Uploading images at very high screen resolutions

Hey there. I have SL connected via a laptop to a LCD TV running at the natural screen resolution of 1920x1080. Looks amazing and runs pretty well. I have an issue with uploading snapshots. I can successfully grab an image and they save fine to my hard drive hehe 5MB per file but that's OK. When I attempt to load them back into SL they are imported as 1024x1024 which is the wrong size and wrong aspect ratio. Anyone have any ideas how to upload the images ... I have a test one and it's snapped at 1920x1030 so should load back in as a widescreen format atleast something near that resolution.

At least SL will let you upload


Actually I think 1024x1024 is the max size for images.

1024x1024 isn't the max ... if I disconnect from the TV and use the standard laptop screen resolution 1440x900 again a widescreen resolution images upload correctly in a widescreen resolution of 1280x750 or near enough.

Uploading graphics files back into SL must have dimensions that are a multiple of 16 - So you can have the following for example: -

512x64
1024x512
1024x128
128x2048

etc.....

Thank god, it is not possible.

Smaller textures of that scene will regain their proportions when put on the right size prim. It may be possible in the future to upload oddly sized textures but for now they are in computer-friendly --->crossed out[[[multiples]]] POWERS* of two.

It was bad enough when 2048x2048 was allowed.

*Thank you, Chosen, for the correction.

It IS the max UPLOAD size. When you take a screenshot you can save to disk (no size limit as it never travels over the network), upload (which is an upload) or send as a post card (which is an upload).

If you have one on disk and try to upload it, (obviously an upload) it gets reduced to the next size down for each side. Most likely 1024 X 1024 if you have not cropped it.

If you have a 640X480 pic and upload it, what you get is a 512X256 pic. a 1440X900 will be converted to 1024X512. My 1280X1024 laptop gets converted to 1024X1024.

Take a snapshot to disk. Upload that snapshot. Set it texture you just uploaded to full perms and open it up to view it. Then, export that texture to disk. What you will have is a 1024X512 picture

Why do you want to upload a 5meg texture anyway? Lag not bad enough for you? Trying to max out your AV cost? For most prim work, 256X256 is plenty. A highly detailed repeating pattern can be done with less than that. Every step up in size is 4X the download time.

Do you have a texture with a side larger than 1024? Prove me wrong, send me a copy in game and I'll correct everything I have said.

that's probably 1280 x 768..........a resolution in the multiples of two and SL will handle that pretty well. The TV's resolution of 1920 x 1080 comes out to 1024 x 576 when resized to the largest deminsion of 1024 (the largest SL will allow for uploads). That is not multiples of two on both deminsions. So SL will resize to the 1024 x 1024 deminsions.......distorting your image. You can resize your image before uploading using most any image editing software that allows resizing. If you make your image mulitples of two on both deminsions SL will upload it fine for you. Problem is that to keep the aspect ratio correct you will either have to crop or fill with padding to get a multiple of two with that resolution.

You can also do as has been suggested and place on a prim and make the prim the proper aspect ratio.........both ways work.

That 5 meg file size is probably the size on disk........and most likely BMP format. If the image is uploaded to SL as a TGA it will be 4 megs at 1024 x 1024........however the image once it reaches SL's servers is compressed in the JPEG2000 format......considerably reduced in size. It's just your opinion that 256 x 256 is plenty........if someone wants greater detail in their image or texture that may very well be much too small. I usually upload at 512 x 512 (1 meg on my disk)........but occassionaly I do upload at 1024 x 1024 for details. The 512 size is just too small for my needs. If my stuff lags you too much........I'm sorry. You don't have to look at it.

That avatar render cost crap is already showing it's ugly head........I'll upload and wear what I want at whatever rendering cost it happens to be. What a load of crap. Since I don't lag my machine my suggestion is get a better machine. If SL's servers are lagging then it's their problem. If it's against the rule to have 1024 x 1024 textures in SL then take that size away for uploads........don't blame it on residents. Specifically, don't blame me for wanting as much detail on some of my textures as I can possibly get.......until it's forbidden, I'll continue to do as I have been doing for two years.

It's people like you who use large textures!

Most of my stuff is 512 by 512..............in case you don't know, that's the size of clothing textures

I have uploaded textures to put on prims (as artwork) at 1024 by 1024. If that concerns you, don't come look at them So, do I use 1024 by 1024 textures? Yes. Do I wear 1024 by 1024 textures? No.

So if that's a problem...........sorry. If my avatar rendering cost upsets you..........AR me.

