Genesis Textures for V5 & M5 without support of old Gen4 UV, where can i find this?

creativemodelsbecreativemodelsbe Posts: 0
edited December 1969 in The Commons

Genesis Textures for V5 & M5 without support of old Gen4 UV, where can i find this?

i don't use Gen4 anymore and do not need Gen4 support.
software need evolution and not sit still in developing.

Comments

  • Herald of FireHerald of Fire Posts: 3,384
    edited December 1969

    I'm confused as to what you want. Genesis has changeable UVs allowing you to use Gen4 textures or Gen5 so there shouldn't be any problem using either of them. Having support for older figures doesn't mean it doesn't use the new Gen5 UV maps, and shouldn't affect how you use the figure.

  • Hiro ProtagonistHiro Protagonist Posts: 321
    edited December 1969

    As far as I know textures in products specifically for V5 and M5 don't come with Gen 4 UV maps. At least the ones I tried don't (Philip, Dave, Bree), unless I'm missing something. Characters for "Genesis" seem to use Gen 4 maps though, and of course, there are characters for, say, "M4 and Genesis" which will definitely have a Gen 4 UV set.

    When so many people are using Gen 4 characters, and will continue to do so for a long time, many vendors will want to have as big a market as possible by using Gen 4 UVs on characters compatible with Genesis rather than limiting them to V5/M5. On the other hand, DAZ and PAs who work with them will want to take advantage of the improvements of having their textures mapped especially for Gen 5 in order to deliver a higher quality product.

  • creativemodelsbecreativemodelsbe Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    On the other hand, DAZ and PAs who work with them will want to take advantage of the improvements of having their textures mapped especially for Gen 5 in order to deliver a higher quality product.

    i only need gen5 and expect more quality.
    why still waste time on gen4? is this only be done to hold poser users happy?

  • Hiro ProtagonistHiro Protagonist Posts: 321
    edited December 1969


    i only need gen5 and expect more quality.
    why still waste time on gen4? is this only be done to hold poser users happy?

    It isn't just Poser users by any means. Quite a lot of DAZ Studio users are sticking with Gen 4, so there is, in total, a large market for compatibility. Those users, and the PAs who can sell to them, would not consider it a waste of time. This situation might be considered to disadvantage Genesis/Gen 5 users who are not getting optimal mapping on all products offered to them, but to that I would say many Genesis users are not particularly dissatisfied with being offered Genesis products using Gen 4 UVs, considering that they work very well, and it increases choice. I'd say that if Gen 4 textures were not useable on Genesis there would be considerably fewer products available—it's even likely that Genesis would not have taken off at all. Personally I'm happy to use Gen 4 mapped textures (I only use Genesis/Gen 5) and regularly use some of the high quality textures that were made before Genesis came along. The benefits of using high quality textures outweigh any disadvantages (which to be frank I am not really seeing) of their not being optimally mapped.

  • creativemodelsbecreativemodelsbe Posts: 0
    edited December 2012

    but to that I would say many Genesis users are not particularly dissatisfied with being offered Genesis products using Gen 4 UVs, considering that they work very well, and it increases choice. I'd say that if Gen 4 textures were not useable on Genesis there would be considerably fewer products available

    there are enough Gen4 textures that did not work well on Gen5.
    stretched out textures and more. :long:
    that's why i prefer to see more Gen5.
    i think a stop of gen4 support is needed soon or later.
    else we never make a change to Gen5.

    Post edited by creativemodelsbe on
  • JaderailJaderail Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    And just what would be your answer for people who do not like Genesis at all? Many people, including me still use the other figures for most of our renders. Just because you are head over heels in love with the figure does not mean everybody is.

  • MistyMistMistyMist Posts: 15,497
    edited December 1969

    n/m

  • GhostofMacbethGhostofMacbeth Posts: 638
    edited December 1969

    The thing is that the M5 maps really aren't much different than the M4 maps, so you aren't going to get a big increase in quality and you do cut out a larger part of the market. Same for the V5 to V4, they really are a matter of a few little bit of shift here or there. If there was a huge shift in maps, I would agree with you, but there isn't.

  • Eustace ScrubbEustace Scrubb Posts: 1,389
    edited December 1969

    The thing is that the M5 maps really aren't much different than the M4 maps, so you aren't going to get a big increase in quality and you do cut out a larger part of the market. Same for the V5 to V4, they really are a matter of a few little bit of shift here or there. If there was a huge shift in maps, I would agree with you, but there isn't.

    That's also why we don't have a Gen3 Genesis UV Map yet, or (perish the thought!) Gen2 maps.

  • adaceyadacey Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    I'm curious about this, is there really any kind of quality difference in using the gen5 UV maps? I would have thought that if the texture was specifically designed for the shape then it wouldn't make much (any?) difference which UV map was used since the texture would have been created with that shape and map in mind.

