels all around, so that's another 300 pixels in total in width & height, 3807 x 5256)

05-31-2012, 03:40 PM
I am so new to this that I am not sure what setting I need to change in layout? Which setting do I change? Thanks

05-31-2012, 03:56 PM
Camera Panel Resolution.

To summarize what everyone here is saying:

Work backwards from the final printed image size. Measure it in inches, plus some for "bleed," if there is bleed (bleed is usually 1/8" extra, beyond the visible image area, be it cropped or literally cut off). Multiply this dimension by 300 for width and height. (Example: if your final image is 12" x 4", add 1/8" to all sides, making the size 12-1/4" x 4-1/4". 12-1/4 x 300 = 3675 pixels wide; 4-1/4" x 300 = 1275 pixels tall.)

Input your calculated numbers into the resolution fields in the Camera Panel (width & height). Adjust camera position to accommodate the bleed. Render.

05-31-2012, 03:57 PM
In the screen shot you posted in the Render Globals, 2/5 of the way down in the "Width" box where it says "1920" type in a figure say 3507 (for A4 "landscape (width)") & in the "Height" box where it says "1080" type in in a figure say 2478 (for A4 "landscape (height)").

05-31-2012, 04:13 PM
Input your calculated numbers into the resolution fields in the Camera Panel (width & height). Adjust camera position to accommodate the bleed. Render.

As mentioned, you may also need to move the camera in or out a bit, & or a combination of adjusting the "Lens Focal Length 24.0mm" up of down a few mm, so your logo is not cropped on the sides.

05-31-2012, 04:19 PM
This helped a ton. I think I got it about right. Do you guys know if you can up the anti aliasing since the edges are not so good looking anymore?

05-31-2012, 04:41 PM
Also, not a printing size issue (& maybe something once you get your head around things). If you just want to render the logo itself without any background so then you can paste the logo onto another background in Photoshop etc & save a bit of masking & cutting out.

In Layout, firstly to reduce the render size (no point rendering background you do not need), in the "Render" tab, click on "Limited Region" & drag in the yellow handles to render to this cropped size. When saving your render, also Save a format with an Alpha channel. You may need to turn off (tick) "Unseen by Camera" for objects in the background. Tick "Unseen by Camera" in "Object Properties" for the objects that you do not want to be seen in the render.

Rendering just what you need, in size, or just the objects you need, can save a lot of render time. There's no point rendering a whole stack of background if you are not actually using it.

05-31-2012, 04:50 PM
How do you render just the logo and not the background? I am sure this is something easy to do but I am still trying to learn Lightwave and animation for that matter.

If I do want the background in it how do I increase the anti aliasing to get rid of the jagged edges? Thanks to all for helping the newbie.

05-31-2012, 04:52 PM
For more AA in your render. Just to confuse the matter! It would be best to double the size of your render. So if you are rendering 3000 x 1000, now render 6000 x 2000. But it will take 4 times longer to render.

Then in Photoshop you half the size of your render, (back to 3000 x 1000). This will give much better quality AA.

This better quality AA in this situation, rather than upping the Minimum sample in your screen shot of "9" to 17 for example. Actually you could probably lower this AA from 9 to 5 & lower the Maximum Samples from 18 to 10. And the Threshold from 0.01 to 0.03.

The doubling render size and halving in Photoshop will be much better.

05-31-2012, 05:11 PM
In Lightwave 11, go to the render tab and in the Utilities section of the menu on the left, click "Print Camera".

That will open the Print Camera panel. Either pick a standard size Template or uncheck "use template" and put in the dimensions and DPI/PPI that is your target. The bottom section of the window will tell you how many pixels to set your camera resolution. If you leave "Set Camera Frame Size" checked and hit OK then your camera will be updated with the correct settings.

05-31-2012, 05:14 PM
How do you render just the logo and not the background? I am sure this is something easy to do but I am still trying to learn Lightwave and animation for that matter.

You go to "Object Properties", click and select the object you want "Current Object" near the top of the window, then click on the "Render" tab, then 3/5 of the way down you will see "Unseen by Camera" Tick the box. You may need to Untick "Cast Shadows"

You must get into the habit of giving every Object, Camera, Light & Null in your scene a short but logical name in a constructive & easy to understand order so you can identify things quickly, & also when in Modeler & if your object has a few layers give every layer a name as well, & to drum it in, every surface a name! or you will not find anything in Layout when your scene gets a bit complex.

& to drum it in further at some stage you will want to use Screamernet (a nightmare at first!). Get into the habit of no_gaps_all-of-your_file_names. Or SN will spit the dummy!

Start doing these things now. Good administration in Lightwave will save you a stack of time. Even if it's a simple project just name everything!

05-31-2012, 05:22 PM
Another thing to be aware of is that DPI and PPI are irrelevant to LightWave. They refer to the resolution of the printer or screen, not the image. Many people do not understand that and think that if an image is 300 dpi then it has more pixels than a 72 dpi image. The fact of the matter is that LW only renders out pixels. Photoshop will load an image rendered in LightWave and will always see it as 72-DPI. This confuses some clients and they will tell you that the resolution isn't high enough. All you need to do to make them happy is go to the Image Size command in Photoshop, uncheck Resample Image and type 300 into the Resolution box. If you look closely, you'll notice that the Width and Height in the Document Size: part of the window will change, but the number of pixels will not.

