View Full Version : Are graphics getting less realistic?
ZoFreX
11-09-2005, 03:50 PM
I always thought improvement in graphics for computer games was meant to be aiming for realistic graphics, but I've been looking at all these new screenies with HDR and bloom and the rest... and it's basically a step backwards. Take a look at this:
[LINK] (http://www.halflife2.net/news//1125820738_Carns.jpg)
The pic was chosen at random, but you can see the same effect in any HDR game (Far Cry, Lost Coast) - the sky is completely whited out while the foreground brightness is correct. Now, if I took a photo with a camera, that is a realistic render of what the photo would look like - but it's not what it would look like to my eyes! My pet theory is that game developers don't get out much so they have to rely on photos for references, and they're recreating what they see in their photographs (which would explain the totally messed up idea of putting lens flare in games, too).
Now I know not all these games are doing true HDR, but nearly every mod for Half-Life 2 now is imitating these effects, and games coming out like AoE3:
[LINK] (http://my.fit.edu/~dhutchin/after.JPG)
Are using them too... and at the end of the day, it's just not realistic, and it looks tacky and silly.
Llama
11-09-2005, 03:52 PM
Nope, more realistic, not less.
Kthnxbi
OmegaX
11-09-2005, 04:20 PM
Yeah your right, the graphics in games are getting so much worse. Just check out this pic of an older game. http://www.supermanhomepage.com/images/phonebooth/atari-game.jpg
It looks so much better then todays games.
ZoFreX
11-09-2005, 04:38 PM
Yes, I guess it is easy to take the piss rather than make a valid point. I'm just referring to a very recent trend of completely whited out skies and bloom on every lamp post that does not reflect what I see when I walk down the street.
pomegranate
11-09-2005, 04:55 PM
The thing is, whenever bloom or HDR is shown in screenshots, an extreme example is chosen to show off, not representing the average extent to which the effects are used, i.e. it's use might be more subtle and realistic, on average, throughout a game.
ríomhaire
11-09-2005, 05:18 PM
1: Why is this thread in R&S?
2: No, more realistic
3: Bloom just needs to be worked on a bit.
Llama
11-09-2005, 05:38 PM
ZoFrex, you are imagining things. Bloom and HDR are new effects that have not been completly perfectly. The normal effects are already pretty much perfected, and the majority of games do not use proper HDR effects (Just bloom), but they'll improve over time. Get used to it, its the future :cheers:
jondy
11-09-2005, 06:22 PM
I always thought improvement in graphics for computer games was meant to be aiming for realistic graphics, but I've been looking at all these new screenies with HDR and bloom and the rest... and it's basically a step backwards. Take a look at this:
[LINK] (http://www.halflife2.net/news//1125820738_Carns.jpg)
The pic was chosen at random, but you can see the same effect in any HDR game (Far Cry, Lost Coast) - the sky is completely whited out while the foreground brightness is correct. Now, if I took a photo with a camera, that is a realistic render of what the photo would look like - but it's not what it would look like to my eyes! My pet theory is that game developers don't get out much so they have to rely on photos for references, and they're recreating what they see in their photographs (which would explain the totally messed up idea of putting lens flare in games, too).
Now I know not all these games are doing true HDR, but nearly every mod for Half-Life 2 now is imitating these effects, and games coming out like AoE3:
[LINK] (http://my.fit.edu/~dhutchin/after.JPG)
Are using them too... and at the end of the day, it's just not realistic, and it looks tacky and silly.
HDR is necessary if you're going for photoreal simulation. The current implementations aren't good in terms of photorealism but that doesn't mean it's impact when used properly won't raise the bar.
Overuse of normal maps without specularity or subsurface scattering in Doom3 made everything look plastic, but that doesn't mean the technique isn't immensely valuable to photoreal rendering when used properly.
Download the rthdribl simulation (google the word) or Radeon 9700 HDR demo to see effective use of HDR. Rest assured you won't dismiss HDR's importance after that.
