Tech-Report R300/NV30/DX9 preview

[KimB]

It's not going to seem real until you have a neural interface. Such things are just pipe dreams today. There's no reason to worry yet, and won't be for some time.

Additionally, the physics calculations will always lag the graphics by a good ways. They're just too complex to do accurately, so even though it may be rendered amazingly, it just won't feel real, not for a while.

 

[Dural]

Sooner or later, computer graphics are going to surpass what TVs and monitors can display.

LOL, not to be annoying buy Computer Graphics have already surpassed what a shitty TV can display. You realize that TVs have a resolution of <640*480 (it's not exact either). Honestly, the quality of TV is horrible, and VHS video is even worse, but anyway...

What we need is more HDTVs that don't all cost $3000+ (I'd never consider spending anywhere near that amount for a TV, LOL). Seriously, have the prices on HDTVs dropped at all? I guess the TV manufacturers are content with just pumping out cheap, crappy looking TVs.

TVs are also still running interlaced at 29.975fps, using a standard from back in the 1950s. It's pretty pathetic, really, TVs are just so far behind the times.

Apex, the company that helped drive down the price of dvd players, have a line of HDTVs coming out this fall that should help to drive down the price of HDTVs.

 

[Basic]

Nagorak:
There's a lot more to "looking real" than resolution, bitdepth and screen refresh rate. Even though games beat TV in all those departments, there's still no games that can come even close to touch how real a video from real life look. So even if a TV is technically horrible, it still has the capability to display images much more lifelike than any game we've seen.

That's what was discussed here.

 

[Nagorak]

Nagorak:
There's a lot more to "looking real" than resolution, bitdepth and screen refresh rate. Even though games beat TV in all those departments, there's still no games that can come even close to touch how real a video from real life look. So even if a TV is technically horrible, it still has the capability to display images much more lifelike than any game we've seen.

That's what was discussed here.

I guess it depends how you're judging. I understand what you're saying, but when I'm walking around in RL everything doesn't look all grainy and strangely interlaced... So is it realistic what you see on a TV? To some extent yes, to some extent no.

 

[ushac]

Well, what people are aiming for today isn't strictly speaking "realistic" CG but rather "photo realistic" CG. Even the best display devices are a far cry from fooling they eye it's looking at something real.

To really, really make it realistic we would need not only much higher resolution, but a display device that covers our whole field of view, that has as high dynamic range as natural light, that can send different things to the left and right eye, that can react to movement of the eyes and head dialation of the iris react to the eye focusing at different objects etc etc - which won't happen for a very long time (at least for consumers). Then there's audio. Then theres tactile stimuli (that's even tougher than visuals!) and even taste and smell.

However, if you're young enough, even the graphics of the old NES can bring you so totally into another world that it might just effect your behaviour in reality. That's the real concern - and will be until The Matrix becomes reality.

Also, look at films like the Danish "dogme"-movies (Idioterne, Festen, etc) or Blair Witch Project or any other film made with cheap equipment - they are much further from really realistic image qulaity than Titanic or whatever - yet the feeling of presence in those low budget films can far surpass that of the high budget Holywood films (if you can see past the "cheap look" that is). My guess - it's because almost everyone is familiar with the picture quality of a cam corder. You know how it distorts reality. A grossly distorted bang in the sound of a film made on a camcorder doesn't seem unrealistic - it seems like a very loud bang, possibly even more realistic than an undistorted bang at the same absolute sound pressure, because you're familiar with that kind of distortion yourself, from speaking to loudly into a microphone or so.

In short, the point is that we don't want realistic visuals - but visuals that seems to be captured from reality.

hmm.. sorry for the long rant.

Regards / ushac