LAIR Thread - * Rules: post #469

[Kryton]

It's not. As these are imaginary renderings not confined by physical optics, developers can render however they want to. They can choose to render everything in perfect clarity, or go for a more optically-realistic effect through blur. The latter choice adds to realism and can make it clearer what's happening, but does prevent the player being able to see clearly the far-off distant scenery if they choose to.

I'm with Nesh here. Everything you describe as 'optically-realistic' should not need to be added, the eye should introduce it when viewing the image*. As I posted previously, with photography you have artistic concerns (the jet illustrates this perfectly - without blur you can't induce the sense of motion due to the shutter speed, if it was a movie this isn't needed). Depth-of-field isn't about mimicking anything the eye does, it is about framing a subject.


* or rather, the sequence of frames which it blurs.

 

[betan]

As well as who?

As well as the other party who starts insulting.

Whatever the relative distance, in a movie situation, it's going to be covered by a lens. You can have a person 2 metres from the lens, and have the background (at focal distance infinity) and them in crisp focus. It doesn't need tricks, and I can't see any reason why a movie producer would resort to tricks.

Where did I say or imply that it would be a trick to solve focal problems. I was merely suggesting a way to spot fake scenes such as, green screen, indoor shooting with outdoor background, driving scene where no one is actually driving, a comedy in which the camera suddenly shows the guy in front of Great Wall only to zoom out to show that background was a small picture etc.

Let's put it another way. You said So when you see a movie with a clear guy standing in front of a sharp distant background... From that I imagine you can see more than just their head, but maybe I misunderstood. Give us some examples of scenes in films (or photographs) where in order to get the close-up with the background, they've actually had to use 2D composites because it's not possible with a lens. Actually give an example to back up your idea - something to contrast with morlock's example which is a great example of what I thought you meant when you spoke of a guy standing in front of a distant background in a movie.

Do you still want more examples? By the way, the ship in morlock's example is clearly blurry as you cannot even read the name of the ship. Again I really don't want to get into discussions with relative terms like sharp, clear, blurry etc.

You said "living a movie". There's a world of difference between living it, and being an isolated observer. Furthermore I'd still question if people would want to actually be there. Like in war games. On screen it's unrealistic. Do you think most people who play GRAW or one of the WWII shooters would prefer to walk around a real live battlefield with people bleeding and dying and wailing with pain? To do think people would like to really be in a battlefield with people getting ripped in half and burnt alive by dragons? trading through pools of blood, past limbs and innards, and over the half-dead screaming in agony?

Yes of course. Not any less than people who enjoyed watching Saving Private Ryan.

No, and in part I've muddled arguments in that post, as it wasn't you saying DOF was misplaced in Lair. I've followed on from your talk of distance objects not being focusable alongside near objects, to a separate argument on the points off natural representation of images having blurring. This was more an issue that tha_con raised. the post wasn't 100% targetted at your opinions and yours alone, and in that it wasn't clear.

So I'm saying that a film camera can resolve all parts of the film in focus if the photographer wants to (conditions being suitable) in contrast to your view,

As long as "condition being suitable" is there, it doesn't really contrast my view.

and also I'm saying the eye has non-perfect image resolution (contrary to tha_con, rather than yourself who appreciates this), and finally that in a game, on the whole, developers are aiming for a cinematic experience.

Isn't that exaplined in my above comment? 'On the whole' means most of the time, generally, and certainly not all the time.

It wasn't explained in your previous post. Of course I still don't agree with your generalization even though you relaxed it a little bit this time. Doesn't matter really, games sometimes do, sometimes don't try to recreate cinematic experience, that much we can agree on.

 

[betan]

I'm with Nesh here. Everything you describe as 'optically-realistic' should not need to be added, the eye should introduce it when viewing the image*.

Let's say eye can introduce motion blur (even though highly unlikely at 30 fps), can it introduce DoF effect when the actual mountain image is 2 meters away, same distance as your focus.

I cannot really understand why people think DoF is just a fancy effect limited to artistic usage. I suspect it has something to do with the overly done implementations in games.

 

[Nesh]

Let's say eye can introduce motion blur (even though highly unlikely at 30 fps), can it introduce DoF effect when the actual mountain image is 2 meters away, same distance as your focus.

