Resolution drops on import to Su
-
I have noticed the resolution of imported .jpg images is degraded.
I have imported large .jpg files for a panarama view and noticed the image quality has dropped, I am seeing jaggies that weren't there in the PhotoShop image.
On closer inspection of smaller .jpg images used for buildings I am seeing a lower quality in SU.
Am I missing something ? I have imported them every way possible with no success.
Smiley.
-
Hi Smiley,
This is due to OpenGL (which SU uses) being able to handle images of maximum 1024x1024 pixels. Anything that is bigger will be downgraded. The solution is to chop up your big panorama and apply the parts individually on separate faces of a cylinder for instance.
The same method Chuck used in that panorama I linked your other topic to. -
I see now. Thanks.
I split up the .jpg file and what a difference in quality.
I 'saved for web' from Photoshop, striping out exif data, and the textures displayed on both PC and iMac.I created a panorama with 6 .jpg files (1000 x 1023).
Getting the images to tile seamlessly was a challenge, there is still a minor join visible, is this the best that can be achieved ?
See attached.Smiley
-
That's pretty neat IMO. I could only see a (very faint) seam at one place. Another solution is to put the cloudy image as a background watermark using mixed styles. This is an example I created using a semi transparent png image someone (maybe Alan Fraser?) shared in the old Pro Forums (that have gona almost for a year).
http://www.gaieus.hu/su/Cloudy.styleThe only problem is that during animation export the sky won't "move" but jump when you are at a certain point. But for still images it's cool.
-
Thanks for your reply Gaieus.
But, I couldn't read the file, it came over as pages of random text.
I have another question, I tried working out how the attached model was textured.
I extracted the texture and tried reapplying it every way I know how but the texturing came out mangled, unprojected on individual faces.Or it gets smeared on the more vertical surfaces.
How is it textured ?
It is not my work, respect to the author.
Regards
Smiley
-
This is realy interesting.
The underlying image file has had the bottom half stretched almost as though it were "projected: Also it is very large: 2800 x 1400 pixels.
Yet if you look at the aspect ratio and scale of the image in SketchUp it indicates a width to the image of .03m. That means that the model was almost certainly scaled way up after the image was originally applied. Also, the segments of the dome are triangulated rather than squares or rectangles so it isn't made like the usual dome. I know that much but I still can't quite figure out how it was done. I'm intrigued so I'm on a hunt. Hope what I found so far is of use to someone else in tracking the mystery. -
Yes, by the fact that it is triangulated, I would suppose that it was textured in another application and re-imported into SU. Some applications (like Max or Kerkythea xml files) work oönly with triangulated faces.
The texture is neither "positioned" or "projected" in SU as you cannot see any either of these options ticked when right clicking on a facet and checking texture in the context menu.
Anyway, as for the *.style file I shared above, just save it under your styles folder of your SU application. A style file is actually a zip file (renamed) containing a couple of things. You shhould be able to right click and save as...
-
Gai, given that it is neither positioned nor projected, how is it working.
If I try and apply it to the outer surface, or again on the inner surface for that matter, it won't apply the same way as we see it.
So this is working this way only because it was applied in another application and imported in facet by facet into SketchUp? -
Note that using a PhotoMatch scene to insert a background image will keep the original image resolution, but it applies only to the generated PhotoMatch scene.
Anssi
-
Thanks Alan. I was going to break my head trying to make it work
-
The dome may be one of mine...although Kim Frederik and a few others make them also. (one bunch of clouds looks much like another). You certainly can't make them in SU. You need to use a program that can apply spherical UV mapping. I tend to use Ultimate Unwrap 3D.
The triangulations on the faces are not actually necessary for the purpose of planar geometry. They can be deleted...but the mapping will go all askew. It won't be too bad around the base but will get rather nasty the higher you go.
This is one of the annoying things about SU. It is quite capable of displaying all manner of complex mapped objects. It just doesn't have the tools to actually apply the mapping itself.
Incidentally, OpenGL can deal with images up tp 2048x2048. It's just that SU is limited to half that because certain Mac systems used to refuse to display images at all that were larger than 1024. There is a registry fix for Windows users that want to take it to the max. I've never really investigated it too deeply so I'm not sure whether the image degradation is just an onscreen display anomaly, or whether it actually makes it all the way through to a hi-res exported image.
-
Hehe, that would have been a sight to see, Susan.
You can't map an ordinary landscape/skyline to a dome...even if it's a full 360° panoramic image. You can get part of the way up...just like a cyclindrical cyclorama, but one that bends inwards at the top; but the circle above your head will just never work. You need a full hemispherical image like these.A disproportionate amount of image has to be employed to map that small area directly above you (like the full top half of the rectangular versions) while the bottom edge has to run the entire circumference of the horizon.
Advertisement