Digital Art Zone

 
   
1 of 2
1
Maximum Texture size
Posted: 18 October 2012 08:09 PM   [ Ignore ]
New Member
Total Posts:  23
Joined  2012-08-02

Hello everyone, I need your help.

I am planning on making a few character textures, and I need some pointers on how far I could go so that everyone could render comfortably. For my own use, 4000 X 4000 for the whole body just isn’t enough. Too many fine details are lost if you do a torso closeup.

Therefore, I would like to know how big I could go so that the average user could still fit at least 2 Hi-Res characters in a scene plus props
and render in a decent amount of time.

How much RAM and how fast a processor does most users have?

Thanks!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 October 2012 09:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  848
Joined  2005-11-06

I agree that better/higher resolution textures are needed, so i support your efforts. For me, I have a few sets i reduced the textures on for use on background figures if i use more than a few, but since I usually do single figures and closeups, I prefer the best quality I can get, but unfortunately I haven’t found any with higher resolutions than 4096x4096. I also prefer textures in .png or .tif since .jpegs degrade to much.

 Signature 

Regards, Michael

“Documentation? Who needs documentation, just open it and learn!”

My DeviantArt Gallery

My DAZ Gallery

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 October 2012 09:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4545
Joined  2007-09-13

Your absolute maximum size is what your video card/OpenGL will support…if it gets bigger than that, it may not display in the viewport.

 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: 18 October 2012 10:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1683
Joined  2005-12-31

It may have changed but it use to be that poser could not use larger than 4000X4000. If I remember correctly studio in windows (no clue about mac) follows by twos. If a texture map is 3000x3000 then the computer is going to use the same amount of processing power as if is 4096x4096. If you make it 6000x6000 then its going to use the same power as if it were 8192x8192. A texture that is 9000x9000 would count as if it were 18000 and so on. I think most computers these days can swing 4096x4096 but I’m not sure how many can swing multiple maps at 8192. You also start getting into file size issues. I regularly do textures that are 4000x4000 and total file size on textures gets huge fast. If your doing free products it may or may not be an issue but some brokerages do have polices about how large products can be overall.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 October 2012 12:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4545
Joined  2007-09-13

A 4096 x 4096 tif or bmp is going to look a lot better than the same size jpg…

 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: 20 October 2012 11:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
New Member
Total Posts:  23
Joined  2012-08-02

Thanks guys. It steers me in the right direction.

I know that most vendors don’t like to give numbers, but I will ask, just in case.

How many units do good textures sell, on average? I just need to have a rough idea, to know how far I can go to hire models and spend time on the textures.

Also, how much RAM do most users have in their machines?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 October 2012 11:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7541
Joined  2006-03-19

Most users have on average of 4-8GB of RAM. Your right most vendors won’t divulge that in public but I will PM you.

 Signature 

ARTCollaborations Store on DAZ3D    ARTCollaborations on Facebook

*****Mad Chemistry Lab*****  

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 October 2012 11:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  894
Joined  2007-01-04
kzamor - 18 October 2012 08:09 PM

For my own use, 4000 X 4000 for the whole body just isn’t enough. Too many fine details are lost if you do a torso closeup.

What your finding there is that the UV templates aren’t scaled properly, a 4kx4k torso map might seem hi res to some, but it’s actually low res when compared next to the 4kx4k head map, and it’s still a lower res when you compare it to the 4kx4k limb map. Sadly even though some of the vender’s have moved to Genesis and DS they still insist on creating these out of scale crappy low res textures.

I wont even mention what I think of their secondary textures as it would likely get me banned.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 October 2012 04:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Active Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  992
Joined  2012-02-04

Has anyone released a (female) texture set larger larger than 4096x4096?  I’ve yet to see one.

Also, for those suggesting BMP or TIF, please don’t.  Use PNG instead.  You get the same lossless image, but with MUCH better compression.  Especially when run through PNG optimizers like optipng and pngcrush.

 Signature 

My deviantART Homepage

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 October 2012 07:35 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4545
Joined  2007-09-13
cwichura - 20 October 2012 04:39 PM

Has anyone released a (female) texture set larger larger than 4096x4096?  I’ve yet to see one.

Also, for those suggesting BMP or TIF, please don’t.  Use PNG instead.  You get the same lossless image, but with MUCH better compression.  Especially when run through PNG optimizers like optipng and pngcrush.

Yes and no…

If you are planning on making them as hi-res as you can, then you really must not be worried about file size…so why bother with compression at all?  I suppose that if you are concerned with final file size, then png would be the best option.  The reason I said tif is the fact that 3delight’s native format for textures is tif…that leaves out a conversion or three.  Yes, tdlmake will still run and create mipmaps, but it won’t convert the texture file. Tif is hit or miss in LuxRender, though.  Many other render engines can use tif directly without any conversion, too (Indigo, MR, Houdini…)

Lossless compression is still compression.  The best would be to not even convert them, but unless you are taking your own photo references or generating the texture completely by painting it, then it’s likely to not be a BMP or RAW image to begin with…sometimes you can find bmp or tif reference/resource files.  The worst thing is to convert formats, several times.

