What Makes Graphics?

Well, we've moved on from a single frame to the difference between two images, so that's progress at least!

Computer graphics is a huge subject with lots in it. Take a look at all the cool stuff covered at the various SIGGRAPHs over the years. I don't even understand the titles of some of the papers that get presented. These talks would probably be pretty interesting though:

http://www.siggraph.org/s2009/computer_animation_festival/real_time/

 

Well, it's not fly by the seat of the pants. It's a field of computer science that has always considered frame rate to be part of that field, by its nature. Is vsync a graphical feature or not?

Get through with an attempt like what? I'm saying you can learn a lot of things by looking at a single image, but that doesn't mean it tells you everything. There are some things, as function has pointed out, like accumulation buffers, that require multiple frames to demonstrate the entire effect. Someone else already mentioned screen tearing, which can compromise visual quality and is directly related to frame rate and sync.

No one really talks about frame rate in animation or movies, because all movies are projected at the same speed. It is a non issue because there is a standard that is easy to achieve. Computer graphics in games are generated on the fly, in real time, so frame rate is an important consideration in everything you do.

Yes, it is. I'm not sure how you've never noticed, but every single specialized field in the world will appropriate old terminology for its own purpose. That is how language works, how it has always worked, and how it will continue working. The reason you will not find specific mention of frame rate in the merriam-webster dictionary, which is a fairly vague definition, is because it is not a specialized dictionary. They provide you with the most common definitions in regular use, but dictionaries are not comprehensive.

 

Good graphics means effectively getting across to the player all the visual information they need to first) play the game and second) visually enjoy the experience. This then comes down to the type of game, and you use the graphics to display information, as well as feeling and intent.

For instance: Battlefield Heroes. Obviously, it's make not to take itself seriously. The cartoony, cell-shaded look is friendly to eyes young and old, experienced with games or not. It's silly nature gives off a comedic feel to further offset the lack of "seriousness". At the same time, the color and texture palette conveys colors one would associate of the first and second World War settings so you know the game in much of it's design and idea is centered around that. Other things like the shadowing and lighting are their for visual candy to enjoy, to help keep the game from looking too cartoony so people can still feel a bit of realism I think. Also the shadowing can give away an opponent's position around a corner giving someone a slight tactical advantage, so it can add to the gameplay experience too. Graphically it's a good balance of realism and fantasy, and it's nicely scalable too. In my own experience with it, I really like the palette it uses, being bright colors mixed with war time colors. The game has a very warm feeling too because of that, and it keeps it visually comfortable.

 

I did nothing of the sort. I aswered them fine - you simply chose to misunderstand my answers. You asked "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?". I answered "it also deals with still frames"... So here is an elaboration. The academic field of computer graphics deals not only with graphics, but animation, as well as lighting, scene composition, and physical simulation. Those academics have the capacity to see those elements as threads, and study them apart, as well as together. Lumping them together, you fail to do so. Most people fail to do so, which is why I noted in my first serious post in this thread that it may be important to note them as all being components of something larger than any single one. That's where the flaming began, and that's really what this is. Lastly, you're correct - you need frame (singular) to produce an image (graphic), you need frames (plural) to produce animation. Likewise you need frames to produce animation but you don't need animaion to produce a frame (graphic).

But anyway...

Why the hell am I even bothering with you? You *don't* understand any of this. It's not like any of this makes any sense to you. It's not like you're even seriously thinking about anything I've said, beyond finding some small niche to exploit. You're argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, hiding behind "I have books on graphics". But do you understand any of them? Do you know anything about art? Content creation? The difference between illustration and animation? Or just arguing?

Don't respond to me.

 

I mentioned having some graphics books once in this thread as a direct and specific response to "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 in the face of repeated inferences that those who disagree with you don't even have the most basic idea about the kind of things really come under the banner of computer graphics.

There are lots of people here with far more books, brains and experience than me, but I don't have to agree that people shouldn't talk about frame rate in a "best graphics" thread.

This wasn't actually what I was referring to - I was pointing out that "computer graphics" can be created and displayed even without a "frame" existing in memory or a display device that works by displaying frames.

 

You've replied to my technical definition with a non-technical rebutal that's taking its definition from people's vernacular use of the word. Sure, what people saw in your example has barely changed between test cases. So you're saying that because the temporal resolution change hasn't resulted in a perceptual change of image quality, that it isn't a factor of graphics? By that same factor, if the resolution changes from 1920x1080 to 1855x1043 (viewed on a 1043 native display to elliminate upscaling) and the viewer isn't really aware, especially if viewed on a screen size from a distance where that change isn't perceptible, that it means resolution also isn't a part of a graphics, because a slight change isn't noticed?

You've picked an example to fit your definition, but it doesn't work when extended beyond just that example. The technical definition applies uniformly no matter what situation, as it's not based on a personal perception. Let me try this one last time, using your example!

