END OF AN ERA, FRACTALFORUMS.COM IS CONTINUED ON FRACTALFORUMS.ORG

Greetings and salutations to the new fractal forums collective. We were encountering difficulties making large pictures with this Mandelbulb3d Program,until several Fractal Forums masters in Architectural fractology stepped forward to advise and  guide us for which we are grateful,in particular Master Lenord's recommendations on how to achieve a 4 by 8 foot image is to make sure we set the aspect scale ratio to [ 1.1 ]. Prior to their advice,WHEN WE INPUTTED a large size ,to produce lets say a 4x8 foot image into the image width and height fields for the purpose of saving it as jpeg, we were getting the wrong size,not the one we inputted because we were using another ratio other than [ 1.1 ] Now thanks to them we are justifiably happy and producing 4x8's and 4x16's with delirious ease! One printer we recommend for large works is DUGGl VISUAL SOLUTIONS 1212 242-7000

For one I wouldn't save Finals as Jpeg, a highly lossy format, I'd save in BMP or personally I use Png, then convert to Jpeg for posting on the web only. You set the size of the Render and it Renders at that size but when you save it it depends on what scale you have selected. 1:1, 1:2 or 1:3 when saving it. I'm running only 2gigs of Ram and generally Render at a 2:1 aspect Ratio of 4000x2000(done a couple at 6kX3k) using SSAOr shadows and never run out of memory but always remember to save at 1:1 unless you want it resized for the antialias factor, I always do anti aliasing in postwork.

I won't go quite to the extent that Dave does, but anything with less than 300 dpi will show definite pixelation with a good printer. 72 dpi, imho, is a totally unacceptably low.

Exactly why I said "Why" save finals in Jpeg to start with you can't select a DPI value in MB3D as far as I know. I took the question to be more in reference to Render size and the actual size of saved Image which would point to the Scale setting.

Ok, I need to jump in here. Many folks do not understand image size, resolution, and document (print) size. So here goes.

     An image's size is expressed in terms of the number of pixels (eg. 2000x3000 pixels, or in this case, 6 Megapixels).

     The resolution of an image is a declaration of the size of a pixel (eg. a resolution of 200 ppi means a pixel is 1/200 of an inch on a side).

     Using the numbers cited above, a 2000x3000 pix. image size printed at 200 pixel/inch would yield a print 10" x 15" in size.

The choice of the pixel size is driven by the circumstances under which you "read" an image. In my classes (I've taught photography for about 20 yrs now), I offer the guideline that for an print that is to be viewed critically (8-10", close reading distance), a pixel size (image resolution) of 200 ppi is a good choice. If you are making prints for a billboard, your pixel can be much larger since the viewing distance is much greater. Another complication that can drive the size of a pixel is the quality of the image printer. Low dpi and poor dithering patterns can force one to use a smaller pixel/finer resolution (eg. 1/300 " or 300 ppi).

For the record, my normal render is 8000x8000 pixels.

DPI/PPI - Pixel Converter>http://www.hdri.at/dpirechner/dpirechner_en.htm
8000x8000 pix?
I think rendering-resolution/screen-resolution/video is USUALLY 72 dpi> 2.82x2.82 meters
300 dpi>67.73x67.73 cm.

There is no sense to use anti-aliasing for printed images, because there is always used some halftoning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halftone

In North America I have used Costco print services, they print up to 24"x36" images at a very reasonable price.
They also restrict the size of submitted images to 7500 x 5000 and 8MB, hence to fall within their guidelines I sometimes
have to reduce the DPI's in PS. They also tell me that none of their commercial printers can output images greater that 300 DPI.

FYI: printer ink costs about $9000.00/gallon, it only makes sense to use a commercial print service, versus buying those tiny cartridges for you home printer.