Texture Size, Pixel Counts, Video Memory, and File Formats

hi guys new on here hope iv posted correct

iv spent a lot of time modifying boxes so there is only one texture on one face and making all the other faces blank then changing the size to 2.56 x 2.56 x 0.001 ( turning my resell box into a resell picture frame ) question is , is this a waste of time ? idea is that it will load up quicker than a box with a repeated texture on all faces


also if this is worth while , any script out there that will do it for me ?


hope this is not too stupid a question

Any given texture will take just as long to load whether it's repeated once or repeated a thousand times. You're not gaining anything with that blank texture. In fact, you're actually losing since the blank texture is just one more texture to load, like any other. There's a decent chance that people will already have it cached since it's so commonly used, but there's no guarantee of that. Even if they do, it's still a waste of video memory (albeit a small one) to have to display it if it's serving no practical purpose.

Right.

Also, I've seen flickering problems with boxes that thin. Well, with floors that thin; maybe it only happens with larger areas, and no doubt it's video-card dependent. But, I avoid making objects too thin unless necessary.

Ok, so .tga is best. Now, what software will convert to .tga?

.eps to .tga?
.tiff to .tga?
.jpeg to .tga?

Please advise - this is a stinker of a question for me.

I have no personal experience but I'm sure Paint Shop Pro, Gimp, most art packages... But 'convert' might be misleading: Simply load your picture/texture in whatever format - then save as a Targa (.tga) file.

Cat x

Irfanview is freeware and handles conversions and batch conversions well.

We have made some precision shapes in Wings 3D and when importing them they dont seem to hold shape. I am told we need a plug in or interface or third party item from SL to import properly. Can anyone help me out in this area?

What exactly does your question have to do with this thread? It appears to have nothing to do with it whatsoever. Tacking off-topic questions onto the end of a singly purposed thread, especially a stickied one, is a really bad thing to do, Eye. Please keep posts on topic.

As this thread's title suggests, and all its previous content confirms, it is about textures, nothing else. More specifically it is about what sizes textures need to be, how many pixels they should have in them, how much memory they consume at their various allowable sizes, and from what file formats they can be sourced. No other subject has any place in this thread. Please respect that.

So if you've got a question about texture sizes or texture file formats, you could ask here. Since that's not what your question is about, you MUST ask somewhere else. Got it?




You can find the exporters and other things relating to sculpties on the sculpt prim wiki. The information you're looking for is at http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Sculpted_Prims:_3d_Software_Guide#Wings_3D. None of it has anything to do with what this thread is about. If you have any further questions on how to make sculpties, please start a new thread in the Building Tips forum, and ask there. Please do NOT further divert this thread by asking any more such off-topic questions here.

I know Photoshop and GIMP can convert these formats but I'm not able to check Paint Shop Pro at the moment but it does support .tiff and .jpg (won't say .eps until I'm sure).

Does a 32 pixel square picture with a repeat of 16 use less graphic memory than a single 512 pixel square picture?

I am just wondeirng how and if repeat plays into the texture lag picture.

Far better to repeat a smaller texture than to use a larger one with the repeats baked in.

I know that a 32 x 32 pixel texture will use less memory than a 512, but I am wondering how the repeats figure in. Does a 32 x 32 pixel texture repeated 16 times in both dimensions use the same memory as a 32 x 32 pixel texture repeated once? Or the same as a 512 x 512 pixel texture, or something in between, or what? Does anyone know?

Thanks.

If it's exactly the same texture then it only has to be downloaded once, regardless of how many times it's seen - that's my understanding from reading this thread So uploading a 32 x 32 texture and repeating it multiple times across your build will still only require the viewer to download one texture of 32 x 32.

I think that's what you were asking. However, your question could also mean that you're putting a 32 x 32 texture on to a 512 x 512 background multiple times, and then uploading the 512. In which case it would be downloaded by each user like any other 512 x 512.

Isobel

Graphics memory mapping, would load the 32x32 into memory and reference that memory to each entry it is used, this saves memory as it is not required to hold/react with eachtime it is used.