EDIT: The other thing to note about HDR is it's dynamic nature- it's not designed to be pinpointed or tied down to a screenshot, rather to work as a dynamic effect. You don't noticed overblown skies when you look around in the real world, because when you look at the sky to check, your eyes adjust. As HDR will ingame.
lister
11-09-2005, 06:28 PM
I always thought improvement in graphics for computer games was meant to be aiming for realistic graphics, but I've been looking at all these new screenies with HDR and bloom and the rest... and it's basically a step backwards. Take a look at this:
[LINK] (http://www.halflife2.net/news//1125820738_Carns.jpg)
The pic was chosen at random, but you can see the same effect in any HDR game (Far Cry, Lost Coast) - the sky is completely whited out while the foreground brightness is correct. Now, if I took a photo with a camera, that is a realistic render of what the photo would look like - but it's not what it would look like to my eyes! My pet theory is that game developers don't get out much so they have to rely on photos for references, and they're recreating what they see in their photographs (which would explain the totally messed up idea of putting lens flare in games, too).
Now I know not all these games are doing true HDR, but nearly every mod for Half-Life 2 now is imitating these effects, and games coming out like AoE3:
[LINK] (http://my.fit.edu/~dhutchin/after.JPG)
Are using them too... and at the end of the day, it's just not realistic, and it looks tacky and silly.
I think the GFX are getting better
http://img168.exs.cx/img168/4884/r818ua.jpg
http://img168.exs.cx/img168/8731/r825fk.jpg
http://img65.exs.cx/img65/572/r835ok.jpg
OCybrManO
11-09-2005, 06:37 PM
No new technology reaches its full potential in the first iteration. Give it some time.
Are using them too... and at the end of the day, it's just not realistic, and it looks tacky and silly.
When was the last time you went outside?
It all matters how it's used.
Outside there is a puddle, when I look at it I notice a few very bright spots on it.
In a computer game, we need HDR to render those very bright spots. Without HDR we cannot achieve Photo-Realism because we will never be able to have those bright spots without it.
HDR was poorly implemented in Farcry. Lost Coast should add it right. Maybe you jsust don't get outside enough....
But yeah, HDR when used correctly is not a bloom, not an addition to make the game look prettier, at the end of the day it is the ability to make lighting more realistic by allowing us to have light values much higher than before.
Ennui
11-09-2005, 07:31 PM
Graphics are most certainly getting more realistic.
ssiilleenntt
11-09-2005, 08:43 PM
Yeah your right, the graphics in games are getting so much worse. Just check out this pic of an older game. http://www.supermanhomepage.com/images/phonebooth/atari-game.jpg
It looks so much better then todays games.
Your soo right...lol
Mutley
11-09-2005, 09:07 PM
Yeah your right, the graphics in games are getting so much worse. Just check out this pic of an older game. http://www.supermanhomepage.com/images/phonebooth/atari-game.jpg
It looks so much better then todays games.
LMFAO! You deserve a medal!
ZoFreX
11-09-2005, 11:48 PM
I understand that we need HDR for realistic rendering but I think all the current models are aiming at mimicking cameras and not human eyes... obviously just needs refining but it seems both the industry and the modding scene are just blooming everything to hell to make it look shiny - something like [link] (http://img65.exs.cx/img65/572/r835ok.jpg) does not happen to me all that often! I would have had to come out of a very damn dark place for a fluorescent light to look like that. As it stands, I normally play my games with HDR turned off.
Oh, and for anyone who just replied to the title instead of actually reading my post, go stick your head in a blender kthxbi. Everyone who replied with some intelligence - you were fine.
6Three
12-09-2005, 12:34 AM
The whole bloom thing is just a fad.. in a few months people will realize that it sucks and its benefits (being blinded) are not worth the frame loss...
