I would suppose his theory is that, while it's only a fraction bigger, it's a litttle bit more room to work... yet, with minimal loss. Not a particularly bad idea.
Yeah, I'm suspecting that the two heads toriboomer has been trying to sell may have had trouble due to their size. It just seems that attention is more drawn to 256x256 heads, and the regular sized heads now tend to look to small.
Also, I sometimes read comments such as "Its amazing how sharp that set is" or something along those lines. What disturbs me is that the set was shown in 512x512 which would be able to seem far cleaner than 128x128.
Even resizing some of my heads from 256^2 loses so much sharpness. I fear what 512^2 would do. The thing is, sharpness would affect all types of textures. Detail would affect mainly realistic type heads with more parts, but this is the same for everything.
I guess you can compare it to some stairs. Suppose a stairway has 32 steps. Now image the same length being covered by just 8. When you view it when zooming in, the one with 8 would stop looking diagonal four times as fast while the one with 32 will still appear so.
This really makes a difference in closeup shots of texture sets. :/
Also, I sometimes read comments such as "Its amazing how sharp that set is" or something along those lines. What disturbs me is that the set was shown in 512x512 which would be able to seem far cleaner than 128x128.
Even resizing some of my heads from 256^2 loses so much sharpness. I fear what 512^2 would do. The thing is, sharpness would affect all types of textures. Detail would affect mainly realistic type heads with more parts, but this is the same for everything.
I guess you can compare it to some stairs. Suppose a stairway has 32 steps. Now image the same length being covered by just 8. When you view it when zooming in, the one with 8 would stop looking diagonal four times as fast while the one with 32 will still appear so.
This really makes a difference in closeup shots of texture sets. :/
