High Rez Skin Textures

[Sensuali Abonwood]

I know Second Life can support up to 2048 pixels, does anyone make skins taking advantage of this ability ? Or we still stuck with 1024 pixel skins ??

[arton Rotaru]

Actually they will get baked down to 512 by the system before they are applied to the avatar. 2k maps were only uploadable in the very early days of Second Life. Now 1k is the max indeed.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

arton Rotaru wrote:

Actually they will get baked down to 512 by the system before they are applied to the avatar. 2k maps were only uploadable in the very early days of Second Life. Now 1k is the max indeed.

---

I just uploaded a 2048x2048 texture..

[Coby Foden]

If you upload 2048 x 2048 texture it will be downsized to 1024 x 1024 pixels because that is the maximum texture size.
For clothing layers (skins, tattoos, alphas, etc.)  the maximum size is 512 x 512 pixels.


The proof is here:

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Limits

• Maximum texture size - 1024 × 1024 pixels
  - Some textures inworld have a resolution as high as 2048×2048;
     this is due to a previous limit that was higher. 

• Max Clothing Texture size - 512 x 512 px (except 128x128 px for eyes)

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

If you upload 2048 x 2048 texture it will be downsized to 1024 x 1024 pixels because that is the maximum texture size.

For clothing layers (skins, tattoos, alphas, etc.)  the maximum size is 512 x 512 pixels.

 

 

The proof is here:

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Limits

• Maximum texture size -

1024 × 1024

pixels

  -

Some textures inworld have a resolution as high as 2048×2048;

     this is due to a previous limit that was higher. 

• Max Clothing Texture size -

512 x 512

px (except 128x128 px for eyes)

---

That may be so, but uploading a 2048 give a much crisper, cleaner finished image when applied to clothing, tattoos or mesh. especially if it has an alpha layer to the image.

 

[Elinah Iredell]

I know some skin creatores use 512 and some use 1024 I did not know that it would automatically be shrunk down to a 512 no matter what size you uploaded. But now you are saying that even if a 1024 is shrunk down it will still be clearer than a 512 ? And that if you upload a 2048 it will be clearer still? How can that be if it is all automatically shrunk down? And does it take a longer time to rez that way ? Will it be blurry  or gray longer?

[Coby Foden]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

Coby Foden wrote:

If you upload 2048 x 2048 texture it will be downsized to 1024 x 1024 pixels because that is the maximum texture size.

For clothing layers (skins, tattoos, alphas, etc.)  the maximum size is 512 x 512 pixels.

 

 

The proof is here:

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Limits

• Maximum texture size -

1024 × 1024

pixels

  -

Some textures inworld have a resolution as high as 2048×2048;

     this is due to a previous limit that was higher. 

• Max Clothing Texture size -

512 x 512

px (except 128x128 px for eyes)

---

That may be so, but uploading a 2048 give a much crisper, cleaner finished image when applied to clothing, tattoos or mesh. especially if it has an alpha layer to the image.

---

The maximum texture sizes mentioned in the wiki page are not just "that may be so", but they are a fact.

If your texture is bigger than the maximum then SL will downsize it.

 

Let's say that you design a texture at 2048 x 2048 pixels.

There are two possibilities how you can do the uploading:

1. You upload the texture at 2048 x 2048 pixels, SL will do the downsizing.

2. You downsize the 2048 x 2048 texture in your graphics editing software and upload that to SL.

     (you might even add a bit of sharpening to this downsized image before uploading.)

Which one does better job in downsizing: SL's downsizing or graphics software's downsizing?

 

Personally, I tend to think that scenario 2 will give better result.

[Coby Foden]

---

Elinah Iredell wrote:

I know some skin creatores use 512 and some use 1024 I did not know that it would automatically be shrunk down to a 512 no matter what size you uploaded. But now you are saying that even if a 1024 is shrunk down it will still be clearer than a 512 ? And that if you upload a 2048 it will be clearer still? How can that be if it is all automatically shrunk down? And does it take a longer time to rez that way ? Will it be blurry  or gray longer?

---

People are imagining things.

If what they claim would be true then we could get amazingly clear textures by uploading them in extremely huge sizes, like 40960 x 40960 for example.

 

A 512 x 512 holds just as much information as that size can hold. If it was bigger earlier like 2048 x 2048, and then it was downsized to 512 x 512, the downsized texture naturally cannot hold the clarity/quality/information what it had in that bigger size.

[Coby Foden]

About avatar skin.

Skin itself is not a texture. It's a texture container. It has three textures in it:
• Head texture
• Upper body texture
• Lower body texture

Each of those textures have a specific size in SL, it is 512 x 512 pixels.

