Attached Link: http://beyondbent.com

Hi all, I'm working on a new set of textures for the Victoria and P4fem catsuits, and they look just fine for your average shot, however, if you zoom in really close for a close-up, you can start to see the artifacts that a jpg compression makes. If I set the compression lower, the file size is larger, but better quality, so I must ask from those using textures, what is an acceptably high file size? Thanks for the help, Davo

Quality is more important! Mazak

I used 1950 x 1950 at 300 dpi for my Ogre body textures... when I made jpgs I tried to keep them under a mb each. I thought they turned out pretty nice, even up close. I would think it best for you to make them hi res... after all the end user can always res them down, or you could include low res versions too? Doug

For those of us with Whimpy systems, anything larger than 3000x3000 becomes pretty unwieldy. As sturkwurk suggested, 2000x2000 is a pretty good compromise working size but you may want to post the original larger (if the detail warrants it) and let the user scale-down to meet their needs. - IMHO

wow, I thought that anything over 200k was unacceptable, so I will take the advice and make the images larger, hi-res and let the user scale them down, thanks guys :-) D

IIRC, Poser converts & handles everything as "uncompressed" bitmaps, so the processing speed and resource usage is a function of the image dimensions in pixels. Compression (re 200K filesize comment) only affects original download speed, and loading time, not actual memory resources once in Poser. (Uh, does that sound right?) I would suggest using the file sizes and standards used by Staale in setting a quality benchmark.

I prefer 1024x1024 with no compression. I've made bigger maps but I get more freezing and crashing in poser with larger sizes and I have a good system as these things go. If you don't compress at all 1024x1024 looks really good. The difference between the image quality lost through .jpg compression vs. size reduction is no contest to me.

heyas; you might benefit from jpeg optimizer; it will let you compress the heck out of the 'dead' space in your texture and leave the important bits uncompressed. it is shareware you can download; i believe zdnet has it.

I try and keep most maps under 300k, 250k is even better. As others have said, Poser only worries about the physical size, but people still have to download the files. I'm under the impression that Poser loads maps more efficently if they are in mutiples of 8 bits- or 256, I make a really hi-res map 2048 x 1536, for example. I see no reason to ever go past 2048 x 2048. myself. PhotoShop 5.5 and up does a really good job on jpeg compression, I think. Incidently, DPI is just a figure of speech on texture maps.

It's amazing I've been using Poser so long and I am just figuring this stuff out. Thanks for the help guys :-) I was fortunate to have all the original files prior to compressing them to jpg, so I went back and resaved them in a larger format, I will also include the low-res version in the zip files. Davo