Epic: Photo-Realistic Graphics 10-15 Years Away
- Thread starter Keane Ng
- Start date
Sorry, but my immediate impressions are:Mazty said:Without a doubt. The technology to make photorealistic photos is around, all that's needed is faster render speeds.Have a look at these CG images:bodyklok said:
Real
Fake
Fake
Fake
And on closer inspection, the first one begins to fall apart too.
Plus, "10-15 years"???
"Photo-realism" has been "10-15 years" away since at least the mid nineties, and by the very nature of the beast, I won't be pleasantly surprised when (if) it ever occurs.
It's the details that makes them stand out as fake; especially the Morgan Freeman picture, his beard just looks "wrong" under close inspection.Mazty said:Look at them in their real resolution as the distortion messes them up in a way it wouldn't to actual photos, showing them up as being different.Cartographer said:Sorry, but my immediate impressions are:Mazty said:Without a doubt. The technology to make photorealistic photos is around, all that's needed is faster render speeds.Have a look at these CG images:bodyklok said:
Real
Fake
Fake
Fake
And on closer inspection, the first one begins to fall apart too.
Plus, "10-15 years"???
"Photo-realism" has been "10-15 years" away since at least the mid nineties, and by the very nature of the beast, I won't be pleasantly surprised when (if) it ever occurs.
To say the full resolution pics are fake ironically shows a lack of attention to detail, as if I had not said they were CGI, you wouldn't have noticed. The one of the creature looks like a model, but not in the slighest way virtual. Most 'photos' in Mercedes car brochures aren't real, that's how good CGI is.
The car and bronze bust are lit so poorly as to be unreal, though you might have convinced me the bust was a real photo with *heavy* editing to make it look that way.
And the only reason the first picture passes muster on first glance is because all the detail is so small it doesn't trigger any warnings, once you start looking closely it becomes less impressive.
The more CGI strives for getting the detail "just right" the more fake it looks and the easier it is to spot.
I agree with this. Most of the human characters from Mass Effect look better.CantFaketheFunk said:
As for graphics, ugh, why? They're already excellent as it is. Just look at games like Crysis. Think of what one could do if they developed flawless gameplay!
Of course, I can see why they'd rather further graphics than gameplay. Graphics are just slave work; sit at a computer, model for long enough, and you'll make some nice polygon-laden images. Gameplay, on the other hand, takes actual creativity and thought.
And yet, it still looks fake to me, who are you to tell me what I perceive?Mazty said:
While you may see the latest in dynamic lighting techniques lighting something in a totally realistic fashion, I see an image that is still, nowhere near real.
How about "Well Lit: lit in a way as to fool the viewer into believing the light source is real rather than virtual" Good enough for you?Mazty said:
Because the image remains "poorly lit", regardless.
I have, and while any number of stunning, impressive images can be produced using that and other techniques, I have yet to find anything that is not obviously fake after a cursory examination.Mazty said:
What? There were already 3 cases of the flu in Poland, two of them were cured after two weeks, don't know about the third one, but I haven't heard that he died or anything. Guess he's alive.Keane Ng said:
So please, check your sources - the disease is not a mutant from the future that came to kill us all. It's a flu that is a bit more dangerous and spreads easier between humans and pigs alike.
I was looking at graphics cards the other day, and noticed this... http://www.nvidia.com/object/GeForce_3D_Vision_Main.html
Which is basically nVidia's version of those new 3D glasses that seem to be the rage in films these days.
Not that I'll ever see a "true" 3D film where I live, since I'm not in London or a major US city.
If this catches on (and I'm doubtful), surely this will be the next step, rather than photo-realism.
The problems with photorealistic graphics graphics surely come with wrinkles and individual hairs, as well as the other millions of tiny differences that we notice about people. It would be complex to model, and very complex to animate, increasing costs for very little benefit.
Which is basically nVidia's version of those new 3D glasses that seem to be the rage in films these days.
Not that I'll ever see a "true" 3D film where I live, since I'm not in London or a major US city.
If this catches on (and I'm doubtful), surely this will be the next step, rather than photo-realism.
The problems with photorealistic graphics graphics surely come with wrinkles and individual hairs, as well as the other millions of tiny differences that we notice about people. It would be complex to model, and very complex to animate, increasing costs for very little benefit.
Whats the point of so much realism? Surely the point of games is to get away from life and the normal situations. Personally I find this much easier with some original graphics and weird gameplay. All this realism shit is taking the gameplay out of games and just adding in real life.
I'm sure we can come to an arrangement.LimaBravo said:I <3 you and want your babies.WrongSprite said:Once graphics can't go any further, gameplay with be the only factor.Ranooth said:
The Golden Age
We name the first one Michelangelo, yes?
And I predict that in 10-15 years when this is accomplished, the average amount of money for a new game will be around the 100 dollar range.
No thank you.
Honestly, I'd have them worry more about Story, Gameplay, Characters, Voices, and all that other stuff that make a game good.
No thank you.
Honestly, I'd have them worry more about Story, Gameplay, Characters, Voices, and all that other stuff that make a game good.