Very Computer

by **Tom I** » Tue, 03 Dec 2002 04:13:40

One question for you guys/girls...

I'm a designer working mostly with print and web, but have been using
3dsmax 5 for 3 weeks now.
I am wondering if there is a way to apply a bitmap "correctly" on to a
surface without stretching or interpolating the bitmap!?
Is there a way to find the excact size of a surface, so i can go into PS
and just make a 300 dpi bitmaptexture for it?
Is there a standard way of doing this?

thanks:)

Tom I.

by **shu** » Tue, 03 Dec 2002 04:44:07

this is not something that you need to do.
DPI is an entirly made up number, i can have a texture that is 512x512
pixels, and define it as 100 dpi. or i can define it as 300 dpi.
but no matter what you do. if you apply it as a texture in max it will look
exactly the same, this is because mapping Gizmo does not know, or care what
Dpi you use, the reason being that it simply wouldn't make sense for it to.
Most materials have layers and layers of different bitmaps and proceduals,
it would be a pain in the *to set the dpi for everything

if you want an image to not look Pixelated/interpolated on an object, just
make sure that pixel dimensions are reasonably high. there isn't any exact
rule to follow

--
********************
www.fabricatedvision.com

*************************

Quote:> One question for you guys/girls...

> I'm a designer working mostly with print and web, but have been using
> 3dsmax 5 for 3 weeks now.
> I am wondering if there is a way to apply a bitmap "correctly" on to a
> surface without stretching or interpolating the bitmap!?
> Is there a way to find the excact size of a surface, so i can go into PS
> and just make a 300 dpi bitmaptexture for it?
> Is there a standard way of doing this?

> thanks:)

> Tom I.

by **Michael Schol** » Tue, 03 Dec 2002 07:17:28

In addition to what Shu said, when you apply a mapping modifier make sure it
has the same aspect ratio as that of your bitmap to avoid unproportional
stretching (see mapping dimensions in the uwv-modifier's rollout).

Cheers
Micha
www.michaelscholz.de

by **Tom I** » Tue, 03 Dec 2002 08:24:48

Quote:> In addition to what Shu said, when you apply a mapping modifier make
sure it
> has the same aspect ratio as that of your bitmap to avoid
unproportional
> stretching (see mapping dimensions in the uwv-modifier's rollout).

> Cheers
> Micha
> www.michaelscholz.de

Ok, thanks for clearing some things up. Still wondering what to do if
i'm gonna print
some of my renders at 300dpi if I have used some 72 dpi jpg's in there..
And about the aspect ratio, I just have to look and try to get it
similar?
There aren't any way i can find the excact dimensions?...Oh well, 1-0 to
max over me...:(

Thanks guys...:)

Tom

by **Arkla** » Tue, 03 Dec 2002 09:17:37

lol... i'm on around 100- 35 or so ... max winning by a long shot... damn
that animation.

--
Arklan

"The Cutting Edge is nothing. Give me the Unexplored Void that is ultimate
knowledge." - Arklan
3D Gallery: http://sv2.3dbuzz.com/vbforum/showcase_page.php?userid=28815

> > In addition to what Shu said, when you apply a mapping modifier make
> sure it
> > has the same aspect ratio as that of your bitmap to avoid
> unproportional
> > stretching (see mapping dimensions in the uwv-modifier's rollout).

> > Cheers
> > Micha
> > www.michaelscholz.de

> Ok, thanks for clearing some things up. Still wondering what to do if
> i'm gonna print
> some of my renders at 300dpi if I have used some 72 dpi jpg's in there..
> And about the aspect ratio, I just have to look and try to get it
> similar?
> There aren't any way i can find the excact dimensions?...Oh well, 1-0 to
> max over me...:(

> Thanks guys...:)

> Tom

by **daev** » Tue, 03 Dec 2002 09:29:28

the dpi issue has come up before, and it's a bit like a 'cart before the
horse' scenario. max has no dealings with dpi. if for example you want
300dpi at 10"x5", set render output for 3000x1500. once an image has been
imported into max, it's going to be re-interpolated to fit the actual
rendered size. so if your final image is say 1024x768, it makes no sense to
use an image with larger dimensions. dpi only comes into play at the print
stage, and dictates the actual dimensions in pixels of the final render.
basically, dpi is not a characteristic of any image, it only describes how a
printing device will output it. crank up the dpi, and your image gets
physically smaller on your output device. higher dpi generally indicates a
need for higher rez.

happy rendering..... :)

daev

> > In addition to what Shu said, when you apply a mapping modifier make
> sure it
> > has the same aspect ratio as that of your bitmap to avoid
> unproportional
> > stretching (see mapping dimensions in the uwv-modifier's rollout).