This will not effect you image in any way. It'll still have the same number of pixels it had before, but your client will think its high enough resolution for print because it's 300dpi. :)

05-31-2012, 06:26 PM
There is mostly confusion about this, especially for guys coming from the printing world. The other ones here got everything covered but this could help too maybe:

05-31-2012, 07:56 PM
Use the Print Camera feature in the Render Tab, it was designed especially for this task.

05-31-2012, 08:57 PM
Another way to look at it is:

If you need to buy a new cotton sheet for a single bed. You could buy some cheap stuff from India or China for example at 250 threads per inch or you could buy a new Arabic cotton sheet that is 800 threads per inch (or in Australia as everything is imported!, so 0 TPI so to speak!). It's the same size sheet but the cotton thread count is much higher density for the quality sheet.

If you need a sheet about twice as large (like an A4 to A3) for your king size but (who doesn't!) the sheet is larger in width & length. it's still 250 TPI (budget) or 800 TPI (quality).

So your reasonably high quality A3 print will be 300 dpi (fine arts print 400 dpi). so you will need roughly 4 x the pixels in length & 4 x the pixels in width (or about 16 times the number of total pixel count for the overall area) as compared to screen resolution.

Another way.....

A May Flower tree http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crataegus has a lot of leaves & it's about the same size tree as a Magnolia tree http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnolia. But the May Flower tree has a higher leaf count "LPI" (DPI) density. (But in this situation I hope you have enough ram for the hugh poly count! But the tree still takes up the same amount of room on the screen!)

06-01-2012, 02:07 AM
Another way to look at it is...

I work in video but my scanner scans in DPI. Because I know that my video raster equals 72dpi, I know that if I want to blow a picture up for video by a factor of 4 without pixelating, I scan it at 300dpi: 300/4=75. I scan all my 8.5"x11" docs at 300dpi so that when I need to blow up a single word full screen, I can do it without fear of having it fall apart. Examples follow...

The first image represents a full 300dpi scan of an 11"x8.5" page scaled to fit a standard definition widescreen video frame (853x480 square pixels).

The second image represents the area (gray bounded by marquee) of the 300dpi scan cropped by the video frame.

The third image represents the actual pixels of the scan positioned in the video frame.

This is really important with the kind of work I do in TV, because I am able to use high-resolution scans of documents and pictures and put them in a piece without having to blow them up more than 100% of their actual size and still get images as small as a single letter or word to fill the entire frame, (while still making them look really good.)

So while some work in strictly in pixels, I work in pixels and dpi because I know video rasters in pixels but I scan my docs in dpi. The result works out either way.

06-01-2012, 04:18 AM
Because I know that my video raster equals 72dpi,
No it doesn't... unless your SD screen is 10" wide (and the HD screem 26.6" if you view 1080p but only 17.7 if you view 720p ;) ).

Just saying... Incidentally, that number comes from the PPI density of the first Mac display (and since it was black and white, that was the DPI as well). :hey:


06-01-2012, 05:19 AM
No it doesn't... unless your SD screen is 10" wide (and the HD screem 26.6" if you view 1080p but only 17.7 if you view 720p ;) ).

Just saying... Incidentally, that number comes from the PPI density of the first Mac display (and since it was black and white, that was the DPI as well). :hey:


Video res: 72 dpi. The pics I put up illustrate the point I was trying to make.

06-01-2012, 05:27 AM
Video res: 72 dpi. The pics I put up illustrate the point I was trying to make.
Yup, but dpi is still irrelevant in video work though (or anything else that isn't related to print output).
You scan at a fixed pixel size - which is what you express with a real world dimension coupled with dpi. Change the size of the documents you scan and it will break down.


06-01-2012, 07:31 AM
Video res: 72 dpi.No, it really isn't I'm afraid. Much has been written about this, and I won't repeat it all here, but for all intents and purposes that's a myth, albeit a convenient one at times. I'd liken it to Newtonian physics - it works reasonably well because it's close enough, but it's not really factual at all.

The reason is quite obvious - the "i" in "dpi" is for inches. Inches are unknown in your video standard. You don't know if the display is a 14" CRT, a 70" plasma, or a 40 foot jumbotron. Since you have not got the foggiest notion of "inches", the "72" is completely meaningless, without context. What you do know is the pixel resolution - period. It would be just as accurate to say "(NTSC SD) Video res: 10 inches", if your scanner is set to a resolution of 72dpi. On the other hand, set it to 150 dpi, and video is now 5". Inches are irrelevant, and for those who prefer to do so, can be completely ignored with impunity.

(It's slightly different in print, of course, which is where the confusion comes in).

Edit. For reference, here are two sources that discuss the myth (just the first two Google pulled up):