The Wiki states about clothing layer textures (skin textures too are clothing layer textures):
Max Clothing Texture - 512x512 px (except 128x128 px for eyes) - Server Side Appearance will downsize larger textures.

So it's totally useless to upload any larger textures for those.

[Merlynn Draken]

Working in a higher resolution to start with will give you finer details when things are compressed by uploading to SL. As far as uploading a larger texture for skin, back when I used to design skins I tried that as an experment. Whether it was my graphic card or monitor resolution, I saw no difference at all between the larger and smaller files after SL got done doing what it does when you upload. YMMV, I can only speak for myself.

[Conifer Dada]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

Coby Foden wrote:

If you upload 2048 x 2048 texture it will be downsized to 1024 x 1024 pixels because that is the maximum texture size.

For clothing layers (skins, tattoos, alphas, etc.)  the maximum size is 512 x 512 pixels.

 

 

The proof is here:

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Limits

• Maximum texture size -

1024 × 1024

pixels

  -

Some textures inworld have a resolution as high as 2048×2048;

     this is due to a previous limit that was higher. 

• Max Clothing Texture size -

512 x 512

px (except 128x128 px for eyes)

---

That may be so, but uploading a 2048 give a much crisper, cleaner finished image when applied to clothing, tattoos or mesh. especially if it has an alpha layer to the image.

 

---

 

I once made an item of clothing and when uploaded it looked more pixellated and poorer resolution than normal.  Then I realised I'd made it on a 512 x 512 template by mistake.  As it was only a simple item, I made it again on a 1024 x 1024 template and it looked much better when worn.   So I can back up what  Drake says.

[Coby Foden]

---

Conifer Dada wrote:

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

Coby Foden wrote:

If you upload 2048 x 2048 texture it will be downsized to 1024 x 1024 pixels because that is the maximum texture size.

For clothing layers (skins, tattoos, alphas, etc.)  the maximum size is 512 x 512 pixels.

 

 

The proof is here:

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Limits

• Maximum texture size -

1024 × 1024

pixels

  -

Some textures inworld have a resolution as high as 2048×2048;

     this is due to a previous limit that was higher. 

• Max Clothing Texture size -

512 x 512

px (except 128x128 px for eyes)

---

That may be so, but uploading a 2048 give a much crisper, cleaner finished image when applied to clothing, tattoos or mesh. especially if it has an alpha layer to the image.

---

I once made an item of clothing and when uploaded it looked more pixellated and poorer resolution than normal.  Then I realised I'd made it on a 512 x 512 template by mistake.  As it was only a simple item, I made it again on a 1024 x 1024 template and it looked much better when worn.   So I can back up what  Drake says.

---

You are mixing things a bit. Drake is claiming that uploading big resolution (2048 x 2048 pixels) clothing texture gives better image quality than uploading the same texture in 512 x 512 pixels. This has nothing to do with the original template's resolution.

As you have noticed, naturally it is very good to use big resolution template (like 2048 x 2048 instead of 512 x 512) when designing the texture because then you have bigger canvas to work on and you can see finer detail while working on the texture.

However, it is totally useless to upload the texture at 2048 x 2048 pixels because SL will downsize it to 512 x 512 pixels (if it is a clothing layer texture).

You will get excellent results when you design the clothing textures at 2048 x 2048 pixels. When ready, you downsize it to 512 x 512 pixels in your grapahics editing software, then add a bit sharpening and after that you upload it. In upload you will use either TARGA or PNG file which both are lossless file formats, do not use JPG - never.

 

You can make test to see what happens:

 

• Design at 2048 x 2048, then upload at 2048 x 2048 and apply it to your clothing item.

• Design at 2048 x 2048, then in your graphics editing software: downsize to 512 x 512, add a bit of sharpening after downsizing, then upload this downsized texture and apply to your clothing item.

Compare the two applied textures inworld. I'm pretty sure that you cannot see much difference between the two textures when they are applied to the clothing item. Actually the texture downsized in graphics editing software before uploading will look a bit better than the texture which has been downsized by SL

 

PS.

One more thing: If we upload a clothing texture at 2048 x 2048 pixels then SL will downsize it first to 1024 x 1024 (maximum size for general texture in SL). When the texture is applied to clothing, SL will downsize the 1024 x 1024 pixel texture to 512 x 512 pixels because 512 x 512 is the maximum size for clothing layer texture. Thus SL has downsized the original texture twice, propably with poorer result than what can be achieved in graphics editing software.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

I suppose i should clarify my statement.

