Stager and Print = 300dpi or Higher... Web/Digital = 72dpi : What's the Deal Adobe?

[EmmaBonJovi]

This seems to be a pretty straightforward and very important discussion! -- maybe Adobe team can just respond for everyone's benefit? 🙂

Rendering at a higher resolution (300dpi+) - for print
Rendering at whatever resolution (72min, looks good) - for web/digital

Unlike Dimension, there is no "resolution" selection(s). You can select Full/1-2/1-4 under "Resolution".
A standard magazine full-page ad at 8.5x11.

Stager Resolution (setup)- Full and let's go with High/Ultra Presets.

In a different post, somone said - Oh, yeah it comes out at 72dpi. "Just open it in Photoshop" change the Image size settings to 300dpi."  It's fine.   Huh?

Anytime you blow up an image at 72dpi to 300dpi (example), you will always lose quality, starting from 72dpi...

Can Adobe explain?  Does DPI no longer matter? Is Stager rendering at a massive DPI and when you open it and change it to 300, the 72dpi doesn't matter, it's actually not 72dpi? Maybe someone can explain a potentially entirely new approach to web vs. print resolutions?

Thanks Everyone!

-Em-

[DavidLloydImageworks]

Hi Emma,

I understand your confusion with the suggestion to change the image size in photoshop. I think that most of us that have had the 72ppi for screen and 300ppi for print drilled into us and miss that resolution is a little abstract in the sense that what we are really looking at is ppi or pixels per inch.

What is at issue is that the image that Stager creates is 72ppi, but that is arbitrary in the sense that what you are really doing in Stager is creating a pixel dimension. For example in the properties you might set the pixel dimensions to 4,096px x 2,736px. And yes, this render will come out at those dimensions at 72ppi.

What this means is that when you open it up in photoshop what you have is an image that measures 56.889in x 38in at 72ppi. Clearly this is not what any of us want for a print piece.

When you change the resolution to 300ppi in photoshop, you do not want to "blow it up". Meaning DO NOT select the option to Resample. If you "Resample", then you change the actual pixel dimensions and not the resolution.

As you can see here, changing the resolution from 72 to 300ppi really changes the document dimensions from 56.889in x 38in at 72ppi to 13.653in x 9.12in at 300ppi WITHOUT changing the actual pixel dimensions of  4,096 px x 2,736px, therefor no loss in quality because you are not actually changing the pixels at all. Just the reference information on the resolution of the file.

All that said, I do agree that this is a common misunderstanding of how resolution works and that Adobe could easily provide a resolution setting so that it is easier to accurately create pixel dimensions for print files than memorizing that an 8.5 x 11 at 300dpi is a pixel dimension of 2550px x 3300px. Becasue I am nuerodivergent and math impared, what I do is take the dimensions that I want to print my render at and create a blank document in Photoshop at those inches at 300dpi. Then I take the pixel dimensions and use that for defining my output size in px in teh properties in Stager.

  

 

[DavidLloydImageworks]

BTW. I added the feature request for a resolution setting. Please go here and upvote this so that Adobe sees it 🙂

https://community.adobe.com/t5/substance-3d-stager-ideas/please-add-the-resolution-settings-from-ado...

[Sergej DAGDA]

And now Dimension also dont have Resolution settings anymore. Sad.

[AlanGilbertson]

@Sergej DAGDA  "Resolution," in the sense you're using it, is essentially meaningless. Read @DavidLloydImageworks post above carefully to get some understanding. The only meaningful numbers from a render are the pixel dimensions (W x H), and you can make those anything you want in Dimension or Stager by changing the W and H values of each camera.

[Sergej DAGDA]

I am a car wrap designer with six years of experience, so I have "some understanding", thank you. And no, resolution in the context I’m referring to is very important. At the very least, to get a file suitable for printing, I would have to inflate the file size by at least 2.5 times, increasing rendering time.

Considering that I need files of at least 5000 pixels on the long side with a resolution of no less than 240 dpi, using dimension can be completely ruled out. Essentially, this change kills the interest of professionals in the printing industry and limits usage to those who create images for the web—something that any MidJourney-like tool can easily handle. A very unnecessary change, given that this function was already available.

