Gaming World Forums
General Category => Entertainment and Media => Topic started by: Bisse on March 02, 2009, 10:48:43 pm
-
Ookay ladies and gentlemen, here's the million dollar question.... Where was this picture taken?
(http://gamingw.net/pubaccess/28806/wheeere.jpg)
-
in the videogame forum.
-
I BET THEYRE FROM A VIDEOGAME
-
plasyt 3
-
megamn 10
-
duke nuke e'm foralways
-
uranus
-
THATS WHERE I KEEP MY DRINKIN GWATER
-
GIVE IT BACK
-
motor cross storm x6
-
pokemon platinum for the nintendo 64
serious answers: hard rain
beyond good and evil 2
-
You're all wrong. It was taken in Cry Engine 2
http://www.incrysis.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=768
I don't know about you guys but I am fucking stunned you can do stuff like this in a PC game. I mean the shit really looks like a photo. Just check (http://www6.incrysis.com/screenshots/s2.jpg) this (http://www6.incrysis.com/screenshots/00025ez6.jpg) shit (http://www6.incrysis.com/screenshots/hrkduw.jpg) out (http://www6.incrysis.com/screenshots/crysis_tod_art_339kdpl.jpg). Some of these I would have never thought were computer rendered at all.
-
Oh boy.
How long til the orginal Crysis runs great? Then maybe I can start worrying about this running good.
Nevermind, I missed the point of this. It's from Crysis itself anyway. Sorry.
-
This was cool several years ago. Now it's just ridiculous. Why care that someone would take the time to invent an engine noone can use to it's full potential.
-
Personally I am pretty content just watching videos and screens since they are usually more enjoyable than the games themselves.
-
when you edited one of the pics out I was like huh mispost but when the other stayed I was pretty sure it was Crysis.
-
yeh I had this (http://gamingw.net/pubaccess/28806/whereereree.jpg) pic at first until someone pointed out it was actually a real photo :p i'm pretty sure you could do that in crysis though if you gave it about 3 hours to render.
-
This was cool several years ago. Now it's just ridiculous. Why care that someone would take the time to invent an engine noone can use to it's full potential.
don't say things like that, this is the kind of thinking that fuels invention :(
-
i dunno have any of them realyl done anything graphically innovative? we dont know probably because we are not hopeless nerds who care about graphics math but I wonder how much of this is just WE RENDERED A LOT OF POLYGONS AT 2 FPS.
-
I went a 3D graphics course I know this shit:
Polygon count in many of these is acutally rather low. It's pretty much all about lightning, different kinds of bump mapping, and reflections. If you know how 3D graphics work there is a lot of impressive shit here but yes, there's a lot of new shit and no it's not just polygons. For example here (http://www6.incrysis.com/screenshots/5j9s-fb.jpg) is some totally sick example of volumetric lightning where you can see light bouncing off, and shadows being reflected on, particles in the air (sand dust etc), this (http://www6.incrysis.com/screenshots/236bh.jpg) is some sick shadow casting where everything casts shadows on everything.
But my favourite is this pic of a shore in 3 different lighting settings (http://www6.incrysis.com/screenshots/8fa63d2.jpg) where you can see how light spreads realistically around the scene, with some features I didn't even know could be done in real time, but the most impressive thing is the water: first of all instead of a flat surface it is a 3D model, but secondly and most impressive to me is how what you can see under the water surface is affected by the angle the light hits the water surface and how deep the water is. Let me tell you, that's some really impressive water right there.
And this pic of dudes fighting a tank in a jungle (http://www6.incrysis.com/screenshots/00010ybki.jpg) puts everything but the water together to make a pretty impressive scene.
-
It looks okay I guess. Ill stick to chuck rock
-
don't say things like that, this is the kind of thinking that fuels invention :(
This a tourist attraction at best. The world's largest wicker basket of gaming. The scope of it may catch your attention at first but it still fails at it's own purpose making it worthless. It doesn't lead to or prove anything. It's inventive in the same way motion controls where for the Wii. In that it isn't.
Developing an engine that can run like this at 60fps on with the current technology available to the public would be fucking incredible. This... not so much.
-
i said maybe 2 or 3 years ago that 3D graphics will never reach the point where they'll fool my eyes. the dirt in the above pic still looks artificial when you analyze it but god dammit this shit's coming pretty close to fooling me!
now if only these engines could render humans realistically. environments and static objects are easy but all humans must look like latex
-
i said maybe 2 or 3 years ago that 3D graphics will never reach the point where they'll fool my eyes. the dirt in the above pic still looks artificial when you analyze it but god dammit this shit's coming pretty close to fooling me!
now if only these engines could render humans realistically. environments and static objects are easy but all humans must look like latex
i feel the same way, i mean it's getting closer but you can still tell that it's not real...i think that's one of the reasons i like fmv games so much, because no matter how poor the graphics are, you still know they're REAL PEOPLE just filmed poorly, and it still adds an interesting feel to the game, i have yet to see a cgi character that felt real to me though
back when that emily (or whatever that cgi girl's name was) interview came out, i thought i was fooled, but then i realized that it was a rendered face on a real person, and it was the BODY that looked real whereas the face looked a bit off...i was really disappointed by that, because i thought they had at least gotten body movements to a realistic standard, but instead it was just the odd face that they had done
-
how far off is decent ray tracing in games?