When making clothing textures i only go with 1024x1024s. When making textures for mesh appliers i use 2048x2048s, there is a huge visual difference. the edges are crisp and clean with a 2048 and blurry and fuzzy with a 1024. same image, two different sizes. I have no idea why this is so, but it is.

[Aethelwine]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

I suppose i should clarify my statement.

When making clothing textures i only go with 1024x1024s. When making textures for mesh appliers i use 2048x2048s, there is a huge visual difference. the edges are crisp and clean with a 2048 and blurry and fuzzy with a 1024. same image, two different sizes. I have no idea why this is so, but it is.

---

The problem is if everyone used 1024 textures it would quadruple the graphics memory required for people to see what was going on, and with a group of people around your once crisp textures won't be rendering at all or continually going blurry.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

Aethelwine wrote:

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

I suppose i should clarify my statement.

When making clothing textures i only go with 1024x1024s. When making textures for mesh appliers i use 2048x2048s, there is a huge visual difference. the edges are crisp and clean with a 2048 and blurry and fuzzy with a 1024. same image, two different sizes. I have no idea why this is so, but it is.

---

The problem is if everyone used 1024 textures it would quadruple the graphics memory required for people to see what was going on, and with a group of people around your once crisp textures won't be rendering at all or continually going blurry.

---

You really think most creators are using 512's?

[arton Rotaru]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

I just uploaded a 2048x2048 texture..

---

The moment I wrote "uploadable" I knew someone will come along and say just this ^^^^. :matte-motes-smile:

Anyway since this is about images, lets show some. Sorry about the size. :matte-motes-dead:

Lets have a look at this image below for a moment.

On this image is a line of 1 pixel width, drawn on a 2048 map. Applied to an inworld prim. Obviously zoomed in very close.

 

Actually it's 2 prims, cut in half with 2 different textures applied. One is the 2048 map downsampled to 1024 in Photoshop, with Bilinear resample method.

The other is the 2048 map uploaded, and downsampled during import.

I just haven't told which one is PS. Because to me they look pretty much identical. Which tells me that SL uses a Bilinear resample method when downsampling textures.

But maybe someone else will give it a try to tell which is what. :matte-motes-delicious:

 

[Coby Foden]

Yes indeed you're right.

As I said in one of my earlier post "people are imagining things" - i.e. if they think that uploading a texture in bigger size than what SL actually uses gives a better result than downsizing in graphics editing program and uploading that to SL. It's futile, self deceptive and totally unnecessary practice.

Once again, the best practice is:

• Design the texture in large size, like 2048 x 2048 for example.
• Downsize the texture to a size what you want it to be in SL (never upload bigger than the max SL size limits).
• After downsizing apply a bit of sharpening.
• Save the file as TGA or PNG (never use JPG).
• Finally upload that downsized and sharpened texture to SL.

Done. Enjoy the result of clear, sharp and beautiful texture in SL. :matte-motes-smile:

[Pussycat Catnap]

---

Coby Foden wrote:

People are imagining things.

 

A 512 x 512 holds just as much information as that size can hold. If it was bigger earlier like 2048 x 2048, and then it was downsized to 512 x 512, the downsized texture naturally cannot hold the clarity/quality/information what it had in that bigger size.

---

You 'can' get a clearer texture inworld uploading a high resolution and letting it get downscaled  --- IF --- your own graphics progrem is set to poorer quality compression on image saving than Linden Lab's compression formulas.

If for example you have been uploading jpg images, and using a compression setting when saving that 2048 down to 1024 or 512 in photoshop...

But if that is happening, you should just alter the settings on your graphics program...

[Coby Foden]

---

Pussycat Catnap wrote:

---

Coby Foden wrote:

People are imagining things.

 

A 512 x 512 holds just as much information as that size can hold. If it was bigger earlier like 2048 x 2048, and then it was downsized to 512 x 512, the downsized texture naturally cannot hold the clarity/quality/information what it had in that bigger size.

---

You 'can' get a clearer texture inworld uploading a high resolution and letting it get downscaled  --- IF --- your own graphics progrem is set to poorer quality compression on image saving than Linden Lab's compression formulas.

If for example you have been uploading jpg images, and using a compression setting when saving that 2048 down to 1024 or 512 in photoshop...

But if that is happening, you should just alter the settings on your graphics program...

---

Yes, if a person does not how to use their graphics program properly and are foolishly uploading their textures as JPG files, then what you say can happen. But naturally they would get better results in doing the downsizing in their graphics program - with proper settings - and then uploading the texture either as TGA file or PNG file.