    Now I could see if you were using a mix of morphs then the gen4 maps might not work as well as gen5, especially if you were using morphs based on the gen5 shape but if you were doing extreme morphs and didn't have a custom texture for that shape I'd expect to see distortion in that regardless of which UV map you used.

    Or am I totally missing something here?

  • wancowwancow Posts: 2,708
    edited December 1969

    Adacey, no, good quality maps are good quality maps.

    HOWEVER, the problem with Gen4 Maps on Genesis has to do with a couple of anomalies in the UVS on Genesis that do not exactly match the Gen4 UVS.

    That is why I posted these:
    http://www.sharecg.com/v/66020/gallery/21/DAZ-Studio/Genesis-Base-Res-V4UVS-TEMPLATES

    And let me note, I don't agree with the OP... I'd rather we just acknowledge that Gen4 UVS is here to stay and get on with it...

  • BejaymacBejaymac Posts: 1,041
    edited December 1969

    wancow said:
    good quality maps are good quality maps
    You just wont find any in this community, just out of scale low res garbage (that includes the so called Elite sets), with secondary maps that are a complete waste of 1's & 0's.

  • cwichuracwichura Posts: 1,000
    edited December 2012

    Bejaymac said:
    You just wont find any in this community, just out of scale low res garbage (that includes the so called Elite sets), with secondary maps that are a complete waste of 1's & 0's.

    So in your opinion, is there any skin set with Genesis-compatible UVs that is of high quality for sale anywhere? And if not, what would you consider examples of high-quality for other platforms (that is actually available for sale, not custom stuff done for movies/etc)?

    Post edited by cwichura on
  • JaderailJaderail Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    cwichura said:
    Bejaymac said:
    You just wont find any in this community, just out of scale low res garbage (that includes the so called Elite sets), with secondary maps that are a complete waste of 1's & 0's.

    So in your opinion, is there any skin set with Genesis-compatible UVs that is of high quality for sale anywhere? And if not, what would you consider examples of high-quality for other platforms (that is actually available for sale, not custom stuff done for movies/etc)?
    I would like to know where I can find the High Quality V4, M4, V5, M5 and other figures sold here textures. UV mapped for these meshes that Look BETTER in this software for the Price I get textures here. These low scale low res garbage files I and others use in the two main stream 3D render programs for the meshes they support are obviously lacking.

  • wancowwancow Posts: 2,708
    edited December 2012

    cwichura said:
    Bejaymac said:
    You just wont find any in this community, just out of scale low res garbage (that includes the so called Elite sets), with secondary maps that are a complete waste of 1's & 0's.

    So in your opinion, is there any skin set with Genesis-compatible UVs that is of high quality for sale anywhere? And if not, what would you consider examples of high-quality for other platforms (that is actually available for sale, not custom stuff done for movies/etc)?

    The Tori maps are very high quality. (V5UVS)
    http://www.daz3d.com/shop/tori-for-v5

    There is, of course, the Bree maps that come with V5.

    And Gabi
    http://www.daz3d.com/shop/gabi-for-v5/

    All of these are V5 and they're all high quality. I don't understand what people are whining about...

    If you want to see amazing quality V4 maps, Dublin is the very best set I've ever seen:
    http://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/the-metropolitan-collection---dublin-v4-2/90599

    Dublin easily exceeds anything produced by anyone over at CGTalk. And that's where the pros hang out. http://www.cgtalk.com

    Post edited by wancow on
  • BejaymacBejaymac Posts: 1,041
    edited December 1969

    That's what you think, take a look at the maps it doesn't matter which set you look at as their all the same, you get a 4k "hi-res" face map, a 4k med/low res limb map and a 4k low res torso map, the three maps are so out of scale with each other it isn't funny, but no surprise really as that lot (DAZ & vendors) still think their working on content for Poser 6.
    The torso & limb maps should be made (and I don't mean resize them in PS) a hell of a lot larger than the face to keep the "skin" at the same resolution across the body, that way it wouldn't matter that DS doesn't use the full size map half the time, WHAT!!!!!, yep 3Delight doesn't use the textures instead it converts them to the mipmapped TDL format, so depending on how far from the camera the texture is depends on which mip gets used at render time, you might think you have a 4k texture but you could be using a 512x512 in the render, which flushes any chance of a crisp hi res render down the crapper.

    Then there's what they laughingly call bump maps aka gray scaled diffuse maps, all that does is generate far too much wrong information for 3Delight, and if what BB says is true then it's the same in Poser.

