8k Textures
hazneliel_cc85b88108
Posts: 118
in The Commons
Hello, Anybody know where can I find products with 8k textures?
Thank you.
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Have a look: https://www.daz3d.com/catalogsearch/result/?pp=40&q=8k&s=score&p=1
Thanks, however there are no characters for Genesis figures in there, try filtering by figure and will see. The results are only props but not actual characters.
Well you didn't actually state you were looking for characters, and there are a couple of merchant resource skins in there.
Characters from Joe Quick, which have all the skin maps in one tile, have 8K textures, such as:
Human characters that I remember have 8k textures are from PA Deepsea, such as:
It should be noted, that 8k textures will require enough RAM and VRAM to handle them, just one 8k image takes 192MB's of RAM, multiplied by the number of attached maps, one is quickly at 1GB memory usage for just one texture.
Standard G8F comes with 23 image files. Torso+Face+Arms+Legs=16 files. 16x192MB's=3GB's
Unless you are doing extreme closeups, the little extra detail would be wasted compared to the huge amount of resourcs you would need to render them.
I'd sooner have a good quality .tiff than an 8k jpeg - especially if it was compressed when saved; in addition, who knows how many times it has been saved? We can presume once, but we don't know if futher data-loss has occured.
There was one released a few days - maybe couple weeks - that had either 6k or 8k textures; I have one of their previous characters.
Edit: cant find the character now, sorry.
Personally speaking, I would not want to see tiff files, as they are huge. I can not see the advantages of tiff over other lossless compression algos like png, which are far smaller in size. I noticed that DAZ is updating some of their characters that included tiffs to swap them for png instead, which can be 10 times smaller for the same quality.
I am also happy with jpg, at high compression (say 90% or so), the files will be much smaller, and you would need the eyes of an owl to spot any differences compared to lossless files.
Any image format is uncompressed when processing so their size is only a matter when downloading.
It also depends if the PA knows what they are doing. They build a 3D model 8k pixels wide and apply a 4k pixel image. Which looks like crap rendering at 8k but looks just fine in a 250 pixel wide promo thumbnail (and advertise it as "8k"). If it's an easy fix in Photoshop then I live with it otherwise I request a refund.
For the most part customers have a very huge fit with .tiff and textures over 4096x4096 because of the file size and resources that are needed to use them so it's not very common to find much bigger than that until recently. A lot of the texture resource packs do have larger size textures and a lot of them in .tiff so I'd look into them if your not finding anything fitting. We would also prefer to offer .tiff files to customers but they are hit and miss as to wether people will buy it because of the size.
The reason they're swapping out .tiff files is because there was/is an Iray bug causing a crash-to-desktop.
Depends how the textures are used. If the 8K is used to make more detailed quality maps, then sure. But then there's stuff like this:
The apron has 8K textures simply because the PA didn't bother splitting the belt's UVs. As a result, most of the textures fit into a 4K square in the corner except for the very, very thin belt going across the top. Three-quarters of those massive texture maps are absolutely blank, sucking up my VRAM for absolutely no reason other than poor texture optimization.
What is the advantage of offering tiff, compared to png?, both are lossless, so I am assuming that there is another advantage of tiff that I don't know of.
here is a couple good articles that go into that and explain it better.
https://blog.planoly.com/graphic-design-file-types
https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/file-types/image/comparison/tiff-vs-png.html#:~:text=Both PNG and TIFF files benefit from lossless,a priority. Learn how to compress an image
I've Googled this question lots of times... mainly because I keep forgetting that I've Googled it lots of times before...
Most of the answers you'll get pertain mostly to photography or print related work, once you get into 3D related use, everyone starts talking about TGA/TARGA... DS doesn't do TGA as far as I'm aware so that's a moot point...
It seems that as far as TIFF vs PNG... maybe PNGs do transparency/Alpha better with some software and are (maybe) smaller files... TIFFs might not work as well with transparency in some software, but I don't know about that with DS... TIFFs support layers.
A couple of people have claimed PNGs are not that great in Photoshop, but that seems very nitpickie, because I've never noticed a problem.
This is something I copied down a while ago...
