It does, if you have ever left a dark basement to sunny outside you have noticed this. But it's more subtle indeed.
Also why the heck does Gaf break this link?
Edit: fixed it.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Next-gen Racing Graphics Face-off | (Next-gen means current-gen)
- Thread starter Gestault
- Start date
Also why the heck does Gaf break this link?
Edit: fixed it.
nkarafo
Member
Except that in real life it's not so intense when you exit a tunnel. Unless my eyes work differently than other people, i can barely notice it in real life. Of course, i'm talking about our eyes, not a camera.
eso76
Member
I don't know, this gif looks great but the pics I've seen of the cars on the track don't look all that, frankly.
This, for example, looks kind of Forza-ish.
We have seen too little of GTS, and the little we've seen might not be what the game ends up looking like anyway.
But it is lacking SSR the way its used in DC :/ I thought for sure PD would want to have it in their game. Maybe just photo travel
Lol, you said the same thing when GT6 was revealed. In the end GT6 lighting it's still more realistic than most current gen games.
It amazes me that people still doubt Polyphony's lighting artists after all these years.
Windom Earle
Member
Looks good in a highly stylized way, but definitely too much for me. Still, good for a multiplatform game. Framerate is a bit on the stuttery side though.
Look at that SLS in the background. Looks real to me.
Psycho_Mantis
Banned
I don't know, this gif looks great but the pics I've seen of the cars on the track don't look all that, frankly.
This, for example, looks kind of Forza-ish.
We have seen too little of GTS, and the little we've seen might not be what the game ends up looking like anyway.
But it is lacking SSR the way its used in DC :/ I thought for sure PD would want to have it in their game. Maybe just photo travel
The lighting on the Audi looks a bit flat, probably due to spatial and materialistic attributes.
eso76
Member
Well, that's remarkably coherent of me, i'm impressed.
Actually, yeah I remember thinking GT6 lighting was a small step back compared to GT5.
Never seen the game in person, so i don't know if it was just the screens, but i'm sure i heard it elsewhere.
Since you like digging up old posts, you'll find that i've always commented on GT6 looking absolutely nuts and still having more realistic lighting and materials than most current gen games otherwise, and trusting that next gen GT would destroy its competitors in terms of photorealism.
Some of these pics show a slightly less convincing lighting solution than what i was expecting is all
drugstore_cowboy
Member
Expected to be blown away by GTS, no doubt I will down the line but it's looking dull and realistic, there's not a lot else to say.
That Audi shot isn't very good at all.
That Audi shot isn't very good at all.
This is an inherent handicap for pretty much any racer focused on real-world race locations. They tend not to be set so multiple trees of death are at arms length all around the course.
TheLaughingStock
Member
Didn't like the GTP trailer's graphics. Driveclub looks real good in that gif.
Your eyes have an alright static contrast range. You can look at a dark tunnel and a sunlit exterior simultaneously, the latter being WAAAAAAAAY brighter, and capture details in both.
TVs have a pretty poor static contrast range. Even if the tunnel is represented as being fairly dim, if the exterior is accurately-lit then it will be much brighter than the white level of your TV. So, with an accurate renderer, it winds up blown out.
Older games dodge this for two reasons:
The main reason is that the lighting was very handmade and unrealistic. Artists just sort of set things up to feel right and look good, without any real-world reference. The on-screen results are extremely low-contrast compared with real life.
The secondary reason is that CRTs had better static contrast than most LCDs. The difference between bright and dark regions could be bigger. You still can't achieve realistic contrasts, but you can do better than you can with mass-produced LCD panels. I suspect this is why lots of old games look dull on modern televisions; they were authored with punchier displays in mind.
This of course raises the question of what better-captures reality: a simulation based directly on real-world behavior, or a simulation adjusted for experiential expectations (i.e. force lower contrast so that you can see what you think you should be able to see, even if the luminance is inaccurate).
eso76
Member
HDR means luminosity values for your, lets say, polygons have a much greater range than 0-255 (your TV's black and white).
If 255 is your room's wall color (in good lighting conditions) you need values that are orders of magnitude greater than that to express the brightness of the sun, and you need values in the middle for objects that are in direct sunlight and outdoors. Your TV can only display a limited range at once; values that are out of the 0-255 range will be displayed as black or white but it's crucial that these values exist as properties for every surface in your 3D scene, because they are used for lighting calculations. It's crucial for GI, image based lighting and even reflections. But googling HDRi and HDR reflection maps images is a lot more eloquent than any explanation, really.
