Next Gen -- Near Photo-realistic Graphics, or Not?

[Arwin]

The way I can tell is reminding myself that real life is not that shiny. They need to not overdo the HDR so much.

Actually that is partly the result of the camera settings you choose in photo mode, as well as in some cases post-processing done in photo editing software.

The shot with the low sun does illustrate nicely why I like the game's day-night cycle so much though.

Also check some I took (these do come straight from the game's photo mode), particularly the first four images with the alfa's at dawn. The way the shaders react to the low sun is really spectacular, and looks great in realtime while playing too btw

https://picasaweb.google.com/103997796623806381708/GT5?authuser=0&feat=directlink

 

[dagamer]

Actually that is partly the result of the camera settings you choose in photo mode, as well as in some cases post-processing done in photo editing software.

The shot with the low sun does illustrate nicely why I like the game's day-night cycle so much though.

Also check some I took (these do come straight from the game's photo mode), particularly the first four images with the alfa's at dawn. The way the shaders react to the low sun is really spectacular, and looks great in realtime while playing too btw

https://picasaweb.google.com/103997796623806381708/GT5?authuser=0&feat=directlink

Sometimes in games, it gets to obscene Gears of War levels which is an extremely easy way of pointing out a UE3 game.

 

[djskribbles]

I only care about photo-realism in racing sims.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The castle environment looks pretty photoreal:

That's because it's a photo. It's a static environment in the real-world that someone's gone out to and photographed and pasted over some geometry, then taken a couple of a light probes to composite the car. Photorealistic rendering would be making something that looks like that out of textures and geometry and lighting and displacement etc., so, say, all the buildings in Skyrim look as realistic. Racers set in the real world can paste the real-world into the scenery and look realistic, especially when they have pre-baked real-world lighting. The weaknesses are in crowds and vegetation and repeating terrain textures. That's why next-gen racers will look photoreal. They'll be 80% photographs with car shaders and high IQ. Although they'll need better reflections too.

 

[(((interference)))]

Well, no one said they couldn't 'cheat' by using photographs.
I mean movies use them for compositing and many textures are usually derived from photos too.

And do you mean to say that castle shot is not straight from GT5, but a PHotoshop composite? I don't have GT5 myself but I got those shots from a GTplanet screenshot thread and am pretty sure I saw other pics with that castle environment.

Also this pic posted by Jugix earlier also has an environment that is near photoreal and it seems straight from the game:

 

[Ghostz]

I think we will be hitting the 4th wall for sure.

 

[Arwin]

Well, no one said they couldn't 'cheat' by using photographs.
I mean movies use them for compositing and many textures are usually derived from photos too.

And do you mean to say that castle shot is not straight from GT5, but a PHotoshop composite? I don't have GT5 myself but I got those shots from a GTplanet screenshot thread and am pretty sure I saw other pics with that castle environment.

Also this pic posted by Jugix earlier also has an environment that is near photoreal and it seems straight from the game:

No he simply meant using fotos as textures, rather than an exact mesh replica. Good example are the parasols, that look exactly the same from whatever angle you look at them. Still looks great though, and I really hope next gen will have another Citta di Aria or Grand Canyon, as I loved those tracks on PS2.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

And do you mean to say that castle shot is not straight from GT5, but a PHotoshop composite? I don't have GT5 myself but I got those shots from a GTplanet screenshot thread and am pretty sure I saw other pics with that castle environment.

It's a GT5 shot, using a real world location and a game-generated car. I believe the reflections are properly traced unless the hacks of racing reflections. Although there's nothing wrong with using phototextures as a resource per se, in the spirit of the thread I think the distinction has to be made, otherwise a 2D game made compositing photos would be photo-realistic, but not at all taxing. The OP is questioning whether computer generated art beyond photos will approach what can be captured on film (or sensor), which means artist creations like FF, Bioshock, Mirror's Edge, GTA, Halo and KZ.

 

[(((interference)))]

But if they used photographs from the real world as the basis for constructing an environment that does not exist in reality, wouldn't that count?

This is what movies do, like LOTR had a mix of miniatures, matte paintings and pure CG to create scenes, the Balrog's flames were basically sprites made from short clips of real flames etc.

To me, photoreal is photoreal, no matter what techniques are used to get there.

It would seem that is the spirit of the thread and the OP, since expecting video games to create photoreal environments and characters from pure CG, despite even big budget hollywood movies using a mix of real and CG elements - then that's completely unrealistic to expect that to be done in realtime on cheap consumer grade hardware.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

But if they used photographs from the real world as the basis for constructing an environment that does not exist in reality, wouldn't that count?

This is what movies do, like LOTR had a mix of miniatures, matte paintings and pure CG to create scenes, the Balrog's flames were basically sprites made from short clips of real flames etc.

To me, photoreal is photoreal, no matter what techniques are used to get there.

It would seem that is the spirit of the thread and the OP, since expecting video games to create photoreal environments and characters from pure CG, despite even big budget hollywood movies using a mix of real and CG elements - then that's completely unrealistic to expect that to be done inrealtime on cheap consumer grade hardware.

So in your mind then, photo-realistic graphics only have to be a 2D photo + 1x 3D model? Because that's what you've been pointing to as evidence.

Regards,
SB

 

[(((interference)))]

No he simply meant using fotos as textures, rather than an exact mesh replica. Good example are the parasols, that look exactly the same from whatever angle you look at them. .

Yes, but if there weren't any giveaways like that to break the illusion, it should be perfectly acceptable.

It's like the people complaining about the grass sprites in FC2 (or FC3)? The ones that always rotate to face the player, or the tree leaves in Oblivion, which do the same thing.

If they came up with some method to get around this issue (as I think Crysis 3 or FC3 has done) and so the suspension of disbelief is maintained, then I think this is just as valid an approach as throwing away cycles on rendering acres of high poly grass with subsurface scattering shaders to get the translucency right.

 

[(((interference)))]

So in your mind then, photo-realistic graphics only have to be a 2D photo + 1x 3D model? Because that's what you've been pointing to as evidence.

Regards,
SB

The GT5 enviroment is not a 2D photo, it is a photograph that's been mapped to a 3D enviroment.