Is there a non-lossy format I can use for my texture maps? I put a lot of effort into detailing the textures for my products and I would prefer not to lose that quality (actually for my customers to not lose the quality, as I have the orignial uncompressed files).

You can use psd files, as 4/PP/5/6 all recognise that format.

You don't have to lose the quality if you use the "Save for web" option in Photoshop. It's by far the best compromise between size and quality of any method of JPG compression, in that it's semi intelligent (or semi stupid, if you are of a cynical disposition). OTOH, you're now allowed to split your pack over 2 zips, which could cover uncompressed maps. Even so, I sincerely doubt you would notice a difference unless you and your customers regularly render closeups over 4000 x 4000.

I agree, I often find zipping .bmps often gives a smaller .zip than the one with the final .jpgs! Or you could try decrease the .jpg compression level so more detail, downside larger file. Plus not every one has a paint package that can read .PSD files if they wanted to edit them. For example: some early versions of Paintshop Pro, given away on cover discs, can't read layers. Another way is to use 2 nearly identical readme files. This is also a good way to give out bonuses. One readme is viewable by anyone reading it from the product page. The 2nd edited readme lives only found in the purchased version. The only difference is the 2nd file has a link to the full hi-res maps. That cuts on your bandwith and gives the customer an extra goodie.

Save one of your textures as a normal JPG with no compression/100%. Zoom in, about 400%; do the same with the base BMP. you MAY, POSSIBLY be able to detect a difference. If it's just toooo lossy for you, try the experiment with PNG files; they work pretty well.

Remember alsp that too large texture files seriously bloats Poser's memory... Sometimes you can get too much of a good thing.

Very true, ernyoka1. I usually limit my textures to 1024x1024 (96dpi) at the most, unless it absolutely has to have higher resolution. I did offer higher (4000x4000) res head textures for my (never got past alpha testing) Jinna character, but only as a seperate download.

1024x1024 isn't big enough for skin textures IMO Especially if you want them used in portraits. 2048x2048 is a much better size and gives nice detail on closeup. Also, I'll once again say psd is a good lossless format. You don't sell skin textures with the thought of them being edited (nor clothing textures for that matter) so what your customers owns with regards to paint programs isn't an issue. It'd only be if you were selling merchant resources that this would be a factor.

What they own is a factor if they want to downsize the textures though...a strategy that comes up fairly often for reducing memory usage. If they can't read it, they can't resize it. I think people tinker with skin textures fairly often as well, maybe just adjusting the hue or tone, etc.

They can always download Irfanview, Xnview or some other free viewer/converter so I wouldn't say it's a killer issue but I'd stick with something like .jpg at 100% or .tif.

Message edited on: 01/27/2006 01:04