That "eyes/camera adjusting to light" effect when coming out of a tunnel is just a side effect of this.
If 255 is your room's wall color (in good lighting conditions) you need values that are orders of magnitude greater than that to express the brightness of the sun, and you need values in the middle for objects that are in direct sunlight and outdoors. Your TV can only display a limited range at once; values that are out of the 0-255 range will be displayed as black or white but it's crucial that these values exist as properties for every surface in your 3D scene, because they are used for lighting calculations. It's crucial for GI, image based lighting and even reflections. But googling HDRi and HDR reflection maps images is a lot more eloquent than any explanation, really.
That "eyes/camera adjusting to light" effect when coming out of a tunnel is just a side effect of this.
Glomby
Member
It's not true. HDR in video games is perfectly fine.
The reason why HDR in photography seems to be exactly the other way around is because it's impossible to simulate the dynamic adjustments our eyes make in a photo. In real life we get the whole range because we can dynamicly adjust. This is why HDR in photography just tries to capture every detail into one picture. You either lose details or you capture them all.
HDR in games howerer is also perfectly realistic, because you can actually simulate the dynamic adjustments. Photos and games are just different things, thats why HDR works differently, but it does the same thing in both photos and games.
Automatic exposure changes aren't really a "side"-effect, more like something you're going to have to implement if you want your realistically-lit high-contrast environments to be intelligible.
The difference is that HDR in photography refers to a way of compressing a wide range to a smaller range, whereas HDR in games refers to using a wide range in the first place in the process of generating an image.
"Non-HDR" photography is still "HDR" in the sense that "HDR" is used when talking about game rendering.
eso76
Member
Uhmm...yes, and i'll still call it a side effect, as in, it's not the main purpose or effect of HDR.
A lot of people think HDR is there to "simulate being blinded by the sun when you come out of a tunnel".
This is not the reason why HDR is there. This is (one of) the results of HDR being there.
CanUKlehead
Member
Man...where is my modern-day Stunts/4D Racing running on current-gen engines??
I'm not great at picking apart graphics but man DriveClub looks amazing.
I'm not great at picking apart graphics but man DriveClub looks amazing.
Apex
Member
GTS
Given the GT6's legacy I have no doubts that GTS will look at least as good as in the trailer. I expect unprecedent visuals from PD in PS4.
Baroquemantic
Member
I'm just hoping GTS has that awesome smoke and dirt/dust kickup that GT5 had. Also a weather system and look very similar to that of Driveclub. And dynamic lighting and time of day for every single track. Hell, weather for every track too. And for the love of god, a livery system like Forza. I want to make a ridiculous
looking car!
I'm sure I'm setting myself for disappointment. A man can dream!
ly amazing
I'm sure I'm setting myself for disappointment. A man can dream!
Fnord
Member
It depends on where the sun is when you exit said tunnel. It actually happened to me the other day coming home from work (not a tunnel, but a canopy of trees). I had to put my hand up to see at all. And I sort of grinned to myself and thought about the times I've seen the same effect in Gran Turismo.
But it is intense as heck in real life. Even coming out a short tunnel.
Both of this is actually true. If you drive in real life, youd know to keep your eyes on the road ahead so when you're approaching the tunnel exit your eyes would've naturally adjusted to the lighting outside to a certain degree (and your peripheral view darkens) because that's where your focus is or should be. Unless that tunnel exit is just after a bend which means your eyes have little time to adjust. Cameras and Games don't really do an accurate job with this because the light metering is based on the overall scene, not what your eyes are actually focusing on.
OccamsLightsaber
Regularly boosts GAF member count to cry about 'right wing gaf' - Voter #3923781
Makes no sense the context a videos. I'd like you to take your smartphone camera and move from a dark area to a bright area. Things get over exposed during the transition and that's exactly how our the iris in our eyes work. And DRIVECLUB only does this in certain conditions e.g when the sun is directly illuminating the outside of the tunnel.
Our eyes do not have the dynamic range of a smartphone camera.
OccamsLightsaber
Regularly boosts GAF member count to cry about 'right wing gaf' - Voter #3923781
Here's some hypothetical DC @ 60fps video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ylVdKgoopU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5Ml3SfR6WU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ylVdKgoopU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5Ml3SfR6WU
eso76
Member
Eh, smartphone cameras probably capture between 3 and 5 f-spots of luminosity.
