Prophet_Lord: sorry, 10x10" 300dpi is the smallest I work in. I'm practicing some new things and I couldn't think of a better way then doing some Prequel art. fur is hard.
And, well, 3000x3000 is hard to deal with on a normal size monitor, but it's not any much bigger than a typical digital photo these days, and means you can print it smoothly if you should so wish :)
Prophet_Lord: @Adroma I've got some great news for you. This is the full size file uploaded here and you are fully able to print this out and hang it in your home as many times as you like.
Tahrey: The problem is that large computer screen pixel sizes don't automatically translate to large, detailed prints. Or indeed to still looking large and clear on the 4K screens that even some tablets and laptops now sport, in fact... (this would still run off the bottom of one in landscape mode, but not fill to the horizontal borders...)
The minimum that you should really aim for in print is about 180dpi (which also tends to be the breakpoint between 9 and 24 pin dot matrix printers, which is why you could never really get satisfactory output from the former). Certainly below 150 it gets noticeably blocky or blurry (especially in that rather obvious blurred-pixel way) when you get up close to it. On the other hand there's little point going much beyond 300-360, but it's always possible to downscale and drop some detail that no-one will see anyway; upscaling is much more of a problem.
However, 3000 pixels at 180dpi is still 16.7 inches (42cm) on a side, or squared-off A2 size, and the largest home/small office printers tend to top out at about 11 inches width and maybe 17 inches length capacity (for A3 printing, and whatever the equivalent US upsize from Letter/Legal is), so you could likely get away with cropping this a little and printing it within those borders. Maybe at 200dpi instead, for 15x15 equivalent full size, and less cropping to fit on the page.
Prophet_Lord: I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at in relation to my piece here. But thanks for informing others I guess?
If you're having trouble viewing this due to it's size, there is the [Fit Both] option on the side menu under Image Controls.
This is at 300dpi. Perfectly suitable for a 10x10in (25.4x25.4cm) print. You could probably print even bigger than that, but that's going above the intended size, so quality will decrease. You'd need to go and use a professional level printer (which, I mean, 11x17in prints at office max are only like $1-2 I think). You'd have to trim the paper obviously.
I did this for fun and as style practice. This was never intended to be a poster or a wallpaper, I was simply stating that you could use it as such if you were so inclined.
If you'd like a different size (taller/wider/larger), you can always hire me. Until then, please enjoy this free piece of artwork I have provided for you.
Tahrey: I dunno, I was suffering from a fairly bad respiratory infection at the time and it made my brain no worky correctness.
Think I was trying to talk through both sides of the argument to show they each had valid points and that it's more a matter of opinion than anything, to try and squash any potential further squabbling?
3k on a side is big even for a 4k screen (as they're 16:9 not 5:4), but everything we really need to see is well within the action-safe area so it can be cropped down happily and should still look alright scaled up, and certainly scaled down to any arbitrary sub-4k resolution (as the step size will be large enough to prevent any dramatic aliasing effects). Could even trim it to portrait aspect, possibly.
But at the same time, it's about the minimum that you could get away with for large-scale printing, IE bigger than a typical piece of desktop printer paper (which is usually 8 to 8.5 inches wide). Even for A4 or Letter you don't want anything less than 2mpx (1600x1200 or 1920x1080) else it'll look obviously blocky or blurred at normal viewing distance. As the sizes go up, so do the necessary resolutions, though it's not necessarily linear as the larger an image the further away you tend to view it from.
And yeah, there's the scaling button, but that's not immediately obvious, especially if you're not looking for it, and it doesn't default to "fit both", but "no scaling" instead. Personally I just leave it as the latter and drag the picture to the address bar anyway, as that gives a large-as-possible view divorced of all the other screen clutter (especially if fullscreened), and it's still got to download the same amount of data and take up the same amount of space in memory either way.
The latter points being maybe more important, and why it may be better to upload a more normal-sized pic to the booru but link it to a full size version somewhere else (e.g. Imgur). Not only does it save bandwidth for Kaz's server, but it makes life much easier for anyone browsing from lower end hardware (old laptop, cheaper smartphone or tablet) or using a low-speed or monthly bandwidth capped connection.
Tahrey: But yeah, anyway, not really a complaint, more an idle technical comment ;)
And I'd at one time have been quite interested to find somewhere I could do 11x17 (or more pertinently A3) size prints for that price, except I can now do them effectively for free at work, and even if I was paying for them it'd be considerably less. The finish might not be quite as good, but if the idea is to hang it up then it can either be laminated or put in a cheap glass poster-frame...
