Celestia Forums

I've never been satisfied by the available Moon textures, both full or VTs, so I tried to obtain something on line with my needs.
The best full Moon texture IMO is the old Laika's color 16k (BTW, I have not found it, someone knows where is it?), but it contains
many many bad junctions among different Clementine images, so that luminosity changes a lot, and sometimes there is a displacement too.
Moreover it was IMO too bright and in some spots, like Tycko crater, too bluish in color.
So I armed myself of a lot of patience and after a while (one week) now I have something IMO more satisfactory.
Here you can see the difference:
this is the original


and this is the modified one:

Sorry for the huge dimension of these images, but this way you can see more clearly the differences between them.
The arrows show the points where I made changes.
I know very well that this is NOT a scientific approach to the problem, but IMHO it's a lot better fron an aesthetic point of view.
I have both jpg and PNG versions, both VERY huge ( jpg= 135 MB, png= 235 MB), so I'll wait the new Fridger's tool to obtain a good
dds Moon VT, that I'll make available for all the interested Celestians.
Bye soon

Andrea

Yes, my new tools are all ready and starting to "corrode in my drawer"...What is still missing is some volunteer with a MAC who compiles my tools in MAC-universal (PPC & Intel) and is ready to do some elemnetary testing of the result.

But this is not for people who don't know the name of their compiler

Bye Fridger

t00fri wrote:Yes, my new tools are all ready and starting to "corrode in my drawer"...What is still missing is some volunteer with a MAC who compiles my tools in MAC-universal (PPC & Intel) and is ready to do some elemnetary testing of the result.

But this is not for people who don't know the name of their compiler

Bye Fridger

I'm afraid this is a job for Dirkpitt, but I'm sure he is still busy after moving again to the center of Tokyo; let's be patient...

I agree with the OP that there isn't enough good moon textures out there. While some make a very nice effort there are still many visible flaws, or areas missing off the texture.

If you want to go ahead, and post the jpg/png. Just make sure you note that only a good system should use it. Im running a sempron 3100+ with a gf-6600 vid card, and i can run most 16k texture's with little trouble. Occasional lag, but nothing too serious. I do try to stay within 8k, or smaller if the quality is good. The Earth, and Moon IMO should have the best textures.

TheStressPuppy wrote:...If you want to go ahead, and post the jpg/png. Just make sure you note that only a good system should use it. .... .. I do try to stay within 8k, or smaller if the quality is good. The Earth, and Moon IMO should have the best textures.

TheStressPuppy, as I told I will not upload the actual full 16k textures, due to their big dimensions that will avoid their use by most of graphic cards.
I'm waiting for the new txtools by Fridger, that will allow the creation of very poerforming VT textures, usable by every graphic card.
But if someone wishes to test them in a smaller format, I can prepare a 4k dds file (DXT3), that iwill be about 11 MB.
As you like, inform me.
Bye

Andrea

I'm running what most consider to be a low end system now :/ but ill be more than happy to test the textures and post results.

TheStressPuppy wrote:I'm running what most consider to be a low end system now :/ but ill be more than happy to test the textures and post results.

Hello TheStressPuppy, I think you didn't see the PM I sent you on Sun Mar 25, 2007 12:25 pm.
You'll find there my reply.
Enjoy!
Bye

Andrea

Doh! thats what i get for not paying attention :p Ill run them, and post screens in a pm back to you, or should i post my tests here?

TheStressPuppy wrote:Doh! thats what i get for not paying attention :p Ill run them, and post screens in a pm back to you, or should i post my tests here?

I think it's better to post here, if you agree, thank you.
Bye

Andrea

I ran a couple test shots with both the 2k, and 4k versions. I am impressed with results.

My machine specs are AMD sempron 3100+ (1.8 gig), 2 gigs ddr 400 mhz ram, G-force 6600gt 256 meg vid card, winxp sp2,

Heres the 2k texture test shots
1st just the texture


2k texture with 4k normal map found on motherlode


Now the 4k texture with no bump


Now the 4k texture test's

4k texture with 4k normal map


Far side view of 4k texture with normal map

Edit: I just now see a slight shading flaw on the center of this view. Nothing major, and you have to look real hard to see it. Perhaps a little more blending will fix it, but it is hardly noticeable.