For reference, your eyes can see anywhere from 10-14 f-stops of instantaneous dynamic range. Instantaneous, meaning if you DON'T allow your pupils to adjust.
If you take pupils adjusting to different lighting conditions into account, then your eyes have a range exceeding 24 f-stops.
A TV should be able to display around 8 f-spots
For reference;
Compact cameras capture 5-7 stops
DSLR capture 8-12 stops: If you shoot in RAW, you'll see that you can increase or decrease exposure in post, so that stuff that appeared as pitch black/solid white on your monitor, becomes visible. The detail has been captured, it's just out of your TV/Monitor's range.
A scene with a dynamic range of 3 f-stops has a white that is 8X as bright as its black (2^3 = 2x2x2 = 8)
HDR photography means taking multiple pictures at different exposures, to capture the entire range.
Now, for your CG scene, you need a much larger ratio between maximum and minimum light intensities than your tv can display at once. So it becomes inevitable that the game needs to adjust to the range that should be visible on your TV at any given time. It cannot display the inside of a tunnel and a bright noon sky at the same time; not if their luminosity values are physically accurate. And you want them to be accurate because they affect how lighting is calculated.
I suppose you could post process your image so that values are crushed within the 0-255 range before displaying it.
Baroquemantic
Member
That looks dope. I now wish there were a 3d screenshot and GIF thread full of stuff like this from different games.Here's some hypothetical DC in stereoscopic 3D video.
Stillmatic
Member
Most games (not just racing) simulate the effects of looking through a camera for player viewpoints.
Wow. Was planning to skip bikes as i tend to suck with them but... look at that. maybe I'll be good with bikes in Driveclub. Right?Drive Club Bikes, SunhiLegend:
Inf3cted_b3ast
Member
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wggx-86VB40
I can't believe some ppl actually think NFS looks and sounds better.
I can't believe some ppl actually think NFS looks and sounds better.
The Lambo definitely sounds better in NFS, a lot of Driveclub's cars sound a little vacuumy.
NFS is definitely better looking than DC, though I don't think it's a better game. At least currently anyway.
It really isn't.
OccamsLightsaber
Regularly boosts GAF member count to cry about 'right wing gaf' - Voter #3923781
To me it seems like the mirages are more accurate and produce less aliasing.
Dictator93
Member
Pretty darn hard to say IMO. THere is not nearly enough gameplay media from NFS out there right now and comparing the games is a bit hard given the dramatically different lighting conditions and player FOV at times.
Summer Haze
Banned
I don't think there's a single visual aspect of NFS that I'd rank above DC.
Then again, it is an apples to oranges comparison.
Tripolygon
Banned
Nope, not even a lil.
In the context of that specific video, the surfaces and general lighting in NFS come across better, but the lighting/weather/atmospherics are different half the time.
Inf3cted_b3ast
Member
Where can I buy that vacuum?
Lambo dealership, lol
Inf3cted_b3ast
Member
Seriously, I need a vacuum cleaner that sounds like the Huracan in DC
I hope you're not my neighbor.
Inf3cted_b3ast
Member
LOL
Woodchipper
Member
We are in for a treat from PD this gen, no doubt, but I really hope they've finally ditched the PS2 cars. I've said this before and I'll say it again: I rather have 50 cars that all looks amazing than 1000 cars of which more than 50% looks like crap. Quality/consistency beats quantity if you ask me.Given the GT6's legacy I have no doubts that GTS will look at least as good as in the trailer. I expect unprecedent visuals from PD in PS4.
As for the GIF you posted, yes, the replays in GT6 STILL looks nuts. PD are the gods of photo realism, period.
Tripolygon
Banned
At no point in that video did surfaces and general lighting of NFS look better than DC. The lighting in NFS looks so unrealistic compared to DC and it doesn't help that they have so many postprocess effects in NFS and the lighting is some worth static since it ranges from around 7PM to midnight.
I know it is a terrible comparison because i just downloaded the video off youtube and took screenshots of a few random frames using vlc.
AstroNut325
Member
My eyes can't believe this is a videogame.Drive Club Bikes, SunhiLegend:
Where did Sunhi post this originally?
Inf3cted_b3ast
Member
Check the Driveclub OT
Inf3cted_b3ast
Member
Another video from the same guy just with rain turn on in DC and different cars.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVCumxJAsJc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVCumxJAsJc
Similar threads
- Poll