What resolution I should use for textures?

I have already read thist topic: "Texture Size, Pixel Counts, Video Memory, and File Formats" and "Chosen Few" says

"I usually suggest as a rule of thumb that about 80% of textures should be 256x256 or smaller, about 15% should be 512x512, and about 5% should be 1024x1024."

and

"It's quite rare that there's a legitimate reason to go much larger than 256x256.".

It was posted in 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Now I'm planning to start selling textures in Second Life. I want offer high quality and good textures. But now I don't know what is best resolution for texture (ofcourse some textures need bigger resolution cause many little details and some other textures is ok for smaller resolution, but I mean now average).

There is lot of textures in Xstreet SL what are 512x512 and even 1024x1024.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So, my problem is: Should I make 512x512 textures so I can honestly say "They are high quality" or should I make 256x256 so I can say "They are very good texture for Second Life. They are small enought and downloading fast."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I mean, I be afraid that I lose customers because they think that my textures is not as good as bigger resolutions if I use 256x256.

So, question for builders and others:

What resolution textures you use? If there is similar type textures in 256x256 and 512x512 resolution, do you select 512 because it's more high quality or do you select 256 because it's smaller file size. Or do you think that you use big texture for big area and small texture for small area. (All, or allmost all my textures is tileable, so they are good for big and small areas).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I can do my textures for any resolution, 16x16 or 4096x4096 (I know Second Life don't use this big textures) so it's not problem for me what resolution I use.

But the biggest question is: Which one is more important (for another users in Second Life); good quality (512) or fast download/small memory use (256)?

(This is some kind of poll, but I use text only. Should I post this poll for Builder's forum?).

The advice in the sticky thread is still the best advice you are going to get. If textures take a very long time to rez, people will walk away in disgust and will never see how beautiful they look in ultra-high resolution. Keep most textures at 512 x 512 or below, saving a very few for higher resolution. There's no point is wasting your effort on making a high-resolution texture that people will only glance at for a second either (i.e., don't make high-rez backgrounds that people will fly past). Especially if your textures will be in a heavy traffic area, use as few as possible and avoid using many at 1024 x 1024.

Can you offer people a choice of textures?

It really depends a LOT on what it is a texture of, and how it is likely to be used.

I can do a fantastic texture of a painted wall, at just 256 x 256 resolution, or maybe even less, simply because there is not much texture detail required to make it look great.

If that same wall needs to include three alpha-textured windows with detailed framing around the window panes, and intended to go on a 5 M high x 10 M wide wall, I'll need more detail. 256 x 512, or maybe 512 x 1024

I can do a homogenous texture for brick paving that can tile just fine at 128 x 128, and look fantastic.

But if I want to do a brick sidewalk with randomly placed weeds in the cracks and some texture variation brick to brick, I need more pixels, because otherwise the repeats will be glaringly obvious when you repeat the same texture every meter or less.

A texture for bar glassware may do fine at 256 x 256, if the glassware is a simple design. But if the glassware is Waterford cut crystal, with intricate faceted patterns, more pixels are needed to present the detail.

Also, bear in mind that while most content creators won't bother doing so, if the textures are sold full perms (as most are, to keep them useful in making things for resale), a content creator can always export a high-rez texture and re-import it at a lower resolution, if they really don't want as much detail and want the item to rez faster. But they can't create detail that isn't there.

You mean that I make two version of every texture, 256x256 and 512x512? This was one thing I thinking, but I don't know if it's too complicate... I mean, uploading images cost 2x, they use 2x space if I sell them in different boxes, and 2x customers inventory space if I sell them in same boxes.

after a while it becomes second nature what size your textures should be, I use 512 x 512 often, but only because in most of my builds I use the same texture often and change it's appearance with offsets and tinting. Also many of my 512 x 512 textures can include 4 to 16 images, the most images I have had on a 512 x 512 is 56 which was used for a rotating shadow, so on that basis, using single textures at 256 x 256 and even 128 x 128 in most case should be sufficient. The only time I use 1024 x 1024 is if it's very small text on a large area, the text needs the detail so it doesn't blur to nothing.

And it's equally true today. Nothing has changed.