> > Cheers
> > Micha
> > www.michaelscholz.de

> Ok, thanks for clearing some things up. Still wondering what to do if
> i'm gonna print
> some of my renders at 300dpi if I have used some 72 dpi jpg's in there..
> And about the aspect ratio, I just have to look and try to get it
> similar?
> There aren't any way i can find the excact dimensions?...Oh well, 1-0 to
> max over me...:(

> Thanks guys...:)

> Tom

by **shu** » Tue, 03 Dec 2002 09:41:32

ok, i don't think you understand quite, yet.

i can make two images. EACH of them 512x512 pixels. but they can both have
completely different DPI,
if i use these images as textures in max, they will both look Identical, no
matter what.
DPI means Dots Per Inch, there is no equivalant for use as textures, because
the mapping resolution in max is effectivly infinite,.
you *could* technically use real world units in max, however this will have
zero effect on the rendering or texturing, it *could* give you a fair idea
of what resolution to make the texture map, but then Only on Flat surfaces
as the formulae for more complex surfaces gets messy.

you could even UNWRAPP the texture coordinates of an object to an arbituray
DPI, this is Sorta what you want to do, but it'll mislead you into more bad
habits,
DPI is just an arbituray number. it can be changed on a whim with any
picture.. those 72 dpi jpegs you have can be changed to 300 dpi. . it's
meaningless inside 3d programs

if you want to render an image to 300 dpi. .. on a piece of paper, then you
mulitplye DPI x Physical dimensions to get the resolution you need to render
at. ie 300 dpi Times 8 and a half inches or 2550 pixels]

if you want to avoid non uniform streching, just keep the pixel RATIO of the
texture map, the same as the mapping RAtio, on sphere's and other round
simple things you'll have to use multiples of Pi for the horizontal portions
for complex objects you just change it in real time till it looks good.

just remember. DPI is a completely useless way to guage texture maps. just
look at the pixel resolutions when you make them, typically textures are
made in multiples of 8.. like 256x512, or 512x512. or 1024x1024.. . this
isn't a Requirment of any sort. but it's typically done because the graphic
cards handel it better for display in the viewports, and also if you do
realtime game stuff, it is actually required (adds overhead to the video
system if you don't do it)

--
********************
www.fabricatedvision.com

*************************

> > In addition to what Shu said, when you apply a mapping modifier make
> sure it
> > has the same aspect ratio as that of your bitmap to avoid
> unproportional
> > stretching (see mapping dimensions in the uwv-modifier's rollout).

> > Cheers
> > Micha
> > www.michaelscholz.de

> Ok, thanks for clearing some things up. Still wondering what to do if
> i'm gonna print
> some of my renders at 300dpi if I have used some 72 dpi jpg's in there..
> And about the aspect ratio, I just have to look and try to get it
> similar?
> There aren't any way i can find the excact dimensions?...Oh well, 1-0 to
> max over me...:(

> Thanks guys...:)

> Tom

by **gruh** » Wed, 04 Dec 2002 03:05:55

Quote:> some of my renders at 300dpi if I have used some 72 dpi jpg's in there..

If you are doing normal 3d rendering (there are pathological cases where the
following isn't necessarily "true") then throw out this idea of "dpi". No
matter what Apple and Adobe tell you, they don't exist and many before you
have run into difficulty when trying to make sense of a topic that makes no
sense. And many after you will also run into the same trouble.

There really are no "dpi". A bitmap is just a logical grid of colour values.
Each colour value has no physical size, takes up no space. Any measure
assigned to a bitmap is an arbitrary fiction. If enough entities agree to
play by the same fiction, then something handy can be done with coordinating
images for some final output.

Proof that there is no size? In Photoshop you can resize an image without
resampling and the dpi changes, the number of inches changes but the image
does not. The image stays the same, an ordered collection of color values.
The size is tacked on and utilized by arbitrary convention.

JPEGs are not 72dpi. They are no dpi. Once a very long time ago Apple
redefined the point to be 1/72 inch, produced a computer with 72 pixels per
inch on the monitor and a printer to go alongside with 72 pin impacts per
inch. I haven't worked on a computer with 72 pixels per inch on the screen
since 1987. Eventually JPEGs hit the scene and somebody [snob][moron][fool]
said "those are not suitable for print. They are only good enough for the
web". Since they felt the web was only displayed on screen and since they
"knew" that screens were 72dpi, they assigned 72dpi to JPEGs.

