PDA

View Full Version : Texture Size Limits



Richard Hebert
04-23-2008, 06:03 AM
Is there a size limitation for texturing with .psd documents? Are 30MB files too large to experiment with? I'm wanting to experiment a little with the .psd documents before having to flatten them for texturing.

BeeVee
04-23-2008, 06:35 AM
That's a little like asking how long a piece of string is? I've seen PSDs get to 30MB only containing an image at 1k^2 so it's a bit difficult to say. Read this tutorial (http://www.lightwiki.com/Optimised_image_use) for a guide to how LightWave uses images.

B

JeffrySG
04-23-2008, 07:52 AM
I just usually save my layered PSD files, and then save out a copy of each part (color, diffuse, reflection, specular, etc) as PNG files. I will usually even take my color file and convert it to a 256 color PNG file to save on disk space (as long as it doesn't lose too much quality). But I always keep my layered PSD file.

So, to answer your question, I have PSD files that are hundreds of megs, but the final file that I texture in LW is not ever that big once I flatten, and save down, etc.

A 4k map at 24bit will be 48MB, and a 4k map at 8bit will be 16MB.

Jim M
04-23-2008, 08:14 AM
Depends how much RAM you've got, predictably

I hope LW picks up on Modos PSD accessibility functionality.

starbase1
04-23-2008, 09:46 AM
Is there a size limitation for texturing with .psd documents? Are 30MB files too large to experiment with? I'm wanting to experiment a little with the .psd documents before having to flatten them for texturing.

File size is irrelevant, image size is important. Drop to 8 bit indexed for maximum size. Not sure about the guts of a PSD but uncompressed formats are also more efficient for LW. Regardless of memory, and even using 8 bit I hit a limit at a bit over 8k x 8k pixels with 32 bit OS.

Nick

Richard Hebert
04-24-2008, 07:49 AM
This question was prompted by a problem I encountered using a .psd as a test texture. It seemed that after the document reached a certain size (or so many layers) the texture appeared in the preview but not in the test render. Everything works fine until a limit was reached (apparently) and was just trying to peg down if it was a file size limit (some 3D apps still have file size limits) or something else. Thanks for the responses but there still seems to be some disagreement as to what's happening. While this is not really a problem, I was just trying to avoid an additional step while attacking this huge learning curve with the software. Thanks for the suggestions and insight. Your help is invaluable.

Richard Hebert
04-24-2008, 07:53 AM
I wanted to clarify that the .psd image size stayed the same while the file size changed due to the new layers added. Any reference to .psd size is because of this.

starbase1
04-24-2008, 09:31 AM
I wanted to clarify that the .psd image size stayed the same while the file size changed due to the new layers added. Any reference to .psd size is because of this.

I'm not totally convinced by this - how big are the actual layers, in pixels? I've got the nagging feeling that LW may well be treating your file as one with very high bit depth to hold the layers, and LW seems to have a limit based on memory used per image (as shown in bigger indexed images being possible).

If you can use the image layers independently I suggest you try saving them out separately. if not, can you flatten the image? And how much memory does it show being used by the image in the image editor function?

Nick

Richard Hebert
04-24-2008, 12:07 PM
The .psd image size is 2160 x 2160 and has about 44 layers. Only a few layers are active at a time to test placement on the model. I have no problems when flattening the file. Just wanting to avoid that step (if possible) when testing this particular texture map.

Richard Hebert
04-24-2008, 12:18 PM
The image editor indicates the file is 2160 x 2160 with 17.8 MB of memory used and a bit depth of 32. That's with about 40 layers active.

tajino
04-24-2008, 12:47 PM
The image editor indicates the file is 2160 x 2160 with 17.8 MB of memory used and a bit depth of 32. That's with about 40 layers active.

since you mentioned that your image is 32bit, could it be that it has an empty/black alpha channel which explains why it appears in preview/viewport GL but not in render. LW doesn't care about how many layers your have in your psd, it will only read the composite data of the image.

JeffrySG
04-24-2008, 12:58 PM
I could be wrong but isn't using a 2160x2160 texture the same memory requirements as using a 4096x4096? If that is true you might save a lot of memory by dropping that texture down to 2048x2048.

