View Full Version : What size do you skin ???
02 February 2002, 12:41 AM
OK, in the other poll we have the type of skinning. This one deals with size of your map.
Most of the time i skin at twice resolution and then scale down. My only exception is when i have to do a small 256x256 map ... i usally do it at res and let the game blur the texture for me.
your thought ????
02 February 2002, 01:00 AM
Currently i skin at larger res, cause we're not sure or that magic number yet. Way to many varialbles to consider. So i start high. :D
The Magic Pen
02 February 2002, 01:20 AM
I skin at 1024x1024 if I am going to use a 512 and like you res down later. The computer handles shriking the detail better then not having it there to begin with. As of lately I have been able to use 1024x1024 skins so I am painting on a 2048X map :eek:
I test the game on geforce 2 card and the S4 compression on the texture is really nasty on anything larger then a 256 :mad:
02 February 2002, 01:50 AM
I belive that entirely depens on the game. Graphic intensity and so on..:) You should always push it to the limits... You didn't specifie what kind of object you are skinning so I will asume that its a character you talking about. In that case I think most of the new games around uses an 512 and at times an additional face texture, usually smaller then the other.
02 February 2002, 01:56 AM
Hey!!:D Seems like I missunderstod this post.:o
In that case I always texture at the same res. In my opinion you always lose to much details when shrinking the image. But then again. That depens on what type of texture your doing.:D
02 February 2002, 02:23 AM
I always do my textures at the same resolution they will be in the game. I want to be in control of what's going to show up on screen so I never shrink down anything. I learned to work at various res and I never had any problem so far.
02 February 2002, 09:17 PM
REALLY ? I've always had to reduce my textures in size due to platform constraints. I think the biggest texture I've ever used in a game is 256x256x24bit. That was for landscapes and skydomes.
I've also done main game vehicles to that size with some additional alpha transparency.
02 February 2002, 07:19 AM
I like to work larger, but do not like to double the size because it really isn't doubling the size, its 4x the size. You can get 4 256's in a 512. I also like to keep the loss of detail to a minimum. What I do is take my output size and divide it by 1/2 and add that back to the image size.
So if I have a 256 output, I divide it by 1/2 and get 128. I add that back to 256 and get 384.
512 / 2 = 256 + 512 = 768 etc…
The one problem with this technique is if you are testing your skin in-game you need to resize the image first for it to be crisp. If you are viewing in max there is no need to resize.
It gives me just the right amount of extra canvas size to work and I usually loose very little detail once I reduce.
Oh and when I do reduce I flatten the canvas, resize to proper size, duplicate the layer, apply the sharpen filter, change its opacity to 50 % and flatten.
02 February 2002, 08:08 AM
I just recently learned a new little trick . . .
Flatten the image. Then, duplicate the layer. Run the high-pass filter on that image. Change the mode to hard light (also experiment with soft light and overlay) and then play with the opacity setting to get the feel you want. The setting in the high-pass filter is approximately equal to the radius setting you would use in unsharp masking.
The advantages to this is you have more subtlety you can tweak between using the different blend modes and layer transparencies. Plus you can run other filters on the high-pass layer (such as median which will take out some of the smaller details/noise out of the layer) to further enhance the effect.
Anyways, worth playing with for sure.
And Bobo - thanks for reminding of math lessons long since forgotten - I totally forgot the fact that a 512 map is *not* twice the size of 256 but 4 times the size! That really makes a difference when reducing as you are throwing away much more detail when reducing . . . thanks!
. . . Kim
02 February 2002, 02:46 PM
Larger, usually 2 times in each direction (so 4 times the area). My reason for this is that creating the texture larger lets me effectively draw subpixel. The finest line you can draw on a bitmap with photoshop is a pixel wide + antialiasing. But if you work at 2 times the res in each direction, this becomes 1/2 a pixel wide with antialiasing. Rather than drawing a fainter fat grey line to denotate a really fine line, at the higher res you just draw as normal, and let the resampling take care of it for you. I also like the fact that all the tools have this finer granularity.
I find this give the textures a more 'complicated' feel in the end. The only thing you have to be really careful about is your face boundaries. Obviously they're now 2 pixels thick, so you need to make sure you overshoot by at least another 2 pixels to get a 1 pixel mipmap safe border.
02 February 2002, 11:56 PM
yeah same here, i usually skin at 2x in each dimension... usually usually 512 max in on dimension. the resizing tends to clean up a lot of lines and hide little errors :)
02 February 2002, 12:05 AM
All depends on what I'm texturing and how I'm feeling.
For Q3 I usually paint at 512x512 and scale down to 256, but at work I'll do it whatever size it needs to be.
As for the sharpening thing, there's a load of ways to do it. Personally I like incremental sharpening (scale down a quater, sharpen, scale down a quater again, sharpen again etc), but I find that selecting "fade sharpen" and selecting "darken" from the list usually gives a nicer result. Not always, but most times.
02 February 2002, 12:34 AM
Wow, lots of good resizing tips and techniques here.
02 February 2002, 11:38 AM
i paint my maps in photoshop between 2000x2000 to 3000x3000 and at like 200+ dpi, looks good in max, then i just scale down the map for the game. why cheat yourself.
03 March 2002, 01:17 AM
thats one huge map :eek: .
Your DPI issue raises a question. do higher DPI textures make a difference in the game ? (i thought anything over 72 dpi on a PC screen was a waste ?). Would a 256x256 map made at 150 dpi look better on screen than a 256x256 72 dpi image ??
03 March 2002, 07:38 AM
The only time DPI is an issue is when you are printing your image on a printer. When an image is displayed on the screen 256 pixels is 256 pixels no matter what the DPI. Screen res has nothing to do with "inches" It just displays x number of pixels across the screen. So if you take an image that is 256 x 256 at 72 dpi and you take the same image and change the dpi to 150 it will still display the exact same size on the screen. 256 pixels. So no, the higher dpi will not look better on screen.
However, if you were to print that image from photoshop, in case #1 (72 dpi) your image will print at 3.5 inches by 3.5 inches. In case #2 your image will print 1.7 inches by 1.7 inches.
And that concludes your dpi lesson for today. ;)
. . . Kim
01 January 2006, 02:00 AM
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.