The Order: 1886
- Thread starter Bagel seed
- Start date
-
- Tags
- tig:theorder1886
I think the post effects work very well because it's in 1886 and the cheap glass lens camera fits the game mood perfectly. I believe the significant added benefit of masking imperfection is a bonus not a goal... those effect would be completely out of place with Uncharted which is modern.
L. Scofield
Veteran
Killzone 2, another game considered to "look like CGI", is futuristic but also uses heavy amounts of post-processing blurring.
Now I remember that the footage of Star Wars 1313 also used chromatic aberration but the actual blurring effects were very moderated.
Now I remember that the footage of Star Wars 1313 also used chromatic aberration but the actual blurring effects were very moderated.
The animation is really top notch. I think the overall visuals are great, even though you can definitely find things to nitpick if you really wanted to, which I don't.
Post processing is of course a very important element in our work, so it makes sense for any game to try to replicate all this for a better final image.
Any kind of CG imagery is way too perfect to feel realistic, because all the algorithms are built with simplifications and shortcuts - you can never have the molecular level imperfections in objects and atmosphere and camera lenses and such that define practically any kind of live action material everyone's used to. Neither is it anywhere near the world you perceive through your eyes and the way your brain interprets the signals. Whether it's a real-time engine running on limited resources or a highly sophisticated software renderer taking days for a single frame, the results are never good enough and it's probably going to remain so for the foreseeable future.
Then there's the problem of efficiency. You can always fine tune your models, shaders, lighting and renderer settings and still never reach perfection - but any reasonable business venture would be unable to afford this amount of time, and there are always shortcuts to modify the results to your liking. It just doesn't make sense to try to do thing the "right" way if there are other options to get to the same results.
So we do a lot, a LOT of stuff in comp.
We do prefer 3D motion blur calculated by the renderer because it's way better at handling nonlinear changes and it also takes care of stuff like changes in lighting and shadows; but depth of field is usually applied in post. We also add almost all the lens effects in 2D as well, things like glows and small image imperfections like chromatic aberration or vignetting and such. The key thing here is to make it subtle, almost unnoticeable; but when you compare the raw renders to the final comp it's still night and day.
Also, we tweak the basic image a lot, although this is a more complex question. Rendering in passes gives you a huge amount of control over the image: you can get separate images for things like diffuse color, SSS, reflections, atmospherics, even the contribution of each light - and compositing apps like Nuke can also let you do some basic 3D work like project an image into the UV space of an object or move 2D projections in camera space. It's actually very similar to deferred rendering with a G-buffer, but taking it to a whole new level.
This is basically a legacy tech from the days when raytracing and such was computationally expensive and thus studios preferred the processing efficiency of 2D to re-rendering the frames several times. Nowadays some places prefer to get as much as possible from the renders and minimize post work; others still take advantage of the more artist intensive 2D tweaking.
Then there's the grading, which is actually not a new thing. This was a common practice in movies well before the digital age, utilizing many different techniques; for example Se7en is a good example where Fincher relied on chemical processes (silver nitrate retention) to give the imagery a special look. Even though the original drive for this was to create a unified look over material shot in different conditions, it quickly became another artistic tool in the box. Computers of course have greatly expanded the possibilities; a quick look at LOTR should give everyone a good idea.
So, post effects are an integral part of any kind of movie imagery, whether it's a VFX heavy shot or a simple one; thus, game renderers are absolutely required to implement as much of it as they can.
And then there are all the realtime techniques that also rely on post processing for effects like ambient occlusion and antialiasing and whatever else...
Any kind of CG imagery is way too perfect to feel realistic, because all the algorithms are built with simplifications and shortcuts - you can never have the molecular level imperfections in objects and atmosphere and camera lenses and such that define practically any kind of live action material everyone's used to. Neither is it anywhere near the world you perceive through your eyes and the way your brain interprets the signals. Whether it's a real-time engine running on limited resources or a highly sophisticated software renderer taking days for a single frame, the results are never good enough and it's probably going to remain so for the foreseeable future.
Then there's the problem of efficiency. You can always fine tune your models, shaders, lighting and renderer settings and still never reach perfection - but any reasonable business venture would be unable to afford this amount of time, and there are always shortcuts to modify the results to your liking. It just doesn't make sense to try to do thing the "right" way if there are other options to get to the same results.
So we do a lot, a LOT of stuff in comp.
We do prefer 3D motion blur calculated by the renderer because it's way better at handling nonlinear changes and it also takes care of stuff like changes in lighting and shadows; but depth of field is usually applied in post. We also add almost all the lens effects in 2D as well, things like glows and small image imperfections like chromatic aberration or vignetting and such. The key thing here is to make it subtle, almost unnoticeable; but when you compare the raw renders to the final comp it's still night and day.
