[Neuxs]

Hi, I have created my textures in photoshop and load them(.psd) directly in 3ds max. The benefit of this is I get realtime updates of any texture changed I make while working with max & PS together.. and well you all know that having PSD files is so much easier to deal with.

But the thing is that these texture files take up a lot of disk space.
The total size for all the textures I created is 800 MB. While so I convert them to jpgs its down to 80 MB.
But with jpgs you really don't get 100% detail especially bump detail.



Now the question is... do these psd texture files take up a lot of memory(ram) during rendering compared to JPGs?
Because I got more stuff to put into the scene... like foilage which wil obviously need more ram.

I just wanna know this before proceed to any complex steps.

[arcturusmengsk]

Basically, Photoshop outputs an internal image every time you save your .psd (within the psd), so essentially, you ARE loading a jpg (or some kind of compressed file) into Max. It shouldn't slow Max down, it's not like Max is reading all the layers, etc.

If you're working simultaneously in Max and Photoshop, it shouldn't make a difference.

Obviously though, running photoshop in the background is going to use up a lot of memory

[MS6]

Hi neuxs
to use and display textures they have to be decompressed by the 3d app, no matter what file format they're originating from. Ram usage only depends on resolution (width & height in pixels) and color depth. So you shouldn't suffer on ram usage. But still there could be some negative effect on render speed because it takes more time to initially LOAD the textures from harddisk (800 MB vs. 80 MB).

[rainhawk]

The psd texture files won't eat up your memory as they have already been loaded by ps. Since you say that you are running both programs simultaneously I don't think you'll have an issue. arcturusmengsk is also right, however, in that ps as a program eats up a lot of memory as it is so if you think it's being slow try closing ps then doing your render, while working keep it open so that you can make changes and have it automatically update. I had this same question when I was working on a tshirt design and ended up with 50 some odd layers all in hd so I experimented and it didn't seem to make much of a difference. I think the difference was about 2-3 seconds so I ended up just leaving ps up since it's a hassle to close out and restart. What are the specs for your machine? Those could also influence it.

[Neuxs]

Ah.. guys let me correct that. I'm not keeping PS on during the render process. That would be insane. Its only when I'm working with max, not rendering.

Links:

So it really does not make any difference in using PSDs or JPEGs!
Then I'll stick the the pds. And like you said its hassle free and 2-3 seconds difference is fine for me.

Well then thank yoou.



-----------------

My specs are:-

core2 duo processor(E8400 3.0Ghz)
2 GB ram
500 GB hd.

[Wall-e]

easiest thing is to create some "saving" actions. i have serval that with one click will save images to which ever format and quality etc i made the actions with

[fajar]

Just use script called "Open Texture in Photoshop" from j-man from scriptspot.com , you will able to re-touch your current texture directly [jpg, png and else] that attached to one object you selected, after edit it , just simply save as (ctrl+Shift+S) or save {ctrl+S}to replace the original one (make psd only for one is needed, it wont re-loaded in max), and try rotate your screen (not really needed) to update your texture.

Bassicly psd or other file texture are can update during modeling procces if you're edit the texture that attached to it directly.

Links:

Yes,it is, so I reduce my texture to 512x512 px to where the area are far from camera (maximum texture I use is 1024x1024, but if it for background I use more), this is very impornt thing that you must consider, in exterior scene use small texture as posible (like 256x256, or 512x512), but if in interior you can freely using large texture, but you must remember the large texture you are using, the more RAM you needed to load them.

NOTE : this case only meet in 3dsMax, I dont know how bout other app work.

[Converse]

Hello Neuxs well I am not sure what is the best file format for 3d Max is but for Maya converting Textures to .map saves a bit on memory.
Let me give you explanation how textures are proceaved in a 3d app.
Texture files are read into physical memory and are swapped to disk space when the memory is running low and this can causes crash's, this is expensive in memory usage and time-consuming as texture files are swapped out to disk.
Now .map format and also I believe .iff images should be used because memory mapped files don't use large blocks of memory and instead they reside in virtual memory thus freeing up your ram.

you can get a converter to convert .map or use MentalRay's syntax imf _ copy

Now let me explain about image formats real quick like.

Tiff, PNG, .map .iff are called Lossless this means every bit of information is there & no artifacts: it is the best quality formats.

JPG, TGA, BMP, PXR, and all the rest are called Losslee which means they have lost some resolution and can have artifacts in them.

Let say your working to make a 4 minute short film. Each frame is taking you around 10 minutes to render with what ever format type of textures you are using. Instead you converted em to .map and now each frame is rendering like 8m 45 sec you cut 1m 15 sec off each frame. At lets say 24 frames a sec you saved your self 30 minutes each second of film play which would save you 120 hours worth of rendering for a 4 minute film.

Just # I was throwing out so you can see the math of how this can help you.

