.tif vrs .pic 2005-02-25 - By mark wilson
Back
Its all irrelevant as far as render memory is concerned though isn't it?
When its loaded into RAM its decompressed.
Mark
-- --Original Message-- --
From: owner-xsi@(protected) [mailto:owner-xsi@(protected)] On Behalf
Of Chris Marshall
Sent: 25 February 2005 10:53
To: XSI@(protected)
Subject: Re: .tif vrs .pic
That's interesting. In my experience, pics are always smaller than
tiffs, unless you're using lzw compression on the tiffs, which I don't
think XSI can use. A regular Tiff has no compression at all, whereas
pics do contain lossless compression automatically. Just save a solid
white frame from photoshop in the two formats and compare the file
sizes!!
Between the two, I'd always use pic, but unless you're having problems,
I wouldn't worry too much.
Chris
-- -- Original Message -- --
From: Robert Cole <rcole@(protected)>
To: xsi @ softimage <xsi@(protected)>
Sent: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 19:09:24 +0000
Subject: .tif vrs .pic
> When using greyscale image for texturing, I have a choice of .tif or a
> desaturated .pic. Granted that the image pixel sizes are the same, the
> greyscale .tif
> has a smaller file size, but I understand that XSI/Softimage will have
an
> "easier" time with the .pic as it is compressable and etc. If render
memory
> space
> was an issue, what format would you use? I understand .map files and
will
> not be going that route.
>
>
> robert_at_texturelighting.calm.
>
>
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo@(protected) with the following text in
body:
unsubscribe xsi
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo@(protected) with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi
|
|
