How to make non-jagged non-artifacty textures?

[Ravyn Rozensztok]

I was wondering if the texture-wizards around here had some tips for uploading textures so that they don't have jagged edges?

No matter what I do I can't seem to upload an image that doesn't end up full of artifacts and jagged steps that end up looking like low-quality jpegs. :matte-motes-frown:

I've searched through the forum and found all kinds of helpful tips regarding the fortmat (targa), dimensions (powers of 2,256x2,512x2) but I'm stumpted.

How do skin designers create such beautiful textures with smooth color gradiations? 

I'm using Photoshop, and the textures I'm using to make clothing look awesome on the avatar template after I resize them down to 512x2, but somewhere in the upload they end up look awful.

Thanks!

 

[Trinity Yazimoto]

Hi...

i really dont see how you do for having a jagged edges texture if you do clean edges in your pshop file.

templates have to be on top of an transp layer.

Then, i save mines as png (bec TGA doenst support the transp layer) and as 1024 px, (bec the details are better, and i know.. it needs more time to be load,but i prefer qualtiy Vs fast things :smileywink:) for my main templates, but i can use also some 512 ones for some purposes .

Are you sure your edges on the pshop files are not bleeding ? take a look with the zoom.

if its not the case and the png format doesnt fix your pb, contact me inworld, ill take a look to your templates.:smileyhappy:

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

A couple of things,

TGA files don't have a transparent layer, nor does PNG. They both have an alpha channel though. For the TGA, save as 32 bit instead of 24. That should work.

Clothing templates for clothing applied directly on the avatar don't need 1024x1024 textures. All the textures applied to either head, upper body or lower body are baked into single 512x512 textures. Those textures are sent to the server and back to all viewers. So a 1024x1024 uses four times more memory and will look exactly the same.

@OP

can you post a picture with your problem?

[Trinity Yazimoto]

yeah... english is not my native language and when its a matter to explain tecnical things its a lil like a brainteaser for me. so, indeed, i was meaning about alpha channel and no alpha layer. Sorry.

Nevertheless, i dont agree with you about file size. When i upload a 512 file and a 1024 one i can see a real difference on the details when i look closer. As i said, not always, and i use sometimes 512 one for some purpose and i can even use lower size too. 

My laptop is not the most powerfull and my internet speed is not what i would call a real speedy one.. nevertheless i have no problem at all for loading my textures and i had never any complaint about this from my customers. So some pp are more likely for 512 and some others for 1024. I dont think ones are right and others are wrong, its just a matter of preference. :smileywink:

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

i was just kidding about the layer/channel, the point was TGA supports them aswell.

And do you use 1024s for clothing layers? or 1024s in general?

[Trinity Yazimoto]

lol you scared me hehhehe.. but i know my english is bad, and on top, despite the fact that use photoshop since 3 years now, i often imagine pp know what im talking about lol...

So for 1024 files, yes i m a 1024 fan lol. Maybe because i use tiny details on my outfit layers and ive notice a difference when i upload them in 512.

Usually my photoshop is set on 1024 so its the size i use the more often, even for my adpics and my vendor pics. But for some things, like some skirt panel, i switch to 512 when they are not so detailed because then it fit better the prim wiithout needing to change a lot the texture settings in sl. It really depend. And for tiny prims like the one i use for jewellery i can use sometimes lower sizes aswell.

I know that 1024 are a lil more slow to load, but its a real tiny difference of delay IMHO. and for me it really worth it. 

btw, for my vendor pics, i think it would be better i load them in 512, but im too lazy for changing them now lol... so they keep as 1024 lol.  Indeed they would load faster if they were in 512 but when i see the time that my building (not made by me) need to be load, well, ... my vendors are faster hehehheheh. 

 

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

I highly doubt the 1024 makes a difference for clothing layers. From what I heard the 512 ones are even better since the 1024 to 512 reduction is done by a program like photoshop rather than SL. It's possible Linden Lab changed the 512 to 1024, but again, I doubt that.

It doesn't make a real difference either way since what's passed around SL is 512 so the 1024 only takes a bit longer to upload to the server.

The problem with 1024s for everything such as vendors instead of 512 isn't just the rezzing speed.(Although the 4MB vs the 1MB of video memory they use makes quite a difference in performance). It's network load aswell. No idea how busy your shop is, but imagine 20 people standing around having to load everything onto their viewer. 1024 textures take about half a MB each in JP2 format so 20 x 0.5 = 10MB that has to be transferred, instead of just 2.5 for the equivalent 512 textures. So if you have 20 vendors in sight, 1024s will result in 20x10=300MB.