[AlanGilbertson]

I think there's some kind of cross-communication here, because I can't make out what problem you feel you're running into. "Dimension" (of objects) has nothing to do with output resolution in Stager, or any other non-CAD 3D application, just as dimensions in Illustrator have nothing to do with output resolution. Raster content placed on a model, which includes most materials and all decals, does depend on the material resolution, which should be as high as you need but no higher.

But you don't have to do anything other than change the resolution (W x H) of the camera to get whatever output resolution you need. Of course the render time will increase if you have a huge frame; any 3D or video render requires more processing time as the output size increases. That's just how rendering works.

A camera of 5k pixels on the long side is simple to render from Stager. You can set the ppi to anything you want after the render is complete. The image will still be 5k pixels wide, no matter what ppi number is in the metadata, so if you need 240 ppi you can just set it to 240 ppi.

You can also override the camera dimensions in the Render tab. Turn on "Override camera size" in the Export Settings panel and type in whatever you need. Just think in absolute pixel numbers. Ignore "resolution" in ppi, because that's just metadata you can change anytime you need to.

[Sergej DAGDA]

Setting the PPI after generating an image just to make it 240 is complete nonsense. PPI stands for Pixels Per Inch, meaning how many pixels fit into one inch of the image. For example, a 5000-pixel-wide image at 72 PPI results in 69.44 inches, whereas the same 5000-pixel image at 240 PPI is only 20.833 inches. Naturally, 240 PPI means more data per inch, leading to higher detail and sharpness, which translates to better quality when printing—something professionals require. Simply changing the setting from 72 to 240 after rendering does not increase the actual data; it only provides misleading information about the file. The only thing this achieves is deceiving the person handling the print process.

There’s a reason why professionals shoot in RAW instead of JPG and record video in LOG instead of a baked-in profile. The same principle applies here: both I and other professionals need actual, not artificial, data in our images.

At the same time, the physical size of an image—whether 5000 or 10,000 pixels on the long side—has a much smaller impact on its detail and quality than the PPI value. And this factor has a huge impact on post-processing. Adjusting contrast and color at 72 PPI is vastly different from doing the same at 240 PPI—the range of possibilities is simply incomparable, just like with photography.

"Resolution" in PPI, not just metadata, is a crucial measurement actively used in professional printing, significantly affecting the final image quality. Unfortunately, at the moment, dimension feels more like a tool for generating pretty blog images rather than a real application for professionals.

[JMathews]

The post is about a workaround because Dimension and Stager no longer have the resolution PPI settings in the UX.  You can do the calculation manually and just set the pixels you need.

IE: If you want 10" x 10" @ 240 DPI set the pixel size of the render to 2400 x 2400 pixels.

When you import the render to Photoshop it may default to 72 DPI which would be a 33.3" x 33.3" document.

But if you change the DPI to 240 it will use the same pixel data and just adjust the size down to 10" x 10".

[Sergej DAGDA]

So instead of a simple, clear, and widely used professional feature that was already in the program and worked perfectly, you’re suggesting we now have to do manual calculations?

Let’s say we’re talking about vehicle wraps, where we need a file that corresponds to 1500mm x 5000mm with a minimum required print resolution of 150 DPI. That now means generating a 29,528 × 8,858 px file. And if we need full 300 DPI print resolution, that jumps to 59,055 × 17,717 px. I’d love to know how that’s supposed to work with Adobe’s file size limitations (hello 30,000 px cap for JPGs).

Instead of keeping physical dimensions reasonable and controlling detail through pixel density, we’re now forced to inflate file resolution and just hope the whole system doesn’t break. Not exactly nostalgic for the days when Illustrator’s workspace was physically limited, and anything exceeding it could cost me hours of work.

Given these limitations, I’ll be exploring alternatives like Cinema 4D or Blender, which still allow precise physical dimension control for high-resolution renders.

[DavidLloydImageworks]

Major misunderstandings about what the resolution setting did in Dimensions aside: Dimensions never was able to created the size of file you are looking for. The "resolution setting" removal did nothing to change the output. Dimensions is not the program you are looking for. If you are looking for a 5000mm dimension file that will need to be 150 or 300ppi, you need another application. Either one that will render at that size, or an application like Topaz Gigapixel that will uprez to that size.