The One Freeman
12-09-2005, 02:38 AM
Yeah i agree
Naudian
12-09-2005, 03:07 AM
Idea:
Maybe some new kind of monitor could be developed, one where any one pixel/group of pixels could go as bright as a 60+ watt lightbulb! So if you saw a reeaaly bright reflection in a pool of water, it would flash bright enough to make you blink/squint :O
Obviously it's not good for l'eyes to have it that bright, but you know what I mean...a monitor that can be really bright, but still safe for your eyes...
With some HDR effects today, I get the reflex to squint whenever I look at an object that's really bright, but then I realize it's just the surrounding area getting darker. What if you could have a monitor that didn't need to darken the surrounding area, and instead just brighten the area to the point where you need to blink/squint/look away? :D :D :D (yes you might think this would get really annoying when trying to play a game, but obviously it would have to be implemented with that in mind)
IMO it would be more realistic than many HDR effects...
But whatever, graphics will improve enough to look photorealistic on their own anyway...
jerkasaur
12-09-2005, 03:16 AM
well, no lens flare, that's what i think. it only happens when ur looking through a camera... but hey, the graphic's cool.
The PC Nerd
12-09-2005, 07:09 AM
if we could kill idiot who misinterpreted bloom as HDR, we would all live happier lives.
Halo 2 sucked everything blooming like there's a ****ing 20000 watt bulb behind you. I will even go so far as saying Halo 1 was better.
DoctorWeeTodd
12-09-2005, 09:06 AM
True HDR is nice but I hate how every game developer and their little brother is adding bloom into their games. Real eyes will adjust to the light and it wouldn't stay like a white haze for long, what you got correct are still images. It especially irritates me when I can't turn it off.
jondy
12-09-2005, 02:23 PM
I understand that we need HDR for realistic rendering but I think all the current models are aiming at mimicking cameras and not human eyes...
Cameras work like human eyes. It's your dodgy understanding of the difference between overzealous implementations of bloom and true HDR rendering that is the problem here.
Like I said, this wouldn't be an argument if you checked out the rthdribl or ATI natural light tech demos that demonstrate a realistic HDRI effect.
The whole bloom thing is just a fad.. in a few months people will realize that it sucks and its benefits (being blinded) are not worth the frame loss...
Bloom != HDR.
Bloom cannot achieve HDR.
ZoFreX
13-09-2005, 01:31 AM
Cameras work like human eyes. It's your dodgy understanding of the difference between overzealous implementations of bloom and true HDR rendering that is the problem here.
Like I said, this wouldn't be an argument if you checked out the rthdribl or ATI natural light tech demos that demonstrate a realistic HDRI effect.
Bloom != HDR.
Bloom cannot achieve HDR.
I've known what HDR is for far longer than it's been in computer games thank you, and I'm aware that bloom is something seperate. I think both effects are done wrong. It's HDR that's whiting out the sky in my Far Cry, for example. You'll also find that I clearly stated that I thought the current implementation of HDR / bloom in games was unrealistic - I know damn well how sweet HDR looks when done properly, e.g. in my 3d studio max, where it looks the cat's whiskers.
Idea:
Maybe some new kind of monitor could be developed, one where any one pixel/group of pixels could go as bright as a 60+ watt lightbulb! So if you saw a reeaaly bright reflection in a pool of water, it would flash bright enough to make you blink/squint :O
I like this guy! :D
With some HDR effects today, I get the reflex to squint whenever I look at an object that's really bright
I do that when I look at the sun in a computer game.. human nature I guess.
jondy
13-09-2005, 01:03 PM
Oh, so you do know what you're talking about :D
However, now I don't understand your point. You're saying that HDR rendering in 3DS looks fantastic, and know that that kindof implementation is what developers like Valve are trying for, but are entertaining the notion that graphics are getting less realistic?
Obviously, some current iterations aren't realistic (FarCry's HDR is renowned for blowing out highlights and general oversaturation) but surely you should understand the importance of correct use of HDR in achieving photorealism?
ríomhaire
13-09-2005, 05:53 PM
HDR will get better. When 3D came out it looked worse than its 2D counterpart. Now look at games like HL2 and Grand Turismo.