What matters to you is how many pixels an image is.

If you WANT to think "well, it's 300dpi and 5 inches so that's 1500 pixels"
all the time, then I guess you can. But all you are doing is wasting time
and doing arithmatic. The amount of information the image carries is "1500
pixels".

How will that display in your final image?
Will that texture be applied to the tiny moon up in the corner outside the
window of a rendering 1200 pixels across so the moon only takes 100 pixels?
If so, then your texture is too big. Will you later need to zoom in on the
moon and maybe decide to go to giant poster print? How big will that image
need to be?

Will that texture be applied to the face of a dog trying to* the camera
so up on the tip each little pore will be 5 pixels across?

300dpi? You are using better print that I am.

by **Andy Dremea** » Wed, 04 Dec 2002 03:32:31

not really "made up." for the print world, this number is incredibly
important, as they dont work in pixel dimensions (512x512), rather
real world sizes, that they are going to print on, like 12'x8' or
such. But in the end it converts back to the pixel dimensions. So say
you have a 8.5x11 printout, with either 100 dpi or 200 dpi, they will
be 850x1100 pixels and 1700x2200 pixels, respectively, but still the
same size. So the 200 dpi printout will look much nicer. Its still
actually very similar in 3dmax, because the size stays the same, in a
sense of the word (the size of the object you are mapping too, mapping
coords), but you cram more pixels into. But the DPI still doesnt
matter of course, its just how many pixels total you have.
-andy

>this is not something that you need to do.
>DPI is an entirly made up number, i can have a texture that is 512x512
>pixels, and define it as 100 dpi. or i can define it as 300 dpi.
>but no matter what you do. if you apply it as a texture in max it will look
>exactly the same, this is because mapping Gizmo does not know, or care what
>Dpi you use, the reason being that it simply wouldn't make sense for it to.
>Most materials have layers and layers of different bitmaps and proceduals,
>it would be a pain in the *to set the dpi for everything

>if you want an image to not look Pixelated/interpolated on an object, just
>make sure that pixel dimensions are reasonably high. there isn't any exact
>rule to follow

>--
>********************
>www.fabricatedvision.com

>*************************

>> One question for you guys/girls...

>> I'm a designer working mostly with print and web, but have been using
>> 3dsmax 5 for 3 weeks now.
>> I am wondering if there is a way to apply a bitmap "correctly" on to a
>> surface without stretching or interpolating the bitmap!?
>> Is there a way to find the excact size of a surface, so i can go into PS
>> and just make a 300 dpi bitmaptexture for it?
>> Is there a standard way of doing this?

>> thanks:)

>> Tom I.

by **shu** » Wed, 04 Dec 2002 05:32:42

I know what DPI is
it is a Made up number in the sense that you can arbituraly change the dpi
of any image , without changing the actual resolution of the image. it is
made up, in the sense that it is a value that is Defined, as opposed to
solved for,
ie. you'll say "i want this image to be 300 dpi. and the dimensions are so
and so. so it'll have this many pixels"
in this respect it's.. effectivly useless. or at the most, redundant to use
in terms of texturing.,

i don't argue it's use for measuring quality in actual print

--
********************
www.fabricatedvision.com

*************************

> not really "made up." for the print world, this number is incredibly
> important, as they dont work in pixel dimensions (512x512), rather
> real world sizes, that they are going to print on, like 12'x8' or
> such. But in the end it converts back to the pixel dimensions. So say
> you have a 8.5x11 printout, with either 100 dpi or 200 dpi, they will
> be 850x1100 pixels and 1700x2200 pixels, respectively, but still the
> same size. So the 200 dpi printout will look much nicer. Its still
> actually very similar in 3dmax, because the size stays the same, in a
> sense of the word (the size of the object you are mapping too, mapping
> coords), but you cram more pixels into. But the DPI still doesnt
> matter of course, its just how many pixels total you have.
> -andy

> >this is not something that you need to do.
> >DPI is an entirly made up number, i can have a texture that is 512x512
> >pixels, and define it as 100 dpi. or i can define it as 300 dpi.
> >but no matter what you do. if you apply it as a texture in max it will
look
> >exactly the same, this is because mapping Gizmo does not know, or care
what
> >Dpi you use, the reason being that it simply wouldn't make sense for it t
o.
> >Most materials have layers and layers of different bitmaps and
proceduals,
> >it would be a pain in the *to set the dpi for everything

> >if you want an image to not look Pixelated/interpolated on an object,
just
> >make sure that pixel dimensions are reasonably high. there isn't any
exact
> >rule to follow

> >--
> >********************
> >www.fabricatedvision.com

> >*************************

> >> One question for you guys/girls...