In case YOU don't know. 512x512 is NOT the size of clothing textures. Typically, templates are that size for working in editing tools, but, when a clothing texture is ready to upload, it's better to resize the image to 256x256. It loads MUCH faster, puts less overhead on the servers, and there's NO DISTINGUISHABLE VISUAL DIFFERENCE when it's baked onto an avatar. So, it's basically a waste to upload clothing textures at 512x512. It's residents like you who don't care about avatar rendering costs who prompted LL to come up with it in the first place. Ok, fine, so it doesn't affect you when you upload it and use it, but, it DOES reduce the amount of textures that can be loaded on your machine overall, therefore it DOES affect you. Go learn a thing or two about how computers work, how 3D programs work, about how content for 3D games is created. It will only help you become better at creating content. Higher Resolution does not unnecessarily make you a better content creator. Try learning a thing or two besides saving and uploading images at higher resolutions. There's alot more to 3D content than resolution.

I'm with Johan on this one.

Having gotten a degree in the stuff, I know what I'm doing & talking about.

Most game textures are kept at a reltatively small size in order to keep things moving smoothly.

Sure, they could use giant sized textures, well over 1024x1024, but that would just slow things down considerably.

Texturing is an art form like any other 3D aspect. Learning to do it well is the trick.

One trick people should try- 1 file, multiple textures. Have one 1024x1024 texture made up of different materials. You shops & homes & items would rezz faster as the viewer is only loading 1 file to the client.

Gonna go dig up the links to the sites that explain all this.

then AR me in game

Then please explain to me why every tutorial I've read tells to resize to 512 x 512. I actually work on the templates at 1024 x 1024. And if LL wants to truly fix their lag problems and it really is because of users like me don't they forbid textures of a size larger than what they think is accepable?

I do understand what you are saying............I'm just saying the new tool will lead to comments like I just received about "people like you".

AR me...........get me banned. That will solve your problems. But AR and get every other "people like you" banned too.

Shrike, that's simply not possible. Just like most OpenGL applications, SL has always required that textures be measurable in powers of two. Take a look at what the measurements are on those "1280x750" snapshots of yours. They're probably 1024x512.

The two dimensions of a wrong-sized uploaded image are always resized for power-of-two correction independently. Aspect ratio is not a part of the equation. ANYTHING over 1024 comes out to 1024. Numbers below 1024 are usually downsized to the nearest power of two. 750 will become 512, for example.

Put that all together, and here's what you've been seeing. The reason your 1280x1030 came out square instead of wide is because both numbers were over 1024, so they both were resized to 1024. The reason your 1440x900 came out wide is because the 1440 got resized to 1024, and the 900 got resized to 512.

But keep in mind, while 1024x512 is wide, it's not the same aspect ratio as a widescreen monitor. It's obviously 1:2. Widescreens are generally 1:1.6.


It's not multiples of 16. It's powers of two. All powers of two between 8 and 1024 are usable (8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024). Any other numbers will get resized to powers of two upon upload. For more information on this, see the sticky on texture sizes at the top of the texturing forum.


Once again, for clarity, it's POWERS of two, not just multiples of two. There are only eight numbers between 8 and 1024 that are usable, and 500 multiples of two that are not. If you use any of those 500 non-power-of-two numbers, SL will resize them to powers of two at the time of upload.


Well, clothing and skin textures are not really the issue. Everyone has to wear clothing of some sort, and most people wear skins. Those things will set your ARC higher than the minimum, obviously, but that's fine. The maximum ARC for a full set of clothing and skin textures is a fixed amount, which is relatively low.

The problem is when people start to attach lots and lots of prims, each with unique textures on them. That's when the ARC goes through the roof, and everyone's frame rate drops as a result.



While I agree with you to a small degree, I have to take issue with this statement. There is no (consumer-available) computer in the world that will be able to render 30 or 40 ARC-abusive avatars in real time at a respectable frame rate. The onus is on all of us as users to keep things running smoothly.

Where I agree with you is that if someone is consistently experiencing low frame rates, then a better machine would be in order. But when the moron with the hoochie hair from Hell, and enough bling to put a troop of Vegas showgirls to shame, show's up and EVERYONE's frame rate drops (including the high end ones), then obviously the machines are not the problem.


Yes, but ARC has nothing to do with servers. Rendering is done on the local machine, by definition.


It's not about what's "forbidden" or "allowed". It's about what is and isn't smart to do. Digital art, especially where realtime engines are concerned, is ALWAYS about finding the best balance between detail level and performance. SL is no different.

Every 1024x1024 texture, as you pointed out earlier, Peggy, consumes 3 or 4 MB of video memory. It doesn't take all that many of them in a scene to completely overwhelm a 128 or 256 MB video card, and to put a VERY significant dent in the performance of a 512 or even 1024 MB card.

