file size? how much is enoght?

[suztv]

It seems large - yes. You could try using a flattened version of the file...

Also - unless you are going to be doing closeups - that filesize may be uneccessary. Perhaps create two versions if you are doing an animation - one medium res for regular shots and a Hi-res version for close ups. Of course I'm assuming you are animating this.

[leigh]

16Mb? Big? Errr.... is this for a game? Because if it isn't, why are you worried about a 16Mb file?

[pelos]

Hi leigh, is not for a game, is for a the entry of a video, we are doing a character and setting everything,

i did work with JPG befere since were for 1024 screens, but thats it,
my boss ask me to have it ready in case we need to make a BIG production, i look some info, and read some forums, we started working with Tiff, and some of them are like 200k, and well another one from 16MG,

since we usually do some commercials for TV, (just a 3d object and doing the composition in After) we slowly started doing some comercials with characters, and pushing the commpany for more challenge, i dont know the standar that other companys are using, and well, here in mexico is hard to find people realated with this field.

[leigh]

Well, just for some comparison, my own TIFF files tend to range in size between 100Mb to 300Mb, sometimes larger. This is pretty standard. Although, I should mention that these are then converted to .tex files for rendering, and the file sizes for .tex are a little different (although generally not by much).

This is largely due to two factors: we work in 16-bit colour, which pushes file size up; and we work in much larger texture sizes, generally 4096x4096, or 8192x8192, and sometimes even larger. And these textures are just for sections of an object, not the entire thing - so a single character could, for example, be split in to about 5 different sections, each with an 8k sized texture. Texture size is largely determined by how close something is seen in shot - if the camera gets close, it needs a large texture. A 2048x2048 sized texture would only be used for something that is in the background, as it simply isn't large enough to hold up if the camera gets close.

Anyway, my point is that 16Mb for a file is nothing to worry about.

Also, I would advise against using JPG for textures, as it compresses the images and causes artifacts. TIFF is a good choice.

[mister3d]

I don't want to claim anything, and I believe it may cause some artifacts (during compositing stage?), but it depends how your renderer treats large files. I guess in movie production renderman is used with insane capacities and reliability, able to eat anything. I just ran tests jpeg vs tiff and I can't see any difference. But I can see big increase in memory consumption, which is vital for stable rendering in my case. If you don't compress jpeg till 6 level in photoshop, you will hardly notice any difference. I don't render to big resolutions, this may be a factor. I depends what your machine is, how much virtual memory you have, what your operating system is. If you have only 2 gigs you have no other option than compress teextures. If you have more, see for yourself if your render starts to creep. Maybe just do simple tests and compare? It's hard to compare hi-end movie production with a single rendering machine with limited resources. It just depends what your situation is.

[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.