EvaUnit02 on 16/11/2008 at 17:44
Quote Posted by heywood
OK, true enough. Were there any instances where the patch actually improved the lighting?
The levels prior to that one, AFAIR. I'll still look for some "optimised values" to tone down the effect though.
Dario on 16/11/2008 at 18:33
Oh man, I hate most applications of bloom so much... a view strengthened after I studied photography/lenses and the human eye (and how they differ) and learned that neither of them naturally sees bloom. (unless you're using a lens that sucks, and gives you some red or blue "chromatic aberration" (tiny rim of color around bright objects) - or, if you must, you can use a lens filter that's specifically designed to spread out light a little). I mean, it's a given that the eye never sees it... When looking at lights, you see lens flares (maybe "eye flares" is a better term, and they look a bit different), and things can go a little foggy when suddenly stepping from the dark into direct sunlight... but "bloom", such as on an object sitting directly under a lamp, is something exclusive to the gaming industry.
I also don't like the more extreme takes on HDR, because, while pretty from a technophile point of view (appreciating the fact that you're seeing something "high tech" that games have come to do), it is in fact simulating LOW dynamic range, which is something that only cameras suffer from (and pros spend thousands trying to buy cameras with as high dynamic range as possible, REMOVING the effect). It specifically steps further away from how the human eye sees things.
Normally, the combination of the human eye and brain works to allow you to see what is in very bright and very dark regions at the same time, balanced. Cameras struggle with this, and can only let you see what's in one region at a time (if you take a pic in the sunlight, the shadows will be nearly black. If you take a pic indoors, any direct sunlight in the scene will be completely blown out. That's why pro's have to use flash when shooting models/people outdoors, to lighten them up back up to match the sunlight, and that's why cinematographers have to struggle so much to balance light in their outdoor scenes, and usually end up shooting under overcast skies. (you'll notice you rarely see anything shot in the direct sunlight in today's movies... unless it's a western like 310 to Yuma, and the actors are so lit up by reflectors/lights, they can't keep their eyes open).
Inline Image:
http://www.clevelandheightsapts.com/pictures/12485cedardiningwindow.jpg(in order for the room to be in balance, the outdoors and sunlight have to be completely blown out)
Inline Image:
http://www.lakestreetstudio.com/images/lake_view.jpg(in order for the outdoors to be in balance, the room has to be nearly black)
I find it quite hilarious that games call it HDR, when it is in fact low dynamic range that they're simulating... (except when it's applied in a much more subtle way, the way eye sees things. Eyes may have HDR, but not infinite, so you get a SMALL brightness transition when changing environment)
...I know they call it HDR because they're talking about lights simply having a higher brightness range than 0-255, but still... maybe "Camera Dynamic Range" would be more appropriate, because that's exactly what their "HDR" simulates (except when applied very lightly, for subtle brightness adjustments as you transition between indoors/outdoors).
polytourist97 on 16/11/2008 at 21:37
Exactly Dario. Fantastic post. I've tried explaining this same concept before numerous times, and I'm met with things like "pff, you're computer is displaying pre-rendered images! It totally makes sense."
Uh, No.
All Bloom/HDR does is call unnecessary attention to a games artificiality because it simulates an effect that DOES NOT EXIST in human vision. Thankfully one can always turn it off, enjoy better performance and a better looking game.
Yell Piranha on 16/11/2008 at 21:52
If it looks cool who cares if it doesnt exist in actual vision. I like bloom for the most part, though I will grant you that it can be overdone.
MSX on 16/11/2008 at 22:40
LENSZZZZZ FLAResssssssssssssssssssssSSSZZZZ!
They look good, were overdone, now they are a sign of suck. Bloom will be the same if its not already.
Personally I always asked myself if there's a bunch of programmers out there with cataracts or something. There's no way they can look at that and say it looks realistic.
Next on the chopping block is depth of field blur thats way too close. Though I'm pretty sure most programmers suffer from astigmatism.