I cannot really understand why people think DoF is just a fancy effect limited to artistic usage. I suspect it has something to do with the overly done implementations in games.

And the huge importance of this?

Is there anything wrong with the image on the left?

 

[rounin]

Just as a sidenote, maybe they should start using DOF ingame in these flight games during gameplay to high-light certain objectvies for a few seconds. I know from experience sometimes its hard to find exactly what you need to do.

 

[betan]

And the huge importance of this?

Once again, DoF is a natural phenomenon not limited to cameras. Since it's naturally occurring in human eye, once we have suitable technology we will add interactive DoF to games in order increase sense of realism and/or liveness (if we still use 2D displays at that time). You heard it here first.

So the question is similar to asking importance of high poly count, normal mapping, dynamic lighting, etc. Are they hugely important? I wouldn't say so, but depends on who you ask.

Real DoF is the difference between looking at a picture and enjoying a view yourself.

Is there anything wrong with the image on the left?

The plane is slightly off-focus, if one cares.

Also I cannot say wrong, but both images are unnatural as whichever point you focus you wouldn't get any of the images. But static images of scenes with depth will always be unnatural because their focus is always static. Still the second one is better at presenting a sense of depth, for those looking at the plane.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Is there anything wrong with the image on the left?

You can't see the plane as clearly as on the right. Imagine a game, on Wii, where you had to shoot the plane as quickly as possible. If the plane were static and the image on the left, you'd have more trouble spotting it, which would result in longer times to shoot the plane.

That's the principle here, even if the example is utterly unrealistic. You basically slow down the player's reactions when the objects they're are supposed to focus on aren't very clear. Perhaps a good example is soccer games. Select two teams with very contrasting kits, such as all red versus all blue and play them. Then select teams where the kits are different but similar, and don't contrast so well with the pitch. It becomes harder to see who's who, which makes the game harder to play. That's one advantage of using optical effects when you can, but as ever it's a trade off. I've never said developers should use optical effects! Only that it's wrong to argue against them on any scientific grounds of lenses or eyes. Arguing against simulated optical effects on grounds of aesthetics is perfectly acceptable

 

[Strange]

So when you focus on the dragon of Lair, the fact that you see background clearly, even though it is supposed to be far away, is unrealistic by any means.

It is not "unrealistic." Saying that doesn't make much sense. On cameras, shrinking the aperature increases the "in focus range" to an extent that you can have the whole image be pretty much "in focus. Hell you could shrink the aperature infinately small and have pretty much an infinite "in focus range. does it make it unrealistic? no. You're saying that every picture with everything pretty much in focus is unrealistic. That's what I call jumping to conclusions.

But the biggest thing I noticed now is that lack of DoF is going to kill the realism especially with that big of a scale. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a solution without eye tracking peripheral.

Lacking DoF doesn't kill the realism. The eye and brain, I would think, will account for these kinds of adjustments. However, having DoF when inappropriate kills the game.

Real DoF is the difference between looking at a picture and enjoying a view yourself.
The plane is slightly off-focus, if one cares.

That's nickpicking.

Also I cannot say wrong, but both images are unnatural as whichever point you focus you wouldn't get any of the images. But static images of scenes with depth will always be unnatural because their focus is always static. Still the second one is better at presenting a sense of depth, for those looking at the plane.

Unnatural? sure
Unrealistic? no



Actually, the problem of DoF has only one solution.
Physically create a background that's 300 meters away, and realistically create dragons that fly in the air, or at least "in scale". You have to take into account multiple observers that each focus on different things. The only solution to that is to actually have "a world" for them to adjust their focus to at their own will, which is impossible, impractical, and, basically, out of the question. This is why "Forced DoF" is more of an artistic thing than a practical thing. Practically, there is no way to compensate for the DoF of obvserver UNLESS you know exactly the ONE distance they are focusing on.

But calling a picture that shrunk the aperature to widen the "focus range" "unrealistc" is moot.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

It is not "unrealistic." Saying that doesn't make much sense. On cameras, shrinking the aperature increases the "in focus range" to an extent that you can have the whole image be pretty much "in focus.

