Texture resizing and you

[Bryan T]

http://strawpoll.me/6134360

I'd like to know what people think of texture resizing and whether or not you use it. Vote at the poll! The reason I ask is because on more than one occasion I've been told they like the pixelated look.

Me, I use the highest available, hq4x, and it brz was in, I'd use that instead.

edit: I'm referring to what Gzdoom calls "High Quality Resize Mode"

[SavageCorona]

I thought this would be about Build engine-style resizing textures where you can make a giant texture fit on a tiny square.

[RestlessRodent]

Rowsol said:

http://strawpoll.me/6134360

I'd like to know what people think of texture resizing and whether or not you use it. Vote at the poll! The reason I ask is because on more than one occasion I've been told they like the pixelated look.

Me, I use the highest available, hq4x, and it brz was in, I'd use that instead.

I use texture resizing and when I do it is always nearest, that is a pixelated look.

[Bryan T]

Nearest? Not understanding. I'm talking about the option in openGL/Texture Options in Gzdoom. I think PrBoom and Zandronum also have resizing options.

[RestlessRodent]

Rowsol said:

Nearest? Not understanding. I'm talking about the option in openGL/Texture Options in Gzdoom. I think PrBoom and Zandronum also have resizing options.

I am also talking about OpenGL texture scaling and software based texture scaling, if the port permits it set it to GL_NEAREST_MIPMAP_NEAREST. You can do that in PrBoom (if it is not in the menu then it can be done in the config).

[40oz]

ewww scaling textures sucks. I always hated seeing steep slopes in ZDoom that stretch flats and textures real bad. Even tastefully I see texture resizing to be pretty ugly. Preserve the original dimensions of the texture images and work your map around it for sure.

Did I understand your question correctly?

[Graf Zahl]

No, you did not. It was about 'high quality' scaling options in some harware accelerated ports.

[xAn]

You mean this? These are my settings in glboom. I kinda like some resize for the textures...

[The Civ]

To me, any form of resizing or filtering takes away the gritty, but crisp look of the game's graphics, and turns it into a muddy mess.

[SYS]

Duke 3d Episode 1 level 5 - The Abyss is a great example of why texture re-sizing is bad. The rock texture is super stretched and it looks like a pixelated mess.

That's looking at it in hindsight with the critical modern lens of today. So no skin off Levelord's back for doing so at the time.

So for Doom, it's off the table for me.

[Avoozl]

At the very beginning when I used ZDoom ports such as Skulltag I used texture re-sizing, but now I no longer care for it and find it just ruins the look of the textures.

I have no problem with pixelation but I don't so much care for the distance fog vanilla based ports use.

[Da Werecat]

People complaining about texture stretching on slopes should realize that scaling can actually prevent things like that. If it causes them, you're probably doing it wrong.

[Graf Zahl]

Using texture resizing to upscale a texture will inevitably look like shit.
But sometimes you just need more detail on some smaller stuff, that's an entirely different matter.

[Olroda]

I must agree with what has already been stated, and the Civ said it best, I think:

The Civ said:

...any form of resizing or filtering takes away the gritty, but crisp look of the game's graphics, and turns it into a muddy mess.

A definite NO vote from me.

[Voros]

Never bothered with resizing, because the resoulution is high, not "low or high detail" options.
Plus, OpenGL makes the sprites look really blurry, and enjoyed it at first. Then I finally figured out how to bring the pixels back (trileaner textures). Resizing just sounds weird to have for classic Doom, since OpenGL is present. Plus, its meant to be pixelated. Unless we are talking about Doom 3/2016. I voted no... yes, the minority is no but I voted no, out of my heart.
Pixels are better for classic Doom IMO, unless someone makes a full HD sprite mod to give detail to the weapons, items, player, enemies and level textures (I'm pretty sure there is one for the latter for Zdoom)

[wallabra]

Are you serious? The only time in my LIFE I had to resize any texture was in the two secrets in the second hallway in Devile II MAP01; and even then I hate Devile II.
A definitive NO.

[Jaxxoon R]

If you've got something post-2002, texture filtering is tolerable since the textures are high-res enough anyways that you wouldn't notice they're being blurred unless your face is right up against them. In something like Doom, however, everything as a whole is too low-resolution to not be horribly mangled. It also looks really fucking weird for the textures to be blurry but the actual map geometry to be super sharp. That's why I hate mipmapping, since it blurs textures that are at extreme angles sort of like your eye does, but without blurring the image itself like in real life when you're not focusing on a spot. It just looks weird and bothers me. Which is a problem, since texture swim also bothers me.

