Does Hi-Rez Always Look Best? by Meshbox
Close
Hover over top left image to zoom.
Click anywhere to exit.
Members remain the original copyright holder in all their materials here at Renderosity. Use of any of their material inconsistent with the terms and conditions set forth is prohibited and is considered an infringement of the copyrights of the respective holders unless specially stated otherwise.
No AI - This artwork was created entirely by hand or with traditional digital tools.
Description
Im calling out to taste testers in regard to texture resolution. Please take a look and respond: Which one looks better? Which resolution is which? Ill confirm on Monday which one is high rez (4096x4094) or lower rez (1024x1024).
All of our base building models ship with 1024x1024 texture maps, but we've been internally debating about the idea that a higher resolution texture map always looks best.
This is our Halfling Village Guardhouse, created in Max 6 and rendered in Vue 5 Esprit's "Superior" render quality, using the default Skydome atmosphere.
Id like to get community feedback on this.
Comments (24)
The left looks better. Marginally. But slightly better.
Hi chikako, "A" looks like it has more detail to me.
The left. Look good!
I prefer the 'B' one.
Higher rez is better primarily in close ups. Middle distance and background elements generally look as good with lower rez - and a lot less resource-intensive. A lot of vendors include both versions for that reason. Great model, btw. I especially like the wood fence.
The stonework in A is very slightly clearer so I'd guess that it is the higher rez.
I vote for 'A"
I vote for A, it looks more clearer and sharper.
ummmmm. lessee, when you saved it as one image, the overall image is all the same rez, so any details you might have had at the higher rez would have been lost in the compression of the jpeg. since both images are absolutely the same size, the rez is absolutely the same. so the rez of the texture was recompiled and compressed to fit the final output at one point or another. any detail in the rez of the texture was lost rendering or resizing the image after the fact. there are general rules of thumb for all the programs usually put together by people who are intimate with how the render engine actually deals with the image textures. i seem to remember mostly a 2:1 ratio is a good mix from texture to final output, but there are lots and lots of variables, not the least of which is purposing. In any event, the textures here are really nice.
In this example B .. A looks like it had sharpen run once too many times
'B',The one on the right I like; The one on the left has that rippley interferance you see in low-rez JPEG images and the stone and wood textures on 'B' look more sharper and realistic.
The modeling is spot on, and the texturing is fantastic in both pictures. Well, if Vue 5 uses an interpolation method on its textures, then a surface texture at the render resoulution would be best anyway, otherwise, the high res texture. Either way, most commercial rendering systems I know of will employ some lossy interpolation (such as pixel removal/doubling). I guess Vue 5 would do the same. Which means the one on the right, with the muted detail might be the full-resolution version if Vue 5 interpolated the textures to the render resolution...
I like 'B' better. Both are excellent but I think the bump mapping of B is a bit more realistic and gives a better overall result to the render.
I think that A is the high res version. Incredible modelling!!
Food for thought: Skilled end-users could probably down-rez a hirez version themselves if they wanted to. The same is not true in reverse.
If I was you, I'd provide both. When viewed from a distance, lo res is fine and it lessens the load on the renderer. However, if you're dealing with a close up shot, you want the hi res. If you had to choose, provide the high res, and let the customer reduce it as needed - depending on the shot.
A is better resolution but is not the better image.B looks naturaly and have a plus for me.
I like the one on the right.It's not as 'busy' and hyper-real.
"A" looks best to me. :)
B looks best to me. When i look at A, i feel i have much more powerfull glasses than i need, and my eyes hurt. It's sharp beyond it's purpose, i think. B looks mild and realistic.
Monday is here and the answer is: "A" is the high rez one at 4096x4096. Thanks for the feedback everyone! The original texture was "B" and it was upscaled (with some fiddling) to get "A". We normally ship our products with a 1024x1024 texture map since it seems like a good compromise between quality artwork and "lean" expectations for work with 3D games.
mmmmmmm...what's the point of having a "hi res" image if its just a low res image enlarged???
Upscaling isn't high res at all. To really have high res the original texture needs to be size 4096x4096. The low res texture then is a scaled down from the high res one. You don't scale up low res to get high res, that's not high res at all, still low res. A scaled up low res texture will still look bad in a high res image. If you would sell a scaled up low res texture as high res texture you would actually be deceiving your customers. Try rendering a really large render with this scaled up so called high res texture and you will see the flaw in this practise.
We give priority on the artists who sounds on my gallery and favorites ~~ But I cannot resist of commented on an image which I like ~~ Invitation has to see our gallery ~~ Have an awesome day ~~****~~()~~ A love for art.