ZoFreX
13-09-2005, 09:00 PM
However, now I don't understand your point. You're saying that HDR rendering in 3DS looks fantastic, and know that that kindof implementation is what developers like Valve are trying for, but are entertaining the notion that graphics are getting less realistic?
I'm not entirely sure that developers -are- aiming for a realistic implementation, but even if they are, their current efforts are, in my opinion, making the graphics less realistic. I guess it's just not ready yet (Far Cry for example the HDR is optional and very beta) - but for now my number one on the wishlist is for all the Half-Life 2 mods to stop tacking on &#@!ing bloom effects. And seriously, put lens flare in and I will stab you.
jondy
13-09-2005, 09:17 PM
I'm not entirely sure that developers -are- aiming for a realistic implementation, but even if they are, their current efforts are, in my opinion, making the graphics less realistic. I guess it's just not ready yet (Far Cry for example the HDR is optional and very beta) - but for now my number one on the wishlist is for all the Half-Life 2 mods to stop tacking on &#@!ing bloom effects. And seriously, put lens flare in and I will stab you.
Less realistic but more beautiful, and FarCry was never aiming for photorealism anyway. HDR on current hardware is ready (and once again I point out the aforementioned tech demos :stare: ) It's just never been used in a photorealistic context in a mainstream game. TLC will hopefully change that.
DEATH eVADER
13-09-2005, 10:46 PM
I keep on mistaking the AOEIII city screen for some type of realistic model from some sort of enthusiast
Ev!lP!e
13-09-2005, 11:09 PM
Yeah your right, the graphics in games are getting so much worse. Just check out this pic of an older game. http://www.supermanhomepage.com/images/phonebooth/atari-game.jpg
It looks so much better then todays games.
You beat me to it , i was gonna do pong ^^
Cerpin
13-09-2005, 11:57 PM
In the words ol Lil`Jon
WHAT?
ZoFreX
14-09-2005, 02:38 AM
I'm gonna do some careful experiments tomorrow to see if I can get the sky to white out like it does in a lot of the demos.. I'll make sure that most of my vision is a dark thing, and that my focus is on a dark area, and see if the sky in the upper portion of my vision whites out.. could be fun.
I notice that sometimes while walking from room to room in my house, we have 3 diffrent kinds of lights in 3 diffrent rooms all connected. When I walk from one to another, my eyes readjust. I can tell, as I can't see half the shit(no not directly cut in half), but you get the point. Anyway, just diffrent light settings can do it. Then I have to remember where something was that I was going to get by memory. I can easily see how truthfull it is.
I wouldn't call it "whites out", but your eyes do have to readjust.
dream431ca
14-09-2005, 04:09 AM
Realistic Graphics!!? :eek:
You mean you actually want the graphics to look like reality?? Doesn't that spoil the game as the game is to be an escape from reality?? Blah.
Reaktor4
14-09-2005, 04:56 AM
games will never look realistic while theyre still being made the way they are.
Asuka
15-09-2005, 12:06 AM
More realistic
TheSomeone
15-09-2005, 01:25 AM
You've obviously never seen the california sun.
You've obviously never seen the california sun.
....but none of the HDR games are set in California are they??
TheSomeone
16-09-2005, 02:08 AM
....but none of the HDR games are set in California are they??
I'm thinking that maybe possibly california isn't the only place where there is strong sunlight on the entire planet. Just MAYBE. </sarcasm>
Plus, that's completely besides the point. If it exists in California, wether it exists anywhere else or not, it's real. And if games imitate the real, they are realistic.
ríomhaire
17-09-2005, 11:27 AM
Doesn't HDR work for Darkness aswell? Why haven't we seen Dark HDR shots?
Bobcat
17-09-2005, 02:38 PM
Doesn't HDR work for Darkness aswell? Why haven't we seen Dark HDR shots?
High Dynamic Range Lighting...
