redoing works to increase size

Simply put, there are some works that I really would like to be life size. The works would need to be redone in that size or made that big to begin with. Is this hard for the artist to do? Is it asking a lot of them to do this?

Can you be a bit more specific? Are you needing a digital artwork you like with bigger size to be printed out?

@Grieffon  
Yes, that’s exactly right, a life-size print.

Unless the artist happens to have the image in a bigger size, it has to be re-made. If it’s something simple, it’s possible to resize the image to be bigger and repaint all the details. If it’s complex, then it would be best to just start over.

I mean, it totally depends on what it is. I suggest you take some time to learn about printing and resolution so you know what you’re actually asking for.  
If you post the image and explain what you want, I might be able to answer you properly.

@Grieffon  
Too bad it’s not common to make life-sized works to begin with. If they have to start over I’m sure it would be quite a hassle and most won’t do it.

@Eggonaught  
There’s quite a few I would like enlarged and I know about printing and such and have tried enlarging but it’s not all that great. Basically what I’m asking for is an image of a character enlarged to life-size with no loss in quality at all. There is nothing out there that can do this AFAIK so the only thing is to have it remade in that size.

At industry standard, it is ideal to print at a resolution of 300 DPI. If you are dealing with an 8.5 x 11 print, this adds up to a resolution of 2550 x 3300 pixels, a total of 8,419,000 pixels.
 
If you were to want a print as tall as I am, around 68 inches tall, say a print about 52.5 inches wide and 68 inches tall. If you want to print at industry standard, i.e. with no visible pixelation, this adds up to a resolution of 15750 x 20400 pixels, a total of 321,300,000 pixels. I have no idea what sort of ram pictures this large will take, but drawing pictures at higher resolutions puts a bigger stress on computers.
 
You can just resize a picture to be bigger, but if you know a anything about interpolation, unless you’re dealing with a vector image, the image will become either blurry or pixellated if you scale the image up. Adding new pixels to a picture by scaling them larger is essentially asking the computer to ‘invent’ information that does not exist. Unless you don’t mind the lower quality picture, it is asking for a lot to ask for a larger res version.

@MegaHerts  
I have used 10000x10000 before and my PC can handle it. 7.7gigs is not all that much nowadays either, I would think most pro or enthusiast artists have way more than that. Anyway, yeah as I have said, I tried enlarging and the quality is just awful even with some of the better enlargers out there.
 
As an example, I would love a life-size version of this

@someguy111  

 
I made a math error, as loading one layer would take less than a gigabyte. Don’t forget that things get super complicated when you add additional layers, and be aware that I didn’t add in the alpha channel which would require four bytes of data for each pixel.
 
Paint tool SAI doesn’t let me go too much larger than a 17x22 print with my 8 gigs of RAM.

@MegaHerts  
According to paint.net, a 10000x10000 canvas needs 381.5mb. That said though it eats up much more when actually opened up.
 
edit: also 15750x20400 needs 1.2gigs

That standard is there so that nobody ever works undersize–it’s a lot easier to scale an image down than up.  
It’s also for photography. A lot of drawings don’t need to be anywhere near that resolution to look good.  
Most large posters designed to be seen from a distance are only printed at 100-150dpi. Those big japanese picture pillows are generally only printed at 72-100 dpi, I believe.
 
Finally, there’s image format. If the image is an exported vector, asking the artist for a bigger version is literally just asking them to resave it and upload it larger.

@Eggonaught  
Hmm…ok how about this? If the image is too big to make a life size version of then how about making only part of it, say half, and then working on the other half and then putting them together?

@MegaHerts  
Sai’s 32 bit–won’t use any more than 4 gigs at most, and thanks to a few flaws in the way it handles memory it might not be able to handle even that. Hopefully the promised new version will fix that.
 
Someguy, how much ram it takes to load an image isn’t the problem. The problem is that unless you can work with whatever size image the artist released, you’re asking them to draw an entire image for you. You can’t just “make it life-size”.
 
I suggest sticking to vectored art or working with the images you have. Find some x4000+ ones you like and use those, unless you want to commission an artist.

@Eggonaught  
That was really the point of this thread; is it too much to ask for the original artist to redo an existing work or make a life-size one to begin with? Apparently it is. I don’t understand though with 16gig PC’s being common why larger sizes aren’t common.

@someguy111  
Because if people don’t need a big file, there’s no point in putting extra strain on their computers.
 
And with big files, even if the computer can handle it, it may cause lag when actually painting. Sure, I can work with a 40000x40000 file in photoshop, but when each brush stroke comes with a short delay, it becomes too much of a pain.

Your mom increases my size.

@someguy111  
Yes, it’s an insane amount of extra work. The larger something is the more perfect it needs to be, the more detailed the details, etc.
 
The only way you’re getting art the size you’re asking for is by paying a lot for it, or using vector art. And even for vector art having something at that scale requires a lot of work (and this is assuming we keep a style similar to the show, ie. extremely simple).

@dt  
You’re welcome.