  • mjc1016mjc1016 Posts: 7,656
    edited December 2012

    Bejaymac said:
    WHAT!!!!!, yep 3Delight doesn't use the textures instead it converts them to the mipmapped TDL format, so depending on how far from the camera the texture is depends on which mip gets used at render time, you might think you have a 4k texture but you could be using a 512x512 in the render, which flushes any chance of a crisp hi res render down the crapper..

    The TDL format is mipmapped TIFs...at least 4 of them. Tdlmake, the 3Delight converter, can, but isn't done by default, just make a single conversion to tif and not mipmap them...that way it could use whatever the resolution the original image was. But all that is beside the point when the original images are coming to you in jpg format. They started out life as some raw or lossless texture format, then were converted to jpg, then run through tdlmake and turned into a set of tifs running from base size down 4 or 6 steps (can't remember how many tdlmake makes, but it's stepped down with a cut-off, it doesn't take them lower than 512x512, I think). So not only aren't you using, most likely, the full size texture, but it's been run through at least 2 conversions (once to jpg and once to tif)...that is all in addition to the out of scale and other 'problems'...

    A good example of the inaccurate scale...the ears. Why is each ear nearly as large as the chest/abdomen, if the scale is correct?

    Also, why aren't the torso maps rectangular? Being square is just asking for 'stretching'...

    So no, they are NOT 'high quality'...

    Bejay, have you figured out what sizes they should be?

    Post edited by mjc1016 on
  • KhoryKhory Posts: 2,567
    edited December 2012

    I don't like version 4 maps on genesis myself. There is noticeable stretching in eyebrows and so forth. My solution is only to by characters that do not have additional support for the version 4 figure and return if it turns out to use the old maps. I only use the version 4 characters under duress and have plenty of old stuff for them so I would rather have textures properly mapped for the new figure.

    Being square is just asking for ‘stretching’...

    Um no..because maps are generated square and how it is mapped controls if there is stretching or not. The mapping of the figure itself is actually rectangular even if the final size of the overall map is square. It isn't as if it fills the space or anything.

    Post edited by Khory on
  • Rashad CarterRashad Carter Posts: 1,039
    edited December 1969

    Bejaymac said:
    That's what you think, take a look at the maps it doesn't matter which set you look at as their all the same, you get a 4k "hi-res" face map, a 4k med/low res limb map and a 4k low res torso map, the three maps are so out of scale with each other it isn't funny, but no surprise really as that lot (DAZ & vendors) still think their working on content for Poser 6.
    The torso & limb maps should be made (and I don't mean resize them in PS) a hell of a lot larger than the face to keep the "skin" at the same resolution across the body, that way it wouldn't matter that DS doesn't use the full size map half the time, WHAT!!!!!, yep 3Delight doesn't use the textures instead it converts them to the mipmapped TDL format, so depending on how far from the camera the texture is depends on which mip gets used at render time, you might think you have a 4k texture but you could be using a 512x512 in the render, which flushes any chance of a crisp hi res render down the crapper.

    Then there's what they laughingly call bump maps aka gray scaled diffuse maps, all that does is generate far too much wrong information for 3Delight, and if what BB says is true then it's the same in Poser.

    As I am building textures right now I agree with you about the scaling being worlds from correct. The assumption I have made is that the face is the more important map (according to Daz3d anyway) and therefore only the face needs to truly be high resolution.

    If the torso and limbs maps were properly scaled to the face then those maps would need to be double to triple that of the face. Who wants a torso map that is 1200x12000 pixels? I do. But my 'puterschmieden (computer) would die as would those of most other people. So for now, its all about the face.

    I should say, the same is true with polygons. The face gets a denser polygon arrangement than the body.

    FYI I love your avatar, Bejaymac!!!! Sexy dancing cat girl...works for me!

  • mjc1016mjc1016 Posts: 7,656
    edited December 1969

    Khory said:
    Being square is just asking for ‘stretching’...

    Um no..because maps are generated square and how it is mapped controls if there is stretching or not. The mapping of the figure itself is actually rectangular even if the final size of the overall map is square. It isn't as if it fills the space or anything.

    Yes, the 'filling in' is part of the problem...by setting up the map as square, you are setting up space that isn't being used by the actual image...and it's more efficient to put a rectangular item on a rectangular map, you can actually get more 'image' area that way. On a 4k map that's over 1 million pixels that are 'padding'...that means 1 million pixels that aren't being used by the actual image (I'm not counting the 'blank' areas from the outline of the body...this is just the 'extra' around the outside of that image). Where as if you had a rectangular map, those pixels could be utilized by the actual image. Plus that's more 'bytes' to the file size, for 'nothing'.

    And yes, to do it with rectangular maps would require a fundamental change in the way they are mapped.

    No, I haven't sat down and figured out what size image would be 'optimal'...other than the current square is not and a rectangular one would be...