Richard Hebert
04-24-2008, 02:34 PM
Is it safe to say then that this is indeed a memory limitation within the software?

toby
04-27-2008, 03:40 PM
Is it safe to say then that this is indeed a memory limitation within the software?

I'd say that's just as likely as LW having a conflict with so many layers / some on some off. I'm sure it's not a resolution related limit though, most of us have used much larger maps with no problem.

If you want to test a texture map without flatteneing it, the easy-peasy (lemon squeezy) method is to use the "Save for Web" feature from Photoshop; save it as 24 or 8 bit png, not jpg, LW doesn't like them -

starbase1
04-27-2008, 03:55 PM
Is it safe to say then that this is indeed a memory limitation within the software?

yes, this is correct. It really doesn't like big images regardless of memory.

If you are going to do this a lot take a look at Infinimap, a plugin that will let you use images of any size you like.

toby
04-27-2008, 04:14 PM
I've used 8k with no problem other than *slow*! But agreed, anything larger or more than a few hundred megs you'd be crazy not to use Infinimap!

Richard Hebert
04-27-2008, 07:19 PM
LightWave is probably dropping the link to the file every so often. It's looking more like a glitch that happens when changes are made to the image document. I have to close down the app. a couple of times then LW 'sees' the image file again. I'm sure this will get worked out in the next release if it turns out to be a bug.

Lightwolf
04-28-2008, 01:40 AM
I could be wrong but isn't using a 2160x2160 texture the same memory requirements as using a 4096x4096?
No. This is only true for apps that are designed to use texture sizes of powers of two for speed reasons (which makes a few things slightly faster to do). LW isn't one of them.

Cheers,
Mike

starbase1
04-28-2008, 07:00 AM
I've used 8k with no problem other than *slow*! But agreed, anything larger or more than a few hundred megs you'd be crazy not to use Infinimap!

Seriously, you have used an 8k x 8k image? I can only do that if it is an 8 bit indexed one... Are you using 64 bit Lightwave or something? (I'm 4 gb memory, 32 bit XP, /3Gb boot switch), What format was the image in?

Nick

toby
04-28-2008, 01:44 PM
it was a 24 bit .png, on a Mac with 2.5gb ram. I've seen a few other examples of memory advantage on the Mac too.

starbase1
04-29-2008, 12:16 AM
it was a 24 bit .png, on a Mac with 2.5gb ram. I've seen a few other examples of memory advantage on the Mac too.

Interesting... I wonder how big you can take it?
Nick

toby
04-29-2008, 01:27 PM
I up-res'd the map to 16k, (16384x16384, took photoshop 20 minutes to write it! ) and it still worked! It crashes if I turn on textured viewport, but it renders -

starbase1
04-29-2008, 03:32 PM
I up-res'd the map to 16k, (16384x16384, took photoshop 20 minutes to write it! ) and it still worked! It crashes if I turn on textured viewport, but it renders -

Now that could used as rather handy ammunition if you want to wind up windows users!

And the intriguing thing is I suspect you could go up to 48k x 48k if you reduced to 8 bit... With a little twiddling you could get full res blue marble 2 in!

toby
05-02-2008, 01:08 AM
Now that could used as rather handy ammunition if you want to wind up windows users!
"Defense" starbase, defense!


And the intriguing thing is I suspect you could go up to 48k x 48k if you reduced to 8 bit... With a little twiddling you could get full res blue marble 2 in!
You mean because it would be the same amount of ram? Where can I get an image like that? Upres'ing the same image again wouldn't provide a very good example -

starbase1
05-02-2008, 01:32 AM
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/BlueMarble/BlueMarble_monthlies.html

That's the whole planet at 500m resolution...
Nick

toby
05-02-2008, 03:14 AM
1.35gb! We'll see what it can do, it might thrash the hard drive for hours :^P ( the 16k test was 23 sec. at 720p, w/raytrace area lights)

SaturnX
05-02-2008, 07:14 AM
Run LW64 if you can...

starbase1
05-02-2008, 07:49 AM
1.35gb! We'll see what it can do, it might thrash the hard drive for hours :^P ( the 16k test was 23 sec. at 720p, w/raytrace area lights)

I'll be impressed if you can get a flat lit sphere out...