Unreal high res shots! (56k --> NO!)

[London Geezer]

And if you ask any normal person, they would say it looks real. It looks like a snapshot of a really good clay sculpture actually.

It doesn't to me, but hey, i never said i'm normal. Out of all of them that one is the most fake looking. Then the room (far to perfect, it's obvious). Then the cube+sphere one.

One has to take into account the fact that once we KNOW that what we're looking at is not real, the brain goes its own way to find even the smallest hint to prove it's not real.

And the brain always knows. Even a model of a car. As perfect as it is, the typical "empty background" would be enough of an hint for the brain to think it's not real. And once you think it's not real, there is no going back. It just won't look real, whatever way you look at it.

 

[PC-Engine]

That's true, but I would expect us here in the forum would be able to put those influencing factors aside and judge it's realism from there. For example when archie mentioned the faceted tire, it just made me do this...

Yes it's not a round tire, so what? Would making it round make it more photoreal? Why not just take out the car altogether and replace it with a sphere? Would the sphere look less real?

What kind've digital camera? Actually it's very rare that a digital camera will capture a scene as identical. Color is usually off (and I'm not even talking about color temp/white balance), shadow detail is reduced, and often there's jitter in high-frequency reflections...

Well for starters, a JPEG's chroma sampling is going to give blocking artifacts, but not uniform aliasing... Secondly downsampling is almost always bicubic (at least in most decent applications) which is going to reduce and smooth out aliasing...

Yes... In fact I left out the most obvious problem (the lack of any light corona, which would have cut down on light/roof aliasing)...

You're taking my use of the term "identical" way too literally dude. I'm gonna change the term to "same". Can we move on?

So does a picture of my friends look less real because it has aliasing? Do they suddenly look like CGI because of the presense of said aliasing? I rest my case.

 

[London Geezer]

That's true, but I would expect us here in the forum would be able to put those influencing factors aside and judge it's realism from there. For example when archie mentioned the faceted tire, it just made me do this...

Yes it's not a round tire, so what? Would making it round make it more photoreal? Why not just take out the car altogether and replace it with a sphere? Would the sphere look less real?

Personally i didn't notice the "flat tyre" ( ), the thing that definately makes it totally fake is the fact that the lighting is completely off. Either that or the photographer would need glasses.

And we can "put these influencing factors aside and judge it's realism from there", but "judge realism" is only one step away from "fake". Once we know it's fake, it's fake. It might look realistic (enough with the photo-real thing) but it's fake.

And this is only one step, even IF someone were to make something look absolutely real, he would have the hardest time trying to fool our brain, making it move realistically too... Just not going to happen for a long time in a movie like FFTSW. Short sequences might work, but not an entire movie. That's why JP looked so good. Oh and by the way, just watched it again over the weekend, and today i can say it's starting to age. Visibly.

 

[PC-Engine]

Yes I totally agree that some of the scenes in JP1&2 look fake. However there are other scenes where it looks totally real, specifically the scene with the two Raptors in the kitchen. I mentioned about the lab before but it's actually a kitchen. The T-Rex in the rain with the Jeep scene looks real too.

 

[London Geezer]

Yes I totally agree that some of the scenes in JP1&2 look fake. However there are other scenes where it looks totally real, specifically the scene with the two Raptors in the kitchen. I mentioned about the lab before but it's actually a kitchen. The T-Rex in the rain with the Jeep scene looks real too.

You need to count in very clever editing too... I was watching it over the weekend (BBC2), and that scene is just 2-3 seconds cuts, one with the animatronic model, one with the car, one with the CGI T-Rex. Very clever, of course, but the bit when the T-Rex pushes the car down the wall thing, that car and all the lighting was totally wrong, it looks totally fake today. The scene with the T-Rex in the rain is also very dark, remember. And the WOW effect comes from the rain, the fact that the beast is wet, and i'm not sure why but when things are wet, people go WOW more easily. Take that as u wish.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Can you tell the difference from watching the movie? No. I rest my case.

