[Question] Image quality: Graphic cards and Graphic softwares

[wackyserious]

I'm currently producing .png textures using a netbook which has a very old graphics card, so that I can work on textures even if I am at school.

My question is, would there be a difference in terms of the quality of the image which I create in graphics software if I make them in a computer that has a low quality graphics card (built in) vs. making them in a computer with a regular or better graphics card?

[Loki1950]

This is a case where it's the software that counts that and the format of the exported image since you are using .png just keep the compression to a minimum so there are fewer artefacts when you transfer them to your home work machine FYI .png is a loss-less format with an alpha channel it's one that I prefer for textures myself.

Enjoy the Choice     

[vladislavbelov]

On 26.06.2017 at 5:05 AM, Loki1950 said:

This is a case where it's the software that counts that and the format of the exported image since you are using .png just keep the compression to a minimum so there are fewer artefacts when you transfer them to your home work machine FYI .png is a loss-less format with an alpha channel it's one that I prefer for textures myself.

No need to keep the compression to a minimum for .png, as you said it's a loss-less format. So it could have best quality even with a hard compression.

On 26.06.2017 at 4:22 AM, wackyserious said:

My question is, would there be a difference in terms of the quality of the image which I create in graphics software if I make them in a computer that has a low quality graphics card (built in) vs. making them in a computer with a regular or better graphics card?

Does * make sense for an image quality:

Image program (GIMP/Ps): No

Image format (.png/.jpg): Yes

Image resolution (32x32, 1024x1024): Yes

Computer which is used for editing: No

Edited June 28, 2017 by vladislavbelov

[wackyserious]

Thanks to both of you, for clarifying things. That is good news.

[niektb]

The only noticeable difference would be is that a modern computer with a good CPU and a decent amount of RAM (I think most in Gimp is not GPU-accelerated) can do your processing (say image filters and working with high-res textures) a lot faster...

[vladislavbelov]

9 hours ago, niektb said:

The only noticeable difference would be is that a modern computer with a good CPU and a decent amount of RAM (I think most in Gimp is not GPU-accelerated) can do your processing (say image filters and working with high-res textures) a lot faster...

GIMP supports a GPU acceleration since 2.8. Main functions have a GPU acceleration, and number of these functions grows.

http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/GIMP-2-8-RC-1-arrives-with-GPU-acceleration-1518417.html

https://www.gimp.org/news/2015/11/27/gimp-2-9-2-released/

[Stan`]

Version 2.95 is avalaible here for windows (64 bit only) http://www.partha.com/downloads/GIMP-2.9.5-std-64bit.exe

[niektb]

The release notes mention that GPU support is still experimental and being worked on. Good news though to see that's something being worked on!