But the whole point is moot, if the image is using anything that was at one time in jpg format…which, unfortunately is the output format of most cameras

 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 October 2012 08:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7541
Joined  2006-03-19
cwichura - 20 October 2012 04:39 PM

Has anyone released a (female) texture set larger larger than 4096x4096?  I’ve yet to see one.

Also, for those suggesting BMP or TIF, please don’t.  Use PNG instead.  You get the same lossless image, but with MUCH better compression.  Especially when run through PNG optimizers like optipng and pngcrush.

Most DAZ PA’s make there textures 4000x4000. We get numerous complaints if we go higher than that cause of the file size.

 Signature 

ARTCollaborations Store on DAZ3D    ARTCollaborations on Facebook

*****Mad Chemistry Lab*****  

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2012 09:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4545
Joined  2007-09-13
Frank0314 - 21 October 2012 08:38 AM
cwichura - 20 October 2012 04:39 PM

Has anyone released a (female) texture set larger larger than 4096x4096?  I’ve yet to see one.

Also, for those suggesting BMP or TIF, please don’t.  Use PNG instead.  You get the same lossless image, but with MUCH better compression.  Especially when run through PNG optimizers like optipng and pngcrush.

Most DAZ PA’s make there textures 4000x4000. We get numerous complaints if we go higher than that cause of the file size.

4096 would be a better ‘standard’...

 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 October 2012 10:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Active Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  992
Joined  2012-02-04
mjc1016 - 20 October 2012 07:35 PM

Lossless compression is still compression.  The best would be to not even convert them, but unless you are taking your own photo references or generating the texture completely by painting it, then it’s likely to not be a BMP or RAW image to begin with…sometimes you can find bmp or tif reference/resource files.  The worst thing is to convert formats, several times.

Conversion of lossless formats is LOSSLESS.  That’s the whole point of lossless.  I would be very surprised if 3Delight is doing anything differently than other renderers like LuxRender, where it reads whatever file format is given to it straight into an in-memory buffer.  There is no conversion taking place when it reads a PNG instead of a TIF.

Yes, you want to avoid conversion when using lossy compression formats, like JPEG.  But lossless formats, you will have the exact same data regardless of how many times you convert them.  The only thing you might lose is metadata like ICCP profile that the renderers ignore, anyway.  So why not use the most efficient lossless format?  BMP and TIFs are ancient relics of computing.  A PNG will actually load faster because the I/O is the most expensive part of reading the file, dwarfing the CPU effort required to decompress it.

 Signature 

My deviantART Homepage

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2012 10:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4545
Joined  2007-09-13

Ran a simple test…

Created a 4000 x 4000 image in GIMP. (A simple gradient background with some cloud brushes used to paint some clouds) and a similar 4096 x 4096 one.  I then saved each one, at the highest quality settings for each format, in bmp, png, jpg and tif.

Then in DS I went an put them on a simple plane and rendered.

Then I rendered each image…

The surprising results was that the tif image texture at 4096 rendered fastest…and looked the best, even though it was the largest file size.

The next best, time/looks, was the 4000 tif followed very closely by the 4096 png.

The worst on both counts were the jpgs.

This is the render of the 4096 tif

Full sized it looked even better…

Image Attachments
clouds4096tif.jpg
 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 October 2012 11:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Active Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  992
Joined  2012-02-04

Psuedo-science.  “Looks better” is subjective and will be influenced by personal bias.  Ignore the different resolutions, higher is always going to be better.  Take the TIF and PNG for the 4096 resolution and open them in your editor.  Subtract one from the other.  You should have a completely black image, since they cancel themselves perfectly because they are both the exact same pixel data.  If they don’t, then you saved one of them differently (e.g., the tif might be saved as a 16-bit, while the PNG got saved as 8-bit (even though it also supports 16-bit)).  Then do the same for the rendered images of the same resolution.  They should also cancel.  If they don’t, then it’s more likely due to the random generator in the renderer creating rays to trace than a difference in the input file.  You can test that by re-running the render with the same input file multiple times and doing the subtraction test on the resultant images.

 Signature 

My deviantART Homepage

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 October 2012 11:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4545
Joined  2007-09-13

Just ran another test…this time I stuck each image on a separate plane and rendered them all at once…and on the full size (not made for the web image) it’s more noticeable that side by side that all of them are better looking than the jpgs….with tif and bmp being the best (tif actually having a slight lead, since there wasn’t a ‘conversion’ done to it…it has a ‘crispness’ that even the bmp misses)

This has been a fun little exercise…I guess for my own stuff I’m going to start using tif images and then packing them as pngs for distribution…jpgs really suck.

Oh…top row 4000; bottom 4096.

Something else that hasn’t really been addressed…don’t assume ‘most users’.  Go by the minimum specs that the software calls for. which, I think is 2 GB of RAM…

Image Attachments
cloudsall.jpg
 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
 
 
   
1 of 2
1