The fact people haven't complained is because it all adds up. People won't notice the performance difference between a small or big texture if it's just one or two objects, they will notice if it is everything in the sim.

[Trinity Yazimoto]

lol yes, you win a point. as i said before i agree with you on the vendor pics. Hopefully i will find someday a lil couple of hours for changing their sizes. But then again.. as i told before aswell, the longest for loading is the building itself and no my vendors, and i suspect it to have 1024 textures aswell. but since im not the creator i cant change this.

For the clothes layer, i swear it make a difference when you look close. From a normal distance, its ok, you are rigth there is not really difference. But on tiny details, when you look close, if its 512, details are often blury... while this doesnt happen with a 1024 size. I really dont think im an exception, ive read often here in the forum, fashion designers saying they prefer to use 1024 rather than 512. As i said it depend on what you are doing and where are your priorities.

 

[Kwakkelde Kwak]

I'm not going to argue if you say you can see the difference, but I am wondering how the 1024 to 512 reduction works, what steps there are between your photoshop and the end users screen.

Btw, you're by no means alone as far as using 1024s goes and I'm not judging...

[Trinity Yazimoto]

lol its ok, i wont argue either.

btw it would be nice from the op to come back and tell us if she/he could fix the prob with the textures lol. 

[Chosen Few]

Trinity, if SL's internal reduction scheme is doing a better job of retaining fine details than Photoshop is for you, then I'd suggest you're using the wrong reduction method in Photoshop.  Using Photoshop properly, you can do an infinitely better job of it as a human artist than SL's automation could ever achieve.

Before we go any further, let's be clear about one thing.  You do understand that ALL clothing textures in SL are sized to 512, the moment they're applied to the avatar, right?  This is true, regardless of the original image size.  No matter what the size of the individual texture, when you wear it on your avatar, it becomes part of the outfit composite, and that composite consists absolutely of 512x512's.  There's no way to change that.  Whether you wear a 1024x1024, or an 8x8, or anything else in between, it gets resized to 512x512 as soon as you put it on.  This is a fundamental fact of how SL's avatar system works.

So, the question here is why is SL's resizing algorithm producing better looking results for you than Photoshop's resizing algorithm?  As I said a moment ago, it's most likely because you're using the wrong resampling options in Photoshop. There are many to choose from, and they all work differently. 

Next time you go to resize an image, take a good look at the Image Size dialog.  Notice at the bottom, under where it says "Resample Image", there's a dropdown menu.  Click on that, and you'll see all the various options that Photoshop can employ when resizing.  It's a little beyond the scope of this forum to go into detail about what they all are, and when to use each, but it is important you learn them well.  I'd strongly recommend you read up on them, and do a lot of practicing with them, so you can develop a good sense of when to use which for what.  By making intelligent decisions about which method to use each time, in accordance with what's in the imagery, and what you want to do with it, you'll be able to do a much, much, MUCH better job of preserving details through resizing than SL's "one size fits all" automatic resizing scheme ever could.

You may also find that for some imagery, simply resizing the whole thing at once is not the best way to go.  Sometimes, you'll want to resize individual layers by hand, utilizing differing methods for each layer.

 

Regarding what you said in the beginning, about using a transparent background, and then outputting to PNG, I'd highly recommend you learn how to use alpha channels properly.  Using transparent backgrounds costs you so much control, and makes things take so much longer than they otherwise would, you'll be absolutely amazed at the difference, once you learn to do it the way the pros do.  There's a reason the alpha channel work flow has remained standard operating procedure throughout the industry for decades.

That reason is not stubbornness, by the way, if anyone was wondering.  As digital artists, we change our work flows all the time, as new tools and new techniques become available.  It's an "adapt or perish" industry, constantly changing.  If something were to come along tomorrow that were better than alpha mapping in any way, we'd be all over it.  But that's never happened, and it likely never will.  Alpha mapping is so utterly foundational to everything we do (transparency is just the tip of the iceberg).  It's one of the rare examples in computing that was gotten right the first time, and it's remained unchanged ever since.

I've taught alpha mapping to literally thousands of people over the years, and I've never had a single person want to go back to using visual transparency, after learning its true power.  Trust me, it's faster, easier, and far more controllable than the WYSIWYG transparency you've been using.  It is less obvious at first, though, of course.  There's a bit of a learning curve to it.  But once it clicks, a whole new world of possibilities opens right up for you, and you find yourself wondering how you ever got along without it before.