In short, I'm never happy.

[Voros]

Jaxxoon R said:

In short, I'm never happy.

Yes, but around 70% chose yes at the poll for some reason...
Maybe they like muddy monsters and maps.

Actually, the OpenGL effects on the weapon sprites (when in possesion) look ok. The rest is too low res to be "trilineared".

[Xaser]

The poll in the OP is likely skewed because of the phrasing, since "texture resizing" sounds like it could refer to texture scaling (which is the interpretation of a lot of folks in this thread, and mine too at first :P). I mentally group hq4x and the like under the "texture filtering" umbrella, even though it's a technically-separate thing.

The reason for said "mental group" though is mostly because I agree wholeheartedly with Jaxxoon R: Texture filtering/resizing has no place in Doom-scale graphics.

It's by no means limited to Doom, though, and plenty of commercial games suffer the same. Quake 2's a great example -- the game looks wrong in the vanilla GL renderer because everything is a blurry mess. And don't get me started on the N64... :P

A big part of this is hindsight-filtered, of course. I'm sure the smooth look was pretty awesome at the time because it was different.

[Nictendo]

Voros said:

The rest is too low res to be "trilineared".

Although, when streaming Doom, trilinear filtering helps the encoder out. It will result in a higher quality/more viewable stream, even at low bitrates.

[Noiser]

Doom was made to be a pixel-art game imo.

Edited November 21, 2019 by Noiser

[Da Werecat]

Xaser said:

Quake 2's a great example -- the game looks wrong in the vanilla GL renderer because everything is a blurry mess.

Most of the blurry messiness is because the game resizes non-power-of-two model skins in the GL mode, making them even smaller. It can be forced off, although doing so won't exactly turn the game's graphics into Unreal 2.

Noiser said:

Doom was made to be a pixel-art game.

Must... not... comment...

[Noiser]

Da Werecat said:

Must... not... comment...

Why? You think they made the game with filters in mind? This is a game from the nineties, obviously made to be seen with pixels. You can add a lot of cool features to increase the graphics, but the art style is the same (if you are using the original resources).

[Nictendo]

Noiser said:

Why? You think they made the game with filters in mind? This is a game from the nineties, obviously made to be seen with pixels.

I think he is referring to the fact there really wasn't such a thing as a "pixel-art game" at the time because that was just a limitation of the time, not a choice.

[Noiser]

Nictendo said:

I think he is referring to the fact there really wasn't such a thing as a "pixel-art game" at the time because that was just a limitation of the time, not a choice.

I understand. But purposely or not, it's still a pixel-art game (literally speaking). IMO, filters looks more like a bad make-up, trying to hide something that can't be changed.

[xAn]

It all depends on the player's choice i think, pixel-art game or not. Gl-rendering is just another feature modern ports offers.

I get used on the gl-rendering in glboom for some times now. I stick to zdoom and software-rendering as well from time to time (depending on the port needed for the pwad).

[Super Flip]

I feel like texture resizing makes things way too muddy.

The crispness of unfiltered textures is both easier to focus on and aesthetically pleasing in my eyes.

[Noiser]

xAn said:

It all depends on the player's choice i think, pixel-art game or not. Gl-rendering is just another feature modern ports offers.

Yes. I just wanted to point out what I think, but everyone is entitled to their own liking. By the way, you can disable any filters with GL too (in GZDoom at least).

[ETTiNGRiNDER]

Nictendo said:

I think he is referring to the fact there really wasn't such a thing as a "pixel-art game" at the time because that was just a limitation of the time, not a choice.

No, it's not about the age. Doom graphics aren't pixel art because they're not pixel art.

[Noiser]

ETTiNGRiNDER said:

No, it's not about the age. Doom graphics aren't pixel art because they're not pixel art.

"Pixel art is set apart from other digital art forms by its focus on control and precision.
The artist has to be in control of the image at the level of the single pixel, and every pixel should be purposefully placed."

I don't get it. How different is this from a good portion of the Doom artwork? Of course, I'm not talking about resources taken directly from photos or things like that, but take the majority of sprites as an example (a lot of enemies, itens) and a good portion of textures too. It's probably more than half of the resources.

Anyway, I used the term in a literal way. What I wanted to say is just that: the game was made to be seen with pixels in mind.