would you happen to have a link to this presentation?
Plus what are some real (ps3?) games that use 'true' hdr?
Give me a few and I will tell you if they were worth the effort
Underappreciated: Extras and Graphical features that might not be worth the effort.
- Thread starter Dr. Nick
- Start date
would you happen to have a link to this presentation?
Plus what are some real (ps3?) games that use 'true' hdr?
Give me a few and I will tell you if they were worth the effort
I doubt anyone is recording 5.1 sources; small, "point" sources are mono (e.g. a gunshot), "larger", more ambient sounds (e.g. a tank rumbling) might be stereo; from that on everything is fed with position, orientation, custom attenuation curves, Doppler, geometric occlusion etc. into the audio mixer, and it produces mono/stereo/5.1/7.1/whatever you ask it to.
would you happen to have a link to this presentation?
Plus what are some real (ps3?) games that use 'true' hdr?
Give me a few and I will tell you if they were worth the effort
Uncharted 2
Easy pick. lol
Triple buffering
HDR
SSAO
AA
720p
Real time shadowing solution
rock solid 30fps
One example of a game that would not benefit much from HDR is killzone 2. Pretty dark game, though it has decent lighting effects
It should be the lighting and materials presentation under the publications on bungie.net. One of those. It's been awhile.
Too early. Too Early.
I've sort of wondered why we don't see DTS 360 games though... Might you be able to shed some light on that
Actually, I don't think Uncharted 2 does HDR the right way technically. It sure looks pretty good, but as it's quite stylized, that's more then enough.
Actually, dark games benefit even more from HDR as it gives them the dynamic range to represent enough variation in low intensities.
So technically HDR is better realized in darker games but what are the light sources and would it fit the desired look of Killzone 2? Seeing pics of Halo 3 lighting it can be damn near blinding. I suppose its down to how its done in the particular game. I'm going by what i've seen in games with HDR btw, its usually just bright lighting that i notice. For example
Thats from an explosion in U2, which is a bright game. Lighting like that might be a problem in killzone though we'd have to see it to know.
I guess that brings up the question of when HDR actually makes a noticeable impact on visuals and when it shouldn't be used
Last edited by a moderator:
You really need to read up on things if you want to make any conclusions or statements... I'll try to sum it up quickly...
HDR stands for High Dynamic Range.
Previously we had a static range. If you use integer numbers to represent colors in the math behind the lighting calculations, it means that you have to set your range in advance, usually it's been between 0 and 1. There are several problems with this:
- This is a very small range, in reality the difference between the strength of sunlight and artificial or night is huge; daylight is 25,000 lux whereas a lit room is like 100. With 8 bits per color you have 256 values so it isn't even enough to properly represent these values.
- The human eye's sensitivity to light is nonlinear (logarithmic) so you can't really use standard math for realistic lighting (to get an apparently twice as bright light you need a much larger increase etc.).
- There are also precision problems and clamping (read up) with limited range that ruin image quality.
You can try to overcome these issues but for example if you extend the range you loose precision (Quake 3 did stuff like that). you can try to use more then 8 bits but you're still not able to properly work with the huge changes between outdoor daytime and indoor or nighttime. In the end you need some other solution.
HDR basically introduces three things by using floating point numbers to represent color values:
- Calculation and precision are no longer problems because of the float values
- The nonlinear nature of light strength can be recreated because of the dynamically adjustable range
- The final image can still be displayed on a monitor by tone mapping it to the visual range of the display. Basically you can dynamically adjust what value should be represented as full white brightness and what should become black. This is why if you're in a dark room and see sunlight from outside, it's an overbright white-ish color, but once you move outside things get back to normal; but then the room you've left looks very very dark.
Additional issues include gamma correction and such, but I'm really not going to type this all in. Read 'HDR the Bungie way' to learn more about these issues and what's required to fully solve them.
HDR stands for High Dynamic Range.
Previously we had a static range. If you use integer numbers to represent colors in the math behind the lighting calculations, it means that you have to set your range in advance, usually it's been between 0 and 1. There are several problems with this:
- This is a very small range, in reality the difference between the strength of sunlight and artificial or night is huge; daylight is 25,000 lux whereas a lit room is like 100. With 8 bits per color you have 256 values so it isn't even enough to properly represent these values.