 

I hope you'll take this advice to heart.  However good you may be at what you do right now, mastering these subjects will make you at least an order of magnitude better.

[Coby Foden]

I found interesting comparison done on avatar texture upload sizes 1024 x 1024 versus 512 x 512

SecondLife: Texture upload sizes reviewed, Part 1

Texture upload sizes reviewed, Part 2

In a nutshell this is what the tester concludes:

"While it’s true that the SL servers do resize the textures - to 512 x 512 - when rendering them to the avatar, SL does a much better job at this than any image editing software (like Photoshop, Gimp or PhotoImpact) could ever do."

In the photos provided it indeed seems to be so that uploading avatar textures at 1024 x 1024 will give a bit better results than uploading the textures at 512 x 512.  I wonder, would it be so that SL image reducing engine would do a better job on the textures applied to avatar than any image editing software (like the tester claims)?

[EDIT]
Ufff... I posted this, before seeing Chosen's - once again excellent post - above.
Maybe it's so that the tester has not used the proper image reducing algorithm when making her tests?

[Chosen Few]

I notice the author does not mention what specific resizing techniques he/she used in Photoshop, so I'm inclined to assume he/she probably is unaware of most of them, and probably just uses default settings.  With all diue respect to the author, the phrase, "much better job at this than any image editing software (like Photoshop, Gimp or PhotoImpact) could ever do," frankly smacks of ingorance.  There's absolutely nothing SL can do with an image that Photoshop can't, but there are literally thousands of things Photoshop can do with an image that SL can't. 

I have to say, it seems a bit silly that he/she mentioned GIMP, and PhotoImpact, but apparently did not perform any actual testing with those programs.  The only testing he/she talks about was done with Photoshop.  Just because one is unable to acheive the desired results in one program doesn't mean one couldn't get those results in another program.  To say "any image editing software", as this author did, just underscores the level of prejudicial assumption present throughout his/her entire 'expreiment'.

Also, minor technical point, it's not the server that resizes the image; it's the viewer.  In this context, the asset server simply stores, sends, and receives files, like pretty much any other server.  It has no power to change the files in any way.  It just takes what it's given.  When you apply a texture to your avater, the server sends the texture image file to your viewer, and then the viewer composites it into your avatar outfit, right on your local machine.  The composite image files are then uploaded to the sim, and transmitted to the viewers of everyone else in the sim (and surrounding sims) so that everybody can see the result.  The server's role in all this is quite passive. 

Again, with all due respect to that author, the fact that he/she said the server is what is doing the work suggests an overall lack of understanding of the processes involved.  That, along with the assumptions about "any image editing software", plus the lack of explanation of what particular resizing methods were used in Photoshop, adds up to a whole that is quite unscientific, full of anecdotes, and entirely lacking in technical information of any sort. 

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it's the only honest assement I can give.  I wouldn't put much stock in what's in that article.

[Coby Foden]

---

Chosen Few wrote:

 

I wouldn't put much stock in what's in that article.

---

Chosen, thank you for your comprehensive reply.  You are a gem.  :heart:

 

[Trinity Yazimoto]

Chosen, you seem to know really well about what you are saying, and thanks for your advices, i will take a look later and quietly to what you explained, (i also need to translate it correctly in french). 

As you can see im not the only one who have my way to do, but i, indeed, know im not a pro photoshoper, and even if i deed 4 hours a week for only studying it with books, since some monthes now, and even if i practice in photoshop since almost 3 years now, i aknowledge easily the fact that i still have to learn a lot about this software and this is why i ve bought books to learn it better. 

Sadly, for now, i have a so busy schedule till the the next 4 days that i wont be able to look better at your explanation. but after this week end, i hope all will calm down and i will have time to study carefully what you advice here. So after trying what you advice to me, i will of course let you know how i feel about this. 

Thanks a lot for giving time for your explanations. :smileyhappy:

[Trinity Yazimoto]

---

Chosen Few wrote:

Trinity, if SL's internal reduction scheme is doing a better job of retaining fine details than Photoshop is for you, then I'd suggest you're using the wrong reduction method in Photoshop.  Using Photoshop properly, you can do an infinitely better job of it as a human artist than SL's automation could ever achieve.