Right, you understand of graphics that the pixel value changes for different pixels. We can say that the purpose of graphics is for the pixels to match as closely as possible the current state of the universe within the computer game. If we consider different pixels in the horizontal dimension, subsequent pixels need to change value. If they don't, you'll just as a flatly coloured line, which won't represent the changing data of the virtual scene within the program, right? A line of green pixels would be Bad Graphics if that row of pixels is actually part of a field of view that encompases plants, concrete structure, brightly coloured soldiers etc. And likewise, pixel values need to change in the vertical direction, otherwise you'd just have a line of colour. The pixel values need to change in the different dimensions to assemble the visual information, right? If a pixel doesn't accurately represent the world, we can claim bad graphics. If we see the green pixel of a leaf where in the game universe you are looking at the red shirt of a soldier, that's bad graphics. Likewise if the resolution is too low, the information communication will be poor, and you won't be able to understand the universe as it exists inside the game, right? If an entire enemy soldier is represented as a single huge pixel of colour, we won't know which direction he's facing, what weapon he's equiped with, etc.

Likewise, moving in the temporal dimension, the pixel needs to change value. If it doesn't, you end up missing vital information. If our solider is rendered facing our left at a good distance gazing at the sky, when in fact he's moved towards us and has a knife, the information we are being presented with is wrong, meaning Bad Graphics because the graphics have failed to accurately communicate the state of the game. By your own definition, graphics are about changing pixel values, which change from one pixel to the next. All you need appreciate is that framerate is pixels changing value through a different dimension to horizontal and vertical, but it's still the same issue of changing pixel values to communicate pictorially the state of the game!

Which I said earlier, representing information. The graphics of an engine are communicating the world, right? We agree on this.

No-one said they do. If the world information isn't changing, the graphics will not need to change. However, what happens when the information that the picture is representing is changing?

If true, then you don't have a proper definition of "graphic"! Which was the purpose of the thread, no? To elliminate subjective interpretations and find a valid definition that works for all cases.

Again, no one is saying you cannot have still graphics!

You can have black-and-white graphics. Does this mean colour isn't a part of graphics, because you don't need colour to have graphics?
You can have low-resolution graphics. Does this mean resolution isn't a part of graphics, because you don't need higher resolutions to have graphics?
You can have stick-men graphics. Does this mean model detail isn't a part of graphics, because you don't need detailed models to have graphics?
You can have stationary graphics. Does this mean animation isn't a part of graphics, because you don't need animation to have graphics?
You can have static image graphics. Does this mean framerate isn't a part of graphics, because you don't need framerate to have graphics?
You can have empty line-art graphics. Does this mean texturing isn't a part of graphics, because you don't need texturing to have graphics?
You can have jaggie, aliased graphics. Does this mean antialiasing isn't a part of graphics, because you don't need antialiasing to have graphics?

Ummm, what is that thing "larger than both" called...?

Graphics!

"Graphics" is made up of resolution, colour, image quality aspects (AA and AF), animation, framerate, lighting methods, texture detail, shaders, etc. All are different, interconnecting parts of the field of graphics. You can have graphics with all these things or missing some, or even missing most in the case of the original Pong! The absence of any does not mean you are no longer talking about graphics.

So in summary, our workable definition that negates all subjective interpretation of whether something loks nice or not, or whether it makes a perceptible difference or not, (and making the distinction between computer graphics and just "graphics" which can also mean applications fo natural artwork etc.)

"Computer graphics is the all-encompassing field of creating visual feedback to communicate the state of the internal workings of the computer program producing them."

 

Look, I won't be back to this thread after this.

If you can't understand the difference between graphics (frames), and the number of times they're refreshed per second, that's your own stupidity - a stupidity you fight to maintain. I offered an alternative title almost a dozen posts ago, and you ignored it. I won't offer another.
You continue to attack "my" definitions of things, but by your definitions game graphics surpassed CG years ago, since most of that only displays ~ 30 frames per second, but some games display over twice that. Sounds like SONY really did surpass Toy Story with the PS2 - Where the fuck have I been all these years? Shit, why do I continue to work building more advanced renderers when we're already this far ahead? Maybe I should let photography and CG catch up.

I'm gone.

 

This is maybe the greatest post I've seen on B3D in years. The second half where you ramble about CG and the PS2 surpassing Toy Story is completely incoherent. Great work!

That said, I'm pretty sure Shifty and the rest of us understand refresh rate and frames very well. What we don't understand is why you want to narrowly define "graphics" as frames, which makes very little sense for the reasons we've given.

 

I've presented a TECHNICAL argument as to the defining factors. You have only ever made an assertion of what graphics is without a technical argument to back up that definition; only ever an appeal to common law. And every time you've given an example, someone has rebuked it with a logical counterpoint, yet you have never responded to any logical argument in support of the alternative view with anything other than your constant reassertion that framerate != graphics.

As is typical for most folk, you have come into a debate with an opinion, presented it with a considered case, been unable to resopnd when the faults in your case have been identified, ignored logical arguments to the contrary and just reiterated you POV, and finally thrown a childish hissy-fit tantrum because the world isn't accepting your view. If you are so right, how come you can't present a argument that shows it?

So, thanks for your open minded contributions to an intellectual discussion, in keeping with the words a wise old fellow...

Technical discussion FTW! Woo!

 

Haha, more like Shifty completely owned you

Reminded me of this:

[YT]Nh33bGAxl58[/YT]

 

aaaagh