I'm making a peace pole and have everything done but the four text panels in the four different languages. I own Photoshop Elements and also have Paintbrush on my Mac, but I have no experience using these tools. Basically, I'm trying to get a text bar that turns a horizontal line of text into a vertical texture that gives crisp clear readable words.

The phrase is "May peace prevail on earth" in black text on a white background. Can anyone point me in the right direction? The panel the texture will go on is .200 wide by 1.750 long. I am clueless about pixels and everything i've uploaded so far winds up a blur on the pole.

Thank you.

Bronte, you probably want to start a separate thread for your query. This is a stickied "reference" thread and your question is for a specific problem.

Having said that, and standing ready to be corrected, I'm pretty sure you would have to upload the texture with the text already in a vertical format. You can't just turn text through 90 deg and have it readable. Photoshop has the ability to change text direction and I would imagine Elements would have too.

Isobel

Bronte, as Isobel said, please post your question in a new thread. Please respect the fact that this thread has been stickied here for reference purposes because it is devoted to a single topic, one which many have agreed is important. As I said to Eye earlier, to tack an off-topic question onto the end of a singly purposed thread, especially a stickied one, is a really bad thing to do. Keep your posts on topic or don't post. It's that simple.

What you're asking for is basic instruction on how to use the text tool in your paint program, which quite obviously has nothing to do with what this thread is about in any way, shape, or form. If you'd care to start a new thread, I'll be happy to answer your question there, but I won't do it here. If you don't want to start a new thread, then I'd suggest you consult the help file in your paint program.

I thought the topic was pixel count, textures and file format, which is what I've been trying to figure out, and I didn't understand what a stickied post is. I am very sorry. I have removed my question and started a new thread. I'm very sorry.

JPEGs quality DOES NOT degrade every time its saved

Of course it does. JPEG, by definition, utilizes lossy compression. Every time you resave it, the compression algorithm is re-applied. And every time that happens, a little more signal is lost, and a little more noise is added.

If the quality settings are high, and if you don't know what to look for, you might not notice a difference from the first resave to the second, or from the second to the third, but if you compare the first with, say, the twelfth, even the untrained novice will be able to find differences.

What if you save a jpeg with a quality of 100?

Will twelve still be different from 1?

100 doesn't mean "100% preservation". The hundred is an arbitrary number. They could have called it "gobblyook" instead of "100", and it would have been the same setting. Even at highest possible quality, JPEG compression is still lossy.

Now, of course, an image saved 12 times at a setting of 100 will look significantly closer to the original than one saved the same number of times at a much lower setting. But if you examine it pixel for pixel, you should be able to find small differences in color values, and other artifacts.

Results will vary from image to image.

no it DOESNT and the "quality" has nothing to do

you might wanna give it a try

ps

now, by definition, chosen, could you enlighten me on the exact jpeg algorithm?

btw, colour spaces have nothing to do with bit depth either

pps

roughly speaking the pixel values are already encoded with the desired precision

still we might wanna test that. anybody willing to propose a test image? chosen?

I'm not sure what you're trying to imply, Joshua. Last I checked, I'd been been doing this for a little while now. It's not like I've never saved a JPEG file before. Please don't bring this sort of thing into stickied threads.

Further, I can't imagine why anyone would say the quality settings don't make a difference. Fact, if you save a JPEG file at a low quality setting, it will be chock full of compression artifacts. If you then open that image and save it to a new JPEG file, the lossy compression will be applied a second time, and the artifacting will only get worse. I don't know how else to say it.


You can read all about it for yourself at jpeg.org.


Are you just making this up as you go along? Again, please don't attempt to introduce disinformation into stickied threads, especially when it's not even relevant to the topic at hand. Your post is the only one in this entire thread that makes mention of color space. If you'd like to discuss that topic, please do so in a different thread.



The world is full of images. You're welcome to test whatever you want, if you really feel it's important.

ok lets forget bout colour spaces

are you sti;l insisting on jpegs-loosing-quality-with-every-save

after having a look at jpeg.org and seeing some real life jpegs?

ps

sticky as it is

you just could be a bit more precise