3 ms·
Polygons are 3D and textures are stored in images (2D). So you need to have each polygon in 3D space correspond to a polygon in 2D image space. One way to think
by quelsolaar 7y ago
Polygons are 3D and textures are stored in images (2D). So you need to have each polygon in 3D space correspond to a polygon in 2D image space. One way to think of this is to take a 3D model and unwrapping it on to a 2D sheet. Very much like you would do if you would design paper-craft.
A 3D artist usually starts by doing the 3D shape, then they create the UV unwrap, and then finally they paint the 3D model in a 3D paint program. Yes its sort of a invisible part of 3D graphics, but its very tedious, and therefor costly and doesn't contribute anything to the artistic to the asset.
A big part of automating the process, is also using it ins situations where no artist is even involved in the process, like when you do 3D scanning, and want to produce good 3D models with textures.
- namibj 7y agoI got great results with mvs-texturing. It's not as efficient with texture area or the number of textures, however. Does your approach scale to large meshes, at least in theory? I.e., what is the limit you deem feasible with 1TB RAM and a 3GHz dual socket, 14 cores each? Say, within 2-5 hours or so.
- quelsolaar 7y agoI have tried it with meshes in the 300-400 meg range and it works fine. Time depends on the kind of geometry.
- peteforde 7y agoThanks so much for this explanation. I had no idea that people couldn't paint their creations in zBrush directly. It has all of those fancy brushes and I thought it was an end-to-end solution. What's more, I'm kind of floored that if you do model something in zBrush that it doesn't generate a texture map for you. I've always been spoiled because our system was clearly abstracting this UV unwrap process completely - we were generating lifelike human avatars and had to come up with our own texture packing scheme. I've heard people discussing unwrapping and never understood what they were on about!