Dimensions is only being lightly updated at this point. Adobe moved all resources to Adobe Stager for future development for this when they bought Substance.

[AlanGilbertson]

@Sergej DAGDA This is a very common misunderstanding, so you're not alone. I've answered many questions and even published articles on this subject, because so many people are misled.

Misinformation to the contrary, there is no difference at all in adjusting contrast and color (or any other post-processing) of an image at 5 PPI, 500 PPI, or 5000 PPI, if the image itself doesn't change. You can test this easily:

• Open any image in Photoshop and view it at full size on screen.
• Open the Resize Image dialog (Image > Image Size...), uncheck "Resample" and change the PPI value to 10.
• Click OK. View the image at full size. Notice that it has not changed.
• Use Resize Image again, and change the PPI value to 1000, keeping "Resample" unchecked.
• View the image at full size. Notice that it has not changed. 

It is now obvious that changing the PPI value does not change the image unless you resample it up or down.

PPI has meaning only for print output. In all other respects, it's just a number. The number of pixels is the only thing that determines the level of detail in a raster image. The amount of detail visible in the final output depends on three things: how many pixels are in the image (which determines how much detail the image contains), the size of the output (which determines pixels-per-inch), and the viewing distance (which determines how many pixels-per-inch you need). For a poster, typical ppi is 150; for a billboard, 15 ppi; for a gallery print, 600 ppi.

Decide what ppi you need based on viewing distance, then do the math to determine how many pixels you need in total. This is what all grande format designers do, whether we're doing subway posters or vehicle wraps or billboards. Render your Stager or Dimension or Illustrator document at that number of pixels.

It doesn't matter what ppi figure is in the metadata. If you need it to be something different, change it in Photoshop during post-processing. Just don't resample the image.

[Sergej DAGDA]

This is a common misconception, and I appreciate the discussion. However, with 25 years in professional photography and 6 years in large-format print design, I’m well aware of how PPI impacts quality.

I understand that not everyone relies on this feature, but many professionals—including myself and my colleagues—do. The function was there for a reason, and its removal adds unnecessary complexity to an established workflow.

In professional printing, PPI is crucial. Printing the same image at 72 vs. 240 PPI produces a clear difference in sharpness and detail, just like a RAW file retains more flexibility than a compressed JPG.

More data in the file = more control in post-processing and better print quality. That’s not an opinion—it’s just a fact.

My concern is not about debating theory but about practical workflow efficiency. Reintroducing this feature would benefit professionals who need precise control over their output, rather than forcing workarounds for something that was already solved.

[JMathews]

I will say I'm the product manager for Dimension, Stager, and Substance 3D Viewer.  The way that the DPI/PPI setting worked in Dimension and Stager is the way I described it and that Alan described it.

If you had a Dimension document of 1000 pixels @ 72 DPI you would get a Photoshop document of 1000 pixels @ 13.8 inches.

If you had a Dimension document of 1000 pixels @ 300 DPI you would get a Photoshop document of 1000 pixels @ 3.3 inches.

Unless you're opening it in some different way, that's just the way the feature was built in Dimension/Stager.  It did not affect the number of pixels, it changed the interpretation of those pixels (density per inch/unit) within Photoshop and other apps. 

I acknowledge that the missing feature is tedious and requires manual input.  We'll see if we can rectify that with our new programs and bring it back!

[Sergej DAGDA]

In the context of professional printing, 3.3 inches is smaller than a modern phone screen (iphone 7 screen with 4.7 inches was small but still bigger then your example). As I already mentioned, this means that for any large-format printing task, Dimension—like any software that lacks the ability to set export size and resolution—is simply unusable. So essentially, Adobe is developing a product that is only suitable for web use.

It would be great if you could not only bring back the feature but also reconsider the needs of professionals working in 3D graphics and print design.

The suggestion made earlier in this thread to "try other programs" doesn’t exactly align with Adobe’s business interests, especially since the Adobe product lineup does not offer viable alternatives.

[AlanGilbertson]

I use Dimension and Stager for grande format print output, so that's just incorrect. The statement "lacks the ability to set export size and resolution" is similarly incorrect, as I already pointed out and showed you where in the UI you can adjust it.

[Sergej DAGDA]

60,000 px on the long side for print-quality banners of small / medium size.
Huge thanks for the amazing advice.