> >> I'm a designer working mostly with print and web, but have been using
> >> 3dsmax 5 for 3 weeks now.
> >> I am wondering if there is a way to apply a bitmap "correctly" on to a
> >> surface without stretching or interpolating the bitmap!?
> >> Is there a way to find the excact size of a surface, so i can go into
PS
> >> and just make a 300 dpi bitmaptexture for it?
> >> Is there a standard way of doing this?

> >> thanks:)

> >> Tom I.

by **Lee Hur** » Wed, 04 Dec 2002 11:14:57

Useless? If you have an object in your scene you're going to print that will
take 1 square inch of paper, and your printer needs 240 pixels per inch to
reach maximum quality, then you know you'll need a map that's 240x240, or
120x120 tiled twice. Not so difficult.

> I know what DPI is
> it is a Made up number in the sense that you can arbituraly change the dpi
> of any image , without changing the actual resolution of the image. it is
> made up, in the sense that it is a value that is Defined, as opposed to
> solved for,
> ie. you'll say "i want this image to be 300 dpi. and the dimensions are
so
> and so. so it'll have this many pixels"
> in this respect it's.. effectivly useless. or at the most, redundant to
use
> in terms of texturing.,

> i don't argue it's use for measuring quality in actual print

> --
> ********************
> www.fabricatedvision.com

> *************************

> > not really "made up." for the print world, this number is incredibly
> > important, as they dont work in pixel dimensions (512x512), rather
> > real world sizes, that they are going to print on, like 12'x8' or
> > such. But in the end it converts back to the pixel dimensions. So say
> > you have a 8.5x11 printout, with either 100 dpi or 200 dpi, they will
> > be 850x1100 pixels and 1700x2200 pixels, respectively, but still the
> > same size. So the 200 dpi printout will look much nicer. Its still
> > actually very similar in 3dmax, because the size stays the same, in a
> > sense of the word (the size of the object you are mapping too, mapping
> > coords), but you cram more pixels into. But the DPI still doesnt
> > matter of course, its just how many pixels total you have.
> > -andy

> > >this is not something that you need to do.
> > >DPI is an entirly made up number, i can have a texture that is 512x512
> > >pixels, and define it as 100 dpi. or i can define it as 300 dpi.
> > >but no matter what you do. if you apply it as a texture in max it will
> look
> > >exactly the same, this is because mapping Gizmo does not know, or care
> what
> > >Dpi you use, the reason being that it simply wouldn't make sense for it
t
> o.
> > >Most materials have layers and layers of different bitmaps and
> proceduals,
> > >it would be a pain in the *to set the dpi for everything

> > >if you want an image to not look Pixelated/interpolated on an object,
> just
> > >make sure that pixel dimensions are reasonably high. there isn't any
> exact
> > >rule to follow

> > >--
> > >********************
> > >www.fabricatedvision.com

> > >*************************

> > >> One question for you guys/girls...

> > >> I'm a designer working mostly with print and web, but have been using
> > >> 3dsmax 5 for 3 weeks now.
> > >> I am wondering if there is a way to apply a bitmap "correctly" on to
a
> > >> surface without stretching or interpolating the bitmap!?
> > >> Is there a way to find the excact size of a surface, so i can go into
> PS
> > >> and just make a 300 dpi bitmaptexture for it?
> > >> Is there a standard way of doing this?

> > >> thanks:)

> > >> Tom I.

by **shu** » Wed, 04 Dec 2002 11:58:25

read exactly what i said
it;s Effectivly useless, OR at the most REDUDANT
your example only works with flat planer mapping coordinates, . most of us
don't render just cubes and things.

