Ruby Video - HERE! and 2 STUNNING pics :D
- Thread starter dr3amz
- Start date
Their website mentions Maya
thop said:
Hmm only minor differences in/around the eyes but the pre-rendered looks much better IMO.
main thing i noticed was how much darker the pre-render was... gives a kinda moodness to it, and makes the shading/shadows/lighting appear much stronger.
the ati demo is more a mid range light affair with lots of soft lighting effects etc.
not that im complaining...god...i'll be called an nvidiot next for questioning that! lol
Megadrive1988
Veteran
here's what I posted in the console forum
_____________________________________________________________
it seems like ATI's R420 (Radeon X800) Ruby tech demo pretty much rivals the 4+ year old Raven CGI that was used to hype the first Xbox
original pre-rendered 'Raven' CGI
pre-rendered Raven CGI movie
http://xboxmovies.ign.com/media/news/video/gdc2000/xboxdance.mov
(click the link this link brings you)
real-time version of 'Raven' demo running on Nvidia NV15 - GeForce 2 GTS
Ruby images: realtime ATI X800 version on the left, original pre-rendered CGI on the right
original pre-rendered Ruby CGI movie
http://www.rhinofx.tv/dc/dc_large.mov
real time Radeon X800 Ruby movie
http://www2.ati.com/misc/demos/ATI-X800-DoubleCross-Demo-v1.0.mov
now obviously, the real-time X800 Ruby demo is not *quite* as nice as the prerendered version. however, I think the realtime version is a very good approximation of the CGI. I think the realtime Ruby demo is far closer to the original Ruby CGI than the real-time Raven demo was to the original Raven CGI.
now then, Xbox 2 aka Xenon, N5 aka GCNext, and PS3, should be a significant step above the X800 8)
I think we can say that nextgen consoles will be capable of rivaling low-end (and I mean really low end) CGI graphics. not movie-grade CGI or even high-end videogame CGI but certainly low-end videogame CGI. of course it will ultimately be up to each developer to put in the resources needed to make games like this. but I do think it will happen with this next cycle of consoles. they will be the first step toward CGI graphics in games. the first of many steps that is.
_____________________________________________________________
Also, think about this. I'll bet you that if the people that did the realtime ATI version of the Ruby demo were to "try again", with newer drivers, and pushing the X800 harder, that they could make another realtime version that is *somewhat* closer to the CGI. like how console development improves.
some things from the CGI could not be reproduced in realtime yet. but even so, the difference between the realtime and CGI versions is not massive, IMO.
_____________________________________________________________
it seems like ATI's R420 (Radeon X800) Ruby tech demo pretty much rivals the 4+ year old Raven CGI that was used to hype the first Xbox
original pre-rendered 'Raven' CGI
pre-rendered Raven CGI movie
http://xboxmovies.ign.com/media/news/video/gdc2000/xboxdance.mov
(click the link this link brings you)
real-time version of 'Raven' demo running on Nvidia NV15 - GeForce 2 GTS
Ruby images: realtime ATI X800 version on the left, original pre-rendered CGI on the right
original pre-rendered Ruby CGI movie
http://www.rhinofx.tv/dc/dc_large.mov
real time Radeon X800 Ruby movie
http://www2.ati.com/misc/demos/ATI-X800-DoubleCross-Demo-v1.0.mov
now obviously, the real-time X800 Ruby demo is not *quite* as nice as the prerendered version. however, I think the realtime version is a very good approximation of the CGI. I think the realtime Ruby demo is far closer to the original Ruby CGI than the real-time Raven demo was to the original Raven CGI.
now then, Xbox 2 aka Xenon, N5 aka GCNext, and PS3, should be a significant step above the X800 8)
I think we can say that nextgen consoles will be capable of rivaling low-end (and I mean really low end) CGI graphics. not movie-grade CGI or even high-end videogame CGI but certainly low-end videogame CGI. of course it will ultimately be up to each developer to put in the resources needed to make games like this. but I do think it will happen with this next cycle of consoles. they will be the first step toward CGI graphics in games. the first of many steps that is.
_____________________________________________________________
Also, think about this. I'll bet you that if the people that did the realtime ATI version of the Ruby demo were to "try again", with newer drivers, and pushing the X800 harder, that they could make another realtime version that is *somewhat* closer to the CGI. like how console development improves.
some things from the CGI could not be reproduced in realtime yet. but even so, the difference between the realtime and CGI versions is not massive, IMO.
seems that way, but i can't help but feel its the way ATI have made the ruby demo look... surely they could make it `darker` if they wished - this would help the darker shadows for definate, and use of natural lighting effects would still keep those nice bright areas too.
just seems the gamma is a bit too high? :?
just seems the gamma is a bit too high? :?
Megadrive1988
Veteran
DemoCoder, ok I agree that both the pre-rendered Ruby CGI and the Raven CGI look somewhat better than the real-time Ruby sequence.
though would you say that the next generation of PC video cards and game consoles will do most of the things that *are* in those particular pre-rendered CGIs, that are *not* in the real-time Ruby sequence?
though would you say that the next generation of PC video cards and game consoles will do most of the things that *are* in those particular pre-rendered CGIs, that are *not* in the real-time Ruby sequence?
I would say that the primarily difference with pre-renderers is very high levels of spatial and temporal AA, higher source art, and better shadows and I don't even think the next-gen will approach the shadows and AA quality of pre-rendered CGI.
Plus, many CGI houses have moved onto global illumination now as well.
Plus, many CGI houses have moved onto global illumination now as well.
DemoCoder said:
I'd also add micropolygon displacement as in PRMan - the difference is quite big when an image has it. Post processing effects are also important - color correction, image filters, small tricks with edge bluring, glows, fake volumetrics soft shadows and whatever...
Could you please name any of that "many"?
The most I'm aware of is an ambient occlusion pass, or information baked in the textures. GI is still far too expensive, especially at 2K resolution and combined with heavy geometry - only a few uses of it are known at all.
And there isn't much use in it anyway, as cinematic lighting usually opposes realistic illumination, even for movie VFX work.
bdmosky said:No, but feel free to explain how that makes any difference...dr3amz said:
Actually I've never even seen a video of the demo. Next time, try not to be such an a$$hole about it and reserve yourdr3amz said:
lol - the whole point is - it's not real ok?
ever notice how Neo dodged bullets in the matrix?
chill
Dunno if this has been posted but the executables seem to be online now:
http://www.ati.com/developer/demos/rx800.html
Can anyone run this thing? Will it work on non-ATI cards or cards w/o 3dc?
http://www.ati.com/developer/demos/rx800.html
Can anyone run this thing? Will it work on non-ATI cards or cards w/o 3dc?
Regia, there is a discussion about it here: http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12086
Similar threads
- Locked