Best of luck to you hope that helped.

[Neuxs]

Links:

Well! wrong about that. Finally I just conducted some tests.

I saved a copy of the PSD files as TIFFs & JPEGs.

The tiff files were saved with no compression leaving it have the original quality.
While jpeg ones were saved with the maximum quality output.



Now for the comparison...

1.
Tiff files had the original quality by default.
Jpeg at hi-res outputs have an equally good quality, somewhat lesser than tiff, but really unnoticeable.


2.
File size of the same texture for tiff & jpg was 12 MB & 4 MB respectively.
So you can stick to jpg if you are size conscious or low on disk space.


These two tests above are not really important at all. I just posted it for
info sake. The third test is what really matters.



3.
Somehow I trashed out the tiffs because I wanted to make a real comparison between PSDs & JPGs and as well this topic is "PSD vs JPG".


3.1 : So lets start with loading up textures in the material editor.
I have around 35 textures added into my material editor- diffuse, bump..

When ever I restart max or the next time I start max, when I launched
the material editor it would take me 25 seconds to completely load & prepare all the materials, with the case of PSDs.
My whole system/ OS would slow down in this process & sometimes max would even crash.

Now I replaced the map slots of PSDs with JPGs and what I saw is it was much better than having the PSDs. The material editor is ready in just
6 seconds and no lag in max neither in my OS. Not crashing with max.





3.2 Render time
With PSDs another additional 15 seconds were required to prepare the textures for rendering & render time per frame was 3 seconds.

In case of JPGs, textures were prepared instantly & render time per frame was 1 second.


*Note:- The resolution of the all textures were 2048*2048 and a
few are 4096*4096.

The resolution for the all file types -PSD, TIFF & JPG was the same


Hence as per conclusion, keeping quality the same it was the physical file size that silently matters.

So keep in mind apart from high image resolutions large file sizes also have a role.

PSD files took up 800MB.. while jpgs were 90 mb.
Seriously! I'd prefer to dump 90 MB rather that 800 into the ram..

[Converse]

I'm just curious why are you making the choice between PSD vs JPG? :confused:

[Neuxs]

Its because PDSs having extremely large file sizes due to their ultimate image quality and compatibility support which do tend to take up a lot of ram and could make rendering a tedious process especially when you have a large scene to render having many objects which is currently my case.

I'm not saying PSDs are not good! They are not bad in a way when it comes to the process of creating your texture maps where you will require quick updates of whatever texture changes you make.

But when all your texturing work is done you no longer need the large PSDs for the rendering. You can switch to smaller file formats because PSDs take double the time to decode & jpegs are the fastest. I mentioned earlier about this- 3 seconds & 1 second is a difference.


So it all depends on what they are meant for:-

PSDs are suitable for creation/editing of textures. No quality is lost.
JPeGs are suitable for renderings. Uses less ram & faster to decode.

So thers my choice between PSD vs JPG

[Converse]

I really think you should look at .map formats better quality than a JPG and even less taxing on your ram. But regardless it all comes down to what you feel like doing.

I don't know what type of detail is in your scene or if you even get any close up, so JPG's could be perfectly fine for that situation. But just remember JPG's are rasterized which is an pixelated picture. In textureing the goal is to get close to vector as possible.

you should never use a JPG for Bump maps or Displacement maps.

I hope you got some information of use out of my posts here.

Best of luck to you.

[Neuxs]

Links:

Oh I forgot about that. Unfortunately max does not support vector formats.Sad.

Btw what about dds(direct draw surfaces)?

[Converse]

Links:

From game makers stand point it is a excellent format for textureing but I believe it really depending on the engine displaying them.

I work in Film where I am not allowed to use that format so I'm not really sure how it performs in rendering in max.

.map arn't vectors what I meant by that was it is a textures goal to achieve a close approximation to a vector.
Vector have no rasterization regardless how much you zoom up on a vector you will never see pixels but in reality you can't achieve that in any other format so your goal is to get as close to that as possible.
Tiff16 or True Tiffs do a decent Job but are heavy in data PNG is decent a lil lighter in data IFF is a good balance between data and good quality .map is essentially a IFF that has been converted to be recognized by MentalRay in a much less data consumption.

But if your renders are under a minute none this really matters to be honest.
When working on home projects I use the formats that fit the scene. Close up with high detail I use .map or .IFF but on Mat painted back grounds that has a distance and a atmosphere between the landscapes I would use a JPG or TIFF with compression on really depends how close anything is to the camera.

[DavyJones]

I've read that the Mental Ray engine has to take certain steps in the background to translate a psd file in order to render, thus taking longer than if it were a different format. Myself I like to have my psd. file withe all the layers like diffuse, normals and whatnot and choose the layer I need in the material editor. when I know what I want I'll make a photoshop action that exports all the indiviual layers. A little tedious, but it helps me stay organized.