What Makes Graphics?

Context. Humans have this incredible ability fit the same word to different situations, with neither use being technically incorrect.

My chum who works in offline rendering for tv would never use the words "graphics" to describe a single rendered frame, unless it was understood that frame was representative of a sequence of images or of a particular graphic design being used for a sequence.

There are some effects that require multiple frames to show themselves. How do you explain temporal AA and accumulation buffers, if they aren't part of rendering?

 

You have picked two examples of how the word "graphics" can be used, and without basis seem to be claiming that no other uses exist or can be valid. So to help you out I'll provide another usage example of the kind you can see in the "Best Graphics of 2009" thread:

"Which of these games has better graphics?"
"Well, they both look good, but MW2 runs at at 60fps so I think that has better graphics."

Casual use of the word "graphics" shouldn't be used as the basis for a semantic argument to castrate the entire subject of (real time) video game graphics, especially not on B3D.

 

IMO, framerate is not aways effecting graphic quality. Its depends on the game.

For "visual novel" and Point and click adventure, the game usually only have one still image. And moving like slideshow, even in many visualnovel the character and backdrop really is a slideshow. And the graphic quality is great.

But for Fighting game and FPS, framerate really needed for the graphic quality to be look good.

Sorry my bad english.
Thanks

 

I will give a couple of examples of what I think.

Imagine that you have a game with the highest polygon count ever, the highest texture resolution, the best shaders, the highest quality shadows and has a resolution of 2560 X 1600 all of this at the cost of running the game at 1 frame per second (maybe a point and click game ), would this be considered the game with the best graphics?

Now to the other side, to make a short example, you have a game that has PS2 quality graphics but runs at 100 frames per second (and yes the human eye can see even more than this); would this be the game with better graphics?

I think that the better way to look at this is to take framerate as the thing that you pay to get better graphics; the better the graphics are the more framerate you have to pay. It is something that you need to know when you compare graphics but it is not part of it. I think that the first example is a better representation of what good graphics are.

 

Nooo, I'm explaining the most basic of text-book definitions of the term "graphic" do not fit what this thread is a rant about, and that the title should likely be changed to reflect that fact, instead of bitching eternally toward nothing. This thread is not about which game has the best graphics, it's about which game has the best graphics while pushing the highest, most consistant frame rate, all the while being the most convincing in just about every regard. You say "FPS is a part of the graphics" - I say semantically speaking, that is gramatically incorrect, and "FPS is a part of the presentation or experience" would be more accurate to say. Graphics, simulation, animation, frame-rate all are part of that presentation - Have graphics without competant, consistant frame rate, and break the presentation/experience, not the graphics. Is any of this sinking in?

 

Who cares about the basic definition of "graphic"? Consensus wise, "graphics" in videogames are define by the vast majority to encompass more than just an individual image frame. Alternative definitions can gain acceptance through popular use and expand beyond the original basic meaning. It is pretty obvious that this has happen with the term "graphics" when referring to videogames.

Screen tearing and a host of other glitches have always been catagorized as graphical glitches which can not be describe by individual frames, all of the sudden can't be define as part of the graphics of a game because it doesn't fit your narrow definition of "graphic". Next thing you know people will argue that stereoscopic 3d isn't a graphic element because it isn't produce within an individual frame.

Furthermore, grammar refers to rules governing syntax/sentence structure.

 

This *is* B3D, right?

And finally the thread disolves into nonsense... Are we going to be technical, or not? This is B3D, not yahoo. It doesn't matter how many countless millions of idiots, game-site interns, soccer moms, or Gamestop employees incorrectly define what a graphic is - it is what it is. It just means there are all the more stupid, yet righteously-opinionated people walking the earth. It doesn't matter if screen tearing is described as a graphical glitch a million times over when the reality is it's an animation glitch. What we are speaking of here is the entire visual package, not just graphics - yeah, I know as hard as it is to believe, there is more to visual presentation than graphics.

As such, the thread should reflect that. Things aren't as cut and dry as "OMG Teh KILLZONE has teh best graffix EVAR!!!""ONOZ, CRYSIS am BETTAR!!!" There's more to it, and it'd be damn nice to see a technically competant lott like you, me, and everyone here reflect that.