With 512x512 textures, you can have 4 times as many before you make the same dent in performance. And with 256x256, you can have 16 times as many.

SL happens to be amazingly good at blowing up small textures to full screen size, while keeping them looking good. It's better at that, in fact, than just about any other program I've ever seen. For all SL's flaws, this is one area where it truly shines.

If you need proof of that, try the following experiment. Rez a cube, and put a relatively well-made 256x256 texture on it. Many of the library textures will work fine for this. Floor Tile 11 is a good one, since it's fairly busy, and has a good mix of fine grains and larger design elements. But anything will work. Apply the texture, and zoom in on the cube until its height fills the height of your screen. If your monitor is 1024 pixels tall, you're now viewing the texture at 16 times its actual resolution. Notice it still looks just as good at that size as it does at its native size. As I said, SL is VERY impressive in this capacity.

Smart texture artists take full advantage of this. Because of it, there's hardly ever any need for 1024x1024. In most cases, a 512x512 or a 256x256 will look just as good (or in many cases, better, since certain artifacts diminish or disappear when textures are downsized before upload). And those who are efficiency-minded succeed fantastically because of it.

That's not to say there's never any legitimate need for 1024. There certainly is. If an image has a lot of fine text, or other very, very small details, that would become illegible at any lower size, then by all means use 1024. That's why it's there. But in at least 95% of cases, there's just no need for it.

The rule of thumb I usually suggest for optimum balance is to keep about 80% of your textures 256x256 or smaller, about 15% at 512x512, and about 5% at 1024x1024. Follow that guideline, and you'll almost always be able to achieve the best of both worlds. You can have great detail and high performance at the same time, as long as you maintain appropriate balances in appropriate areas.



Johan, just so you know, while you're right that you can make your clothing textures any size you want, they always become 512x512 once applied to the avatar. The system takes all the textures your avatar is wearing, and bakes them into a single set of three 512x512 textures, called an "outfit".

So it really makes no difference, performance-wise, whether your clothing is 256x256 or 1024x1024 or whatever. The 512x512 version is all anyone will ever see.

That said, you are certainly right that uploading 1024x1024 clothing textures is a waste. It wastes storage space on the servers, since the textures are 4 times as large as they need to be. It also wastes a small amount of network traffic, since the full-sized texture is delivered to you before the baking happens. The pipeline goes as follows:

1. When you first put on a clothing item, the asset server sends the full sized texture to your viewer.

2. After receiving the texture, your local viewer software bakes it into your outfit.

3. Your viewer uploads your baked outfit to the region server (Sim), so it can be delivered to everyone around you, so they all can see it. The outfit consists of three 512x512 textures for clothing/skin (head, upper body, and lower body), plus another 512x512 for your hair texture, and a 256x256 for your eyes.

It sounds a little convoluted with all the downloading and re-uploading going on, but if you think about it from a computational cost perspective, it makes sense. Letting each avatar's local computer bake the avatar's outfit saves tremendously on server resources.

Anyway, the important point here is that ANY size other than 512x512 for a clothing or skin texture is a waste. They all get resized to 512x512 at the time of baking, no matter what.



Amen.

Nope! Dont have to!

I have a system that can handle it

512x512 is good enough for just about everything. Anything larger is excessive and not a good idea in general.

www.gamasutra.com

www.3dtotal.com


Two sites that deal with 3D, textures, and OpenGL.

Oooops you are right of course - not sure what I was thinking - still I got closer than with multiples of 2 lol

Chosen you are my forum hero.

No matter how many times you explain the details of texture uploading/resolutions and the need for lower resolution images, you manage to stay polite and informative. Thanks, and keep spreading the gospel of responsible texturing!

Off the top of my head (without going into my inventory and actually counting my textures and their sizes) that is what I think is my approximate use of the textures I've made and uploaded. I'm very much aware of the larger textures putting extra load on any computer......or system.

And I'd like to thank you for pointing to my misuse of the "multiples"............I meant powers (and see where I screwed up). I simply used the same word that someone else used knowing what I meant but causing possible confusion by not using the proper term.

My problem with this new tool is still the same.......it will be very much misused by many. Not many of us who "create" in this game are pros. We do the best we can.......but the true pros (and wannabes) will inevitably put that newly popular label on us amateurs. Maybe SL should forbid us from "creating" all together if the system can't handle it.

It's just information, Peggy. When you are going to an event you know will be laggy you now have the information to pare down your outfit and help cut lag. I don't think anyone wants people to behave belligerently about this. It's information that will help us learn and make good decisions.