If the 8k, and 16k have this kind of quality i think we got ourselves a winner here. Thank you for letting me test them Andrea

TheStressPuppy wrote:I ran a couple test shots with both the 2k, and 4k versions. I am impressed with results.
My machine specs are AMD sempron 3100+ (1.8 gig), 2 gigs ddr 400 mhz ram, G-force 6600gt 256 meg vid card, winxp sp2,
Edit: I just now see a slight shading flaw on the center of this view. Nothing major, and you have to look real hard to see it. Perhaps a little more blending will fix it, but it is hardly noticeable.
If the 8k, and 16k have this kind of quality i think we got ourselves a winner here. Thank you for letting me test them Andrea

TheStressPuppy, happy to know you like them.
As you know, the images are shaded, for this I prefer not to use bump mapping, and IMHO the results of your images without bump are better looking.
The original Laika's image was 16k (taken from Clementine's set), so the 4k and 2k textures are scaled down from this, and 8k and 16k quality should be the same.
The problem of so huge images is that they need a lot of graphic power, so not all Celestian can use them.
This is the reason why I don't make them available, until Fridger's txtool will allow to obtain the high-quality VT sets.
Meanwhile, I have one doubt:
due to the DXT3 (and DXT5) compression, lower (4X) than the DXT1 (8X), the final quality in the DXT3-DXT5 versions is better?
I think so, but I would appreciate a confirmation (on denial).
Sorry for my doubt, but I missed this information in the forum.
Bye

Andrea

Here an example of the 16k texture results, Plato crater:



Do you like it?
Bye
EDITED LATER: I changed the image with this new one, because from the previous one there could be some doubt about the real quality.
This is a 75% reduction of the original Celestia 1024x768 screen, saved as 10/12 quality jpg file, no filtering or brighness/contrast change.
Bye

Andrea

ANDREA wrote:Do you like it?

I wants! Gimme gimme!

(That means yes)

What Johaen said

I only use normal maps to give the views some relief. Shaded textures would look weird if the sun were facing the opposite direction of the shadows. In full views like i posted it is no issue.

IIRC (correct me if i am wrong) dxt3, and dxt5 use mip mapping, and that could be why you think the quality is flawed. This is from my experience dealing with textures for gaming. With the mip maps from a perspective view the quality would be sharp at an area close to you, but would become fuzzy at points further away. I dont use mip maps on any textures i make for that reason. I am not sure if celestia recognizes mip maps or not. If not then i am not sure what you mean. Perhaps if you shown an example it may help. To the average user there may be no difference.

When i save to jpg i save it in full quality. Im sure even an old system can handle a full quality 1024 res full qual jpeg image

TheStressPuppy wrote:What Johaen said I only use normal maps to give the views some relief. Shaded textures would look weird if the sun were facing the opposite direction of the shadows. In full views like i posted it is no issue. IIRC (correct me if i am wrong) dxt3, and dxt5 use mip mapping, and that could be why you think the quality is flawed. This is from my experience dealing with textures for gaming. With the mip maps from a perspective view the quality would be sharp at an area close to you, but would become fuzzy at points further away. I dont use mip maps on any textures i make for that reason. I am not sure if celestia recognizes mip maps or not. If not then i am not sure what you mean. Perhaps if you shown an example it may help. To the average user there may be no difference. When i save to jpg i save it in full quality. Im sure even an old system can handle a full quality 1024 res full qual jpeg image

TheStressPuppy, in dds texturing I'm absolutely a newcomer, so my doubts.
Regarding the mipmaps, I saved the 16k.jpg texture in DXT3 "without" mipmaps, but nevertheless the size is double respect to the DXT1.
This is why I think that the compared quality should be better in DXT3, but being not expert on this matter I'm not sure of this.
I always use the jpg textures in 12/12 quality to obtain the best results even if paying in file size.
If I'll have a definitive reply on this, i.e. if it's better to save in DXT1 or DXT3, I'll upload the 2k, 4k, 8k dds files.
Bye soon

Andrea

ANDREA wrote:

TheStressPuppy wrote:What Johaen said I only use normal maps to give the views some relief. Shaded textures would look weird if the sun were facing the opposite direction of the shadows. In full views like i posted it is no issue. IIRC (correct me if i am wrong) dxt3, and dxt5 use mip mapping, and that could be why you think the quality is flawed. This is from my experience dealing with textures for gaming. With the mip maps from a perspective view the quality would be sharp at an area close to you, but would become fuzzy at points further away. I dont use mip maps on any textures i make for that reason. I am not sure if celestia recognizes mip maps or not. If not then i am not sure what you mean. Perhaps if you shown an example it may help. To the average user there may be no difference. When i save to jpg i save it in full quality. Im sure even an old system can handle a full quality 1024 res full qual jpeg image

TheStressPuppy, in dds texturing I'm absolutely a newcomer, so my doubts.
Regarding the mipmaps, I saved the 16k.jpg texture in DXT3 "without" mipmaps, but nevertheless the size is double respect to the DXT1.
This is why I think that the compared quality should be better in DXT3, but being not expert on this matter I'm not sure of this.
I always use the jpg textures in 12/12 quality to obtain the best results even if paying in file size.
If I'll have a definitive reply on this, i.e. if it's better to save in DXT1 or DXT3, I'll upload the 2k, 4k, 8k dds files.
Bye soon

Andrea

Andrea,

if you are not using VT tiles, you should certainly add mipmaps! Also, the new 'squish'-based NVIDIA DXT tools can easily been downloaded from the NVIDIA developer site. The DXT1,3,... encoding is of VERY high quality if you don't choose the -fast option. There is also a Setup installer, so it's really trivial.