TGA = TARGA. There's little reason to use this format now, unless you need compatibility with an app that only accepts TARGA
TIFF = Tagged Image File Format. This is one of the most complex image formats, and it can hold more kinds and depth of information than almost any other format. The standard is owned and maintained by Adobe.
PNG = Portable Network Graphics. This is an open standard. It's for losslessly compressing 24-bit+alpha graphics, often for the web. It's somewhat of a successor to GIF, but it does not support animation, at least not without extensions like APNG.
I suppose it ultimately comes down to preference and what you intend to use the image for.
The layers thing with TIFF could be a big deal if Studio can make use of that feature... I suppose you could have multiple maps in one TIFF image... I've never seen that as far as I'm aware... I think that's a thing in other software though, but I've never really bothered with it because it starts giving brain sweats if I try to figure out how that's done without actually going to school for that, since everything I ever find in regards to that, assumes you already know the basics and more about how to do that...
I like JPEGs and PNGs... they are soft and cuddly and safe and keep the brain goblins at bay.
I read the article, and I still think png is better suited for DS. Tiff seems to be better for printing, but I don't see how that is relevant for rendering. Main advantage of tiff is layers, but I am sure most of the tiff files currently bloating the sizes of our products are a single layer. Most of the tiffs I have seen seem to be normals, but I have seen characters were all the maps are tiff, and typically the size of that product is huge.
One drawback of Tiff is that it is a variable format, and not every application will open files from another. Back before I had Photoshop/Illustrator I had (not yet Corel) Painter and an LE Corel Photopaint/Macromedia Freehand - one Christmas I was doing something that started in Photopaint and needed to go to one of the others, the LE Photopaint lacked PSD export so I used Tiff and two of the files would not open in the destination application, though they worked fine in Photopaint itself. The Iray crashes are onyl with some variants of Tiff, others work fine. Other formats are mich more tightly defined and so should be more reliable in a multi-application workflow.
Tiff has layers but generally not in a delivered product.
When I create modifications like adding art to a t-shirt
I put the shirt on a character
go to surfaces>base map>browse which takes you to the texture file
right click open in photoshop add the new artwork as a higher layer (working at transparency levels to check alignment.
The I save the work file as a tiff file to preserve the layers (with a new name to reflect that... then save as a jpg or a flat tiff but don't put the layered version on the product.
This thread is very interesting however it has deviated a little from the main use case for these textures. I will not be doing Daz renders with them, I will be using the for a VR experience in which users can really get close to the character and at this distance even 4k textures look lowres.
Im mostly interested in having the normal maps to be 8k since those are the ones that give most detail.
Of course I would also need the product to have an Interactive License
There is an older thread on the subject, and at a time made some measurements.
https://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/comment/6316741/#Comment_6316741
1mm = 0.0393in
In my experience there's never enough detail.
If you find yourself needing 8k there's a good chance even that is insufficient.
since D|S loads dds and now supports mipmapping why not do as all the game engines do and use that?
The levels of detail change according to how close you get
Yes this is one of the main reasons I love 8K textures as well. I see 8K textures as falling in the same category as you can cut wood shorter but you can't cut it longer - you can reduce texture sizes but you can't enlarge it without getting artifacts. An option to choose between downloading 8K or 4K might be good to have. Daz products can and is used in a lot more programs than just DS. :)
Wow, that brings back memories. I spent years developing for MS flightsims both freeware and commercially and LODs and mipmapping were heavily used in most aspects of the games.
I want to know what VR engine is running 8K textures!
Compression can be all over the place in the store. 8K textures might not look better if those textures were too compressed compared to the compression of the 4K ones. I've seen 4K textures on Daz characters that look great, even up close in high res renders, but then other 4K textures might look horrid. And I have seen this on the same character model. I have seen some Daz characters that have 8K textures for certain types, like bumps, but then the normals are badly compressed 4K textures. I could see the compression without zooming in much. At first I couldn't tell what was going wrong with my renders until I saw the normal maps had loads of compression artifacts. Replacing the normal maps with some from a different character made a big difference, but that did alter the look a little.
