Forum Groups
  All forums
    Help & Feedback
      Work in progress
      Finished Art
      Non-Max related

Featured Threads
  inspiration alert!!!
(36 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) Members Gallery
(516 replies)
(637 replies)
  Dub's Maxscript Tutorial Index
(119 replies)

Maxunderground news unavailable

Quick question about texture sizes
show user profile  Garry
Hi all,

I've been creating textures of 2048*2048 for alot of my models for an animation I'm working on. The final movie is meant to be in HD (1280*720) so am I wasting time and resources by creating large textures?

I don't know if it makes any difference but the final movie is intended to be viewed on HDTV or PC monitor.

Thanks in advance.


read 747 times
4/18/2008 2:47:42 PM (last edit: 4/18/2008 2:47:42 PM)
show user profile  Dejitarujin
That sounds good to me. I don't work in HD, but I still use 1024x1024 textures. Of course, my textures always seem to be pretty quick and simple to create at that size; I can't guarantee that size vs. time tradeoff is always the same.

Though I should note, render times and memory usage are virtually unaffected by my textures being that size, so I wouldn't worry about that.
Specialty: Non-organic modelling and effects.
Setup: 3D Studio 2010 with finalRender.
Rig: No, no I can't.
read 720 times
4/18/2008 6:20:20 PM (last edit: 4/18/2008 6:20:20 PM)
show user profile  soontekk
everything depends on how close the maps will get to the camera
i find 2048² to be a tad low for hdtv though, bigger is safer

melting ur brainz!
/ FOS4 / FO2 / Blurb / Twitter / Facebook / Vimeo /

read 716 times
4/18/2008 6:38:06 PM (last edit: 4/18/2008 6:38:06 PM)
show user profile  Dejitarujin
Moar detail!

Here's a question that goes right along with this topic: Will there really be any significant problem, at that massive size range, if one were to use a non-square or non-power-of-two texture?
Specialty: Non-organic modelling and effects.
Setup: 3D Studio 2010 with finalRender.
Rig: No, no I can't.
read 711 times
4/18/2008 6:53:12 PM (last edit: 4/18/2008 6:53:12 PM)
show user profile  Cylon
I'm in a similar situation, I'm texturing objects for a HD film, and as the shots havn't been locked down yet I'm having to build more than I'll probably need to do, so I'm currently working with a lot of very large maps, most of them 2000 x 2000, but I've kept the PSD's in their folders at much higher resolutions should I need them larger.

The thing you've got watch for as soontekk says is how close the objects will get to camera.

The problems I'm having now are rendering the scene with the textures, as BMP's they are way to high so I'm currenlty using PNG files, which brings me to my question, what is the best format to use for texturing, when the final product is going to be rendered at 1920x1080p and intended to be transferred onto film. I'm using PNG for now as max seems to handle them better than other formats.
read 708 times
4/18/2008 7:06:15 PM (last edit: 4/18/2008 7:06:15 PM)
show user profile  3Ddeath
I think PNG is a great format, lossless and yet compressed so its small in size, just takes longer to save one out :P.

Portfolio Site
read 704 times
4/18/2008 7:09:13 PM (last edit: 4/18/2008 7:09:13 PM)
show user profile  Cylon
Thanks 3Ddeath, I was thinking about trying out .tga but your right, .png does seem to be working nice.
read 694 times
4/18/2008 7:51:45 PM (last edit: 4/18/2008 7:51:45 PM)
show user profile  Garry
Thanks for the replies guys. I guess I can afford to reduce some textures which will be further away.

read 674 times
4/19/2008 3:07:00 AM (last edit: 4/19/2008 3:07:00 AM)
#Maxforums IRC
Open chat window