And yes, of course it works on dark places too, but it requires a light source of some kind.
Beerdude26
17-09-2005, 03:22 PM
Real life bloom effects only last for about 0.5 seconds, and that's why every game has them implemented wrong; it just lasts too long.
Yeah.....GET OUTSIDE. I beg to differ.
I've been blinded for well over 5 seconds becuz of that damn light!
ZoFreX
17-09-2005, 06:18 PM
Wow. I thought I had sensitive eyes but even after days indoors, going outside was hardly a blinding experience. I just took a look at a new Lost Coast screenshot - [link] (http://www.halflife2.net/news//1126729648_26b.jpg) - and erm, I'm pretty sure they're doing something wrong. Anyways, if anyone thinks there's a game out there that does HDR well (or techdemos aside from rthdribl and ATi), could they mention it, 'cos I'd be interested in seeing it. Thanks.
ktimekiller
17-09-2005, 06:28 PM
Wow. I thought I had sensitive eyes but even after days indoors, going outside was hardly a blinding experience. I just took a look at a new Lost Coast screenshot - [link] (http://www.halflife2.net/news//1126729648_26b.jpg) - and erm, I'm pretty sure they're doing something wrong. Anyways, if anyone thinks there's a game out there that does HDR well (or techdemos aside from rthdribl and ATi), could they mention it, 'cos I'd be interested in seeing it. Thanks.
Its a new technoledgy, they need to master the amount of time spent in a certain dark or light place in order to make the effect better, for example, the longer you say in darkness, takes longer to readjust to light.
go into a totaly dark room for 3 hours, come out into a bathroom light or something, you will see.
clarky003
17-09-2005, 06:47 PM
HDR is great, it adds a hudge aspect of realisim in the simulation of under and over exposure. But ultimately achieving even close to photorealism means implementing realistic depth of field passes, extra detailed environment's with mass's of high quality texturing, fluid dynamic's for water and photon simulation and accurate refraction and reflection properties of surface's, not to mention to complete the experiance.. simulating sound wave's for more realistic sound.
At the end of all that your computer would melt, so the target's are clear for superior computer's of the future, but hey its great because it might be coming sooner than we think because theyve just created the smallest electrical switch ever, known as the quantum photon emitter. Which would decrease heat, and make the most ridiculous processing speeds possible.
http://www.physorg.com/news6360.html
Sure, we're not on a straight traintrack that leads to a definitive "realism"... we deviate on our road, trying out alternative methods and experimenting. But with every major upgrade in graphics, we're getting closer and closer to what we see through our own eyes.
giant384
17-09-2005, 07:10 PM
why are u all complaining its only the start of hdr in games its not going to be the best at first
Clarky..
the electronics will function at extremely low temperature -- 10 Kelvin, (-441 Fahrenheit, -263 Celsius).
10 KELVIN? HOLY SH*T. Thats close to absolute zero for sake! Of course absolute zero has been...unreachable that's pretty damn close to the lowest tempature possibe!
I mean WOW.
clarky003
17-09-2005, 08:36 PM
I know Minerel, Its nanotechnology , their almost there with it. We will very soon see the worlds first nanocomputing chip, that processes hundreds of times more information without heat dissapation to hinder its performance.
basically it will superseed modern computer technology, perhaps in the next 10 years we will see computers that will have massive lifespans and can deliver the power to process uber realistic games, computers like this will jump miles ahead of the technology used in modern games.
ríomhaire
17-09-2005, 09:31 PM
Clarky..
10 KELVIN? HOLY SH*T. Thats close to absolute zero for sake! Of course absolute zero has been...unreachable that's pretty damn close to the lowest tempature possibe!
I mean WOW.
Is absolute zero the coldest temperature possible?
Vegeta897
17-09-2005, 09:33 PM
Is absolute zero the coldest temperature possible?Which is why it's called absolute zero...
Murray_H
17-09-2005, 09:37 PM
Clarky..