(And then there's the "A0" (34-inch) inkjet plotter in the library that will spit out something four times the size for about £8 ... which may seem a lot but when you consider how many normal sheet would have to be collaged together to produce the same result, is well worth it. You do have to submit an image of entirely ludicrous resolution for it to look any good though, and most particularly for any text to be readable; 150dpi is about 7000x5000...)
Describe This Image As Dramatically As Possible
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
...oh right, just took off the invisibility hood.
And, well, 3000x3000 is hard to deal with on a normal size monitor, but it's not any much bigger than a typical digital photo these days, and means you can print it smoothly if you should so wish :)
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
The minimum that you should really aim for in print is about 180dpi (which also tends to be the breakpoint between 9 and 24 pin dot matrix printers, which is why you could never really get satisfactory output from the former). Certainly below 150 it gets noticeably blocky or blurry (especially in that rather obvious blurred-pixel way) when you get up close to it. On the other hand there's little point going much beyond 300-360, but it's always possible to downscale and drop some detail that no-one will see anyway; upscaling is much more of a problem.
However, 3000 pixels at 180dpi is still 16.7 inches (42cm) on a side, or squared-off A2 size, and the largest home/small office printers tend to top out at about 11 inches width and maybe 17 inches length capacity (for A3 printing, and whatever the equivalent US upsize from Letter/Legal is), so you could likely get away with cropping this a little and printing it within those borders. Maybe at 200dpi instead, for 15x15 equivalent full size, and less cropping to fit on the page.
- Reply
If you're having trouble viewing this due to it's size, there is the [Fit Both] option on the side menu under Image Controls.
This is at 300dpi. Perfectly suitable for a 10x10in (25.4x25.4cm) print. You could probably print even bigger than that, but that's going above the intended size, so quality will decrease. You'd need to go and use a professional level printer (which, I mean, 11x17in prints at office max are only like $1-2 I think). You'd have to trim the paper obviously.
I did this for fun and as style practice. This was never intended to be a poster or a wallpaper, I was simply stating that you could use it as such if you were so inclined.
If you'd like a different size (taller/wider/larger), you can always hire me. Until then, please enjoy this free piece of artwork I have provided for you.
- Reply
Think I was trying to talk through both sides of the argument to show they each had valid points and that it's more a matter of opinion than anything, to try and squash any potential further squabbling?
3k on a side is big even for a 4k screen (as they're 16:9 not 5:4), but everything we really need to see is well within the action-safe area so it can be cropped down happily and should still look alright scaled up, and certainly scaled down to any arbitrary sub-4k resolution (as the step size will be large enough to prevent any dramatic aliasing effects). Could even trim it to portrait aspect, possibly.
But at the same time, it's about the minimum that you could get away with for large-scale printing, IE bigger than a typical piece of desktop printer paper (which is usually 8 to 8.5 inches wide). Even for A4 or Letter you don't want anything less than 2mpx (1600x1200 or 1920x1080) else it'll look obviously blocky or blurred at normal viewing distance. As the sizes go up, so do the necessary resolutions, though it's not necessarily linear as the larger an image the further away you tend to view it from.
And yeah, there's the scaling button, but that's not immediately obvious, especially if you're not looking for it, and it doesn't default to "fit both", but "no scaling" instead. Personally I just leave it as the latter and drag the picture to the address bar anyway, as that gives a large-as-possible view divorced of all the other screen clutter (especially if fullscreened), and it's still got to download the same amount of data and take up the same amount of space in memory either way.
The latter points being maybe more important, and why it may be better to upload a more normal-sized pic to the booru but link it to a full size version somewhere else (e.g. Imgur). Not only does it save bandwidth for Kaz's server, but it makes life much easier for anyone browsing from lower end hardware (old laptop, cheaper smartphone or tablet) or using a low-speed or monthly bandwidth capped connection.
- Reply
And I'd at one time have been quite interested to find somewhere I could do 11x17 (or more pertinently A3) size prints for that price, except I can now do them effectively for free at work, and even if I was paying for them it'd be considerably less. The finish might not be quite as good, but if the idea is to hang it up then it can either be laminated or put in a cheap glass poster-frame...
(And then there's the "A0" (34-inch) inkjet plotter in the library that will spit out something four times the size for about £8 ... which may seem a lot but when you consider how many normal sheet would have to be collaged together to produce the same result, is well worth it. You do have to submit an image of entirely ludicrous resolution for it to look any good though, and most particularly for any text to be readable; 150dpi is about 7000x5000...)