JPG vs PNG Textures

    Regarding the 3D Engine used in Enscape - does it prefer to work with JPG textures or PNG textures? JPG is obviously smaller, but let's assume I am working with a 24GB video memory so this is less of an issue. Is one of the formats less GPU or CPU intensive than the other?

    Any difference in the flat screen vs VR rederer?

    The file size of your texture on disc does not correspond to the size in memory on the gpu. What only matters there is the resolution of your texture.

    However with 3.3 (Preview) we're now relying more on gpu texture compression, so your memory consumption in scene with lots of textures should be lower compared to 3.2 and before.

    Thanks, so you're saying JPG and PNG will use the same amount of GPU memory and in both cases the GPU is pushing the same amount of pixels from video memory through the GPU to the screen and therfore same performance for JPG and PNG?


    It appears to me that in this case if I don't care about disk usage I should always use the higher quality PNG over JPG (roughly twice the size). Any other drawbacks to using PNG textures other than size-on-disk?

    Yes, if you don't care about file size than always prefer lossless file formats - there're no other drawbacks I can think of (assuming you're not loading the bigger files from i.e. a slow network drive).

    For regular scene textures (except displacement maps) only (the standard) 8bit precision per channel is used - going higher there (e.g. using EXR) doesn't make sense for regular renderings.

    Quote from Clemens Musterle

    For regular scene textures (except displacement maps) only (the standard) 8bit precision per channel is used - going higher there (e.g. using EXR) doesn't make sense for regular renderings.

    That’s great thanks, good to see displacement maps use it.


    Also, is there an upper limit on the resolution that Enscape will use for textures?

    Quote from Adam.Fairclough

    That’s great thanks, good to see displacement maps use it.


    Also, is there an upper limit on the resolution that Enscape will use for textures?

    16.384² is the maximum supported texture resolution. But this resolution is only kept if really required based on the actual scale of the texture on the geometry. You can utilize it e.g. for texture mapping environment geometry with a high-res satellite image, if only used for a poster on a wall Enscape will automatically downscale it to a more reasonable resolution.

    Quote from Clemens Musterle

    16.384² is the maximum supported texture resolution. But this resolution is only kept if really required based on the actual scale of the texture on the geometry. You can utilize it e.g. for texture mapping environment geometry with a high-res satellite image, if only used for a poster on a wall Enscape will automatically downscale it to a more reasonable resolution.

    The downscaling is too aggressive for my taste. More than half of my 24G VRAM is empty, yet Enscape still downscales 8K textures on a 2x2m scale which are applied to an entire wall to something that looks like something less than a 2K textures, even though it could just use the VRAM available to it. Some textures are important to me and I'd like to be able to decide myself if a texture is downscaled or not. Could be a switch on a texture-by-texture basis, but easier and maybe even better would be just a switch in settings to disable downscaling completely. This way I could manage texture sizes myself and actually use all of that VRAM available to me. In VR you sometimes get close to textures and the detail helps greatly with immersion. See my picture over in this thread: Texture Downsampling too aggressive