Ok, I've given it alot of thought and I want to put something together for sale. The problem is I want to know what would be considered hi-rez and low-rez on textures? This seems to be a matter of "in the eye of the beholder". Would the setting on clothes be different for being hi-low?

To me, anything over about 2048 x 1536 is not only high-res, it is overkill, for a full figure size map. For something small like shoes, 512 x 512 would be equilivent to high-res, allowing for the difference in physical size.

anything over 2000 x 2000 btw...the higher the res, the more detail... many pros use images ~5000 pixels JUST FOR THE FACE! Years ago, when ram was limited and high price, a lot of people said not to use high res textures. It is being discovered that this practice is not correct. Images that are close up's of an object must have a high res texture..however, images that are at a distance from the camera do not need one. As stated above 512x512 would probably be ok for images that are not closeups...but as most texture magicians are now after the "close up", you find that this is very much different. The hair texture I have for the poser cat fur is a 2500 x 2500 map. Smaller will simply NOT work with it as the lines in the image file actually determine the detail and fineness of the hairs. So it depends on your target market. Do you want close ups or normal renders...

Well I'm actually considering putting together a package deal with multiple textures. P4 man - 12 textures (3 skin tones, hi & low res, hairy & not) P4 woman - 6 textures (3 skin tones, hi & low res) Mike - 24 textures (same as for P4) Victoria - 12 textures (same as for P4) novelty & normal textures for the clothes. maybe even a few props. All packed onto a CD. I know this is an ambitious plan, but I want to put it together for a reasonable price and all my own work.

You know I'm tired of buying things piecemeal. I would pay $40 to 60 bucks for a more turnkey solution. I find I'm always diging around looking for stuff and spending less and less time creating. Much of the stuff I'm creating is for output to video and I thake what Brycetech says to heart. The high rez textures and high polys not only take up RAM but soak up render time. I even have multiple versions of the same scene. When it's wide angel, I use a lorez texture and when the camera goes in I'll cut to the scene that has the higher rez texture. (In post in my editor). What I normally do is look for the highest rez texture I can get then make versions of it. You can uprez fairly well with Photoshop using the higher quality. Bicubic interpolation. Do the same thing going down. I wish you luck on your project shadowcat. message me when you have it done.

its actually a rather logical, image dependant (and mathematical) answer. take a minute and consider for instance the texture that comes with the p4 male. While the entire texture map may be 950 x 950 you have to look at the actual pixel size of the parts of the map. The face is only about 190 x 190. So any scene where the face is below this res would hold up pretty well...however if you get to a scene where this texture must be interpolated to a larger size then it will lose quality. Currently there are several textures that hold up quite beautifully where the face is full screen on the computer monitor...even at 1028 res. Thats just for the face too. A computer can much more reliably reduce the size of a texture (ie subtract unneeded shades of color) before it can add needed color of lines, bump, pimples..etc. Take a moment and think about movies like Final Fantasy. Here is a movie that is made for the "big screen"..they have images where the faces of these characters fill most of that huge 20foot screen! Can you imagine the size texture that they had to use to get that detail on an image that large? I'd have loved to see it raw just for the interest in the techniques. We are however using a <$300 program. Every day, poser users push this program to places it was not meant for in the beginning. Low res textures and low poly models are passing into the past as RAM and CPU speed increases. Just food for thought :) BT

Personally, for items like clothing, prints, and inorganics; I prefer to do the original work in Illustrator and then raster the Illustrator files into Photoshop. It's amazing--even at low resolutions, how a rastered image will hold up fine details better than a map built from cut and paste--especially with resized patterns and textures. Its a process I used in creating maps for the first version of Poser, and given the size of the maps (and lack of physical detail of the models) you could use with that version, the results came out a lot crisper for painted on outfits than any other method.