I'm in the process of packaging a new v4 figure for sale here at Rendo. I have gone to great lengths to insure high quality and detail in my maps which are all currently 4096x4096 including eye maps. I don't want to lose detail by resampling down, but I also don't want to cause problems for purchasers with too high a memory load. They are all jpegs saved at a quality setting of 60, most are 1 to 1.8 megs a piece. Total combined maps = 23.7 megs.
My machine has 2 gig ram, ahtlon dual core 64 processor and a very good graphics card and I don't have any problems all though the poser file loads a little slow.
Would I be making a mistake putting this on the market with such large maps, will it cause people problems?

4000K is sort of standard for V4 characters.  I think Max that Poser will load is 4000.
Quality setting of 60 on Jpg seems a bit low. Especially if you're not running out of room in your zip file.
Lowering quality of the jpg only saves a little bit of disk space (doesn't save memory when rendering), as it all gets treated as bitmaps once in memory.

Thanks for your response, Poser handles 4096 just fine. I'm using 4096x4096 because thats what I used in ZBrush. It needs to be a power of 2.
I did test renders with 90 quality maps and 60. The diff is extremely slight. Virtually no diff.

It really depends a great deal on how the figure is to be used.  Personally I think 4k x 4k for eye maps is tremendous overkill, it is unlikely that someone's going to render a 4000x4000 image zoomed in that close to the eyeball that requires all that texture detail.  The file size of the saved bitmaps is nothing to do with how much memory will be required when rendering.  Remember each texture map (and bump map and specular map has to be uncompressed to full color resolution of the renderer (24 bits per pixel) when the tex is to be rendered.  A 4k x 4k image map needs about 50mb of RAM, quite a chunk.

yup, the jpeg or whatever is expanded when the program and carried in memory as bitmap . I typically resample textures down to 1,000 x 1,000 for common use . and smaller for background characters .

personally I would maybe add a lower resolution by sampling the images smaller. A 4096 x 4096 eyemap seems way overkill.  

Quote - I did test renders with 90 quality maps and 60. The diff is extremely slight. Virtually no diff.

Which software are you using to reduce the JPG's? 60% on Photoshop looks a lot different (better) then even 80% out of some other programs.

I agree about 4096 for the eyes being too much.  It's usually good to keep the density of pixel on the surface of the mesh about the same - otherwise the transitions look odd and unrealistic - like highly detailed face, and smudged texture shoulders... or super crisp eyes on a less crisp face.

Is there some way to calculate the optimum texture size based on the size of th render? I just checked the Poser Gallery here  and with the exception of one image at 1600x2000 render all the images were under 1024 on the long side. If we use the the big image as a standard shouldn't the largest texture needed be somewhat less than 2000 on the long side? Even on that image the total area of the face was 680x840 so theoretically a 1000x1000 texture would be adequate right? It seems twice that would be safe. However 4096x4096 does seem the standard for a high resolution texture.

I am looking for a way to sample down all the images in mt texture folder to under 1600x1600 without enlarging the smaller images. The textures I have done individually so far are often 4000x4000 clearly blown up from a source probably half that size... when I reduce them to 1600x1600 the difference is quality in the final render is completely indistinguishable even when the render is 1600x1600. I have found even stuff like hair textures have been up-sampled by the vendor and look the same reduced to 50% resolution.

I really would appreciate help finding something to bulk down size all my textures. I have download a dozen shareware apps but none are appropriate for tackling folder with sud-directories and maintaining aspect.

Anyway, it is clear you are not up-sampling your source but I wonder if you could determine the appropriate resolution based on what the largest render is that anyone has done to date.

The only thing about sizing the textures based on online gallery image is that I think there's a fair number of people that render things at a lot higher resolution.
For example, when I render things, I almost always render with print resolution in mind (so I can print a nice crisp 8x10) - then resize the original and save a duplicate for online galleries.

Same here.. i always render 2-3 times more then I need and crop down or downsize as needed.

And almost anyone can downsize mages easily. I'd rather have higher res quality images, and downsize them, or reduce quality percent myself.

4096 pixels in any direction.  The end. I win. :biggrin:

The only possible reason I can see for a texture map that large is if you're doing large, high rez renders that require that level of detail. But for most folks, it's going to be a render at about 1500-2000 pixels high that's then resampled down to gallery size.... and in that case, a texture map that large is overkill, even for the face. Try it yourself; you wont see much difference.

Quote - The only thing about sizing the textures based on online gallery image is that I think there's a fair number of people that render things at a lot higher resolution.
For example, when I render things, I almost always render with print resolution in mind (so I can print a nice crisp 8x10) - then resize the original and save a duplicate for online galleries.

That is why I thought a good benchmark would be the largest render anyone has ever done. I don't know what that might be... 4000 long side? 6000 long side.

I don't know much about resolution... what is good for an 8x10? 2400x3000? I have always wonder what print size I could get fro my camera that shoots 1200x1600... a 4x5?

Not to be contrary but on an other note, I think I have seen that images loose quality when downsized also. I just do renders at a couple sizes sometime.

But back to the point... say a large render is 4000x6000 would a sensible max texture be twice that, half that, or something else?

Poser, as far as I'm aware and I can check with my boss on this...can use textures up to 4096x4096 (previewing textures at that res depends on the strength of your display card - rendering doesn't). 

However, as mentioned earlier, it's rare that this level of detail is needed in day to day use unless you're working for film. Usually 1024 to 2048 will be more than enough depending on the texture.

