Resizing textures

R

RobH

Charter Member
I know several painters paint using 2048 textures, then resize to 1048. I have tried this method and have mixed feelings about this method. It seems to me that reducing them to 1024, takes away a lot of the detail you tried to paint. I have used the sharpen filter, which helps some, but it still looses detail
I am curious why people think it is better painting in 2048. Maybe I am doing something wrong.
 
I'm with you on this one. When I was doing graphics for an advertising company, it was common to do the artwork 2 or 3 times larger than normal and then reduce it. . .made it really pop with details, I don't see the same thing happening with aircraft textures. As you've noted, once you reduce the artwork, the pixelation returns and you're basically where you would have been if you'd just done the original in 1024x1024. In FSX I do all external texture 4096x4096. . . .but FSX accepts that size and larger actually. . .a shame the same doesn't hold true for FS9. It is my opinion that you gain nothing by doing textures for FS9 larger than normal and then reducing them. It's a worthless exercise.
 
I've done this as well but i've actually increased the ppi from 72 to 1024 before reducing. i do notice less detail loss. I'm using Corel PaintShop Photo Pro X3. not sure what everyone else is using. on my older PSP8 it didn't work as well and sometime there was no difference.
 
Just a tip...

Blood_Hawk23 said:
I've done this as well but i've actually increased the ppi from 72 to 1024 before reducing. i do notice less detail loss. I'm using Corel PaintShop Photo Pro X3. not sure what everyone else is using. on my older PSP8 it didn't work as well and sometime there was no difference.
Click to expand...

I have been working with PSP since it came out with "seamless" stuff... which made possible a lot of good graphics work with a relatively low budget program...
No matter how "big" a detailed original is... it will have pixels adjacent pixels mix and jump all over the place when downsized... if you work with a straight BMP
file... The way to go is, first of all, to work in a large enough canvas to paint detail without jagged edges, etc. (need for good graphic arts technique is a must... one cannot
make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, i.e.: poor quality photos or deficient start textures )... I find that twice the size of a normal textureis good enough...
(a tip: I work small details on a different canvas... and then transplant them to the "whole") (second tip: if you resize something in one shot... you lose a lot of detail...
resizing in steps... 80%, then 80% again, etc. until you get the right size.. lessens the loss of detail)... in other words... the loss of detail is inversely proportional to the
difference with the original size... So... if you lose.. let's say... an arbitrary... x% of detail... your 80% downsized texture represents 100-X% of the detail intact... then each successive
downsizing will represent a very small loss, which in the end appears to be much less than one big downsizing...
It works very nicely... enclosed are examples of textures in small size with more than adequate detail..


View attachment 77186



View attachment 77185View attachment 77184View attachment 77183View attachment 77182

The originals were a lot sharper... but as you see the results are quite adequate...
 
Good points guys. :salute:

I recently tried similar experimentation with working to 2048 in order to 'get at' some details needing improvement.

Same findings as yourselves Gentlemen. - little or no improvement.

As Falcon409 rightly says, in RW graphics and illustration, it's almost standard practice to prepare larger artwork, then reduce at the colour separation stage.

What can REALLY make the world of difference to our textures, is the rare opportunity of working closely with the modeler of the aircraft in order to best utilize the texture sheets and how they are mapped.

edit: Beautiful, crisp work Gaucho.
 
i normally repaint at native resolution or just over, resize and then perform various tweaks to get the look, my P-51D's recently i've been doing at 2048*2048, scaling down and adding a sharpen, if the base layers are nice enough then the sharpen Pass can bring things up again, after that i'll then faff about with the layers again till i get the look i want... it's quite a subjective thing when texturing, what you like someone else may not so you find (or attempt to find) a median, i don't like photoreal aircraft myself (because it doesn't look right over photoreal ground, as well as the normal texture types, like putting a photo into a cartoon.... but thats my personal view), i enjoy hand drawing though, so i'll try to find a balance between the two... sometimes resizing does help to a certain end, sure you'll lose quality but it is a simulation, not a true-to-life 'thing' so as long as it looks the part...
 
One tip further...

Matt Wynn said:
i normally repaint at native resolution or just over, resize and then perform various tweaks to get the look, my P-51D's recently i've been doing at 2048*2048, scaling down and adding a sharpen, if the base layers are nice enough then the sharpen Pass can bring things up again, after that i'll then faff about with the layers again till i get the look i want... it's quite a subjective thing when texturing, what you like someone else may not so you find (or attempt to find) a median, i don't like photoreal aircraft myself (because it doesn't look right over photoreal ground, as well as the normal texture types, like putting a photo into a cartoon.... but thats my personal view), i enjoy hand drawing though, so i'll try to find a balance between the two... sometimes resizing does help to a certain end, sure you'll lose quality but it is a simulation, not a true-to-life 'thing' so as long as it looks the part...
Click to expand...