Before we go any further, let's be clear about one thing.  You do understand that ALL clothing textures in SL are sized to 512, the moment they're applied to the avatar, right?  This is true, regardless of the original image size.  No matter what the size of the individual texture, when you wear it on your avatar, it becomes part of the outfit composite, and that composite consists absolutely of 512x512's.  There's no way to change that.  Whether you wear a 1024x1024, or an 8x8, or anything else in between, it gets resized to 512x512 as soon as you put it on.  This is a fundamental fact of how SL's avatar system works.

So, the question here is why is SL's resizing algorithm producing better looking results for you than Photoshop's resizing algorithm?  As I said a moment ago, it's most likely because you're using the wrong resampling options in Photoshop. There are many to choose from, and they all work differently. 

Next time you go to resize an image, take a good look at the Image Size dialog.  Notice at the bottom, under where it says "Resample Image", there's a dropdown menu.  Click on that, and you'll see all the various options that Photoshop can employ when resizing.  It's a little beyond the scope of this forum to go into detail about what they all are, and when to use each, but it is important you learn them well.  I'd strongly recommend you read up on them, and do a lot of practicing with them, so you can develop a good sense of when to use which for what.  By making intelligent decisions about which method to use each time, in accordance with what's in the imagery, and what you want to do with it, you'll be able to do a much, much, MUCH better job of preserving details through resizing than SL's "one size fits all" automatic resizing scheme ever could.

 

 

ok, so i have more time now to look better at what you said. First i dont want to be studborn, but i still hear from a lot of great designer that say they use 1024 size... but well, i m ok to try what you said. My designs are usually highly detailed and i will see by myself if this make a difference. I understand easily that normally, photoshop should make a better resize than sl, this make sense indeed.

So i started on my vendor pics, since i dont need so great details on them, but it will allow me to be used to this method before using it on my layer templates.

so ive checked the dropdown menu in the bottom of my resizing menu. First my resample image box is checked. the option settled in the bottom is : bicubic (best for smooth gradients). Can you tell me what is the best one ? 

ah and my current size for my vendor pics are 1024 X 512 since its a rectangle. :

 

 

[Chosen Few]

---

Trinity Yazimoto wrote:

Can you tell me what is the best one ? 

---

There is no "best one".   It all depends on the particular imagery you're using, and what exactly you're trying to do with it.  As I said, you should learn about all of them.   Try them out.  Resaerch them.  Read, read, read.  Watch tutorial videos.  Practice, practice, practice.  Learn, learn, learn.

Being a texture artist isn't about having someone else tell you what magic button to press, to make the software automatically do your work for you.  It's about learning precisely how your tools actually work, so YOU can make intelligent decisions about how to use them.

Imagine if you were making a RL painting, and you asked what paint brush is best.  What answer do you think you'd get?  Quite obviously, it would depend on what you're trying to paint, and how you're trying to paint it.  There could never be any singular answer that would apply to all situations.  To be a good painter, you'd need to learn what kinds of brushes work best in what situations.

It's no different here.  Just because the medium is digital instead of physical doesn't mean the human artist has any less of a responsibility to master the tools.  Be an artist, not just a button pusher.

[Trinity Yazimoto]

ok, i prob misunderstood your first posts.

you seemed to know really well about what you were talking about resizing image in photoshop. and i was just asking an advice.

i can agree on the fact that a painter cant ask about what brush to use (and this hasn't never been my purpose), but i disagree about resizing image tricks. Resizing an image, even in pshop, is not painting, its a technical thing. 

im not a beguiner, like you seem to think. i practice everyday since 3 years now,and on top of this i deed between 4 and 6 hours weekly to exclusively learn more with books and tutos without creation purpose but only for learn more.And i dont think im a button pusher... Did you even had a look at what im doing ?

So well, we dont agree with you about using 512 and 1024 size but does this has a real importance ?. My customers like my products, i have fun creating then. Its enough for me.

I will keep improving my pshop learning my way. like you said, i dont think there is "a best one".

 

(edited for correcting my english)

 

[Coby Foden]

Just out of curiosity I made a small test resizing a 1024 x 1024 image to 512 x 512.  I used Photoshop CS5.

Resizing methods:

• Image resizing 1: Bicubic
• Image resizing 2: Bicubic sharper

The results:

Quickly flipping between those two resized images I can see that Bicubic gives a bit softer result in small details than Bicubic sharper does.  The difference is not very big, but anyway clearly distinguishable when flipping between those images.  However when putting those images side by side on the display it is very hard to notice the small sharpness difference between those images.