in your example it's just redudant, because first you have to calculate the
resolution you're going to render at to get a spefic DPI, then you have to
figure out how many inches your object would take up at that resolution, .
why bother using inches when you can just measure the pixel width just as
easily?
hell why bother doing any of that when i'ts very easy to just Learn how to
Guess at a good resolution for the texture?
if you get an exact figure like you said. who's to say some parts of it will
be more compressed while other parts will be streched?, you would have to
make the texture slightly larger to be sure it doesn't strech

what if the object isn't perfectly flat. but instead.. a sphere , or some
bizaare shape with non planer mapping coordinates?. then your whole idea
just doesn't work. a texture wrapped around a sphere only shows one side,,
and the texture will be displayed such that it's streched in the middle of
the sphere, and compressed along the edges. You could work out a formulae
for calculating the exact dpi to use for a texture like that , but ffs
why??, and then what if you decided you don't like it. but you want to zoom
in tighter on the sphere,, now you ahve to redo all your textures because
they aren't high enough.

it's just a bad big waste of time to be anally measuring out DPI for
textures, just learn to "reasonably" overkill the size a bit
--
********************
www.fabricatedvision.com

*************************

> Useless? If you have an object in your scene you're going to print that
will
> take 1 square inch of paper, and your printer needs 240 pixels per inch to
> reach maximum quality, then you know you'll need a map that's 240x240, or
> 120x120 tiled twice. Not so difficult.

> > I know what DPI is
> > it is a Made up number in the sense that you can arbituraly change the
dpi
> > of any image , without changing the actual resolution of the image. it
is
> > made up, in the sense that it is a value that is Defined, as opposed to
> > solved for,
> > ie. you'll say "i want this image to be 300 dpi. and the dimensions
are
> so
> > and so. so it'll have this many pixels"
> > in this respect it's.. effectivly useless. or at the most, redundant to
> use
> > in terms of texturing.,

> > i don't argue it's use for measuring quality in actual print

> > --
> > ********************
> > www.fabricatedvision.com

> > *************************

> > > not really "made up." for the print world, this number is incredibly
> > > important, as they dont work in pixel dimensions (512x512), rather
> > > real world sizes, that they are going to print on, like 12'x8' or
> > > such. But in the end it converts back to the pixel dimensions. So say
> > > you have a 8.5x11 printout, with either 100 dpi or 200 dpi, they will
> > > be 850x1100 pixels and 1700x2200 pixels, respectively, but still the
> > > same size. So the 200 dpi printout will look much nicer. Its still
> > > actually very similar in 3dmax, because the size stays the same, in a
> > > sense of the word (the size of the object you are mapping too, mapping
> > > coords), but you cram more pixels into. But the DPI still doesnt
> > > matter of course, its just how many pixels total you have.
> > > -andy

> > > >this is not something that you need to do.
> > > >DPI is an entirly made up number, i can have a texture that is
512x512
> > > >pixels, and define it as 100 dpi. or i can define it as 300 dpi.
> > > >but no matter what you do. if you apply it as a texture in max it
will
> > look
> > > >exactly the same, this is because mapping Gizmo does not know, or
care
> > what
> > > >Dpi you use, the reason being that it simply wouldn't make sense for
it
> t
> > o.
> > > >Most materials have layers and layers of different bitmaps and
> > proceduals,
> > > >it would be a pain in the *to set the dpi for everything

> > > >if you want an image to not look Pixelated/interpolated on an object,
> > just
> > > >make sure that pixel dimensions are reasonably high. there isn't any
> > exact
> > > >rule to follow

> > > >--
> > > >********************
> > > >www.fabricatedvision.com

> > > >*************************

> > > >> One question for you guys/girls...

> > > >> I'm a designer working mostly with print and web, but have been
using
> > > >> 3dsmax 5 for 3 weeks now.
> > > >> I am wondering if there is a way to apply a bitmap "correctly" on
to
> a
> > > >> surface without stretching or interpolating the bitmap!?
> > > >> Is there a way to find the excact size of a surface, so i can go
into
> > PS
> > > >> and just make a 300 dpi bitmaptexture for it?
> > > >> Is there a standard way of doing this?

> > > >> thanks:)

> > > >> Tom I.

by **gruh** » Wed, 04 Dec 2002 12:23:33

Quote:> Useless?

"Effectively useless," yes.

Quote:> If you have an object in your scene you're going to print that will
> take 1 square inch of paper, and your printer needs 240 pixels per inch to
> reach maximum quality, then you know you'll need a map that's 240x240, or
> 120x120 tiled twice. Not so difficult.

Not for you it isn't, no. Enjoy your work, make many pretty pictures.

by **Conny Klasso** » Wed, 04 Dec 2002 22:51:10

You just have to know how many pixels your
texture will cover in the final rendering to know
how large (in pixels) the texture map must be.
No need for dpi calculation.

Conny