At which aspect ratio and size do you usually render?
XoechZ
Posts: 1,102
For a long time now I always used the 4:5 format. I think this is a good size for portrait and one person images. But now I wanted to try something new and used the 16:9 format. Why? Because we are already used to look at 16:9 images. All movies are in that format and 16:9 monitors for computers are also standard.
But I am not really happy with it. When setting up scenes in 16:9 I always feel that there is too little space in height, but too much space in width :-)
What is your favourite image format when you are rendering?
But also, what is your preferred render size? Do you always render in the final size? Or do you render bigger and reduce the size (or crop) in postwork? Rendering bigger means more details, but reducing size afterwards is l loss of quality again.
What I want to develop is a kind of standard format and size for my renders to get something like a unified look and appearance in the gallery.
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Good question. Lately I've just been rendering in whatever size I feel like (which lately has been the 1920x1080 region as it's my monitor resolution). I'm looking to start rendering and working in higher resolutions though as I get more serious in my learning process, and so I can possibly start getting things printed at a good quality.
Thanks for the answer!
1920x1080 is alsy my monitor resolution. And this is Full HD 16:9 :-)
I am not going to print my images, I just want to publish them on some online galleries. But I do a lot of postwork.
I find 16 x 9 ratio is good especially for my landscape type images such as this one http://www.daz3d.com/gallery/#images/1152 but I don't stick to the one aspect. I sometimes use a portrait type format for landscapes, I don't worry about consistency, I use what ever feels right for the image I am doing at the time. Sometimes I will even start at one aspect ratio and change it part way through.
I think you will find that trying to always work to the same ratio will tie you down to much. You need to look at the scene and see which way it looks best.
Greetings,
+1 to adjusting your aspect ratio to fit the image and the feel of what you're producing. I also typically double the resolution (in each dimension, obviously) of what I want the final image to be in. I find it aids post work, and makes for a sharper end-result. It does mean my renders take forever though... :)
-- Morgan
I've been using the 16x9 ratio for a long while now in portrait or landscape orientation. However in my latest renders I used the 10x13 ratio. That gives me more room for movement. 10x13 is also DAZ's promo picture ratio.
Well, here's my two-cents' worth (although I'm not sure it's worth that much):
I keep DAZ Studio's render size/aspect at 4:3, and 800 x 600 pixels - mostly because it's a frame size and aspect ratio I'm accustomed to working within. (I do application and web-site development, and it's a good, generic, target for older displays - which we have to take into account - and that mindset tends to carry over into other areas.) And I usually don't even think about changing it when I do the final render, because it just never occurs to me! And I'm inordinately lazy when it comes to things like that! (If I don't have to touch the keyboard to change something, I won't.)
For Poser, I just render the document window, whatever the frame size and aspect ratio happens to be at the time. Occasionally (when I think about it), I'll set the image size to 800 x 600, just for the sake of consistency.
I used to use 4:3 ratio but for the last couple years I have almost always designed and rendered in 16:9 ratio. Document size is almost always 1920x1080. If I publish an image to the web I usually reduce the original and publish at 1280x720 keeping my higher resolution image private so that if necessary I can prove it's mine.
I almost never produce a paper print. All my work is for use on the Internet. I almost never do portraits. Most of my work is scenes that illustrate a story.
I tend to favor 3:2 which is photographic. I may try some 16:9 widescreen when my new monitor arrives though.
I mainly use 17:22 for my portraits, with a size of 576x745. It's similar in size to how big pics on here had to be on the old forums, I could go bigger if I wanted to, but for general posting on here I don't see a need.
CHEERS!
I'm a bit "strange" ... for some reason I started out using a square frame, and so I ended up most comfortable with that. You'll see may of the images in my 3D Artwork page are square. I'm not really sure why. :smirk:
Lately, I've tried to move more "mainstream". Since my Architect image I'm working on requires a panoramic view, I'm trying a 16:9 widescreen view. :coolsmile:
I prefer 16:10, usually at 3200 x 2000 pixels.
With my current system that would be overkill and might melt something important! Maybe with my new system.......
CHEERS!
I use 800 x 600 because my desktop is set to 1024 x 768. A render output set to 16:9 aspect ratio takes a long time to render on a single core CPU. :(
My render sizes and aspect ratios vary depending on the intended use of the image. There's no one "right" aspect ration or size, any more than there's one "right" character morph, prop, or vendor.
(Today I had to do a couple of 1:1 91×91 images for my Runtime, but that's what you have to do with some of the older freebies. I also did a 16:9 1200×675 render which I'll post as soon as I find the thread again...)
LOL! That's what I should have done when I had my single core!
CHEERS!
...I tend to use three different sizes based on the scene
"ISO Paper Portrait" 800 x 1,131 when I want to highlight just a single character
"Square" 900 x 900 minimum to 1,200 x 1,200 maximum for small close in scenes
"Display Standard/Cine 35mm" for wider scenes minimum 1,200 x 900 up to 1,600 x 1,200.
Test renders to check lighting, shadows, and composition are always done at a smaller size to save time.
Hmm, I should try rendering a scene at 1024 x 768 or larger just to see what details I am missing. Thanks for the tip.
The aspect ratio is generally the last thing I consider. I have my scene in my mind's eye.... sort of. Then when building it, I look for what would be a good crop and set the aspect ratio to that. As for size. Most of the time I start out with maybe 800 on the large side and then when I'm happy with my layout and in particular lighting, set it higher, often times to 1080 on the short side or 1600 or so on the long side. I will set the aspect ratio first, if I know the rendered image needs to fit a particular space, such as promo images for the store.
Mostly, I render at 1440x1080, a 4:3 ratio, although I'm not sure why, given today's screens. I think it looks better on the web. 16:9 really does limit the vertical pixels. That's the chief problem with that format. My current monitors are set at 1680x1050, which is 16:10.
If I'm going to do postwork, (mostly limited to layering), then I sometimes render larger, but at the same ratio. I render to png format for layering, then save the final as jpeg.
After experimenting a bit, I generally use either 4000 X 5000 or 8000 X 5000, depending on the requirements of the scene and how many characters are in it.
In the early days, I did a few renders with a width of 9600. Predictably, the renders took a geological age to complete and I also had problems with crashes.
I in 1920 x 1080 ...
here a discussion ... Not quite the theme ... But passing by:
http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?message_id=4128428&ebot;_calc_page#message_4128428
I might give those a go with the new system. I don't want to tax this one now as it has to last till the other is built.
CHEERS!
For me it is one of the first things when building a scene. Because then I do not have to care about anything that is outside the camera frame and that can save a lot of time :-)
Btw, thanks for all your infos!