An excellent source of info about this sort of thing can be found in a PDF called Texturing for Dummies by Leigh Van der byl (visual effects artist):

http://www.leighvanderbyl.com/tutorials.html

The rule of thumb I usually use is that one pixel on the texture map must turn out to be smaller than one pixel in the render.
Example: I render at 2400x1800, and there's a human figure standing upright, visible from head to toe.
His body won't be more than about 1200 pixels high. A body texture map that's 2048x2048 pixels will definitely be large enough. 1024x1024 would be somewhat small (chances are that one pixel of the map gets smeared out over multiple pixels in the final render), while 4096x4096 is overkill.

I've recorded a simple Photoshop action that I can apply to folders (including subfolders). Most of the textures I bought are at 4096 square, and that Photoshop batch creates 2048x2048 and 1024x1024 downsized copies.
Which of the texture sizes I use depends of course on the scene. A background figure needs no more than 1024x1024, while foreground figures need 2048x2048 or even 4096x4096 (portraits!).

I admit, it's playing by ear, but it works out pretty well.

Quote - Which of the texture sizes I use depends of course on the scene. A background figure needs no more than 1024x1024, while foreground figures need 2048x2048 or even 4096x4096 (portraits!).

Agreed, and this is also people should always include the largest textures they can in their product. If the texture is too large, it can always be resized down by the user, like in the case of a 4k eye texture. But what if the person using your work needs to do a closeup of an eye and you only have a 128 x 128 texture on it ? It's not like they can enlarge it to 4k and still have the same amount of quality.

And 60% is really too low a quality setting for JPG. At anything below 75-80, you start getting these nasty halos and nickeling around high contrast areas. They don't show up in poser that much since poser blurs textures to hell anyway but in other apps they stand out like a sore thumb.

svld, may I have a copy of the action? I have been going slowly folder by folder with IrfanView but I couldn't figure out how to batch with sub-folders on my current Photoshop even though I had figured it out on a much older version some years ago. Not presure though... you have already been very very generous :)

PNG is just better than JPG. I think more people will use it going foward.

http://www.svdlinden.nl/webposerstuff/downloads/resizers.zip

Here you are. Photoshop 6 action (I have no need for upgrading Photoshop...).

Quote -
That is why I thought a good benchmark would be the largest render anyone has ever done. I don't know what that might be... 4000 long side? 6000 long side.

I don't know much about resolution... what is good for an 8x10? 2400x3000? I have always wonder what print size I could get fro my camera that shoots 1200x1600... a 4x5?

Not to be contrary but on an other note, I think I have seen that images loose quality when downsized also. I just do renders at a couple sizes sometime.

But back to the point... say a large render is 4000x6000 would a sensible max texture be twice that, half that, or something else?

I've done renders up to 10,000 x 10,000 pixels... if the renderer doesn't do them, then I render image in pieces and splice it in postwork.

To gage texture size, let's say you're doing a portrait, and the portrait will be 4000vert and maybe 2500 pixel horizontally.  In that case, the face may cover an area up to 3000pix tall, by 2000 pix wide. 
If the texture size used in the portrat, covering the face ara is much smaller then the pixels on the final print, you will be introducing fuzziness. (Much like scaling up an image that doesn't have sufficient resolution.

Some of that can be improved with by adding bump and few procedural tweaks, BUT, that usually happens only with more advanced users.

There isn't a real hard and fast rule that I'm aware of, but the more sharp pixels you have in the textures, the fewer tweaks to get it to look better, and the more flexibility the end user has.

Quote - But back to the point... say a large render is 4000x6000 would a sensible max texture be twice that, half that, or something else?

It completely depends on item, its size in the image, its mapping, ...

Exactly, Dizzi!
 
That's what a lot of folks don't understand. You can't slap 4096x4096 textures on every object in your scene and expect instant renders with hyper detail. Poser will render them but it'll eat up memory keeping maps that sized stored for the main character and the garbage can off in the distance and everything else between them. Map the objects according to their importance in the shot/image and you'll likely end up with the same result (sometimes better) - it'll be a faster render that's for sure. 

Oh and I should mention that from a speed standpoint, it's better to work with multiple, smaller maps than it is to work with one big one.  Also, using multiple maps for an object allows for more detail in the areas covered by the map.

Thank you all for your responses, I have resampled my main color maps to 4000x4000 saved at 75 quality setting, all eye maps to 2048, all supporting maps, bump, spec, etc. to 2048.
It renders just as well as the larger maps and trimmed 5 meg out of my textures folder.

Chri1972, sounds good. The eye map sounds a bit big but no harm...

Teyon, why do multiple small maps work better than fewer large maps?

kat, 10,000x10,000? Wow! I think my computer would have a core meltdown. I couldn't open an image that size in Photoshop no how. How big was your biggest hard copy print? What method was it printed?

Note: on textures for items other than characters such as buildings, props etc, it is quite common that many pieces or large pieces will be put on one texture map. making such maps smaller will have a greater effect on the quality of your render.

so it would probably be a bad idea to downsample all your textures.

Quote - Oh and I should mention that from a speed standpoint, it's better to work with multiple, smaller maps than it is to work with one big one.  Also, using multiple maps for an object allows for more detail in the areas covered by the map.

I have often wondered if that were true. I imagine in Poser 7 with the changes in the way textures are handled at render time that it would be true, but i dont know about prevous versions.

It works better because it's faster to load up and use. It's the same thing as having multiple, smaller runtime folders. It just loads a little faster. 

It's worth remembering that Poser 5+ can stick a texture into a small part of UV space--scale and offset settings on the image_map node. You want different lipstick colours? Use the material groups and the scaling, and you don't need ten different full-head texturemaps. (Bad example, you might want other, matching, makeup changes on the face.) Trouble is, there's stuff like this which isn't compatible with DAZ|Studio.