I forgot another thing I found by pure serendipity... folks complain about DXT moiree' and errant pixel tendency when they rework a texture...
What one needs to do is to work out a MASTER with all the whistles... in layers of course, so they can be individually manipulated to suit when the need arises (i.e: correct panel line errors, wrong shadings,
add details overlooked or recently found updated or improved, etc.). Then, when the need arises... dig out the extended bmp (DXT) format texture from the model... send it to the editor (PSP X4 for me)
Open your master, correct or improve as needed, then fuse the layers into a PSP image... (not necessary to save.. for you then save it into the .norm you got from the model... SAVE and pass back to Wright's
program... RELOAD AFTER EDIT... and save as extended bmp on the model... new improved texture is sharp as the edited PSP file... and ready to roll...
It is not really cumbersome... I do it in a minute or less... (of course taking sometimes a long time reworking the master to suit my taste or requirement)
I discovered when I first started doing textures that those extended bmp files seriously deteriorated with each opening to correct some minor detail.. and then be a real unrecoverable mess (for I didn't keep a master PSP
with all the bells and whistles...) Just minute to process the new improved texture... and the model shows always pristine...

look at this extended bmp opened and reopened a zillion times...View attachment 77220


View attachment 77219
 
Thank you everyone, very good information here. Gaucho, very nice work!

I have noticed a lot will depend on the model as well. I originally did the paints for the FCS Tempest for FSX, so the textures I made were 2048. When I reduced them to 1024, then sharpening them, I think they came out pretty good. The Alphasim B-24 did as well. So, I tried the same method on the Plane Design Lancaster and it looks horrible. All were painted the same way, however the Lancaster doesn't display the textures as smooth as the others I guess.

I will just stick with the 1024 textures. I like my panel line edges to be smooth, changes sizes always takes that away.

Cheers!:icon29:
 
I'm probably not going to be much help here as I don't use PSP or Photoshop. But the paint I just finished, I did my work in 4096x4096, then resized to 1024x1024 when I was finished. It works very well for me and my ancient paint methods.
 
Apropos panel lines...

RobH said:
Thank you everyone, very good information here. Gaucho, very nice work!

I have noticed a lot will depend on the model as well. I originally did the paints for the FCS Tempest for FSX, so the textures I made were 2048. When I reduced them to 1024, then sharpening them, I think they came out pretty good. The Alphasim B-24 did as well. So, I tried the same method on the Plane Design Lancaster and it looks horrible. All were painted the same way, however the Lancaster doesn't display the textures as smooth as the others I guess.

I will just stick with the 1024 textures. I like my panel line edges to be smooth, changes sizes always takes that away.

Cheers!:icon29:
Click to expand...

Another tip on the arsenal... to obtain really fine panel lines.... Use vectorlines... 1 to 3 thickness... on a clear layer by itseslf by itself.. the manipulate the transparency until you
get the desired very thin and faint line... (black first) then, retouch the line with grey, white, etc. (since the transparency is faint on the initial layer... all vector lines are very fine indeed
and one can manipulate the looks to one's satisfaction.... another method (is to use the rectangular shape selection tool and finely spray white or grey from ouside of the shape so the line of demarcation shows a little lighter
tone of the base paint... then copy this and flip it.. and slowly bring it down to almost touch the sharp edge.. i.e.: now one sees a 1 pixel line of the base color with a lighter tone gradually disappearing... and voila'' now you have
a weathered panel line... also... select a hatch, whatever, and use the same technique so you obtain a shape of a whole panel...(actually though more work... it is more realistic looking).
I wil put together a sample in the next few minutes and post it... you know... a picture is worth a thousand words!

View attachment 77237
 
Gaucho,

Thank you for the tips, however that is not the look I try to achieve. Looking at your work, there is no doubt, you are an artist. There is no way I could do the work you do. I do appreciate and respect your comments, but....LOL!!

You are painting panel lines with the common misconception that aluminum panels are butted against one another. They are actually overlapping one another. They will butt against one another when they are removable panels. I will include a pic of what I mean. The way that I do panel lines, is the main reason why I posted this question. There is no way, that the detail I have done on these lines can be shrunk down, and still hold this look. I have heard many people comment on how they paint in 2048 textures, then reduce. I was just hoping there was something out there that would be a 'magic cure', lol. Of course there never is.

This is work done on the Alphasim He-111. These were done to be used in FSX, so they are 4096 in size. This can still be done on 1024, its just not as easy. There is a light hint of white on top with a black layer on the bottom to create the shadow effect. Now, maybe modern aircraft are constructed different. I have only studied WW2 aircraft.

