HD Scans Ruins 2 Texture issue

kalina.pepa_29135cfc8e

Hi, i recently obtained this product https://www.daz3d.com/hd-scans-church-ruin-2

 

 and while using 12K resolution, id expect something better looking, than blurry texture like this in final render, is there any specific setting i have to turn ON or tweak, to achieve true 12K resolution? Thanks for possible help..

https://gyazo.com/84dfe29658e02300d28973a3b18fdc3b

https://gyazo.com/4dc902801a925232a7d512671825687f

felis

Render Settings > Advanced > Texture compression is probably way too low.

kalina.pepa_29135cfc8e

felis said:

Render Settings > Advanced > Texture compression is probably way too low.

I did set it to 15360 for High threshold and the medium is kept 512... which number i shall give the Medium threshold?

kalina.pepa_29135cfc8e

I tried many variations, and no noticeable difference...so i have no clue.. between the selectable 4K and 12K or 16K materials, there is ony minor difference on some edges, otherwise it all look equally bad....

felis

If an texture is above high threshold it gets a high compression, between medium and high a medium compression.

kalina.pepa_29135cfc8e

felis said:

If an texture is above high threshold it gets a high compression, between medium and high a medium compression.

like i said, i tried many variations, and no differences...so i guess, its how 12K or 16K look like then? pretty disappointing.....

felis

I don't have it.

But you could try look at the textures in an image viewer/editing program.

richardandtracy

I have a silly query, which is probably the only thought I can come up with and it's this:

Do you have DOF turned on for the camera?

The reason I ask is that the background stones in the first image look sharper than the foreground ones, and if the near ones are out of the focus zone, that might do it.

I'm sure it's something you've checked, but if not, it may be worth it.

Regards,

Richard.

 

kalina.pepa_29135cfc8e

richardandtracy said:

I have a silly query, which is probably the only thought I can come up with and it's this:

Do you have DOF turned on for the camera?

The reason I ask is that the background stones in the first image look sharper than the foreground ones, and if the near ones are out of the focus zone, that might do it.

I'm sure it's something you've checked, but if not, it may be worth it.

Regards,

Richard.

 

Yes, i did check that, same happens in any camera i use, all without DoF, so i have no clue.. also i checked the texture, and the texture it self is somewhat blurry, but not as much as in the pictures, definitely not usable for closeups like these, as its mentioned in product's description...

RawArt

Open up the textures in photoshop and look at them to see if it is simply the textures themselves.

I dont know this set, but any large environment will have a tough time with details close up no matter how large the maps are.

 

kalina.pepa_29135cfc8e

RawArt said:

Open up the textures in photoshop and look at them to see if it is simply the textures themselves.

I dont know this set, but any large environment will have a tough time with details close up no matter how large the maps are.

 

I mentioned it above, i did look, and they are in some spots bit blurry, and in some others even more... so quite disappointing anyway..

RawArt

kalina.pepa_29135cfc8e said:

RawArt said:

Open up the textures in photoshop and look at them to see if it is simply the textures themselves.

I dont know this set, but any large environment will have a tough time with details close up no matter how large the maps are.

 

I mentioned it above, i did look, and they are in some spots bit blurry, and in some others even more... so quite disappointing anyway..

For close up shots you need to used smaller environments that can have more details.

Large environments are meant for distance shots.

There really isnt much that can be done about that.   (Some may say "tileable textures" could help, but there are limitations to how good that will look too.

When using products like this, it is simply using "the right tool for the job"

 

McGyver

Models like these are produced using photogrammetry or some form of it... the textures in good photogrammetry models are usually comprised of hundreds of photos taken from the greatest number of angles as possible to ensure maximum surface capture... the problem is that often the software that is stitching/assembling the data combines image or uses images that aren't necessarily the clearest, or it blurs or distorts some areas... the bigger the model the more problematic... especially since the bigger the subject, the more likely the photos were taken from a distance and then photography skills, camera and lens quality all start to matter... on top of that, as RawArt said, big models are going to need larger textures for the model to look sharp... eventually there is a limit... so a mossy boulder the size of a VW beetle will probably look fantastic, but a cliff face the size of an apartment building will suffer from all sorts of limits... not at DAZ, but in other places I've seen models where I swear the person didn't understand the difference between digital zoom and actual zoom. 

barbult

I would guess that the product page advertising hype led to high expectations.

It's made from 4,000+ high-resolution photos and includes 8 16k texture maps (4 diff maps + 4 normal maps) for extreme details even at close range.

If the product doesn't live up to your expectations of "extreme details even at close range", you can return it and Daz will refund your money without any hassle. Just submit a help request.