10 KELVIN? HOLY SH*T. Thats close to absolute zero for sake! Of course absolute zero has been...unreachable that's pretty damn close to the lowest tempature possibe!
I mean WOW.
Scientists got a cloud of sodium atoms to within half a billionth of a degree of absolute zero, about 450 picokelvin, in 2003
ZoFreX
17-09-2005, 10:35 PM
with every major upgrade in graphics, we're getting closer and closer to what we see through our own eyes.
Games with HDR generally look better with HDR turned off, but I suppose it's unfair to compare graphics at the end of the old render path with those at the beginning of the new.
hey its great because it might be coming sooner than we think because theyve just created the smallest electrical switch ever, known as the quantum photon emitter. Which would decrease heat, and make the most ridiculous processing speeds possible.
http://www.physorg.com/news6360.html
Yeah, quantum computing is moving along. I bought a book on Quantum Electrodynamics today as a starter for understanding all this crap...
Is absolute zero the coldest temperature possible?
Yup. Heat is atoms moving around, and at absolute zero, they stop moving. Or would if you could reach absolute zero (we can get pretty close though). According to the units converter on my phone, absolute zero is -273.15 Celsius or -459.67 Farenheit (or 0 Kelvin, conveniently enough :upstare: )
Its a new technoledgy, they need to master the amount of time spent in a certain dark or light place in order to make the effect better, for example, the longer you say in darkness, takes longer to readjust to light.
go into a totaly dark room for 3 hours, come out into a bathroom light or something, you will see.
Good point.. so my game needs a decay curve that works both ways for exposure, I guess.
I think the main problem with HDR not matching what I see in real life (apart from the theory that my eyes are broken) is that HDR assumes that you are looking where the crosshair is to calculate exposure - but I spend half the time looking at other places on the screen. In real life, looking at something elsewhere (looking up at the sky, for instance) would change the exposure, so the sky stops being whited out, and so I never see it being whited out. Course in the game, unless I move the crosshair, the engine has no idea I've looked up, and so keeps the exposure as if I'm pointed dead centre. I suppose a camera tracking your eye movements would be the ideal way to deal with it? Any thoughts?
where is the "other oppinion, explained in post" option in the poll?
Scientists got a cloud of sodium atoms to within half a billionth of a degree of absolute zero, about 450 picokelvin, in 2003
Yes we have come extremely close, I know that. But we have not yet reached aboslute zero.
Is absolute zero the coldest temperature possible?
Anything above absolute 0, including 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001 is vibrating. All atoms are moving, thats what heat does. The hotter something is, the more each atom vibrates, the less heat the less it vibrates.
Absolute Zero means there is no heat at all and no vibration at all is taking place. Absolute Zero has never been reached, and may possibly never be reached. Though since we have gotton so close there is a state for it known as:
It's Bose-Einstein State.
It's so close that objects take on new proporities.
Murray_H
18-09-2005, 05:45 AM
Yes we have come extremely close, I know that. But we have not yet reached aboslute zero.
So why go all crazy over something 10K off absolute zero if you know other things have been colder? I'm confused. And tired.
poseyjmac
18-09-2005, 06:17 AM
theres no universal law that states games must become more realistic. as long as graphics get better and more impressive, thats all i want.
French Ninja
18-09-2005, 06:52 AM
Right now, yes.
In the long run, no.
Look at this chart:
http://img324.imageshack.us/img324/3469/bs6yk.jpg
As you can see, visual realism in games is a constant roller coaster between what I like to call "art" and "real life".
The crappy first 3d games had horrible graphics, and looked silly compared to 2d ones. Today, due to gaming engines like Quake 3, 2d games are extinct, except for RoN, one of the best RTS created, which goes to show that 2D games still have a fighting spirit.
Now, instead of 3d being the new thing, its visual effects.
I despise the crappy plastic shinny look of people and enviroments in games like Doom 3, FEAR and HALO 2. Half Life 2 isn't as bad as the previous 3. In about 3-4 years, it will start looking nice again.
