Conniekat8 opened this issue on Apr 27, 2007 · 1329 posts
FranOnTheEdge posted Sun, 13 January 2008 at 6:03 PM
Boofy,
I'm sorry to say that an image like the one you show just isn't possible to use.
Images for textures need to be a clear as possible - no mist - and above all dead straight.
That's why aerial recconnaissance planes had those odd bracket affairs directly under the plane - so that images were totally sharp and straight, with no distortions.
It's also why good images of old weathered roof tiles are so hard to come by - how often are you above a roof?
I would not be able to use such an image in Bryce, Carrara or Cinema - I don't know what program will be used to render all this stuff - but unless there is some deep dark secret about Max or Maya - or whatever it will be - then I very much doubt those will be able to use such images either. It's a great pity, but there it is.
The same applies to the mistyness - textures need to be clear and sharp so that the detail is good.
I used to try taking photos through the car window when I first had a decent camera - but that sheet of glass between the camera and the object, ruined every one for all practical purposes.
if a photo of a texture is only very very slightly off the true it is sometimes possible to correct this - but it takes a lot of work, especially for roof tiles and bricks or anything with regular patterning.
I'm sorry Boofy, but I wouldn't want you to keep taking photos that can't be used.
Of course, this is just me, maybe ConnieKat has the sort of program that can cope with that - she's certainly miles better at texturing than I am.
Hopefully she can pop in with her opinion on this thorny matter.
Measure
your mind's height
by the shade it casts.
Robert Browning (Paracelsus)