There is no correlation between the size of a texture and whether or not it's high quality. Is the Mona Lisa not as good a painting as The Last Supper, just because it's smaller? Of course not. Both are masterpieces, regardless of size. In this context, remember what Yoda said (even if the ladies might disagree): "Size matters not."

It matters for performance, of course (right, ladies?), but not necessarily for image quality.




Without seeing the textures you're referring to, there might or might not be a reason for them to be so big. If they need to be that big in order for certain details not to disappear, or because they're meant for large backdrops that are likely to fill the whole screen, then fine. But if they're just being marketed as "bigger is better than smaller", that's just plain silly.



A couple years ago, I had the privilege of being shown a batch of raw textures, created for Red Storm, by a colleague. They were some of the most beautifully constructed images I'd ever seen, good enough to make me feel quite humbled (as well as inspired), and they were all 128's and 256's.

If you truly believe that large size is what makes a texture high in quality, then there are only two options for you. Either change your thinking or look for a different career path besides texture artist. Right now, you seem to be looking at this the wrong way. What you should be able to honestly say about your textures is "They're high quality AND they're small enough not to be significant contributors to lag."

If you don't feel you can do that, then there are only two possible reasons I could think of:

1. Perhaps the specific textures in question actually do need to be 512x512 in order to work well. From other things you said in your post, I'm inclined to doubt that that's actually the case, but it's certainly possible. As you rightly pointed out toward the beginning of your post, some textures legitimately do need to be large. And there's nothing wrong with that, as long as they're used within reason.

2. Maybe the art of making small textures that look good is a skill you have yet to develop. Generally speaking, there's absolutely no reason a 256 needs to be "lower quality" than a 512.


By the way, let me offer one small (but significant) correction to something you said. You mentioned download speed as the reason to keep textures small. In theory, that makes sense, but in practice, it's almost a non-issue. SL offers us no guarantees over the order in which assets are delivered. There's no way to predict whether a given 256 will load before or after a given 1024 (aside from hovering your mouse over the one you hope will appear first, but even that isn't a guarantee).

Far more significant than delivery time is frame rate after delivery. It's all about the amount graphics memory an image will consume when it's displayed. The more memory is required, the more of a hit to FPS the texture will create. Oversized textures are by far the single biggest cause of low frame rates (commonly referred to as "lag" in SL.




If you feel that this sort of misperception is a valid concern, then how about taking steps to educate your customers? What the customer thinks or doesn't think is nearly always the direct result of your own presentation of whatever you're selling. If you make a strong case for the truth, then most of your customers will walk away knowing the truth. If you don't, they won't.

In this case, the truth is that textures should ALWAYS be kept as small as possible. The "highest quality" texture you can get is one that contains the absolute minimum amount of pixels required to convey its beauty as an image, in a reasonable amount of detail. That's it.




That's pretty broad question. The resolutions we ALL use are the ones SL allows, powers of two from 16x16 to 1024x1024. With the exception of the occasional oddball person who might have some irrational fetish for a certain size, everybody's textures are going to span the entire gamut, with the size of each individual image being a direct function of its intended use.

If I need to apply something simple, like a solid color, or a checkerboard pattern or something, then I'll use a 16x16. If it's repeating floor tiles, then maybe it would be 32x32 or 64x64, depending on how much detail the tile needs to have. If it's the wing of a giant bird, in which I want people to be able to scrutinize every feather, then it's going to be one, if not several, 1024x1024's. Everything else falls somewhere in between, generally in accordance with the percentages I suggested, which you cited in your post here.



I select whatever size will best do the job. If the 256 looks just as good as the 512, which it very easily could, then of course I'll select the 256. That's a no-brainer. But if there's a legitimate reason to pick the 512, like if certain details just can't be visible at 256, then the 512 wins.




If that's the case, then I'm quite puzzled as to what kinds of textures you're making. I create textures every day, and every time I do, I have to give consideration to canvas size. Unless the goal is to create some sort of homogeneous, mindless pattern, in which case it really doesn't matter what it is, I don't know of ANY way to work without either the amount of space I've got at my disposal determining what elements go into the image, or else the image elements serving to determine how much space is going to be required.