Oh, please, what do you need to realize that it's not a fact, only your opinion? You're hopeless.

 

[London Geezer]

Can you tell the difference from watching the movie? No. I rest my case.

Oh, please, what do you need to realize that it's not a fact, only your opinion? You're hopeless.

He might be, but trust me when i say, a post like that ain't gonna change his mind. It's only gonna get you the same back. Useless huh. So let's keep things civilised.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Look, he asked for factual stuff about what's better in the LOTR Trolls compared to JP1 and I've listed several things. He simply ignored some of them, came up with some fictional stuff for the others which were proved wrong - and then he simply ignores them because "can you see the difference? nope".
So there is absolutely no point in coming up with reasonable responses, because he simply won't change his mind and will keep defying more than a decade of progress. B3D used to be better than that.

 

[London Geezer]

Look, he asked for factual stuff about what's better in the LOTR Trolls compared to JP1 and I've listed several things. He simply ignored some of them, came up with some fictional stuff for the others which were proved wrong - and then he simply ignores them because "can you see the difference? nope".
So there is absolutely no point in coming up with reasonable responses, because he simply won't change his mind and will keep defying more than a decade of progress. B3D used to be better than that.

Well it used to be different because people were "easier" about things. I mean, how long has PCE been around? He's like that. Attacking him will only (1) NOT change his opinion (2) make this place even worse that "what it used to be".
If you are aware of the fact that whatever you say, he's not going to change his mind, then what's the point of attacking him? That's not gonna work either you know. If you don't think you're capable of making him change his mind, then just stop replying to him.

I'm very New Age-y today. Peace and love. Easy peasy.


Anyway, back to topic. Which, if anyone remembers, is Unreal Engine 3.

Is it me or, apart from better shaders and shadowing system, these PC engines (not PC-Engine) are not really improving that much. I mean, geometry is still pretty much the same. Physics, one word: Havok and similar. Colour depth, same.

FarCry still "only" pushes at most 5-6 million polygons per second (average), with most scenes being at around 1-2 million, sometimes going down to less than a million. This is at default LOD at maximum details. When tweaking the LOD (via the console commands) the polygon count can easily go up to 30 million (average) without much of a hint of slowdown on my GFFX5900U.
So, my question is, why limiting the polygon counts so much? Those models are still 10K polygons each, and apart from the commendable achievement of being so detailed without having too much geometry, i think by the time a game based on that engine is out, high-end graphics cards will be able to push 10 times as many polygons per character quite easily. They can already push several times as many polygons today, given the optimisation. That's without even starting on what the consoles polygon performance will be.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

You're probably right, and I'm angry about myself; that I can't find the proper facts to support my point...

 

[hey69]

what i really would like to see in next gen is an advanced animtaion system. where monsters and aliens and the whole bunch move real like..
moving clothes, random way of walk, hair moving and shit like that

 

[jvd]

The room pic is very very nice . It almost looks real. Real enough that if i print it out and show my friends they wll ask where i took the picture.


I wonder how long it took to render though. Then find out how much it would take to render it at 60 frames per second while moving around in it .

 

[PC-Engine]

Look, he asked for factual stuff about what's better in the LOTR Trolls compared to JP1 and I've listed several things. He simply ignored some of them, came up with some fictional stuff for the others which were proved wrong - and then he simply ignores them because "can you see the difference? nope".
So there is absolutely no point in coming up with reasonable responses, because he simply won't change his mind and will keep defying more than a decade of progress. B3D used to be better than that.

The problem is that you didn't understand the point I was making or failed to acknowledge that to some people LOTR isn't the most realistic looking CGI to date.

I never said anything about LOTR not using more advanced CGI technology. I said it's hardly more advanced with respect to photorealism which JP displayed in 93 and this is probably the third time I've said this. You're basically arguing with yourself if you think that's what I said. Sorry if it bothers you if some people don't find Gollum all that real. I'm not trying to convince myself it looks real or unreal. Oddly your argument seems to be that since LOTR uses state of the art CGI, it MUST look real and that my friend is flawed logic. Looking real has a lot do with CGI artists and compositing teams.