- The human eye's sensitivity to light is nonlinear (logarithmic) so you can't really use standard math for realistic lighting (to get an apparently twice as bright light you need a much larger increase etc.).
- There are also precision problems and clamping (read up) with limited range that ruin image quality.
You can try to overcome these issues but for example if you extend the range you loose precision (Quake 3 did stuff like that). you can try to use more then 8 bits but you're still not able to properly work with the huge changes between outdoor daytime and indoor or nighttime. In the end you need some other solution.
HDR basically introduces three things by using floating point numbers to represent color values:
- Calculation and precision are no longer problems because of the float values
- The nonlinear nature of light strength can be recreated because of the dynamically adjustable range
- The final image can still be displayed on a monitor by tone mapping it to the visual range of the display. Basically you can dynamically adjust what value should be represented as full white brightness and what should become black. This is why if you're in a dark room and see sunlight from outside, it's an overbright white-ish color, but once you move outside things get back to normal; but then the room you've left looks very very dark.
Additional issues include gamma correction and such, but I'm really not going to type this all in. Read 'HDR the Bungie way' to learn more about these issues and what's required to fully solve them.
True true. I also wonder if there is "proper" HDR or whether the theory behind it is totally correct.
Search for the 'HDR the bungie' way topic Laa-Yosh mentioned and read up. Just wondering about it on your own won't get you very far.
Semitope, you really have something against the xbox 360. Personally, I don't argue when it comes to tech talk, because I only have a basic understanding of what they actually mean. But if you feel that the HDR implementation in Halo 3 is not very good then I suggest you play Halo 3, sierra 117, that's the very first level, that level still impresses me anytime I play it. The lighting implementation in the said stage is REALLY nice.
That said, bungie really need to improve in other areas, e.g geometry, poly count, e.t.c. which, judging by the trailer, it seems that they have addressed said shortcomings.
That said, bungie really need to improve in other areas, e.g geometry, poly count, e.t.c. which, judging by the trailer, it seems that they have addressed said shortcomings.
Last edited by a moderator:
corduroygt
Banned
I'd guess maybe to save space on DVD?I've sort of wondered why we don't see DTS 360 games though... Might you be able to shed some light on that
I have something against the ps3 as well so its all even. I just found myself wishing killzone 2 was on PC so it could really shine
will do but would the presentation really be the solution? A method of recreating an effect perceived by the human eye, whether the theory behind it is accurate and how you end up with a perfect mathematical implementation of such a thing. I'm not quite questioning what is currently defined as HDR but whether it replicates the desired effect perfectly. I guess in that sense there is a "true" HDR when something follows the standard to the tee. Nothing stops "HDR" from being thrown out in the future in favour of something else.
You certainly dont need HDR to have good lighting in games and I believe I have turned off HDR on the PC before simply because it looked rubbish.
Also why is photography HDR the opposite of game HDR?
I didn't comment about how it looked (yes pictures of the lighting can be too bright at times but I know it looks great in motion and fits with the games design). It started as commenting on having to sacrifice for it on the 360 which is what they did to fit it on the edram. In that case you could start arguing whether it was worth it with the sacrifices made but I think most would agree the lighting there helps the look of the game quite a bit. It wouldn't be the same with 720p and aa but less impressive lighting thats for sure.
Then there are games like killzone 2 that work without HDR.
Last edited by a moderator:
L. Scofield
Veteran
For games striving for phororealism, HDR is a must.
Why would it have to replicate the desired effect perfectly? Nothing else does. All of it stops at 'good enough'.
But that's even missing the point; speculating whether HDR is or isn't a precise description of the physical phenomena is almost entirely pointless if you don't have the theoretical background to analyze the problem. Just standing there with your arms outstretched and yelling 'I disbelieve' is entirely unproductive. That's why you should read up on it.
So ignore its purpose and just accept its all we have? Actually in this thread, what it looks like is more important than how its done.
I should have put a message beside what I said I guess- it was only something to think about. Its not important as u said, I was just adding to your original statement when you spoke about technologies in gaming assuming "net benefit" was the end visual result. Its not something I intended to defend or thought anyone would care to take an argument to. You obviously agree that there is room to question its accuracy in relation to the desired effect since you said
Lets just leave it at that.
Similar threads