Also, we tweak the basic image a lot, although this is a more complex question. Rendering in passes gives you a huge amount of control over the image: you can get separate images for things like diffuse color, SSS, reflections, atmospherics, even the contribution of each light - and compositing apps like Nuke can also let you do some basic 3D work like project an image into the UV space of an object or move 2D projections in camera space. It's actually very similar to deferred rendering with a G-buffer, but taking it to a whole new level.
This is basically a legacy tech from the days when raytracing and such was computationally expensive and thus studios preferred the processing efficiency of 2D to re-rendering the frames several times. Nowadays some places prefer to get as much as possible from the renders and minimize post work; others still take advantage of the more artist intensive 2D tweaking.
Then there's the grading, which is actually not a new thing. This was a common practice in movies well before the digital age, utilizing many different techniques; for example Se7en is a good example where Fincher relied on chemical processes (silver nitrate retention) to give the imagery a special look. Even though the original drive for this was to create a unified look over material shot in different conditions, it quickly became another artistic tool in the box. Computers of course have greatly expanded the possibilities; a quick look at LOTR should give everyone a good idea.
So, post effects are an integral part of any kind of movie imagery, whether it's a VFX heavy shot or a simple one; thus, game renderers are absolutely required to implement as much of it as they can.
And then there are all the realtime techniques that also rely on post processing for effects like ambient occlusion and antialiasing and whatever else...
Ha! As an italian, that guy's commentary is hilarious. Great accent.
D
Deleted member 86764
Guest
Whaaaaat??? London-boy is Italian?! I think my processing unit just broke
He's an import, like a Ferrari.
VFX_Veteran
Regular
Game looks very good -- the best looking PS4 game to date.
However, why is that? Here's my thoughts:
1) Physically based materials look completely stellar! This game (along with AC:Unity) have put an enormous effort into the materials and it shows. Everything looks as it would mimic in real life. That's an incredible achievement to the artists that worked hard on this.
2) They chose a desaturated color palette to mimic film. This is possibly one of the main draws of the games beauty. Then environments and atmosphere are all done beautifully well.
Having said all that, there really isn't anything technically superior about this game compared to other games this gen. The hair is still not rendered as curves, light maps abound, static GI light probes used, shadow projected reflections (instead of SSR), no day/night cycles, very limited area in levels, mediocre animations, baked SSS textures to mimic the behavior of real SSS on skin etc..
It's pretty impressive that they can hide these shortcomings and still come up with a very visually appealing game.
However, why is that? Here's my thoughts:
1) Physically based materials look completely stellar! This game (along with AC:Unity) have put an enormous effort into the materials and it shows. Everything looks as it would mimic in real life. That's an incredible achievement to the artists that worked hard on this.
2) They chose a desaturated color palette to mimic film. This is possibly one of the main draws of the games beauty. Then environments and atmosphere are all done beautifully well.
Having said all that, there really isn't anything technically superior about this game compared to other games this gen. The hair is still not rendered as curves, light maps abound, static GI light probes used, shadow projected reflections (instead of SSR), no day/night cycles, very limited area in levels, mediocre animations, baked SSS textures to mimic the behavior of real SSS on skin etc..
It's pretty impressive that they can hide these shortcomings and still come up with a very visually appealing game.
I'd say they chose the right compromise and found the perfect balance, having all the techniques doesn't mean jack if you have to scale back on geometry, textures, LOD etc. It's like Crysis 3 or Killzone Shadowfall, both fill the checklist more but neither look remotely as good as The Order in the final render. This game just has that CGI oomph almost in every frame and is the first current gen game to look head and shoulder above the rest.
VFX_Veteran
Regular
Umm.. I'd have to disagree as far as Crysis 3 is concerned. It has some beauty about it that clearly competes with The Order. It just depends on preference I guess.
Interesting, for someone who loves PBR to death would find Crysis 3's non existent PBR rendering beautiful. Fascinating.
To me C3 is the epitome of plastic and wax rendering especially on its character models and foliage, Ryse using the more updated Cryengine looks so much more natural and CGI like.
VFX_Veteran
Regular
PBR is really misunderstood. The Order uses a GGX specular model for their materials which is the PBR part. The fabric shader is not PBR. Also, they used a Lambertian model for their diffuse and SSS which are also not PBR.. they just have very good artists.
C3 uses Cooke Torrance for their specular model (which is still based off of microfacet theory and physically plausible). While there doesn't seem to be a fabric shader required in C3, they still used good use of materials (i.e. the suit's material looks really good as well). Crysis' SSS also looks better than The Order but neither of them are physically plausible.
Yes, Ryse looks pretty good and natural, but that may be because of using GGX model instead of Cooke Torrance. Cooke Torrance just doesn't have a good enough tail making it look like the plastic models Blinn/Phong, but it's still technically physically plausible.
Well like you said above, the lack of GGX specular model in C3 really hurts the overall look, tho I didn't notice SSS in C3 whether being too subtle or something. The clothes in C3 honestly look like a huge poncho on a character instead of convincingly shaded cloth fabric seen in The Order. Yeah, the overall look and feel is far more natural and lively in The Order.
Similar threads