    That's what you think, take a look at the maps it doesn't matter which set you look at as their all the same, you get a 4k "hi-res" face map, a 4k med/low res limb map and a 4k low res torso map, the three maps are so out of scale with each other it isn't funny, but no surprise really as that lot (DAZ & vendors) still think their working on content for Poser 6.
    The torso & limb maps should be made (and I don't mean resize them in PS) a hell of a lot larger than the face to keep the "skin" at the same resolution across the body, that way it wouldn't matter that DS doesn't use the full size map half the time, WHAT!!!!!, yep 3Delight doesn't use the textures instead it converts them to the mipmapped TDL format, so depending on how far from the camera the texture is depends on which mip gets used at render time, you might think you have a 4k texture but you could be using a 512x512 in the render, which flushes any chance of a crisp hi res render down the crapper.

    Then there's what they laughingly call bump maps aka gray scaled diffuse maps, all that does is generate far too much wrong information for 3Delight, and if what BB says is true then it's the same in Poser.

    As I am building textures right now I agree with you about the scaling being worlds from correct. The assumption I have made is that the face is the more important map (according to Daz3d anyway) and therefore only the face needs to truly be high resolution.

    If the torso and limbs maps were properly scaled to the face then those maps would need to be double to triple that of the face. Who wants a torso map that is 1200x12000 pixels? I do. But my 'puterschmieden (computer) would die as would those of most other people. So for now, its all about the face.

    I should say, the same is true with polygons. The face gets a denser polygon arrangement than the body.

    FYI I love your avatar, Bejaymac!!!! Sexy dancing cat girl...works for me!

    So a 4k torso would go with a 1k face and maybe a 3k limb map to be 'about right'...

  • KhoryKhory Posts: 2,567
    edited December 1969

    I haven’t sat down and figured out what size image would be ‘optimal’

    Optimal size would depend on how large the render was an what percentage of the render was covered by the texture. If you had a massive texture but only did full body renders that were not massive themselves there wouldn't be enough pixels used in the render to take advantage of the added texture size. All it would do is slow your computer down without getting added benefit from the texture size. So for example if you have a face texture that is 10,000x10,000 (and your computer will render it) you would need to do renders that had the face using about 5,000x5,000 pixels (the other half are on the back and not rendered) to actually be taking advantage of the texture size. If your doing a full body render with space around the figure that is 5,000x5,000 there is no way your rendering enough pixels to take advantage of a larger texture.

  • adaceyadacey Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    My big question for these folks is what do you need this resolution for? Are you actually producing images that will use the resolution? Are you actually producing images at final resolution that are displaying pixelation here? Note, I'm not talking about stretching or distortion here, I think that's covered by the above topics. Personally, I'm not tending to render very large images as I'm doing my images for web display. I do tend to render larger and then downsize so that I have the option of a higher res file but I'm still not going huge. Even a 16x20" print at 300ppi is only going to be 4800 x 6000, so that's not much bigger than a 4k texture image, and at 16x20 you can start getting away with 200 or even 150ppi instead of going to 300. Any bigger and you can really get away with 150ppi for sure. For a face, I'd say that the 4k textures should cover this pretty well. For limbs or torso, it's really going to come down to how much 1 of those textures is filling the frame and the fact that you're going to lose some of the resolution to the image being wrapped around the figure. My quick unscientific back of the napkin thinking leads me to think that the torso map is most likely going to be the big issue here given that you're going to lose half the resolution just between the front and the back of the figure, plus extra loss due to the wasted parts of the map.

    But again, can anybody here actually point to a specific situation where this has happened? For me, the more frequent issue I'm seeing is the horribly low resolution a lot of skydomes use.

  • adaceyadacey Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    mjc1016 said:
    The TDL format is mipmapped TIFs...at least 4 of them. Tdlmake, the 3Delight converter, can, but isn't done by default, just make a single conversion to tif and not mipmap them...that way it could use whatever the resolution the original image was. But all that is beside the point when the original images are coming to you in jpg format. They started out life as some raw or lossless texture format, then were converted to jpg, then run through tdlmake and turned into a set of tifs running from base size down 4 or 6 steps (can't remember how many tdlmake makes, but it's stepped down with a cut-off, it doesn't take them lower than 512x512, I think). So not only aren't you using, most likely, the full size texture, but it's been run through at least 2 conversions (once to jpg and once to tif)...that is all in addition to the out of scale and other 'problems'...

    Just a quick correction here, jpeg is a lossy format but TIFF is, generally, a lossless format (TIFF supports different compression methods, most of which are lossless). Going from TIFF -> jpeg will result in a quality loss but jpeg back to TIFF won't introduce any further quality loss unless there's other image processing going on.

Sign In or Register to comment.
Rocket Fuel