The advancements in CGI technology since then haven't visually changed the way it looks since LOTR is hardly more real. Who really cares if Gollum was the single most advanced sample of CGI in history if the end result doesn't look any better then something created 10 yrs ago? It's nice that CGI technology has progressed, but it seems like the artists aren't getting that much better.

I found this to be quite clever which explains why the CG Raptors and T-Rex in JP look almost indistinguishable from the animatronics:

To create CG dinos that looked as real, ILM's painters used photographs of the animatronics as reference for painted texture maps, and created displacement maps so the renderer would carve surface geometry into a lizard-like texture.

 

[archie4oz]

LOTR isn't the most realistic looking CGI to date.

Then what is...? And more importantly how are you going to define what is "real" and what makes it real?

I said it's hardly more advanced with respect to photorealism which JP displayed in 93 and this is probably the third time I've said this

And you can say it 1000 times more and you'd be a 1000 times wrong... Just repeating it constantly isn't going to make it more true (and you aren't a Jedi)...

Sorry if it bothers you if some people don't find Gollum all that real.

Of course people aren't going to find him real! Have you ever seen anybody who looks like *THAT*?

Looking real has a lot do with CGI artists and compositing teams.

This really deserves a "No 5h1t sherlock!" It just so happened to be mentioned earlier in the thread. And it's not just artists and compositors, it's also technical advisors, riggers, animators, sound engineers... And the end result isn't to look "real" it's to be convincing enough to the audience to accept the work at face value. In fact looking "real" or exhibiting "real" traits, can be detrimental to a scene...

The advancements in CGI technology since then haven't visually changed the way it looks since LOTR is hardly more real.

Yes they have, and since you claim there's nothing wrong with your eyes, then you're simply being intellectually dishonest...

t's nice that CGI technology has progressed, but it seems like the artists aren't getting that much better.

Wow, then I guess those artists that are doing things today that weren't possible 10 years ago should just give up then...

I found this to be quite clever which explains why the CG Raptors and T-Rex in JP look almost indistinguishable from the animatronics:

What's so clever about using reference photos of models (and models themselves) for texture maps and displacement shaders?

 

[PC-Engine]

I think YOU have a problem with the definition of real if you think aliasing from a photograph of real human beings causes them to look unreal therefore there's no point in explaining further because it's obvious you just don't get it. You're hopeless.

In fact if you weren't caught up in the details of digital cameras and all that BS, maybe you'd see the big real picture. Oh look it's a faceted spare tire! Damn that just destroyed the suspension of disbelief. For a minute I though it was a real car that I could drive!

My old art class from college has a table with a flower in vase, an apple, a wine bottle all painted flat white. Did it suddenly cease to exist because it's now white? Was it magically transformed into CG objects? Do team mascots look real?

What's so clever about using reference photos of models (and models themselves) for texture maps and displacement shaders?

I'll let you figure that out Sherlock since you work in the industry.

 

[jvd]

Not for nothing pc engine but

Quote:
What's so clever about using reference photos of models (and models themselves) for texture maps and displacement shaders?


I'll let you figure that out Sherlock since you work in the industry.

has been done since willow . Which if you watch the dvd is considered the dawn of digital and cgi effects .

 

[PC-Engine]

I just thought the idea was very clever whether it was the first movie to use it or not. I see a couple of advantages from the use of that process.

 

[jvd]

I just thought the idea was very clever whether it was the first movie to use it or not. I see a couple of advantages from the use of that process.

yea but everyone uses this . Look at the making of shrek 2 . They first draw a char a few ways. Then make a model of them. Then pick the one they like best. Then imput that into the pc .

 

[PC-Engine]

That's not the technique I'm talking about. You're talking about 3D scanning which everyone does yes...hint: Shrek does not use animatronics.

 

[London Geezer]

That's not the technique I'm talking about. You're talking about 3D scanning which everyone does yes...hint: Shrek does not use animatronics.

So what are YOU talking about? Not really clear...