If you've found a way to work without those things having to play a role in the decision making process, I'd love to learn more about whatever it is you're doing.




That's impossible to answer. It's both and neither, all at the same time.

Again, large size doesn't necessarily mean good quality, and small size doesn't have to mean low quality. But I would invite you to consider that most textures in games are 256x256 or equivalent. (Not including next-gen games, which are more and more starting to incorporate dynamic shaders in place of static textures.)




I wouldn't bother with a poll. The results wouldn't mean anything, because the question itself is based on an inaccurate premise.


My best advice is that you offer all your textures in an assortment of sizes, and then let the customer decide which size is best for each use.

Thank you Chosen Few. You give me some new to thinking.

When I say "high quality texture" I mean this:

There is two brick walls in picture 1. First wall is with 256x256 texture and second is with 512x512 texture. There is not noticeable difference between them.

In picture 2 is same walls, but you can see difference between them. 256x256 is more blurry than 512x512.

Picture 1.
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?2f45466f03.jpg

Picture 2.
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?13c19263d0.jpg



This is what I mean "high quality". 512 looks much better (when watching close), but texture is 4x bigger (resolution) than 256 and I don't know is this extra details worth it. This is my problem. I'm perfectionist (that's my problem) and I want make perfect textures, but I don't want cause more lag for Second Life.

I don't know how close peoples watch textures. Propably most of SL users don't watch terxtures as attentively as I watch because I made textures myself. If there is texture on floor, you propably don't see it very close, but if texture is on wall, you can "accidently" see it close if you are inside of building, turn around corner etc.

I have some 128x128 textures and they don't need to be bigger, but in this case I thinking should I make 256x256 or 512x512 textures for brick wall... (I know brick wall is one of most common textures and there is lot of another seller).

Propably I make 256 textures and offering to make 512 "custom" textures if someone necessary need them.

My textures is like seamless brick walls, wood, metal panels etc. basic thing. I made them digitally (using some software) or using my photos taken by me as source, so I can quite easïly make them for what resolution I want. Of course some 16x16 brick wall or grass texture don't look realistic, but you know what I mean.

This is interesting. After looking at your first picture, I was going to say, "Well, I can tell that the wall on the left has a higher res texture on it than the one on the right, but it's not enough of difference, in my opinion, to justify quadrupling the size." But then I looked at the second picture, and saw that it's actually the other way around. It's the one on the right that's higher res, not the one on the left. If I couldn't tell which was which, and I was actively looking for the difference, I can't believe anyone not not deliberately trying to see the difference would ever notice.

That said, when looking close up, the difference is obvious, of course. But what do you think are the chances anyone's going to zoom in like that on something as mundane as a brick wall? If you think the chances are high, then offer the bigger texture. If not, then don't.

Me, I'd offer a range of sizes, and let the user decide what's best for each use, as I said earlier.


Another option is just to put less bricks on the smaller canvas, so that each individual brick retains its full pixel count. That will result in a smaller repeat pattern, obviously, so it's not always the best idea. Smaller pattern generally means more boring imagery overall. But it is a legitimate option, nonetheless.


On a side note, I do notice in the closeup that the low-res version has a pretty high degree of compression artifacting in it. Were you perhaps saving as JPEG before uploading? If so, don't do that. JPEG is lossy, and so is the JPEG2000 conversion method that SL uses prior to upload. So when you start with a JPEG, you lose quality twice. You get the old "copy of a copy" effect. If you start with any of the other three formats SL supports (TGA, BMP, PNG), the artifacting from the JPEG2000 conversion will usually be much less noticeable.

I noticed same, left (256x256) looks little sharper. I don't know why, maybe reason is camera angle or something like that.

Artifact... textures are my old "resolution test textures". I uploaded same texture in different resolution (128,256,512) and test them. It was before I readed your great post about textures. So they are uploaded in .jpg format. After I readed your post I use only .tga in my textures.

Petri,

Can I enquire as to the size of your original canvas prior to resizing and uploading?

I can only see that your texture consists of 4 bricks horizontally and 12 vertically and should not really need to be such a large canvas to start with.

My thinking is that perhaps (just perhaps) the losselessness in the reduction might be your side prior to uploading.