>: CG Forums on 3dtotal - The best forums for CG artists :.
threedy forums home
 


Go Back   3DTotal Forums > Help, Advice and Chat > CG Chat

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 19-10-2010, 03:14 AM   #1
Crispy4004
Registered User
 
Crispy4004's Avatar
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 1,121
Thanks: 4
Thanked 18 Times in 15 Posts
Awards Showcase
Threedy Top Poster - Silver: Contributing to the forums with 1,000+ posts - Issue reason: Target reached! The Golden Grenade IV: For participating in the Dominance War IV and successfully finishing, well done soldier! - Issue reason: For participating in the Dominance War IV and successfully finishing, well done soldier! 
Total Awards: 2
32 vs 16 Bit Displacement Maps

For as long as I can remember working with Zbrush I've been choosing 32 over 16 for displacement maps. At the time they were easier to setup and I just assumed 16-bit would be inaccurate based on some poor results I saw. But after I gave 16 bit a shot with Go to Z yesterday I'm starting to ask myself why have I been using 32 for so long.

Much like how 16-bit files are ideal for Compositing, I now think it is also true of displacement maps. After all if you can get over 30 stops of exposure with 16-bit EXRs there should be plenty of value information for displacement. Unless your base mesh is wildly off compared to the highest subd, I just don't think all those extra bits are necessary.

One thing I've noticed with 32-bit and Mudbox, there is no need to offset the values in Maya, unlike 16-bit with Zbrush that scales the values to maximize the stored definition. This tells me for the sake of making it easier to plug into Maya, a lot of that 32-bit displacement map generated from Mudbox is simply wasted space. It's dead weight taking up precious RAM I need for rendering.


Maybe when I have a future super computer with enough RAM and CPU power to not worry about any of this I'll throw caution to the wind and adopt 32-bit vector displacements, but until then I'll stick to 16. So am I completely off the mark with all this or are these good conclusions?

Last edited by Crispy4004; 19-10-2010 at 03:17 AM..
Crispy4004 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
all images displayed on this site are copyright the original artists and may not be reproduced, copied or published elsewhere without their express permission