The human eye, cannot see everything in focus at once. Not even close, so yes it is unrealistic.

Lacking DoF doesn't kill the realism.

Ofcourse it does, just like everything else that looks unnatural.

The eye and brain, I would think, will account for these kinds of adjustments.

Cute theory. Wrong theory, but cute.

Unnatural? sure
Unrealistic? no

Lol.

 

[deepbrown]

Near and far focus used to be quite common in films....whether it is "natural" or not. In a fantasy land, I'd like to be able to see everything in focus.

 

[Strange]

The human eye, cannot see everything in focus at once. Not even close, so yes it is unrealistic.

Of course not.
there is always a sweet spot that is the clearest, just like camera lens. Everything else should be seen as "out of focus".
However, how much blur induced by "out of focus" do you consider "out of focus"?
there is always a "range" of blurriness in which we cannot distinguish if they are "in" or "out" of focus, as they are clear enough to the extent that other variables come into play (for example, resolution). Then, if you're in this range, being slightly out of focus just doesn't matter. It's still clear as day.
Shrinking the aperature size increases this range by a lot, to the extent that every object in the picture is within this acceptable range. Does that make a picture unreal? NO

This picture has various objects at different distances, yet none of them seem to be "out of focus". Are you telling me that this picture is unrealistic?

Anyway, I'd say that this topic is going very awry and have no point at all.
I've explained it before, and I'll say it again. In a flight game, doing DoF is plain and simple DUMB. It deprives the player of essential information. I would completely agree that it should be used as an artistic method to frame certain shots, but no, it's not acceptable to do it everywhere.

And there's a big difference between unrealistic and unnatural.

 

[Nesh]

You can't see the plane as clearly as on the right. Imagine a game, on Wii, where you had to shoot the plane as quickly as possible. If the plane were static and the image on the left, you'd have more trouble spotting it, which would result in longer times to shoot the plane.

That's the principle here, even if the example is utterly unrealistic. You basically slow down the player's reactions when the objects they're are supposed to focus on aren't very clear. Perhaps a good example is soccer games. Select two teams with very contrasting kits, such as all red versus all blue and play them. Then select teams where the kits are different but similar, and don't contrast so well with the pitch. It becomes harder to see who's who, which makes the game harder to play. That's one advantage of using optical effects when you can, but as ever it's a trade off. I've never said developers should use optical effects! Only that it's wrong to argue against them on any scientific grounds of lenses or eyes. Arguing against simulated optical effects on grounds of aesthetics is perfectly acceptable

Well the example shown in the left pic I can say that it indeed could be a problem spotting the plane, due to extreme detail, complex and edges of shapes and objects on screen at once which ofcourse confuses the eye.

Lair though doesn't have that level of objects and detail on screen. Additionally when some objects move in an image the eye can spot them.

You have a point though with the functionality of the effect. And I like your idea. Perhaps it can work well with Wii games by blurring parts of the image in accordance to where you point the controller

My point though wasnt towards this issue. It was towards image realism. (without arguing against the aesthetic usage of DoF ofcourse )

Is the left pic less realistic because of difference in focus? They are both taken from real life

Once again, DoF is a natural phenomenon not limited to cameras. Since it's naturally occurring in human eye, once we have suitable technology we will add interactive DoF to games in order increase sense of realism and/or liveness (if we still use 2D displays at that time). You heard it here first.

So the question is similar to asking importance of high poly count, normal mapping, dynamic lighting, etc. Are they hugely important? I wouldn't say so, but depends on who you ask.

Real DoF is the difference between looking at a picture and enjoying a view yourself.



The plane is slightly off-focus, if one cares.

Also I cannot say wrong, but both images are unnatural as whichever point you focus you wouldn't get any of the images. But static images of scenes with depth will always be unnatural because their focus is always static. Still the second one is better at presenting a sense of depth, for those looking at the plane.

So what if eyes, cameras and our brains have limitations in their effort to detect objects? Focus is only viewable by individuals and even in such cases my brain concentrates on the object I am directly staring at ignoring the "blurriness" of focus of objects surrounding it. Blur does not occur on objects in reality. Its only in my eyes. Its a perceptual illusion. DoF is mostly an effect of immersion not of realism. An "eye simulation". My everyday experience doesn't tell me "this is blurred and this is crispy clear". Its not consciously and directly observed constantly although it does occur in my eyes.

