Loading...
> >

PSD vs JPEG for texture

RRedRRed Posts: 18
in Daz Studio Discussion

Hi.

Just a quick question, when I am fine tuning texture maps for figures I often work directly in the PSD and link the PSD in the Surface tab so I can update the texture in Daz without having to constaly compress into JPEG. I was wondering though does it make a difference to render times working directly off the PSD compared to a JPEG?

Comments

  • Richard HaseltineRichard Haseltine Posts: 102,464

    It might make a tiny difference to start-up as it will take longer to load the larger PSD file than the JPG, but it won't matter as far as the actual render process is concerned (as far as I know, at least).

  • mjc1016mjc1016 Posts: 15,001

    If you are rendering in 3Delight, all the images will be converted to it's native format.  For Iray they will be manipulated in some fashion and ultimately, passed to the renderer in a close to RAW state, when needed (the combinations of compressed/deflated/what's used when and how get very complex with Iray). 

    Now, starting with jpeg then converting them to PSD is not going to gain anything...the damage has already been done.   If the 'originals' were never jpeps, then there may be some advantage.

  • pwiecekpwiecek Posts: 1,582

    RRed has already stated that the advantage is the simplicity of his workflow. He is asking if there is a world breaking disadvantage from using the PSD.

  • ToborTobor Posts: 2,300

    I prefer TIFs for these kinds of masters. TIF supports lossless compression, and the same principle layer features as PSD that you'd get as a D|S texture (e.g. layer masks, adjustment masks, visibility, etc.) but with the added benefit of being able to see the contents in the desktop icon. The latter is really the main reason to use TIF over PSD, at least it is for me.

    When load times are affected, because of large file size, I have some one-click actions that saves the file as a JPEG at a specific quality setting. I load that into D|S instead. The output JPEG is never subsequently used again for editing. It's always TIF->JPEG.

  • RRedRRed Posts: 18

    Thanks for all the feed back all.

    mjc2016 I tend to use PSDs to minimise the jpg issue as much as possible as they do start off as jpgs but I get what you are saying.

    Tobar I like your apporach, I will give it a go and see if it affects render times and qauilty. Setting up a basic action would be worth exploring as well.

    Cheers all.

  • JD_MortalJD_Mortal Posts: 760

    Converting to JPG, you will lose contrasting detail and gradient detail, as that is a lossy compression that eats-up images. Staying in your native image format, allows for lossless future editing. Editing a JPG, and saving it again as a JPG, makes it double loss and no compression gains. Editing it again, begins to show obvious image quality issues that amplify in some programs that use the cheap free decoders. (Windows, for instance, actually has rights for the "corrective JPG de-pattern", which helps make your JPG's look better than the actual saved image. However, opening that same image in a program like DAZ or Photoshop, will not result in the same image displayed. Same with a rendering engine, which almost surely uses the free image decoders.)

    PSD or TIFF or PNG... Though, I personally suggest PNG, reduced to the two standard layers of color and one alpha layer. PSD can have hundreds of individual layers, and rendering engines don't care about that overhead bulk. It reduces it to one single-layer + Alpha. No need for all those layers, unless you only have that one copy you use. (Merge layers, usually does the trick.)

  • RRedRRed Posts: 18

    Thanks JD_Mortal,  I was wondering about the lossy issue verus using a PSD due to its layers and subsquent size that brings. By the sounds of it though Daz just compresses them at render anyway?

  • JD_MortalJD_Mortal Posts: 760
    RRed said:

    Thanks JD_Mortal,  I was wondering about the lossy issue verus using a PSD due to its layers and subsquent size that brings. By the sounds of it though Daz just compresses them at render anyway?

    Yes, as they mentioned above, images are normally converted into a special format that the rendering-engine needs. But only at the point of rendering. If everyone used PSD or multi-layer PNG, for every item sold, we would have no hard-drive space left, with only a few hundred items in stock. So, for your own use, it is fine. If you intend to package things up, to sell or give-away, it is NOT fine.

    Standard practice is to use a nice low-loss compressed JPG (95%-80% quality level), or a compressed PNG. (No alpha, one layer, lossless compression), with the alpha saved as a greyscale image for transparency.

    Then, as a bonus, you offer templates and possibly "HD project files", or "Uncompressed project files", which most people never need, or want.

    Actually, I think Nvidia can use native JPG, PNG and BMP files, so JPG and PNG may not actually be converted, just reduced into a single-layer, if multi-layered. Though, chances are, it is still converting inline, at the actual point of rendering. I have not played with direct-x rendering-engines in a while. They were once real cranky about everything from format to needing perfect POT (Power of two) size formats, and needing matching transparency sizes, along with specific unique formats.

    Still, "Better" is in the eye of the beholder. Depends on your purpose. Which you stated.

  • RRedRRed Posts: 18

    JD_Mortal - Thanks for the insight, that is interesting to hear regarding the point of render process which I have always wondered about. Also ties in with my lossy vs lossless format work flow issue. I think I'll stick with PSD's or TIF's as Tobar suggested when possible and if I ever need to share I will of course use a good qauilty JPEG. Was just curious if there was any trades offs in terms of render times vs easier editing but that makes sense now. lol @" only a few hundred items in stock" perish the thought ;]

Sign In or Register to comment.