Whats next in the future? Most likely VR, which when released, will problaby have PS1 type graphics, but it will too improve in time. :thumbs:
So why go all crazy over something 10K off absolute zero if you know other things have been colder? I'm confused. And tired.
Because 10 Kelvin is EXTREMELY CLOSE to absolute zero. Yes things have been colder, but those have been in very controlled conditions in labs. Infact getting 10 Kelvin would be so cold, that well....trust me...you will never experince anything like that in your life.
It could be -200 Degrees Celcius and guess what....that still isn't 10 kelvin. You cannot survive in that tempature, no living thing could survive. It is that COLD. Antartica is like the ****ing desert when you compare them to eachother.
ZoFreX
18-09-2005, 04:14 PM
Yes we have come extremely close, I know that. But we have not yet reached aboslute zero.
There are some pretty solid practical reasons why we can't ever reach absolute zero (at least not without inventing a new way of cooling things).
French Ninja, you made a very good point :bounce:
Styloid
19-09-2005, 12:45 AM
Are graphics getting less realistic in movies too?
Look at this HDR craziness!!!
http://images.allmoviephoto.com/2004_Kill_Bill_Vol._2/2004_kill_bill_vol_2_003.jpg
http://images.allmoviephoto.com/2005_The_Transporter_2/2005_transporter2_007.jpg
http://images.allmoviephoto.com/2005_Batman_Begins/2005_batman_begins_053.jpg
http://home.earthlink.net/~kinnopio/photos/awards_2001_memento.jpg
Vegeta897
19-09-2005, 12:46 AM
I think that's just light bloom.
ZoFreX
19-09-2005, 08:25 PM
Styloid, I've already said that you get a lot of blooming with cameras and that current implementations of HDR / bloom in games are pretty close to what you get on the movie screen... but not the human eye.
r2000
24-09-2005, 08:51 AM
Yes, I guess it is easy to take the piss rather than make a valid point. I'm just referring to a very recent trend of completely whited out skies and bloom on every lamp post that does not reflect what I see when I walk down the street.
Have you ever stepped out side?
THE SUN BLINDS YOU!!!!!!!!
HAVE YOU EVER DROVE A CAR ON A SUNNY DAY AND GOT GLARE IN YOUR EYES!!!!
THINK BEFORE YOU POST!!
THINK!
THINK!
THINK!!!
ZoFreX
24-09-2005, 02:20 PM
Have you ever stepped out side?
THE SUN BLINDS YOU!!!!!!!!
HAVE YOU EVER DROVE A CAR ON A SUNNY DAY AND GOT GLARE IN YOUR EYES!!!!
THINK BEFORE YOU POST!!
THINK!
THINK!
THINK!!!
NO YOU tbh. Yes, the sun blinds me, and my windscreen aids glare... which is um, almost nothing to do with what we are talking about.
Beerdude26
24-09-2005, 02:42 PM
HDR simply seems unrealistic because it isn't used in its whole. And bloom seems unrealistic because the human eye adjusts under one second; in games it takes much longer or even worse, it doesn't adjust! You should see some of the DOD : S videos, the bloom changes under one second if you go from a dark alley to an open space.
i agree with zofrex.. at the minute the pics comparing hdr lighting and none hdr (like the cathedral in age of empires) looks totally unrealistic compared to when hdr is turned off. my whole family had a vote (half of us are artists) and we all chose the none hdr picture as being more photo realistic, for a start ive never seen light reflected off a wall like that.. and ive been to cathedrals all over the world. hdr has a very very long way to come. but i disagree about graphics getting worse.. they can only improve..
1 sad thing is now that hdr has been released over source i cant play source games. even with all settings on low and hdr turned off i will only get 20 fps TOPS!! and am more likely to suffer at 5 fps. not too long ago i was playing hl2 with around 40-50fps so i am v annoyed:flame: .. thankyou hdr for ruining the only games i play!:(
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.