Maxwell Render | Official public forum

I noticed on the mxmgallery web page and on some renders here on the forum as well as some of my own renders ..there seems to bee very weird pixelization issues that happen in renders.. maps that are definatly highrez enough still seem pixelized.. this is esp obvious when rendering with bump maps on materials..
can you nextlimit guys look into this and fix any pixelizaton/bump problems for v1.2?

Its a must. I hate that its all pixelized..

Can you provide an example please?

it was with bumpmaps as i remember....
cheers
stefan

One example is here:

http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/view ... hp?t=21635

Sunlightrocker, what was the rez of the image file in that image, and the rez of the bumpmap? Have you tried lowering the rez of the bumpmap to see if it helps?

Mihai wrote:One example is here:

http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/view ... hp?t=21635

Sunlightrocker, what was the rez of the image file in that image, and the rez of the bumpmap? Have you tried lowering the rez of the bumpmap to see if it helps?

Mihai, The texture is 6000x6000, no bump used.

// Tobias

theres defiantly something weird happening sometimes. .its hard to know what.. I figued a 6k! imagre on that render wouldnt show any pixelization. .crazy.. I mean Ive never used anything over a 4k map.. (maybe once or twice) but to see pixels like that at 6k wow.. Ive been busy w/ work and sick I know I can pull up more example of this pixelisation .. I even see it on material mxm gallery

acctually should this be in the bugs section?

hard to know when it does it and why

3dtrialpractice wrote:I figued a 6k! imagre on that render wouldnt show any pixelization. .crazy..

Well, if you are making enough close up to 6K texture, it's possible. The question is not how big is the texture in pixels, it's how much detail you need for such a close-up. It's not a bug.

k- maybe remove this thread

http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/view ... highlight=

I had talked about this before. I dont call it a bug, but a limitation that can be fixed.

we are talking about a 36 megapixel image (6000x6000) and i can´t imagine that if you examine the texture there is only the detail you can see in the rendering.

for me it looks like there is something wrong.
tom, you said in the rendering´s thread that you would use a higher resolution map for the floor. if sunlightRocker has used a 6kx6k that is as much high resolution as i can think of.

sunlightRocker could you provide a cropped closeup of the texture and a cropped closeup of the rendering to compare them?

big K wrote:tom, you said in the rendering´s thread that you would use a higher resolution map for the floor. if sunlightRocker has used a 6kx6k that is as much high resolution as i can think of.

Imagine, if you have 100 wooden planks arranged on a 6000 pixel wide texture , width of each plank will be 60 pixels, which is very low. Pixel interpolation is something else I also agree and we will take care of this for sure. However, rendering such a scene with this map hiding behind pixel interpolation doesn't still mean you're doing it decently. That's what I am saying.

For example, this is a 1024 x 1024 texture (and a non-interpolated closeup on it):


...and this is on the other hand, a 512 x 512 texture which is much more better than above in terms of detail:


As you see, not always pixel dimensions of your texture means it's enough detailed to render a close-up with it. In above example 512 texture is better than 1024 texture for making a closeup.

An interpolated version would prevent pixellization but look blurry. If you think it's less ugly, you're right. But it's still ugly, isn't it?


Pixel interpolation would surely help and it's a must. But this doesn't mean it will quickly turn your texture into something better. In your floor example it will look ugly and blurry due to interpolation. What I'm trying to say is you must find a texture with higher detail for rendering a decent closeup with it. It's not related to how big your texture, it's related to the detail it contains. You can take a photo of wood planks from 1 km away and your final texture could be 50000 x 50000 pixels but you still wouldn't be able to see the detail on it. I hope I could explain.

sure tom i know and understand.
but that´s why i ask sunlightRocker to show the details of the map.
and actually i have not seen any texture with 100 wood boards, so that´s why i assumed that your nice example with 1024x1024 has about the same number of boards than the 6kx6k from sunlightRocker, but this may be wrong, of course.

the only way to be sure is to see a closeup of the texture map that was used for the render.

btw your texture example looks pretty much like the one used in the render. maybe he just blew it up or made a number of copies to get a bigger map.

cheers
michael

Thanks bigk, I feel happy when everything is clear.

Here's a test render with only 3800 x 3800 texture, not even 6000 x 6000.