Question about redoing textures

[bowlfreaknot]

I've just started playing with modifing textures and reskinning objects... I'm trying to learn from other experienced modders by comparing vanilla objects to their redone objects. My question is, when is it worthwhile to increase the resolution of a texture? It seems like when i increase a texture's resolution, i can't see any improvement... does it matter how large the model is it gets applied to?? and i apologize in advance if this is a stupid question... Thanks.

[LiamFarley1998]

If you increase the resolution nothing happens you have to make a higher res texture.....

[mazakala]

Yes, size is what matters. You often see mods up the resolution of some really tiny items like coins, it sure looks really nice up close but that's it, waste of memory and whatnot. Large objects like houses and such will need to have much larger textures as well in order to have the same detail, it's quite logical when you think about it.

[Sunnie]

Actually, even for large objects, a texture size of 2048 x 2048 is the largest that should be used unless your actual screen resolution is larger than 1920 x 1200. Any textures that are larger will just waste memory space. 512 and 1024 textures can look very very good if a skilled person edits the texture, and would be near impossible to tell between them and a 4k texture.

[mazakala]

If you increase the resolution nothing happens you have to make a higher res texture.....

 

Are we confusing printing resolution (as in pixels/inch) with image-size here? When we talk about resolution in terms of games and textures image-size is obviously the one we're talking about. As you said, it won't do a thing if one ups the printing res because one is not printing the image, it's the size of the image that matters. :)

[MonsterMonkey]

The Problem in Skyrim like most games is that when you have a vanilla blury or pixelized texture, increasing its resolution does not make it less blury and you just have the original pixels rebuilt with smaller pixels (am i clear ?)

Some try to solve the blury effect by ensharping the image but it cause an ugly enlightment stroke on dark details like wood veins for exemple.

The solution is to redo textures from scratch or redraw them with a higher resolution, personally i use photos (clothes, wodds, stone)

[Perraine]

Actually, even for large objects, a texture size of 2048 x 2048 is the largest that should be used unless your actual screen resolution is larger than 1920 x 1200. Any textures that are larger will just waste memory space. 512 and 1024 textures can look very very good if a skilled person edits the texture, and would be near impossible to tell between them and a 4k texture.

 

^This

 

Image size DOES NOT mean better looking textures UNLESS the object you are texturing will be larger on screen. An apple for instance will NEVER be more than around 400 x 400 pixels on screen (even in full zoom mode in the inventory) so there is NO POINT WHATSOEVER in making a larger texture than 512 x 512 for a small object (like the apple) or larger than 2048 x 2048 for full screen landscapes ...

 

Also DXT ( the .dds files as used in Skyrim) and Direct X Compressed textures include "Mips" which are smaller already downscaled versions of the original image stored inside the .dds file ( it's like a .zip or .rar file for textures) this saves the game engine from having to resize textures constantly (which it will do very badly) whenever you change view distance from an object, your graphics editing program has already created the downscaled version (which it does a way better job of than the game engine) and "stored" them inside the .dds file. Because of these "mips" the game ONLY EVER DISPLAYS THE CLOSEST "MIP" IN WIDTH above the current size required on screen.

 

This is how AA, AF and TF work, they actually load the larger and smaller versions of the "mip" and or full size texture and "filter' or blend them to produce a "smoother" finish, but at the cost of a massive performance loss from having to re-render those images repeatedly before displaying them, In this way if you drop your game display resolution to a lower level, say from 1920 x 1200 to 1280 x 800 you can use AA or AF to improve visual quality with a much smaller performance hit because the video card is only loading smaller image sizes

 

Forcing the game to store a 4096 x 4096 texture in memory (about 65 <--> 70mb for each and every item!) is pointless, as it will only use the "mip" closest to your current screen resolution.

 

Once again ... High DEFINITION is NOT the same as High RESOLUTION, consider he following comparison

http://i1210.photobucket.com/albums/cc411/lrg1602/Skyrimage/nope.jpg

 

Both attempt to represent an human form, and both are exactly the same RESOLUTION, but which one more accurately represents a figure and would look better in game? You can get the same or better results by spending more time in the DETAILS.

[bowlfreaknot]

thank you so much everyone who replied. That helps a lot.... i guess the reason why i asked the question is because as i'm comparing what modders have done to what's already in skyrim, i've noticed that almost always people are doubling their pixels. For example, and please i'm not picking on anyone, one retextured apple, orginal was 256x512, new was 512x1024.... for something as small as an apple is that over-kill? personal preference? and yes, i was sort of thinking high-def was synonymous to high-res... no, no,no...

[Ghogiel]

, orginal was 256x512, new was 512x1024.... for something as small as an apple is that over-kill? personal preference?

It's both personal preference and overkill imo. :biggrin:

 

512x1024 was the vanilla resolution in oblivion for all the cuirass armor iirc. If I saw a seam on that apple or some such error... I wouldn't be really happy about it being high res and something as simple as that ruins the whole point of having a higher res budget.