View Full Version : Largest Single Frame Render Size?

11-12-2014, 07:20 AM
Hi All, Just wondering what the largest render size would be for Lightwave 11.6? I'm running Mac OS 10 .9.5 on a Mac Pro with 24gigs of ram. My client is looking to make signage 120 X 120". I know with todays digital printing it can be rendered much small, and still yield excellent results. Thanks.

11-12-2014, 07:52 AM
the biggest render I've done in LW was 21000x21000 pixels. I followed some tutorial on how to setup the camera to render it in several pieces ( 9 pieces) then I put them together in PS, worked without any big problems. Just remember to cache radiosity (interpolated GI)if you use this technique otherwise you can get splotches that doesn't match between the pieces.

11-12-2014, 08:03 AM
Ok thanks, what I'm really interested in knowing is what size can safely be rendered at one time in memory? No piecing together.

11-12-2014, 08:15 AM
Ok thanks, what I'm really interested in knowing is what size can safely be rendered at one time in memory? No piecing together.

I dont think it's as simple as that. From my experience it depends on how heavy your scene is along with what other magic you might be working with to hog memory during rendering.

This is true during saving files. On large renders I have had EXR files fall over because I had a lot of export buffers enabled. I have also hit the upper limits of PSD'd output (upwards of 2G) as well so be mindful of this. The worst thing ever is setting up a large render, watching it render for a couple of days only to see it fall over at the very last minute.

My advise wold be to play it safe, split up the render using the camera trick and fix in post.

Edit, I work in 11.6 on a mac pro with 32G and Im still not immune to memory issues

11-12-2014, 08:22 AM
Where is this tutorial? The image I'll be rendering is just a close up of a Cable. No magic involved.

11-12-2014, 08:30 AM

Its a bit mind boggling but it works. If you have a simple scene however and your size isnt waaaay to big then you might get away with it. However the above technique will serve you well should you hit your memory limits.

11-12-2014, 11:51 AM
Thanks for all advice. Turns out they decided to render it at 10400 x 7800 pixels. I'm going to give it a shot, and see what happens. Don't really think I'll any problem with that. We'll see.

11-12-2014, 01:18 PM
If it's a sign, it will be viewed from a distance. High resolution is a waste. Tiny details will not be seen by the eye past a certain point. You can render at a lower resolution and either use that or scale up with resampling/interpolation and it will look fine. If the render errors, try lowering the Segment Memory limit. There's a thread on here that deals with someone wanting to know how large to make an image to cover a billboard. In there is a lot of good info:


11-12-2014, 01:25 PM
Thats what I figure. It will be a sign of the their cable displayed at a trade show.

11-12-2014, 01:34 PM
We do 20 foot long backdrops for our trade show booth. Rendered out at 150DPI and then scaled the image up to print it in 8 foot tall vertical strips on our 44" inkjet. Looked great.

11-13-2014, 04:40 AM
same here, done some huge posters, you really don't need that high resolution.

11-14-2014, 03:16 AM
Have a look at the addendum manual for 11 and you will see that the maximum render size for 64-bit versions has been increased to 100000x100000 pixels. Bear in mind though that even a blank image with nothing in the scene will take 149 GB of memory to render (RGBA @ 4 bytes per channel = 16 bytes)/(1024 x 1024 x 1024) = 149 GB). If you're rendering at 300dpi (for some reason) you're goingto need an image that is 36000 pixels square, which isn't even going to test those maximum limits, however I imagine you are going to run into memory problems even with a light scene.

Use the Print Camera button on the Render tab to see what you need.


11-14-2014, 03:28 AM
I wonder if printer have so big cache memory to print that image... sending to buffer take some time :)
For sure your client know what he want? Maybe better contact first with printing house and ask for they maximum possibilities.

In PS 150''x150'' in 300DPI CMYK showing 7.54GB.

In what DPI it should be printed?

150'', 300dpi, 45kx45k pixels, one month render time ;]
This is 118x118 pixels per 1cm2. In my opinion this is at least two times to much.

11-14-2014, 11:46 AM
My the biggest were 16000x12000 or 16000x16000, rendered by VirtualRender which was executing Kray (http://www2.trueart.pl/?URIType=Directory&URI=Products/Plug-Ins/VirtualRender).
It was done on two 32 bit computers with 32 bit Windows,
and one 64 bit computer with 32 bit Windows.
Memory used less than for normal 640x480 renders, because regions were 256x256 if I recall correctly, these are default regions in my bucket renderer.
There was nearly 4000 regions. I was pausing this render and resuming maybe 10 times (regions are saved on disk). Lack of electricity power is also not a problem.

Here is direct link to 16,000 x 9,333 render
(better save to disk prior watching, web browser might not like half GB image)

11-14-2014, 09:22 PM
IIn what DPI it should be printed?

300DPI is definitely overkill for an image that will be viewed at any distance greater than 1 meter. The farther away you get, the lower the DPI needs to be. It is an angular diameter measurement that needs to be adhered to. Anything that is smaller than the eye can resolve, no matter what the distance, is a waste of time and resources.

Depending upon the viewing distance, as low as 80DPI is sufficient. 120DPI-150DPI is a safe bet. Current wide format inkjet printers do an amazing job at "rezzing up" a low rez image.

IOW, you examine a print at .3m, you need some finer detail. Examine that same print at 3m and you need way less detail in order for the image to appear to be "sharp". Examine it at 30m, and you need far less—even scaled up. The eye can only resolve to a finite limit. Anything smaller than that, without optical aids, is useless. Great if you can get closer but usually in the case of billboards or trade show backdrops, it doesn't matter if the detail is there or not.

11-17-2014, 01:43 AM
I worked on a motorway billboard image back in the 90s. It was 48' wide by 14' high. It was quite a tough render to do, even at only 16 dpi (9216x2688 pixels)