Can we be technical? Can we try a little harder in our assessments? Can we say "Random Game X has great graphics, but over-all I feel the constant screen tearing detracts from that immersiveness".

 

Very basic and narrow definitions aren't required if people accept the consensus definition of a term and not go by some basic definition that too narrow to mirror how a term is actively used.

Videogames aren't screen shots and people can't judge an image frame that only appears on a PC screen for 1/30th or 1/60th of a second. Are you telling me that judging a game can only be done by looking at the game in print, because you aren't judging an individual image but a composite of images when viewing a display image whether thats due to framerate or refreshing. Or do you tell yourself to ignore everything but static objects.

Move into the realm of 3d stereoscopic and suddenly people can only judge graphics with one eye closed or else you judging animation.

Technical terminology is the specialized vocabulary of a field, the nomenclature. These terms have specific definitions within the field, which is not necessarily the same as their meaning in common use.

A word that has a specific meaning within a specific field of expertise

No we can't have a technical discussion because you want to use very a basic definition of a term without considering we are in the specialized field of armchair experts in videogame discussion.

 

I don't understand this bit. My books on computer graphics fit with my understand of the topics covered. What do yours say?

No, this thread is about "What Makes Graphics?"

Could you point out the ways in which this Wikipedia article is wrong? It seems to be okay as far as I can tell, but according to you its existence is semantic heresy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_computer_graphics

Please could you answer these questions:

1) Why does the academic field of "computer graphics" deal with frame rate, real time performance and various aspects of human perception with regards to moving images? How should they rename the subject?

2) How do explain temporal AA, accumulation buffers to fake motion blur, or any other graphical effect that is frame rate sensitive or requires the user to have seen the previous frame within a given time period to work correctly?

 

I have a sneaky suspicion you wont get an answer to either of your questions.

I think its time to give up.

What do you mean finally?

 

It's a bad idea to try to look for a definition from vernacular speech. A technical vocabulary requires clear, technical definitions which the everyday vocabulary of the common man cannot provide. It's for this reason that blackberries and strawberries are not berries, at least not by the technical term, because the botanists who were developing a consistent classification system took the word 'berry' and adopted it to mean a fruit of a specific structure, which the common-tongue named fruits do not follow.

I've already provided an accurate definition that reflects the nature of the subject - visual information constructed with resolutions in different dimensions. It's as stupid to say framerate isn't a part of graphics as it would be to say horizontal resolution isn't a part of graphics. "We need horizontal resolution to guage jump distances in the left-right directions, ergo it's a gameplay feature!" That's plain silly. Obviosuly horizontal resolution is a part of graphics as it's a defining feature of the represention of the information in visual form and impacts the viewer's perception. Likewise, time-based resolution is a part of graphics.

The point has been made several times now without anyone presenting a technical argument to the contrary, and with quite a few not understanding the argument between quality impact of framerate on graphics (not the topic) and classification of framerate (the topic at hand). I guess some people just don't get it. I for one am not going to try to explain any further!

 

Okay, let me then pose a question - Crysis, everything max settings @ 1080p, running at 60 fps, vs Crysis, everything max settings @ 1080p at 56 fps... Has the image quality per individual frame changed? Does it draw any single pixel any different? Does the game render to frame buffer differently now? Does it look different in a magazine? Can anyone who hasn't just been injected with an illegal, (possibly fatal) dose of chroniton-caffeine cocktail actually see the difference? The frame rate has changed marginally, but it all looks the same. It's why I say they're two parts of the same tree.

::::::::::::::::::::

Function -

A.) Graphic: Of or relating to pictorial representation.
Make sense now?
Not all graphics move.

B.) "What makes graphics" - Per frame, that's different for everyone. The thread isn't called "what makes animation?" or "what makes motion?". If we wanted to include those, we could start by renaming the thread "what makes a visual presentation?".

C.) Computer graphics - Graphics created on a computer.
Realtime Computer Graphics - Graphics created on a computer, updated at a pace suitable for interaction.

1.) It also deals with still frames.

