Digital Art Zone

Thanks!

I do my unwrapping in headus uv layout. Modo has strong UV-Tools too, but with uv-layout i am just a bit faster.

Had to test my textures today and realized, that most of them were to weak for close-ups. So here is another try for the celtic cross.

The map has a size of 4096 x 4096. Is that too big for this cross compared to the rest of the chapel?

I am not sure about that ...

Don't know if it is too heavy for the scene but it looks great. That type of thing is really relative to how many objects one has in the scene and how powerful the machine is, and it changes over time. People can always reduce the texturemap easier then scaling it up though

ErichSchreiner - 16 November 2012 10:05 AM

Thanks!

I do my unwrapping in headus uv layout. Modo has strong UV-Tools too, but with uv-layout i am just a bit faster.

Had to test my textures today and realized, that most of them were to weak for close-ups. So here is another try for the celtic cross.

The map has a size of 4096 x 4096. Is that too big for this cross compared to the rest of the chapel?

I am not sure about that ...

looks great

Thanks Guys!

Here is a render of a close-up. The top of the sarcophag is a 4096 map, the body a 2048 map (floor too). The difference is obvious, i think.

So everything needs a 4096 map? The skulls have a 1024 map though, but they are very small.

...nicely done. Love the moss/mould textures. I can see this working well for my Balkan war scenes.

Something I've played around with, a little...

It may seem counter intuitive, but not only do 4096 maps look better,they seem to be a 'sweet spot' for 3Delight (not sure about Firefly...Poser's render engine), 2048 work well in 3Delight, too. But the kicker is, if they are in tif format they are even nicer...and overall, render faster.

Why?

Because tif is the 'native' format of 3Delight. TDLmake, the texture 'optimizer' for 3Delight converts everything to tif and then creates mipmaps...if it doesn't have to convert anything, that's one step saved...both the time it takes to convert and any possible conversion losses (quality of the image). In my tests, I was saving between 5 and 10 seconds...in a smaller render that usually finished in a minute or so...with a noticeable difference in the final 'look'. And when the memory 'costs' were added up...the loading of the texture, conversion and so on, the 'huge' tif file actually, when all was said and done, ended up 'even' or smaller than the others. BMP were the worst, for memory usage and jpg were the worst for quality. PNG was a nice, happy, middle ground.

Texture sizes, outside of 'power of two', not only didn't look as good, but didn't save all that much memory (2 MB out of 43MB for 4000 x 4000 Tif (41MB) vs a 4096 x 4096 (43MB) tif). And the 'look' of a 4x4 image was just 'off'...no it wasn't like dropping to 1k or anything like that...but there was a definite 'something' missing.

@KyotoKid

Thanks!

@mjc1016

Thanks a lot for the infos (especially those about the tiffs). Right now it seems, that only 4096 maps are usable for close-ups etc. I tried a lot with 2048s, but the renders all looked smufged / unsharp. Even sharpening in PS did not help much.

Lucky me, i did not try to do maps out of the range of the 'power of two's'. Would have been wasted time then

I call this part done for now (color textures), but i may re-visit some areas later. Now i have to texture the rest of the set to complement this focal area.

Now that i know how to handle my textures i am back on track.

Watching with interest — this looks good.

...yes.

Question. Are there any specular maps? I was thinking just for the mossy bits, to add that wet look.

Thanks again!

@Zev0

I am doing color textures only at the moment. All other maps like bumbs, displ, glossines, specs etc will be done later. The materials are not set up correctly, therefore you can see harsh highlights here and there.

Now i need more details, details, details ...

Want details? Add coloured chapel glass, but broken... Thats if its a church lol. Also I'd remove one or two slabs from the ground, having soil showing, maybe even one or two broken ones.

It's looking very good. One of the most noticeable things it appears at this point is the lack of ambient occlusion in your renders

ErichSchreiner - 22 November 2012 11:20 AM

Thanks again!

@Zev0

I am doing color textures only at the moment. All other maps like bumbs, displ, glossines, specs etc will be done later. The materials are not set up correctly, therefore you can see harsh highlights here and there.

Now i need more details, details, details ...

Please whatever you do don't spoil this excellent modelling and texture work by using desaturated diffuse maps to make the Bump, Displacement and Spec maps..we won't thank you for it. LOL

Yes I do like this very much, it is coming a long nicely.