Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=173643&Start=1&Artist=johnpenn&ByArtist=Yes

First off, the question. I am working on an image in Bryce5 with an imported Poser figure. I have applied a texture map to her for detail, and I used the Poser4 standard texture as a template for resolution. It works, but I feel I could get more detail if it were higher resolution. Anyone know what the highest resolution is for this sort of texture map? I want detail, but I don't want to overkill, and I think that the Poser default is a little low.

Now the side of spam. I've posted the image in question (it's really a WIP though) and it's at the link above. I'd love some objective feedback, if you've got any to offer.

Thanks in advance for the help.

Poser default is way low for these days (950x950). That is a seriously beautiful render you have there! If you are going to use a larger texture for more detail, maybe you should do your final render slightly larger? I would love to see it bigger. I usually work at least around 1500x1500 for Poser textures, going as high as 3000x3000. Some people go higher than that. It's all what you think is right and/or what won't cripple your computer. But between 1500 and 3000 is probably what the majority of people use. (guesstimate) AgentSmith

Guesstimate is good with me, Thanks AgentSmith! I plan to render that huge with soft lights, but that's going to take in the neighborhood of 6 days, so I'm still working small in the proofing stages. (it still takes 8+ hours with the transparent drapes, and those waves aren't easy on the processor either) I'll res that texture map way up then. I wasn't sure how high to go, but 3000 sounds like a good place to start. Thanks again.

Lovely image. One question how'd you get the splash against the rock for the wave? I could use that effect in my image I'm doing.

I really have to make a tutorial for that, it's been asked before. It takes a lot of messing around with, but what it is a bunch of lattices. Make a lattice, and edit it. Make it black, and then add some spikes. Add a gaussian blur so the corners round out, then clip it so that all you get is the spikes in a circle. Apply the Misty Afternoon cloud texture to it. It should look to thin. Then, dupe it, (I did it on a path so its easier to move later), and rotate and scale it slightly to give it some volume and to give the illusion that it's not a duplicate. You'll need to play with how many duplicates you make -- to many, and it'll be too thick, too few, and it's too thin. Then, dupe it again, this time, change it's Material to a water so that there's some actual water in the foam. Once you've got a splash, you'll need to rotate it so that it impacts properly, and so that it looks right. I have about 12 lattices in that image, and I might add some more to the bottom of the image. Just know that it adds a lot to render time, and I crashed Bryce many times working on it. It may be a good idea to make a separate file for the wave and save it frequently. You can merge the wave file into your scene later. (I noticed I was crashing when I had a lattice or two or three on the clipboard, so copy/paste was risky on my Mac (180MB RAM dedicated to Bryce). I hope that helps. I'll post a proper tutorial one of these days, I'm just too busy at the moment. It's a tedious process that takes a lot of trial and error, but it's workable. I'm currently working on a way to create that effect (and others) with the Tree Lab. All I have to do is figure out a way to edit the leaf shapes, and it'll be a piece of cake. Anyone know how to add custom leaves to the TreeLab?

Thanks, that's a lot of help. i'll have to give it a try.

Lovely picture, only spoilt by the lettering. Images should be signed discreetly, like any painting.

Attached Link: http://www.brycetech.com/

Brycetech has a tut on the tree lab and how to add your own leaves on his site.

Arleen

ringbearer, thanks for the link. I read it, and it's close to what I'm looking for, but not quite. The User Leaf uses a 2D plane with a pic on it to create custom leaves, while the default leaves (.lps files) are actual meshes. I want to add my own meshes as leaves. That would allow all sorts of great effects. I'm working around it, and I'll post some results in a few days. (tip: leaf size can be smaller than 1. Just type in the decimal you want. You can achieve some great particle effects this way) Phantast, that is a very interesting comment. I've been thinking about it a while now, and I thought I'd share my thoughts. I understand that a signature should not interfere with the art, and the web plug does seem to meet the guidelines of a signature (though that is actually secondary, I'll cover that later). I tend to feel that the rules are a little different with digital art, just as the medium is. Photoshop will allow a user to sign an image invisibly with metadata. I think that satisifies the concept of a signature, yet it's invisible to the viewer on the web. Perhaps, the signature is a form of advertisement. Many digital artists are still placing the signature on the image and since there are more discrete ways to sign a digital file like with metadata, it has to be an ad -- or a misplaced ideal of tradition. I'll give you the real reason that I mark my images so intrusively: It's an anti-theft measure. Yes, it's sad but true. I've seen too many stolen pictures online, and so if anyone wants to steal my art, it's more difficult for them. That is, a really good photoshopper could steal it without too much trouble but probably wouldn't steal it if he were already so skilled. But an amateur (who is probably more likely to steal, whether it be by ignorance or not) would likely have an ugly blur there if he tried to remove the sig, and so it's really a theft deterrent. And though it would work if it were smaller, if the viewer likes the image, the signature gets people to visit my site, which isn't important to me now (the site is still in its alpha phase) but when the site is complete, it will be a good way to get more people to visit my galleries and get more exposure. And that is why we post art in the first place, isn't it? Ultimately, all of the pics I create and post online are merely reproductions of the real deal. It's just a thumbnail of the real art, which I hold on my computer, or print, or whatever. The real art doesn't bear any obnoxious signature at all (I do agree that it's obnoxious), but the online reproduction does. This could be a really heavy discussion. I'm still thinking about it and I wonder how others feel about it.

johnpenn-thanks for the tip on the leaf size. I will be interested in what you come up with. Please keep us informed. Thanks!! Arleen