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.
- By jurX
- By Jochen Haug