For the test I used this image.  On the lower right there is hand where I cropped exactly 1024 x 1024 pixels portion and used it for the resizing test.

[Trinity Yazimoto]

indeed Coby and thanks for your imput.

my resizing image settings are already set on bicubic according to what i learnt some month ago in books. and after trying them all.

But i still have the the same not satisfying result inworld, this is why i keep with 1024 size, like a lot of pro graphic designers and digital artists who use photoshop everyday in their rl work and who create in SL and from whom i can see works. 

I usually trust my eyes. If i resize in 512 i see my tiny selvedges bleeding or blurry, same for other lil details and for tattoos. After playing, testing, trying everything, i keep having the best results with 1024. And honnestly i dont have any pb to load the textures when im wearing my stuffs and i never heard about pb with this from any of my customers. So this is not im studborn, but i just keep the better way i found for now. I hope this is understandable. 

Now when someone will give me the obvious evidence i can make better, an evidence ill be able to see with my eyes, there is no worry at all.. i will of course switch to this new way. And tell my pro photoshoper friends that they are wrong with 1024 size.

[Chosen Few]

---

Trinity Yazimoto wrote:

ok, i prob misunderstood your first posts.

 

---

Actually, I got the impression you understood my first couple of posts pretty well, but you seem to have been thrown off a little by my latest one.

I'll see if I can try to clarify.  I realize there's a language barrier between us.

 

---

Trinity Yazimoto wrote:

you seemed to know really well about what you were talking about resizing image in photoshop. and i was just asking an advice.

---

Yes, I have considerable expertise with Photoshop, and yes, I do realize you were asking for advice.  However, the way you phrased the question seemed to imply you were looking for a universal "one size fits all" type of solution.  You didn't ask which method would work best for a particular situation.  You just asked which was best, in general.  The point I've been trying to make is that there's nothing general about this. There cannot be a universal answer.

For each and every image, the best method will vary, depending on the particular details that are in the image, and on what specific size changes you're looking to make.  This is why it's so important to practice with all the different methods, so you can develop a sense of which works best for what. 

Also, don't be afraid to get creative with it.  As I mentioned earlier, sometimes the best way to go is not to resize the whole image at once but to resize each of its various components separately, to achieve optimal results for each.  For example, say the image depicts a window, with a hard metal frame that has very well defined edges, which are crucial to preserve.  Through the window, we can see a nice sunset, with lots of subtle gradients, which we also want to preserve.  If we use Nearest Neighbor, we might end up with the frame looking great, but the sunset looking splotchy instead of well graded.  If we use Bicubic, the sunset might look perfect, but those fine edges on the window frame might look fuzzier than we'd like.  To get the best of both worlds, it might make sense to put the frame and the sunset on two different layers, and resize each one individually, using the appropriate method for each.  Or it might not.  Again, it's going to depend on the particulars of the image.

You'll also find that sometimes the very best solution is just to go ahead and repaint, rather than resize.  That will never be the most time-efficient, of course, but sometimes it's the only way to get exactly the look you want.

Play around.  Experiment.  Over time, you'll develop a good instinct for what's likely to work well for each image you're making.

 

---

Trinity Yazimoto wrote:

i can agree on the fact that a painter cant ask about what brush to use (and this hasn't never been my purpose), but i disagree about resizing image tricks. Resizing an image, even in pshop, is not painting, its a technical thing.

---

Actually, choosing a paintbrush is just as much a technical decision as an artistic one.  So is choosing a resizing method.  There really is no difference.  If you can't see that yet, all I can do is hope that you eventually will, because I really don't know how else to explain it.

 

 

 

---

Trinity Yazimoto wrote:

im not a beguiner, like you seem to think. i practice everyday since 3 years now,and on top of this i deed between 4 and 6 hours weekly to exclusively learn more with books and tutos without creation purpose but only for learn more.And i dont think im a button pusher... Did you even had a look at what im doing ?

---

If you're not a beginner, that's great.  No doubt your years of experience will only underscore the importance of what I'm suggesting to you.  I'm sure you'd agree that wisdom lies in knowing that the more you know, the more there is to learn.

I meant no offense by the "button pusher" comment, by the way.  I was merely trying to impress on you that the generalized "which one is best" question you asked isn't the right question to be asking.  As I said, there is no single "best" for all situations.  Every unique situation has its own best.

