United3dArtists Archive

Nowadays sizes of textures keep going 'up'...Higher 'rez', HIGHER 'REZ'!!

I can't really distinguish between a 4k texture on a model or an 8k texture on the same model...I think it nears the limit one can actually define a difference with a human eye...Or maybe it's just me...

Personally I don't use either & mostly use 1k or 2k and the file sizes of 4K & 8K are crazy, harder & longer to open & view or make thumbs and the file sizes alone are bigger than most my models in a completed state...

So what of a library of 256x256 or 512x512 or 1024x1024 textures & if you need somethin' 'Bigger' you just resize? I mean doing it with care & intelligence...

I have tried Inpixio Photo Maximizer, BenVista PhotoZoom and ReShade...There are more I wish to try out as well. But Tested this theory a year ago & was quite pleased.

No, These can't make it 'Hi-Rez' but are pretty damn good at getting close and in my book the positives outweigh the negatives. Inpixio was quite good and so were 2 others but PhotoZoom did a bit of 'painting in' and ReShade did a little more...

Of course if time is no problem you can simply do the old trick of resizing only in 10% steps, But it'll take awhile to get from a 1k texture to a 4k texture...

Food for thought...Nuthin' serious here just 'hobby mindin'...I may be CRAZY!

it depends on usage... if you have some big object with a camera very near, it can make a difference. If you have small textured object and camera far, you will never see any difference.

@bitkar Exactly, with screens getting higher and in resolution, renders will also have to be higher res for details to stay crispy and a low-res texture just isn't going to look good.
Right now most of my textures are 2048x2048 and I already noticed that for a lot of my models that meant I could not do a close-up render.

Well, There's Certainly no argument with what either of you are saying as that has always been the rule...

But we are talking apples & oranges...

I am talking instead of using that 2K texture in foreground OR background you instead use a 512x512 of the same ENLARGED to 2k in place of the original irrespective of if it's in the foreground OR background and see the difference between that & the one with original size to compare differences to see if it is viable...

Problem is.. resizing something small to larger will have the algorithm fill in pixels with blurry non-existent detail. Authoring larger to smaller has no problem as pixels can be removed and the detail you authored the texture in won't be lost. But vice versa.. you can size up and you will just blur and loose detail.

Yes, there are lanczos and bilinear and other filters that help resize - and now the future with AI systems that adds resizing detail to known images so you CAN go from small to big with more detail - but simple math of making 10 pixels go up to 20 px and adding in 10 guessed pixels will only blur detail - so always best to author bigger than what you will use the texture for.

But just to say as thought, for distance, you will need exponentially larger textures if the object is exponentially larger. If it is the same size, perspective will make the object smaller, thus the texture could technically go smaller and get away with it (as screen pixel density is finiate). This is the process of using LOD's and LOD on texture sizes. Unreal Engine is pretty good at doing this for you automatically.

Yeah...I see I'm gonna hafta do more testing in a more serious manner... Some of these apps are pretty good at filling in detail without 'blurring'...

The point I am getting at is that the positives outweigh the negatives as to what I have seen so far...

Things are cooking on here today...No more 'Bored Index'

Just to add...

Try it yourself with whatever you use to enlarge pics with...Now take a 256x256 texture (Like any in the tS Lib) and enlarge it 1000% to a 2.5K texture...

Looks pretty grim right? Yes....

Now do the same but only in 10% increments...big difference...Now think of something improving on that...

I guess I should clarify that I use OLD dual-cores & such with XP & do not use newer stuff & probably never will...So, For me this is a workable thing as a hobbyist I am not concerned with 'High-Rez' and I always seem to have to be aware of RAM & CPU usage on anything I do...

If you have some new machine with 2TB HDD and 32 or 64 GB RAM or whatever then this thread probably has no bearing...