DXT encoding has losses just like jpeg, for example. So the aim is to minimize the deviations of the DXT compressed image relative to the original one. This is expressed quantitatively in for of a RMS (root mean square) error. In the new code this minimization is effected via selectable fitting algorithms.

Bye Fridger

t00fri wrote:Andrea, if you are not using VT tiles, you should certainly add mipmaps! Also, the new 'squish'-based NVIDIA DXT tools can easily been downloaded from the NVIDIA developer site. The DXT1,3,... encoding is of VERY high quality if you don't choose the -fast option. There is also a Setup installer, so it's really trivial. DXT encoding has losses just like jpeg, for example. So the aim is to minimize the deviations of the DXT compressed image relative to the original one. This is expressed quantitatively in for of a RMS (root mean square) error. In the new code this minimization is effected via selectable fitting algorithms.
Bye Fridger

Fridger, I think you are speaking of this one:
DDS Utilities Installer (Build 8.31.0225.1745) (10263 KB)
If so, I'll give a try.
But anyhow it has the 8k limitation (better than the previous one, anyhow, whose limit was 2k textures), so for conversions I use the DDS2 Converter by Yannick 'Bluehair' Leon, that uses the same nVidia tools nvdxt.exe file but allows the 16k jpg textures to be converted to DXT1-3-5.
Do you know it?
If yes, is this worth to be used?
Your opinion, please, Fridger, thank you.
Bye

Andrea

Like you Andrea i am a relative newcomer as far as dealing with dds. Most of my work has been in gaming mods where a loss of quality is at worst case trivial. I have not even tried to tackle something like a high quality planetary texture yet, because i believe my skills in that area leave much to be desired.

I do know that mips added with a dds will help as far as easing the load from rendering. Especially when zooming out. When i import my textures in some games i do notice like what i posted earlier about the perspective blurring. Not saving the mips fixed the issue. I have not noticed this issue in Celestia. With Fridger saying you should save the mips that tells me that Celestia does indeed use them.

It seems that many of the texture artist in this community are very worried about loss of quality of their work in conversion. Sometimes there is just no way around it, and you will have to live with some loss. The moon textures you sent me i didn't notice anything unusual, but then again they were 2k, and 4k, and i am no expert in this. IMO They were better quality than other 2k/4k's i have seen.

Personally i wouldn't know if there was a loss in quality from the original unless there was a comparison shot. The only true way to tell is to release them, and let the community decide. If there is something wrong im sure we can constructively point it out, and perhaps help you find a way to fix it.

TheStressPuppy wrote:
I do know that mips added with a dds will help as far as easing the load from rendering. Especially when zooming out. When i import my textures in some games i do notice like what i posted earlier about the perspective blurring. Not saving the mips fixed the issue. I have not noticed this issue in Celestia. With Fridger saying you should save the mips that tells me that Celestia does indeed use them.

Mipmaps are indeed a set of reduced images, each of size smaller by a factor of two than the previous one. You can easily inspect the mipmaps of a DDS image with photoshop or gimp, for example. They save lots of resources when zooming out, where detail is becoming less important...Certainly, Celestia AND your graphics card support mipmaps...

In case of VT's we have the various VT levels that are naturally replacing the role of mipmap images. So in case of VTs, mipmaps are superfluous.

@Andrea. No I don't know that code. The new DXT compression code from NVIDIA is based on Simon Brown's squish-1.7 code which is slow but way better in quality. So I can't really make a qualified statement, not knowing your reference.
But the "old" NVIDIA compressor was the champion BEFORE squish arrived. So it's not bad either. Your moon texture quality does not look soooo exquisit to urgently require squish. Although it's quite nice of course. But as we all know, moon textures are just 'generically' BAD...

Bye Fridger

In case of VT's we have the various VT levels that are naturally replacing the role of mipmap images. So in case of VTs, mipmaps are superfluous."

If I remember correctly they are superfluous except for the "level 0" tiles, where they do help with the "zooming out" as mentioned by TheStressPuppy.