As for whether or not I looked at what you're doing, the answer is no, I didn't.  You haven't posted any imagery in this thread for me to see, and I'm not about to go researching every person I interact with on this forum.  Maybe you're awesome at what you do, maybe you're not.  Either way, it's really not relevant to what we've been discussing.  You appeared to be lacking in some knowledge of how to do certain things in Photoshop, so I thought I'd be generous, and offer you some of that knowledge.  You're free to take it or leave it.  I hope you take it.

 

 

---

Trinity Yazimoto wrote:

So well, we dont agree with you about using 512 and 1024 size but does this has a real importance ?. My customers like my products, i have fun creating then. Its enough for me.

---

Yes, it has real importance.  Every time you use a 1024x1024 instead of a 512x512, you're hogging 4 times as much network traffic as you otherwise would for upload and download.  That means 4 times more lag for every single one of us in SL. 

I'm glad to hear your customers like your products.  But let me ask you this.  Wouldn't they like them even better if you were able to make them look even better than they already do?  By mastering the techniques I've talked about here, you'll be able to do just that.  I'll leave it to you to decide whether that has real importance for you or not.

 

---

Trinity Yazimoto wrote:

I will keep improving my pshop learning my way. like you said, i dont think there is "a best one".

---

I'm glad you will keep improving, and keep learning.  But please don't misunderstand what I meant in saying there is no best one. I did not mean you should just dismiss them all as equal.  What I meant was that while there is no universal best, there absolutely is a unique best for each unique situation. 

In other words, what is best for Situation A might not be best for Situation B. The "best" will change, every time the situation changes.

In order to develop a good sense of which method is likely to be the best choice in each new situation you encounter, you're going to need to practice a lot with all of them.  Make sense?

 

 

[Trinity Yazimoto]

---

Chosen Few wrote:

---

Trinity Yazimoto wrote:

ok, i prob misunderstood your first posts.

 

---

Actually, I got the impression you understood my first couple of posts pretty well, but you seem to have been thrown off a little by my latest one.

I'll see if I can try to clarify.  I realize there's a language barrier between us.

 

---

Trinity Yazimoto wrote:

you seemed to know really well about what you were talking about resizing image in photoshop. and i was just asking an advice.

---

Yes, I have considerable expertise with Photoshop, and yes, I do realize you were asking for advice.  However, the way you phrased the question seemed to imply you were looking for a universal "one size fits all" type of solution.  You didn't ask which method would work best for a particular situation.  You just asked which was best, in general.  The point I've been trying to make is that there's nothing general about this. There cannot be a universal answer.

 

I will stop you here right away. re-read my post then. i said what was the kind of image i wanted to resize (vendor, rectangle format, 1024X512 size)

i never asked in general, but on the contrary gave details about what i wanted to do. And sorry to not post my vendors here, this is not allowed in the forum, you can see them in the mp or in my store inworld, all links are in my profile. i dont think my profile is something impossible to reach.

 

For the remaining of your post i will keep the resize layer by layer part bec its seems indeed interesting and i will try it soon,

althought im not doing art but fashion designs what makes a difference.

If you are likely to reproach to me the network traffic my items needs to be load, then i think it would be fair you reproach this to tons of other creators aswell, and some really famous in SL.

I also didnt waited for you to know that practice and learn are the key. This is what i always do when i want to learn smth. 

You didnt took time to type my name in the market place to see what im doing, btw, i did it for you and couldnt find anything.

So yes, indeed its generous from you to try to share your knowledge with me. Im humble enough to aknowledge i dont have the whole knowledge... but if your only advice is : "practice and learn", thanks for it, but i didnt need anyone for knowing this before.

Dont misunderstand me, i dont want to be rude or studborn in any manner, but i have around me pro graphic designers that use 1024 aswell and from who i can see items and who gives me real answers. i have also my eyes to see.. and forgive me, but i prefer to trust what i see than what sm1 i dont even know tells me. maybe its stupid, idk, but its the way i always do. And as you have been able to see, i m open mind enough, to listen advices, but well, forgive me, when its just 'practice and learn"; i dont need anyone to tell me that, i know it and practice it everyday.

And about the language barrier, know that its also not easy for me to understand english, nevertheless, i spent time on it till i have the closer translation. So im sorry if my english is not perfect, but its the best i can have for now, 

Anyway thanks for your imput and help. i agree on the fact it s generous from you and i do appreciate.