View attachment 77240
 
Nice work there and very similar to the way I approach panel lines and rivets. I will say though, from experience (while renovating the Cavenaugh Flight Museum P-51) that the panels I have seen, both on WWII aircraft such as the P-51 and P-47 and even current fighters like the F-16 (which I also spent many years working on), the panels butt up against each other, they don't overlap.:salute:
 
I will work on it for you and find a way...

RobH said:
Gaucho,

Thank you for the tips, however that is not the look I try to achieve. Looking at your work, there is no doubt, you are an artist. There is no way I could do the work you do. I do appreciate and respect your comments, but....LOL!!

You are painting panel lines with the common misconception that aluminum panels are butted against one another. They are actually overlapping one another. They will butt against one another when they are removable panels. I will include a pic of what I mean. The way that I do panel lines, is the main reason why I posted this question. There is no way, that the detail I have done on these lines can be shrunk down, and still hold this look. I have heard many people comment on how they paint in 2048 textures, then reduce. I was just hoping there was something out there that would be a 'magic cure', lol. Of course there never is.

This is work done on the Alphasim He-111. These were done to be used in FSX, so they are 4096 in size. This can still be done on 1024, its just not as easy. There is a light hint of white on top with a black layer on the bottom to create the shadow effect. Now, maybe modern aircraft are constructed different. I have only studied WW2 aircraft.

View attachment 77240
Click to expand...


I imagine German construction might be different... In most aircraft the air frame consists of longerons and... ahh mamparas (spanish... lol) bulkheads.. that's the word I am looking for...
and both are wide enough to have butted duralluminium skins riveted onto them... superimposed steel plates (like on old ironsides ships) create unnecessary parasytic drag.. so the smother
the outer skin, the better the laminar flow.. and thereby.. the faster the plane... With the advent of aircraft like the P-38, P-47, etc. the smooth flow became synonimous with speed and
maneuverability... British sort of caught on with the Spits... At any rate, I think I can device a simple way for you to do this stuff.. without recurring to huge files...
Gotta go to the doggie park with the wife... when I come back, I will give you something to chew on..
 
yeah, while i was creating my FS9 F-15E masters (revamped IRIS Paintkit) i learnt about the panel butting on modern jets, and if i recall the 'soot-like' sealant that causes the streaking and darkening around the edges... these textures were a work of love... taking weeks to perfect, i started with a 1px line, which then got duplicated twice, once to become panel line shading, the other to become paint chipping/weathering, and all on a 1024*1024 map... detail is not great, but the impression and feel of the Mudhen were maintained, it's all in artists choice at end of the day... what one artist does, another may not do etc...

also with later war German aircraft (Esp. the Me262) they smoothed putty over the panel lines to reduce the drag further... nightmare for ground crews but it gave an extra km/h or so...

View attachment 77241 View attachment 77242
 
Here is something to chew on...

gaucho_59 said:
I imagine German construction might be different... In most aircraft the air frame consists of longerons and... ahh mamparas (spanish... lol) bulkheads.. that's the word I am looking for...
and both are wide enough to have butted duralluminium skins riveted onto them... superimposed steel plates (like on old ironsides ships) create unnecessary parasytic drag.. so the smother
the outer skin, the better the laminar flow.. and thereby.. the faster the plane... With the advent of aircraft like the P-38, P-47, etc. the smooth flow became synonimous with speed and
maneuverability... British sort of caught on with the Spits... At any rate, I think I can device a simple way for you to do this stuff.. without recurring to huge files...
Gotta go to the doggie park with the wife... when I come back, I will give you something to chew on..
Click to expand...

As you can see there is precious little detail lost with the 80% on 80% progression....
If you are interested... drop me a PM and I can show you how to do it step by step... very simple technique... got this done after the doggie park...


View attachment 77247
View attachment 77249View attachment 77248
 
Sorry...

gaucho_59 said:
As you can see there is precious little detail lost with the 80% on 80% progression....
If you are interested... drop me a PM and I can show you how to do it step by step... very simple technique... got this done after the doggie park...


View attachment 77247
View attachment 77249View attachment 77248
Click to expand...

I muffed the positioning... the last one is the first reduction...
Old age... at 75 "senior moments abound"... glad I do not practice anesthesia anymore....lol
Needles to say.. the rivetting overlap, etc. can be done as accurately as you see in photos...
I just wanted to show how there is practically no loss of detail...
 
RobH said:
I am curious why people think it is better painting in 2048.
Click to expand...

To subtilely nudge people into buying FSX to enjoy higher detail textures.



With that in mind, doing 2048²px textures can be kind of a reimbursement for the portover status of the model in FSX.



Or maybe I do 2048px² master textures because I like 'em blurry in FS9...I don't know.
 
That's very interesting Gaucho. Thanks for that gem of info.

I can picture how it's done, but maybe a run-through here or another specific post would be useful?

Cheers

Shessi
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top