I wanted to talk about some problems with procedural textures in Blender that really limit the complexity and variation of the textures that can be created inside Blender. I’m talking about Cycles material editing workflow, that frequently incorporates using different generated sources, mapping them and getting the final textures we need to make the materials work for our project.
I was recently looking for a tool to efficiently do procedural texture synthesis, because a graphic I wanted to create would take ages to pull of using GIMP or Inkscape in the resolution I needed. The best I found in the Libre World is NeoTextureEdit. And it did the job.
It’s a node-based tool for creating seamless textures. But blender does this! - you’ll say. Not all of it, sadly. Not yet!
So I think there are a few things that can make Blender make much better textures - so we can abandon bitmap textures for good.
Cycles materials need a way to blur the textures. I guess you don’t need an explanation of the importance of blur in computer graphics. It can turn a bunch of spots into a smooth bloom, or it can be used to extract high-frequency content from an image. If the X and Y axis are independent - you get a whole bunch of other effects available too. Not to mention extra crazy stuff like Vector Blur - why couldn’t it work in Material Node Editor too?
This is something very much needed for procedural texture generation. It’s sometimes called a “Warp” effect - it’s a way to nonlinearly alter the texture mapping, distorting one image with another. Just like blurring - we can do this, but just like Blur - it’s only available in the Compositor and it’s not tileable. [SUP][SUB]Well. Procedural textures don’t need to be tileable unless you want to export a sample of them to use externally.
What do you think? What are your problems with Blender procedural textures?
Am I stupid, or this really can make a huge difference?