Toy Story versus... *spawn

I think Ratchet & Clank can have a CGI look during its cinematics for a random guy.

Obviously, someone working in Pixar will immediatly see many flaws.
 
For the record fellas..I was just trolling -- hence why I didn't give any specifics.. I was laughing more at the title than anything.. :)

Carry on..
 
S
I think Ratchet & Clank can have a CGI look during its cinematics for a random guy.

Obviously, someone working in Pixar will immediatly see many flaws.

Shure! But Even if Pixar once worked with computers with less Power than the PS4, it never made animations on these circunstances. Pixar works with images rendered one by one, and not in real time. For instance, the original Toy story had frame rendering times going from 2 to 15 hours. And pixar claims rendering times stayed pretty much flat for the last 30 years, since quality was improving!

So let's give some credit to Ratchet, shall we! It may be imperfect, but it's rendering on a frame time of 33 ms, not 15 hours! And the result is more than visually impresive.
 
It's better in some ways, but worse in others...

Character models (and environments probably as well) are noticeably low poly, with normal maps. The first Toy Story had NURBS for most geometry, so everything was perfectly smooth.

Lighting is a mix - it's quality isn't the best, but it seems to have some sorts of baked GI and such; whereas the original just used a LOT of hand placed lights, sort of a "painting with light" approach.

Shaders are also complicated, there wasn't much beyond phong/blinn back in the day, but those had higher quality levels compared to what's achievable in real time. The game engine on the other hand seems to have some softer shading models, probably even some fake SSS to get translucent plastic.

Can't say much about the motion blur and DOF, but PRMan was literally built to have the highest possible quality for these image elements, in order to be able to render VFX that can be seamlessly (...) inserted into live footage. No real time renderer can compete with it, even today.


So all in all, it's still not even a tie yet, IMHO. Sure, some elements may look more pleasing, but the overall image complexity and quality is still better in Toy Story IMHO.
 
Though true, the engine wasn't created to get as close as possible to Toy Story. As such it doesn't represent an accurate benchmark of how close we can get. Heck, the engine doesn't even have decent AA which many other games have, so the low IQ versus Toy Story is well below what could be achieved.
 
KH3 lacks the "plastic look" from toy story movie. Could be the art direction tho.

other obvious thing is the blocky models in KH3. Sora gooofy and donald kinda evade that by using blocky design, but the toy story toys are supposed to have smooth curves
 
Though true, the engine wasn't created to get as close as possible to Toy Story. As such it doesn't represent an accurate benchmark of how close we can get. Heck, the engine doesn't even have decent AA which many other games have, so the low IQ versus Toy Story is well below what could be achieved.
Precisely, if we're purely rendering something for the sake of being real time in a very controlled level such as The Dark Sorcerer, we would probably reach far beyond Toy Story 1 graphics. However in a game environment I still think Ratchet & Clank does a better job than KH3, if we're rendering Toy Story's segment with Insomniac's engine it's gonna be more impressive.
 
Character models (and environments probably as well) are noticeably low poly, with normal maps. The first Toy Story had NURBS for most geometry, so everything was perfectly smooth.

I remember seeing polygons in Toy Story 1. I do not have the BD anymore so I can't confirm where it happened.
 
Like I said earlier in the thread I think ppl are forgetting how bad toy story 1 looked like

Heres a quote from Mark Van de Wettering from pixar who help develop renderman used in toy story 1
I was lucky enough to work on the original Toy Story as part of the team that worked on our rendering software RenderMan, and also had the opportunity to dust off those resources again when we redid Toy Story for 3D theatrical and Blu Ray release in 2011, some fifteen years later.

By modern standards, Toy Story would be considered positively quaint. In terms of geometric, shading and lighting complexity, it’s pretty clear that modern video games are well beyond what we could achieve in hours back in 1995. I don’t think it would be especially difficult (albeit still not trivial) to write rendering software that could produce frames of equal quality or better quality at interactive rates. The likely bottleneck would not be rendering per se, but rather generating the geometric models through our modeling and animation system and parsing the results for rendering.
 
L6tD7.jpg


6UMO8EL.jpg


06.jpg
 

Yeah, that's still miles beyond what real time games can do, although as Laa-Yosh mentioned a few things can be done better in games now, most things still can't match what was done in there.

Unfair comparison (real time vs. hours per frame), but people still like to compare them for reasons.

Regards,
SB
 
There are some things about the way lighting and speculars look in the original that make me feel unease. Or probably its the facial animations. I am not sure. It gives me an uncanny valley vibe
They're using an extremely simple 1970s lighting model thats prolly why the lighting looks crap.
eg check the lighting in shiftys pictures compared to todays realtime lighting model
5c80672f0e36fdc86cef85ca66c308d3.jpg
 
There are some things about the way lighting...
It's very fake. The lighting and shadowing has no GI calculations, so it's all artistically placed and thus inaccurate and nothing fits together. Missing contact shadows are a killer. Plus the shading is absent - it's just phong. Everything's various flavours of plastic.
 
Back
Top