If a game maintains the detail shown in the left pic with everything as crisp and clear, it doesn't make it unrealistic.

Its like saying "hey that real life photo on the left is unnatural. But hey that right photoshoped photo looks more natural than the genuine one".
The left is a normally taken photo by probably a very good and proffesional camera. It wasnt "touched up" after it was taken to look "unnatural" as you decided to describe it. The photographer took a picture and voila. This is the result. There is nothing unnatural. What you see as unnatural is that the camera that captured the pic is better than our eyes at capturing everything clearer with as less blurriness as possible.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

Is the left pic less realistic because of difference in focus? They are both taken from real life...

Its like saying "hey that real life photo on the left is unnatural. But hey that right photoshoped photo looks more natural than the genuine one".
The left is a normally taken photo by probably a very good and proffesional camera. It wasnt "touched up" after it was taken to look "unnatural" as you decided to describe it. The photographer took a picture and voila. This is the result. There is nothing unnatural. What you see as unnatural is that the camera that captured the pic is better than our eyes at capturing everything clearer with as less blurriness as possible.

Um... The flight pictures are both photoshopped. There is no plane there to begin with. But cute wrong theory.

 

[Nesh]

Um... The flight pictures are both photoshopped. There is no plane there to begin with. But cute wrong theory.

I like the picture above my post. It is so photoshoped and artistic.

like this one

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/qtluong/delicatearch.big.jpeg

Very cute factual theories

 

[zed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_focus

 

[Nesh]

Good find that was exactly my point.

Here is another example

 

[Cheezdoodles]

I like the picture above my post. It is so photoshoped and artistic.

like this one

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/qtluong/delicatearch.big.jpeg

Very cute factual theories

Wow. Did i hurt your feelings?

There is nothing factual about your cute theory.

Its like saying "hey that real life photo on the left is unnatural. But hey that right photoshoped photo looks more natural than the genuine one".
The left is a normally taken photo by probably a very good and proffesional camera. It wasnt "touched up" after it was taken to look "unnatural" as you decided to describe it. The photographer took a picture and voila. This is the result. There is nothing unnatural. What you see as unnatural is that the camera that captured the pic is better than our eyes at capturing everything clearer with as less blurriness as possible.

Both pictures are photoshopped to begin with, there is no airplane in the originial picture. Someone just pasted it in. So your theory, is not factual...

 

[Nesh]

Wow. Did i hurt your feelings?

There is nothing factual about your cute theory.

Oh so you tried to hurt my feelings on purpose? Didnt notice. But you are sure acting inappropriately with such comments

Pictures and Zed's link say otherwise

Both pictures are photoshopped to begin with, there is no airplane in the originial picture. Someone just pasted it in. So your theory, is not factual...

Well of course I didnt realize they were photoshopped. that is because such similar but un-photoshoped examples exist since digital cameras that can have hugely increased deep Depth of Field for increased sharpness for both foreground and background objects do exist

But you didnt know. Now you know.....I hope

So yeah it is factual. And in practice

Of course even if such cameras didnt exist, reality doesnt have any blurriness anywhere. Its just your eyes.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

You see, im not sure what your trying to argue here.

Well of course I didnt realize they were photoshopped. that is because such similar but un-photoshoped examples exist since digital cameras that can have hugely increased deep Depth of Field for increased sharpness for both foreground and background objects do exist

But you didnt know. Now you know.....I hope

Actually, i did know. I still do not understand your point thought.

Everything being perfectly focused in a flying game, doesn't look right, your eyes would NEVER be able to focus the same way, and it draws the player away from induvidual objects.

The argument about DoF use in Lair is still a perfectly valid one, which you tried to refute, but haven't managed to do so.

 

[morlock]

Would'nt adding a smaller depth of field when flying in LAIR just make cake ontop of cake since your eyes should do that effect depending on what you are focusing on? And force you to look at a specific part of the screen.

Motion blur makes more sense.