Choosing texture resolutions

[leigh]

The bigger, the better. Simple as that.

[Neison]

The bigger, the better. Simple as that.

:)

Thanks for the quick reply, leigh.

If 4096x4096 @ 300 dpi were available, you'd choose it above any other options of the same image because you can simply resize it, am I correct?

[scrimski]

I don't think that using different resolutions of the textures has any influence on the printed result, so I never use 300dpi textures. I would save the final rendering with 300 dpi or more if going for print though.

Shouldn't that be visible even on a desktop printer? Try it out, then you know.

[Neison]

I don't think that using different resolutions of the textures has any influence on the printed result, so I never use 300dpi textures. I would save the final rendering with 300 dpi or more if going for print though.

I understand what you mean, but it would seem that if the texture is only 72dpi then rendering wouldn't upscale it. I probably will test the results :wise:

[leigh]

:)

Thanks for the quick reply, leigh.

If 4096x4096 @ 300 dpi were available, you'd choose it above any other options of the same image because you can simply resize it, am I correct?

Large resolution is important because you can get fine details out of it. Many of the textures I create at work are around the 6000-8000px range, so you can see why I like having large photos to work from. I tend to build textures out of bits and pieces of photos, so the more resolution I have to work with, the easier my job is.

[Synthesizer]

For textures, the DPI doesn't matter at all. A 1024X1024 @ 72DPI is still the same size as a 1024X1024 @ 300 DPI, namely 1024x1024. The dimensions, and how much space they cover is what is important. DPI only tells an image how much of it will cover how much paper when printed.

I read somewhere that a good size is to make your texture at least twice the size it will show up at in the render. For example, if you have a cube that takes up the full screen at 640x480, the texture will need to be at least 1280x1280, but it would probably be better to go up to the next power of two.

Most of the stuff I do is for games and TV, so I rarely make large textures :) The TV stuff does allow me to work a bit larger, but usually there isn't any point, it's ridiculous how small of a resolution TV is, after the edges are chopped off... Of course it's also happened that a client wants something from a commercial to go to print, in which case I needed to redo the texture a bit larger, but a 4096x4096 comes out not too badly when the render is in the 3000 range.

Also, something I use all the time for game stuff to get the detail to stand out better is to give the whole thing a bit of unsharpen mask. Often a smaller texture that has been sharpened looks just as good.

[Neison]

For textures, the DPI doesn't matter at all. A 1024X1024 @ 72DPI is still the same size as a 1024X1024 @ 300 DPI, namely 1024x1024. The dimensions, and how much space they cover is what is important. DPI only tells an image how much of it will cover how much paper when printed....

Of course it's also happened that a client wants something from a commercial to go to print, in which case I needed to redo the texture a bit larger, but a 4096x4096 comes out not too badly when the render is in the 3000 range.

That's what I'm thinking too -- obviously high dpi is only for printing -- the benefit of having the texture available to at 300dpi is that I can res-down to 72dpi and what was 4000 pixels becomes 12000 for screen. Make sense?

I am making some textures that are from photos and want to make them available to texture artists -- referring back to my original question...I just want to make them deliverable in a format that is widely used so the majority of artists aren't having to waste time resizing.

Perhaps stick with 72dpi and if they need to res-up, they can do so in Photoshop(?). Thanks again for the great feedback.

[MasonDoran]

DPI only applies when working with Print. ie: 1280x1024 at 72dpi = 8 x10 inches at 300dpi (my proportions and ratio are wrong but concept applies)

So an image 3000x2000 = 11x17 inches at 300dpi and etc.

In other words 4k pixels x 4k pixels does NOT have DPI and therefor 300dpi does not apply to the image.

[Synthesizer]

Hopefully that clears the DPI issue up :)

[Neison]

Hopefully that clears the DPI issue up :)

Not exactly, lol -- but I'm certainly glad I asked about it.

The textures will be 7168x7168 @ 72dpi

I've found this resolution looks great with a quick unsharp mask. Thanks for the comments, guys.

[NioX]

Hi. I'm asking myself the same question but concerning low-poly modelling textures for games. With today hardware would 1024²px texture be acceptable ? Thank A++

[Synthesizer]

Well, that depends on what game engine you're using, and how big the prop is. For my game level in the Source engine, which is kind of not top of the line as far as specs go, I've been cramming lots of small props into a 1024, and putting two larger props on a 1024. Something the size of a wall at 1024 should work not too badly.

[NioX]

I'm using the TGEA, formerly known as Torque Shader Engine (torque game engine + shaders^^) and the model used is quite big as it's a medieval siege weapon, a ballista ( i don't know if you say it like this in english though... ). In 1024² details are not too bad but would 2048² influence game performances ? or it only depends on the amount of memory the user has in his graphic hardware and ram ?

Thank you, this site is great^^. A++

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.