I don't get why customers would complain about 8K textures. Like Mada said it is much easier to down size large textures than to upscale and make the textures the size you want. So if the textures are of low quality, it is difficult or even impossible to improve them with AI upscalers, especially human skin textures. I also have little sympathy for anyone complaining about download sizes. I do not want the quality of my art assets to be gimped because of somebody else's internet problems, or crappy computer. If I ever sell a 3D product, it will have 2 sets of textures, a high resolution set and a 'normal' resolution set for those who can't handle the high res ones. Plus these sets would have separate downloads, and hopefully that would make both camps happy. But I am sure somebody would still be unhappy for some reason.
reading the adobe page...
Tiff is big, png is smaller and jpg can be even smaller.
There was a consideration of importence in the time of dial up modems and 256k connections and 20 MB hard drives and 4 gb hard drives.
---
that was then .. this is now.
---
So how much of this yacking about size is just delivery?
---
I have uber bad net and still manage to download 100g a month.
---
I have 30TB in and attached to the machine and 64g ddr4... and I used to do 3dl renders in a machine with 24g
20g of daz 2 g of system and 2g for the system to think.
Yes, I had to sit there for two hours and keep telling the system it couldn't close a program to free up memory as there was only one running.
---
the comment about good and bad 4k textures... perhaps some 4k textures are 8k textures cut down in size and others are 2k textures blown up?
you can still supply a 4k texture but which one is really 4k?
you don't need an 8K texture for an iris
or eyelash inc cutout opacity map
my main issue is unneeded ones, especially on small props in a big set
I love vendors like Rougey and Strangefate who provide 2 sets of textures high and lower res
No it is pretty clear they are compressed. You can see the compression in the texture. Upscaling with AI does not produce these kinds of artifacts. Upscaling can produce its own kind of artifacts, though, and sometimes these can be spotted as well. AI upscaling can do some really weird things, it can make some details that should be subtle stand out a mile while washing out other details you were hoping to keep.
Some people do master textures at a higher resolution and drop them down for the final product. But it still depends on how they downsize them that impacts the quality of the final textures. There may be some cases where textures from old merchant assets are converted and upscaled to 4K. I have been able to pick out instances where some textures came from past Genesis generations and were converted to 8. You can spot this by looking at the fingers, toes, eyelids, and ears. You can often see the tell tell signs where the texture was stretched a bit by whatever method they used to convert the texture to 8, and the details of the fingers will look slightly out of sync. Like they are maybe just off center, or even slightly rotated. The eyelids in particular are almost always stretched a bit to conform to G8's, and parts of the ear will have some stretch marks or other distortions, too.
I know the thread starter is talking about using a VR program, but when it comes to Daz, it would be easy to test TIF compared to JPG or PNG. Just take a character that has TIFF and convert them, saving these as new textures. Swap the textures out and render up close at high resolutions. I personally think nobody will spot a difference between the PNG and TIFF versions of textures.
It also important to keep in mind that Iray itself uses its own compression for every render. The compression is a proprietary format only for Iray. The compression settings are in the Advanced Rendering options, but all you can adjust is the vertical pixel size that Iray starts compressing more at. The default values are actually very low, meaning that Iray by default basically compresses every texture used from modern Daz assets. The settings start at just 512 pixels! So unless users change this setting, Iray is doing a ton of compression on the textures in your scenes. This is also why there is such a large difference between how much RAM and VRAM is used in any render. I am sure that people have noticed that Iray easily uses 3 times or more RAM than it does VRAM in their scenes. This is why.
So using 8K textures in Iray is not the huge hit to VRAM that most people probably think it is. It hits system RAM much harder, yes, but the VRAM will not increase nearly as much. Changing the Iray compression settings will alter this of course. If you set it to where Iray only starts compressing images above 8K, then you will notice your VRAM usage will skyrocket.
But the important thing here is the fact that Iray uses its own compression calls into question just how effective using TIFF can truly be over PNG.
Ok
I found 'em by accident, so
this has a 6k torso texture.
https://www.daz3d.com/lola-for-genesis-3-female
as does this:
https://www.daz3d.com/star-life-hd-for-genesis-8-female
This MR is 8k
https://www.daz3d.com/deepsea-genesis-81-female-texture-merchant-resource
... all by the same PA.
Still convinced I saw one recently released, but can't locate atm.