 

[Chosen Few]

---

Trinity Yazimoto wrote:

I will stop you here right away. re-read my post then. i said what was the kind of image i wanted to resize (vendor, rectangle format, 1024X512 size)

---

That's not an adequate description.  Simply stating the size, and saying you want to put it on a vendor, doesn't tell me anything about what kind of imagery it is. 

Here are the kinds of things that are important.  Is it photographic?  Does it utilize lineart, or other types of hard edged graphics?  How heavily does it rely on subtle gradients?  What kinds of fine details need to be preserved?  How contrasty is the image?  Etc., etc., etc...

That's not something you can likely describe with just words, and there are so many different variables in play, writing up some kind of tutorial is absolutely impossible.  As I've said, the ONLY way to learn this particular subject is just to dive in and experiment.  Now that you're (somewhat) aware of what options exist, there's really no reason not to.

Look, I've written countless thousands of tutorials on texturing with Photoshop over the years, some of which have even been published in books, and a few of which were the very first stickied threads on the original SL forums (before this version of the forum software was written). I've taught literally tens of thousands of people to use Photoshop effectively.  If it were possible to write a tutorial on this subject, believe me, I'd do it.  But that's just not how this one works.  It would take an entire chapter of a book, just to get into the skin of it, and even then, it wouldn't be nearly as effective as you're just diving in and doing it, yourself.

 

---

Trinity Yazimoto wrote:

For the remaining of your post i will keep the resize layer by layer part bec its seems indeed interesting and i will try it soon,

althought im not doing art but fashion designs what makes a difference.

---

I'm glad you'll keep at least that much.  Really, you should take all of it to heart, though.  As for the question of art vs. fasion design, there's no difference at all there.  I used the example of a window frame, but it just as easily could have been lacework laid over satin on a fancy dress, or a vector-like tattoo laid over carefully shaded skin.

This would go a lot easier for both of us if you'd open your mind toward considering the concepts behind what I'm saying, rather than thinking of every example as so finite.

 

---

Trinity Yazimoto wrote:

If you are likely to reproach to me the network traffic my items needs to be load, then i think it would be fair you reproach this to tons of other creators aswell, and some really famous in SL.

---

Believe me, I do.  I've been warning people about this, and other similar issues, for years.  I'm hardly singling you out.

The fact that other people also make the same mistake you've made doesn't mean it's any less of a mistake.

 

---

Trinity Yazimoto wrote:

I also didnt waited for you to know that practice and learn are the key. This is what i always do when i want to learn smth. 

---

Good. Then you should have no problem with my telling you to do exactly what you already do anyway.  I don't know why you seem to think this is such a big deal.

 

 

 

---

Trinity Yazimoto wrote:

You didnt took time to type my name in the market place to see what im doing, btw, i did it for you and couldnt find anything.

---

No, as I said, I did not research you, and I don't plan to.  It really doesn't matter to me what products you're selling.  Nothing that could possibly be on the marketplace, or anywhere else, could change the facts I've presented here.  Whether or not you choose to accept those facts, and try to utilize them to your advantage is up to you.

As for my presence in the marketplace, I can save you the trouble of searching.  I do not sell off-the-shelf products in SL.  Many years ago, I did, but I no longer do.  It's just never held much interest for me. 

If it means anything to you, content creation in SL was my full time job for a few years.  However, even then, I didn't have much presence in the off-the-shelf market.  I'm a contract digital artist.  I do custom project work.  Nowadays, the majority of my work is outside SL, mostly for video games and movies.  SL for me, over the last year or two, has transitioned to become mostly just a hobby.  I still do work in SL every so often, if a client happens to choose SL as the platform they want to operate in.  But regardless of whether it's SL, or any other platform, I only work for clients who can afford to pay me RL value for my time.

 

For almost nine years now, I've been volunteering here on the forums, helping answer people's questions.  If you stick around for a while, you'll see me here a lot, when my work load is light enough.  When I have a lot of work, though, I don't have time to volunteer very much, so you won't see me much at all.  It tends to go in spurts.  For example, the reason I was absent from the forums for the better part of the last several months was because I had three feature films in a row, plus an ongoing large game project, plus a few other smaller projects, all happening at once.  Now that those are (mostly) done with, I'm back.  Sooner or later, I'll have to disappear again for a while, and now you'll know why.  In the mean time, I've got good information to share, which I promise will help you, if you let it.

Bottom line, the fact that I don't choose to participate in the marketplace doesn't make anything I have to say any less true.  I'm not sure why you seem to be implying it possibly could.

