Forum Groups
  All forums
    Help & Feedback
      Questions
      Work in progress
      Finished Art
      Non-Max related
    Community
      Offtopic
      News
    Hardware
    Photography


Featured Threads
  inspiration alert!!!
(37 replies)
  Indespensible MaxScripts, Plugins and 3rd Party Tools
(37 replies)
  The allmighty FREE Resources Thread !
(17 replies)
  spam alert!!!
(4886 replies)
  Maxforums member photo gallery index
(114 replies)
  Maxforums Member Tutorials
(89 replies)
  three cheers to maxforums...
(240 replies)
  101 Things you didnt know in Max...
(198 replies)
  A Face tutorial from MDB101 :D
(95 replies)
  Maxforums.org Members Gallery
(516 replies)
  SON OF POST YOURSELF
(637 replies)
  Dub's Maxscript Tutorial Index
(119 replies)

Maxunderground news unavailable

face texture resolution
show user profile  cbflex
Im trying to texture a face as evident by my previous post. I basically bring the model into photoshop as an obj and use the stamp tool and paint my textures om manually. I find it very easy. The problem im now facing is that my photos are all in 5k resolution. When i scale them all down to a reasonable texture size like 2k and create the texture map i export the texture as a targa and bring.it back into max. When i render it out my model shows up really blurry and has lost a lot of detail... When i create a texture map with original file sized textures i get a texture map size of 8k which im pretty sure is waaay too much although lost detail such as pores are returned...
Is there something im doing wrong? Is there a way to have 2k face texture maps with good detail?
read 510 times
1/28/2012 3:16:25 AM (last edit: 1/28/2012 3:16:25 AM)
show user profile  Garp
Texture resolution is based on: render resolution, how much of the render a part of a model is taking up and how much of the texture that part of the model uses.
If n pixels of the texture map are taking more than n pixels of the render, then it's blurred.

This is an approximation. The renderer's sampler is likely to not sample every pixel of the map. So you should add a little margin.
As for the map size itself, it also depends on how efficiently you pack the UV clusters.




read 500 times
1/28/2012 7:46:35 AM (last edit: 1/28/2012 7:47:11 AM)
show user profile  cbflex
Then lets say I have a texture map of 2048X2048.
My render frame is at 1280X720
The model using the texture map is taking about 25% of the frame window.
And from my opinion, the unwrapping I did looks pretty good. Most of the checkers are the same size...
With all this in mind, I feel like I lose lots of details still... I know this makes no sense, which is exactly why I'm on here. I'll go back an and check out my sampling settings, as well as post up 2 renders, 1 with the 2048 texture map, and 1 with the 8K texture map.

read 494 times
1/28/2012 8:33:25 AM (last edit: 1/28/2012 8:33:25 AM)
show user profile  herfst1
Maybe save file as jpg? Though I agree with Garp, maybe add more elements to your uvw map eg. the body, eyes, hands, etc. Then you'll only have one map so it should take up less space.
read 492 times
1/28/2012 8:46:35 AM (last edit: 1/28/2012 8:46:35 AM)
show user profile  Garp
@cbflex: I think you missed the point.
- the width/length ratio of your UV clusters (and the faces in them) dictates how close to perfect squares the checker map looks on the model. That ratio should always be as close as possible to what it is on the corresponding faces of the geometry.
- the relative scale of the UV clusters in regard to each others dictates how even the checker map appears across the model. It is not a requirement to be evenly laid out. In fact, as Dave explained recently in another thread, you'd want more details on the face and hands of a game character than the legs because face and hands are the parts most likely to be zoomed on. So the corresponding clusters should be proportionately larger.
But that's not what I was talking about.
Say, for the sake of simplicity, that you have a square part of the model, with its UV faces also making a square and that it's facing the camera and aligned in a way that also makes a square in the rendered image.
If the square on the texture map covered by its UVs has less pixels than the corresponding square in the render, well, the renderer cannot create information out of nowhere and it interpolates the color values. Hence the blurring.
So that gives you a starting point for the map size. But the map size itself depends also on how all the UV clusters are arranged, i.e. how much of the texture space is wasted or not. That's what I meant by efficiently packed UV clusters.

@herfst1: he's asking about texture resolution, not file size ;)




read 488 times
1/28/2012 9:40:06 AM (last edit: 1/28/2012 9:45:56 AM)
show user profile  herfst1
Oops. Apologies.
read 479 times
1/28/2012 10:01:58 AM (last edit: 1/28/2012 10:01:58 AM)
show user profile  cbflex
@garp I see what your saying now.
So if I'm rendering a scene in 1920X1080, I shouldn't have any textures taking up more than that frame. And basically my checkers need to be scaled proportionally. The bigger the checker, the blurrier that part will be or the more stretched my texture will be.
Now lets back track. Your logic applies to 1 polygon with a basic texture.
Say we have a sphere or in my case a face with a texture that is wrapped around and is different from all angles. By your logic, at every angle, the texture shouldn't be lower than 1920X1080.
So if my entire texture map for the entire sphere is in fact 2080X2080, an is wrapped around an object, then most likely I will be seeing blurring. If my texture is placed on a cube and only on 1 side of it and we render it so we only see that one side of the cube, then we shouldn't see blurring. If however we wrapped the texture around the cube proportionally, then every side will be (2080X2080)/6 which is roughly 346 pixels squared. So my image on the cube will be enlarged by 6 times. That leads me to understand that my texture map must wrap around my object well enough so that every visible angle of the object has a 1920X1080 texture resolution. This leads me to my next question...
How big should the texture map be to wrap around a contoured object and still remain at 1920X1080 from all angles? How do you measure that?
Say I paint my texture in photoshop right onto an OBJ model (which to me is easiest), how do I know the resolution will be not blurry.
read 474 times
1/28/2012 12:02:12 PM (last edit: 1/28/2012 12:02:12 PM)
show user profile  Garp
It's not an exact formula but rather a rough guideline to get there.
Once you've done your mapping, you pick a part of the texture that's clearly visible in the render and you estimate its length in pixel. (If it's an animation, pick the frame at which the model is the closest to the camera). Say 250 pixels. Then you look at your map with the UVs on it and again you estimate what portion of the map it's taking. Say it's about a fourth of the image width. Then you need approximately 4 x 250 = 1000 pixel in width for the texture map.
Note that you might not have to use powers of 2 for the texture size, depending on what it's for, nor a square map (though having it square makes the mapping a lot easier). But if you do, it's then pretty obvious which resolution you need.




read 467 times
1/28/2012 1:01:22 PM (last edit: 1/28/2012 1:01:22 PM)
show user profile  Sir_Manfred
In photoshop when scaling down images.
Go to Image - > Image Size...
At the bottom of the dialog is the Resample Image rolldown. Choose "Bicubic Sharper"



Visit my Portfolio
http://www.Freds3D.com

read 464 times
1/28/2012 1:03:45 PM (last edit: 1/28/2012 1:03:45 PM)
#Maxforums IRC
Open chat window


Support Maxforums.org