2.) As I said - they're linked, but not the same thing. As much as we require frame data to be updated from one to the next for motion blur, we still need frames to begin with. You can have graphics that aren't in motion.

 

Using your very narrow definition of graphic as a still or single frame then, by nature, video or anything displayed on a PC screen or TV are just static animations where no motion exists whether thats through framerate or refreshing.

Your narrow definition doesn't take account that what you see on screen is a composite of images and not a single image. So we should change the topic to "What is Animation".

Why don't you try to evaluate the difference between Crysis at 1080p and 1079p and see if you don't draw a similar conclusion to your question above.

 

I would have thought the 56fps impacts tearing, actually, given it's not V-synch'd, but that's besides the point

 

Smarty pants, lol.

I was actually going to elaborate, incorporating that - Graphical artifacting as an effect across a sequence of frames. Frame-rate, wether high, or low, if it falls out of synch with refresh can actually cause its own issues, not least of which, warping and tearing.

::::::::::::::::::

Dobwal -

That narrow definition, as defined by Webster's isn't my definition - It's a dictionary definition. Go find one, open it, and read it.

And for the rest of your reply - which for the most part makes little sense.

A.) Games for the most part and almost any moving visual media are a sequence of still frames strung together in sequence. The term "static animation" is an oxymoron unless we're speaking of scenes in which nothing moves except the camera.

B.) "What makes Animation"... Seems I already supposed that might be a better thread title if that's what the crux of the argument really is.

C.) And why don't you try dodging the issue further? My goal was to be sure it was understood that graphics and frame-rate are interconnecting parts of something larger than both, but quickly wore down to terse little jabs directed my way by people who can't grasp the concept that games *can* have great graphics that are marred by shitty frame-rates, and vise-versa.

 

That sounds like you are talking about the game "presentation" (the whole kit and kaboodle) and not just the graphics.

You are forgetting that I didn't create the term. It has existed for some time now. This thing you and some others are trying to push through would be a newly CREATED definition of the word graphics.

We look at one frame to judge how good a game looks ALL THE TIME. Some people are misled with bullshots, but most of the people on THIS forum has judged the look of a game based on the screenshots (a still image).

IMO, framerate is a more necessary element for gameplay than graphics. Do you remember the old method of drawing cartoons? They would draw one image on a piece of paper and another image on another piece of paper (rinse and repeat). When they flipped through the pages, THAT would be the equivalent to a framerate. Unless you and others are saying that the equivalent of flipping pages is an "aspect of graphics", this argument should be closed.

Humans, also, have this incredible ability to lump things that don't belong together in one big ball for convenience sake. That's what appears to be happening here. That would be technically incorrect. If it can't be expressed between two still images, it's NOT a graphical element. I believe that covers just about everything except framerate.

 

To go by your definitions.

If you ignore courses and textbooks, and common vernacular, then sure.

No one said that you couldn't learn anything by looking at a single screenshot. If you think the framebuffer threads are meant to be a comprehensive analysis, then you're wrong.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean, or why it has anything to do with videogames.

Right. Have fun in the real world.

 

Zeno's Paradox?

 

If you ignore the dictionary definition (just google "define: graphics" or "define: computer graphics") and fly by the seat of your pants, then I would see your point. Of course, this is not about using a "fly by the seat of your pants" method, is it?

My point is very valid/solid. You can't get through it with an attempt like that.

You don't know what framerate has to do with videogames? I think you might want to read my post again.

Is that suppose to be a rebuttal to the point put before you?

 

sunscar, I asked you two very direct questions and you dodged them both, so I'll try again.

Starting with the first one:

This wasn't an answer. Whether the subject of computer graphics can involve still images was never a point of contention, by anyone.

If you could attempt to answer this question I'd appreciate it.

As for the second question:

Once again, no-one ever said you couldn't produce graphics that aren't in motion.

I'm particularly asking about graphics effects that are frame rate sensitive or require the user to have seen the previous frame within a given time period to work correctly.

By your reasoning they can't exist. Why isn't temporal AA a graphical effect, and what is it? Why isn't blending subsequent frames in an accumulation buffer a graphics effect, and what is it?

P.S. You don't actually "need frames" to produce computer graphics. Just thought you might like to know!