Strange uploading problem

This is so strange.

I made a .psd image file with about 10 layers.

I saved it as a .tga file.

I uploaded it to my inventory.

Then I realized only one layer of the thing had uploaded...
but targa images don't support layers... and when I looked at the .tga image on my hard drive it was all there.

I made the image in PSP8 and I didn't apply any masks or channels.

I'm not sure if the one layer that got uploaded was the one selected when I saved the image as .tga.

The only way I could get it to work was by saving the image to my clipboard then pasting it as a new image and saving THAT image as my .tga file.

This has happened to me twice now.

I'd love to know what's going on.

Did you merge your layers before saving to upload? Don't know about PS but GIMP warns you when saving to TGA that you must either merge or flatten the image first before saving.

Check your alpha channel. Sounds like you have parts of the image in the alpha set to transparent that aren't supposed to be. You wouldn't see that until it was uploaded to SL. It would work from the clipboard because that would ignore the alpha and copy whatever was visible in PS.

Thanks for answering. I have never merged my layers before saving and this never happened before so I'm thinking that's not it. I didn't mean to set all the other layers to be transparent but if they could be so set and yet not look transparent maybe I clicked something without realizing it. Looking at the layers they all seem to be the same...

You shouldn't need to merge or flatten anything. Photoshop does that automatically when you save as TGA. I have never had any problems.

Go to the channels palette and look at the alpha channel. That's where your problem likely is. Visible transparency while you're working on a document in Photoshop isn't controlled by the saved alpha channel, but it is once you upload it to SL. If the alpha channel is creating transparency where you don't want it, those pixels will be gone when the image is uploaded.

I'm betting Chip's right, and you've got an alpha channel in there you didn't realize was present. Since PSP doesn't have a channels palette, it's easy to include one or more alpha channels by mistake in the image. It happens all the time. Try hitting Image -> Delete Alpha Channel, and then in the dialog that pops up, make sure the checkbox for Delete All Alpha Channels is on, and click OK. Save and upload, and it will most likely be fine.

There's never any need to merge layers before saving to TGA, since as you pointed out in the beginning, TGA does not support layers. The working document could have one layer or a million layers, and the TGA will come out exactly the same.

TGA files only know about channels, not layers. The number of channels makes a huge difference; the number of layers does not.


If after deleting all alpha channels, the problem persists, then we'll have to dig a little deeper. But at this point, I'm not sure what else it could be.

This is an interesting behavior in the latest version of GIMP. I'm not really sure why they put set up that dialog the way they did. While it does explain that a copy of the image will be have to be exported to TGA, since the layered original can't be saved directly, which is fine (PS does this too, but with different wording), I'm not sure why it offers the user the choice to flatten all layers or just to merge the visible ones. The TGA should come out the same either way, shouldn't it?

I'm presuming that if you select Merge Visible Layers, then the hidden ones will just be excluded from the export. But if you select Flatten Image, those layers will just be flattened out of existence anyway. If they're invisible, they can't affect anything in the flattening. So why the two options? Anyone know of a circumstance in which the two would yield differing results?



In any case, I'm not sure "warn" is the most accurate description of what's happening. It's not telling you you have to do anything to your working document before saving. The program is simply asking you how you'd like it to proceed (at the time of save) in order to export the new TGA copy of the image that it's about to make.

I opened the .psd file in The Gimp and looked at the channels and sure enough there was an alpha channel. I deleted in and saved it as .tga (flatten image) and sure enough that worked. This has never happened to me before and I have no idea how I accidentally added an alpha channel.
Also it looked as if the alpha channel was all white whcih makes it seem to me as if everything should have shown up anyway.
Thanks for all the answers.

Chosen..........bare with a rank amatuer here. I think I know why GIMP offers the choice on a save to tga. The option gives me the choice to either finalize my editing session once I save or to continue with all layers intact after the save to tga (since tga does not support layers GIMP needs to know what I want to do). The invisible layers are unaffected in the working image unless I specifically check another option to "discard invisible layers). I do not get that dialog if I manually delete all layers that I don't need for my uploaded texture and merge or flatten all the layers before saving. But, if I do not merge (flatten) all the layers including layers not visible I do get the dialog. I often do not delete the un used layers because I intend to use that same texture for something else, (As an example: I might make a texture for a prim that I want to make a flexible skirt with, then after that save I will want to continue to make a matching mesh clothing texture to use for an outfit). If all my layers were deleted before hand I have to start over, if I don't do that my layers are still there for me to use in my next part of my efforts. GIMP asks me if I want to merge or flatten my visible layers (it's just a choice for which method to use)........the visible layers are not deleted so I can simply keep working after that save to tga. If I want to keep transparency I merge........if I don't want transparency I flatten. Flattening removes the alpha channel and places what ever background color is selected in the color pallet at the time of the save.

I see the reason GIMP does that........and I use it to make life easier on me.

Ah, I get it now. Thanks, Peggy.

why not save it as a png, now that SL supports them, saves a lot of hassle with having to make the alpha channel and such.

no harm in trying (that's my motto)

Because I like to do it Peggy's way...........LOL

Seriously, I'll have to try the PNG format sometime.

One word of caution with PNG. There's a relatively high margin for error when it comes to bit depth, since the format supports simple transparency. If so much as a single pixel in the image is less than 100% opaque, the whole thing will come out 32-bit. As a result, unnecessary alpha sorting problems are very common with PNG-sourced textures. So if you're going to use that format, you do need to be careful.

Also, you sacrifice a ton of control and speed when you're using simple transparency. Alpha mapping is far more powerful than WYSIWYG methodology, and it's also much faster. People who shy away from using alpha channels usually aren't willing to believe the speed part, but it is true, nonetheless. I'll refrain from going into detail on the topic, though, since there have already been about a thousand discussions about it on this forum.

So that means if I make a texture with a gradient from opaque to transparent it will mess up? I'm not sure I'm understanding exactly what you are saying.........but I think you are saying PNG is all or nothing? 100% opaque or 100% transparent......nothing in between. I'm just asking..........I may have misunderstood.

The PNG can have gradients.

I'll spend 10 lindens tomorrow the see for myself. I've always used TGA since that has always been the perferred format. I'll probably continue to use TGA as I've never had any alpha channel problems that others seem to have........maybe I'm just lucky.

Sorry if I was unclear. It won't mess up. Your gradient will work just fine (although the method to achieve it will be more complicated if you use simple transparency instead of alpha transparency).

I didn't mean that the image has to look 100% opaque or 100% transparent. As you know, a 32-bit image can certainly have opaque parts in it. But the image as a whole has one bit depth. If any part of it is transparent, then the whole thing is 32-bit, even if most of the image looks opaque.

What I meant was with simple transparency it's easier to make a mistake, to accidentally end up with a 32-bit texture when your intention was 24. Since the bit depth is being determined by the visible transparency instead of by the number of channels in the source image, you have to make absolutely certain every single pixel is 100% opaque if you want to ensure that the texture will be 24-bit. If any pixel is 99% or less, then you end up with a 32-bit texture.

If you're careful with simple transparency, and you don't mind doing the extra work it takes to create certain effects, then it works perfectly well, and any desired look can be achieved.