Digital Art Zone

 
   
2 of 2
2
Genesis Textures for V5 & M5 without support of old Gen4 UV, where can i find this?
Posted: 21 December 2012 06:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  933
Joined  2007-01-04

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.

 Signature 

**shuffles of with a new headache** tongue wink

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 December 2012 08:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4545
Joined  2007-09-13
Bejaymac - 21 December 2012 06:01 PM

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?

 

 Signature 

1432 old posts

My ShareCG gallery.

Just because something costs a lot, doesn’t mean it’s the best…

It just means it’s expensive.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 December 2012 11:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1839
Joined  2005-12-31

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.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 December 2012 12:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  784
Joined  2006-05-26
Bejaymac - 21 December 2012 06:01 PM

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!

 Signature 

Please view my Daz3d User Gallery
http://www.daz3d.com/gallery/#users/465/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 December 2012 01:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4545
Joined  2007-09-13
Khory - 21 December 2012 11:19 PM

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…

Rashad Carter - 22 December 2012 12:03 AM
Bejaymac - 21 December 2012 06:01 PM

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’...

 Signature 

1432 old posts

My ShareCG gallery.

Just because something costs a lot, doesn’t mean it’s the best…

It just means it’s expensive.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 December 2012 02:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1839
Joined  2005-12-31

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.

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 December 2012 09:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Member
Rank
Total Posts:  127
Joined  2011-11-11

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.

 Signature 

Andrew Dacey
Photographer
Geek

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 December 2012 09:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Member
Rank
Total Posts:  127
Joined  2011-11-11
mjc1016 - 21 December 2012 08:53 PM

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.

 Signature 

Andrew Dacey
Photographer
Geek

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2