Volitions Advocate on 16/11/2008 at 22:49
I havent heard anybody complain about the film grain on mass effect or left 4 dead or call of cthulhu.. thats not natural to the human eye. but it creates a cool effect in the game.
so does bloom and hdr if utilized moderately. whoever said that these things were done to make games look "realistic"
van HellSing on 16/11/2008 at 22:59
Quote Posted by Volitions Advocate
I havent heard anybody complain about the film grain on mass effect or left 4 dead or call of cthulhu.. thats not natural to the human eye. but it creates a cool effect in the game.
so does bloom and hdr if utilized moderately. whoever said that these things were done to make games look "realistic"
This. It might be called
photo-realistic though. I do not expect a game to faithfully simulate human vision, because that is frankly impossible using current technology. At best, we can simulate effects known from other media, such as photos or movies. Or paintings for that matter.
Dario on 17/11/2008 at 00:27
Quote Posted by MSX
Next on the chopping block is depth of field blur thats way too close. Though I'm pretty sure most programmers suffer from astigmatism.
Ah yes, I was just thinking about that after watching some Rage tech videos.
Another thing the industry needs to learn is that if they don't want their depth of field effects to make everything look like miniatures, they need to learn how lenses work. Thing is, you just can't focus on a distant hill, and have the mountains behind it completely out of focus, or it will look like a miniature... reason is, camera lenses (and eyes) can't do that. The lens would have to be the size of a stadium to get that effect... such as the size-difference between miniature models and the giant lenses they often (mistakenly) use to shoot those.
Since we're so used to seeing through lenses on TV/movies, the mind has "learned" how depth of field is supposed to look. Basically, super blurry backgrounds only happen on a small scale... If you get your DOF physics even a little bit wrong, you end up with the micro-machine battles in Ninety Nine Nights.
Muzman on 17/11/2008 at 01:00
Quote Posted by polytourist97
All Bloom/HDR does is call unnecessary attention to a games artificiality because it simulates an effect that DOES NOT EXIST in human vision.
It does exist and the whole thing should enable designers to create much more realistic environments without having to do inordinant amounts of colour management of textures and so forth, but no one seems to have cracked how to use it. Perhaps because they're still having a foot in both camps and allowing for people switching it off when they design.
Actually I'd say the Stalker guys have cracked how to use it, Stalker's HDR is the best I've seen by a long shot.
(and yes, depth of field is often silly. It was Crysis I noticed it most. Looking at a boat out in the bay down an iron sight and the background is out of focus?!? I'm just a dude in a suit aren't I? Not some mega cyborg with multi lens telephoto vision. And if I were in this situation with said telephoto eyes this still wouldn't be happening. But again, Clear Sky gets it right. Their depth of field is so natural it's scary.)
I suspect, looking at the way this stuff is often implimented, a lot of these guys just go out and get reference videos with some off the shelf consumer video camera with everything on Auto, completely forgetting how their eyes were viewing the scene at the time and how vastly different it was to what the camera got.
heywood on 17/11/2008 at 02:49
Quote Posted by Volitions Advocate
I havent heard anybody complain about the film grain on mass effect or left 4 dead or call of cthulhu.. thats not natural to the human eye. but it creates a cool effect in the game.
so does bloom and hdr if utilized moderately. whoever said that these things were done to make games look "realistic"
Lots of people are complaining about the film grain option in Mass Effect. It's not cool at all, unless you think a great looking futuristic game should look like a 1960s Super 8 movie. I can't see the logic in trying to deliberately recreate the flaws of film and optics that cinematographers have been trying to work around for the last century. Maybe today's game industry is populated with people who wish they were in the movie business instead.
Quote Posted by Muzman
I suspect, looking at the way this stuff is often implimented, a lot of these guys just go out and get reference videos with some off the shelf consumer video camera with everything on Auto, completely forgetting how their eyes were viewing the scene at the time and how vastly different it was to what the camera got.
Perhaps. It also could be the devs don't think their effort to include a particular rendering feature is worthwhile unless it's used in an obvious and frequent manner.
But whatever the reason, I'm starting to think that the graphics race is ruining the industry.