 

---

Trinity Yazimoto wrote:

Dont misunderstand me, i dont want to be rude or studborn in any manner, but i have around me pro graphic designers that use 1024 aswell and from who i can see items and who gives me real answers. i have also my eyes to see.. and forgive me, but i prefer to trust what i see than what sm1 i dont even know tells me. maybe its stupid, idk, but its the way i always do. And as you have been able to see, i m open mind enough, to listen advices, but well, forgive me, when its just 'practice and learn"; i dont need anyone to tell me that, i know it and practice it everyday.

---

 

That's just thie thing.  If you master the techniques I've talked about here, your eyes WILL see the results.  You've got absolutely nothing to lose, but you still seem to be refusing to try.  If that's not stubbornness, I don't know what is.

As for your inability to trust the word of someone you don't know, if that's really how you feel, why did you ever come to the forums in the first place?  This is where we advise each other, and relatively few of us know each other.  I've been here for nearly nine years, and I could count the amount of people I really know on one hand.

And once again, I don't know why you seem to be getting so offended about my suggestion that you experiment with the different resizing methods, to get a feel for what they all do.  When this thread began, you didn't even know they existed.  Now that you do, the only natural next step is to start practicing with them.  There's nothing wrong with my saying so.

 

---

Trinity Yazimoto wrote:

And about the language barrier, know that its also not easy for me to understand english, nevertheless, i spent time on it till i have the closer translation. So im sorry if my english is not perfect, but its the best i can have for now,

---

Understood.  I'm sorry I don't speak your native language.  If I did, it would certainly make all this a lot easier.

I suspect that some of the things I've been trying to tell you just aren't translating very well.  You seem to be on the defensive about a few things, and I don't know why.  Mistranslation is certainly a possible reason.  I wish there were a way to make it easier.

 

 

---

Trinity Yazimoto wrote:

Anyway thanks for your imput and help. i agree on the fact it s generous from you and i do appreciate.

---

You're welcome.  I hope you'll get something positive out of it.

[Trinity Yazimoto]

well, if you want to say im studborn and not open minded, i dont mind. I know myself more than you know me and i know better than you who i am. I just allow myself to remind you that i never have judge your person. Obviously, you think you can do it with me.. ok

I wont argue anymore with you. 

my problem is who trust ? 

You come here with your impressive curriculum vitae to tell me that 1024 size is wrong, but i can see often in this same forum other person with prob the same CV than you telling the contrary. Why should i trust you more than them ? On top, as i told you before, i have in my surrounding pro graphic designers that i know RL and SL who say aswell that weirdly 1024 have better render than 512. Again, who might i trust.? Do i have to tell these person that they dont know their job and are incompentent ?

So on the contrary as you seems to think,  im  not studborn and i have my mind enough open to get every advice that are offered to me. Then, i try them and see if they are good for me.  So as i told already, i will try the resize layer by layer and see if it give a good render to my textures inworld. And i will judge by myself. As for the time needed, im ok to give even more time for my items, but i wont be ok to multiply by 5 the time i already spend for somethink that, indeed, give me fun, but that is not my real rl job. I dont transform my sl in money in rl money, and with the big tier for my land and the lot of others expenses i do monthly, i still need to buy l$ with my rl money. so forgive me, but i have a life beside my secondlife, already a full time job too and i wont die in front of my laptop for perfect photoshoping. I know. we can always do better. but sometimes life give to us limits that we cant avoid. Imho, i give already a lot of care to what i do, and more than the average.

About the advice i asked, if you needed more info to answer, why didnt you asked instead of giving me a non answer (play, practice, try, learn) that i didnt need you to know ? im not in your head, and im not a pro photoshoper, how did you want i guess what you needed to know ? 

So i prefer to stop this discussion for now. As i said already i will give a look about the resizing layer by layer when i will have time. Don't worry, even studborn, im always the first to admit my errors and if i notice that your trick give an improve to my items you will hear from me. 

At last, about my presence in the forum, i just remind you that i m not the op of this thread, im not the one who asked advice first . i just did when you proposed to do for me. i was expecting then a real advice and not smth i was already knowing (learn, practice, read, try).

That's said, have a good day/evening.

[Nefertiti Nefarious]

---

Trinity Yazimoto wrote:

---

Read this - the part about Interpolation Options and lkook at the pictures.

 

 

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/resizing-an-image-using-photoshop-4609