-
wait when you can say YOU CAN TELL ITS NOT REAL do you honestly mean you'd look at those and think after a second "yep not real" or that if someone told you you'd see it?
because I'm pretty sure if someone posted this: http://www6.incrysis.com/screenshots/00025ez6.jpg in the picture thread with "testing out my camera", no one would say HEH...GOTCHA.
-
give the game industry 3 more years and i bet you graphics this good will be the standard among new PC games! consoles idk, but i bet the next generation of consoles will be so powerful that it'll really narrow down the gap.
-
now if only these engines could render humans realistically. environments and static objects are easy but all humans must look like latex
http://cubo.cc/
Think we've crossed the uncanny valley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley) yet?
Haha, but this image here is about the closest I've seen to a truly photorealistic CGI human:
http://features.cgsociety.org/newgallerycrits/g46/199846/199846_1156997804_large.jpg
Still not *quite* there but nearly mistakable as a human at glance.
-
wait when you can say YOU CAN TELL ITS NOT REAL do you honestly mean you'd look at those and think after a second "yep not real" or that if someone told you you'd see it?
because I'm pretty sure if someone posted this: http://www6.incrysis.com/screenshots/00025ez6.jpg in the picture thread with "testing out my camera", no one would say HEH...GOTCHA.
It's the lighting. Game engines still seem to render shadows too sharply. Under ambient light shadows should be gentle and blend into the colors of the object.
An example of what I'm talking about. (http://www.tourlewiscounty.com/pressroom/photos/Outdoors/ForestStream.jpg) Even in a dense forest, shadows blend into the object, not starkly contrast against it.
EDIT: Now if someone was saying "I'm playing with some filters on my hi-res camera" then yeah, I'd probably be fooled.
-
also those plants are rendered strangely, they don't really look real
i would like to see someone try that though.
-
the leaves and trees and everything look great, but the curves on the mountain look so much like that program people use to randomly generate terrain.
-
the leaves and trees and everything look great, but the curves on the mountain look so much like that program people use to randomly generate terrain.
i think that's partially because small foliage (like grass, shrubs, etc.) isn't rendered at that distance making it look more like a flat texture wrapped around a mountain shape.
-
i'm saying if no one told you to take a second look I don't think anyone would have. even if you thought "huh dark shadow" or "mountain looks like bryce" it would stop there.
-
the leaves and trees and everything look great, but the curves on the mountain look so much like that program people use to randomly generate terrain.
terra gen*
-
Holy shit i still think that that one second to last picture with the curvy mountains or whatever is real
-
Yeah, if no-one had told me it was a render, I probably wouldn't have noticed. The stuff in the foreground of all those pictures is startlingly realistic. However, the backgrounds in some of the pictures are pretty off, as the trees all look the same, with dead straight branches, etc. Also, the picture with the river in the foreground looks wrong, because the ground texture just doesn't look real.
-
Yeah this stuff looks pretty amazing, but pretty much everyone has to set graphics to medium/low to actually get the damn game to run. Nice 'experiment' but the engine is pretty much useless at the moment.
-
wait when you can say YOU CAN TELL ITS NOT REAL do you honestly mean you'd look at those and think after a second "yep not real" or that if someone told you you'd see it?
because I'm pretty sure if someone posted this: http://www6.incrysis.com/screenshots/00025ez6.jpg in the picture thread with "testing out my camera", no one would say HEH...GOTCHA.
i dont think i am tooting my own horn by saying that there is no way i would believe that picture is real
-
it probably took months just to render that damn frame
-
if my PC can play Crysis quite comfortably on high I can't see how it'd take a really good PC that much more to render that real time.
But yeah Crysis is really gr8 looking and the engine can do great stuff, when I first got it and started messing around looking at the map scene some of those guys were doing amazing shit with near-photo realism. These're just average nerds, doing that kinda stuff on commercially avaliable gaming pcs.
-
Yeah I was exaggerating a bit too much, a decent modern computer could render that fairly quickly.
The big problem with "realistic" graphics has pretty much always been character models. Human musculature etc. is so complex it can be hard to render realistic-looking models with picture-perfect textures at an acceptable framerate. Hence you get uncanny valley.
-
Still... imaging how awesome most games will look eventually.
-
The big problem with "realistic" graphics has pretty much always been character models. Human musculature etc. is so complex it can be hard to render realistic-looking models with picture-perfect textures at an acceptable framerate. Hence you get uncanny valley.
No, even pre-rendered humans look off. I think I've only ever seen one 3D render of a human that was not aided by some sort of scanner that was completely photorealistic (and the cloth was not quite convincing enough). I wish I could find the picture because it was quite stunning.
-
http://www6.incrysis.com/screenshots/00025ez6.jpg
im going to try the test out on my mum. results in shortly.
-
let's settle this. do this without cheating.
(http://gamingw.net/pubaccess/57278/fruits-picture.jpg)
(http://gamingw.net/pubaccess/57278/klodaylight_final_web.jpg)
(http://gamingw.net/pubaccess/57278/176411173580358submediuiu4.jpg)
(http://gamingw.net/pubaccess/57278/Solarhouseinterior-thumb.jpg)
(http://gamingw.net/pubaccess/57278/artwork_images_424356278_287813_robert-mapplethorpe.jpg)
(http://gamingw.net/pubaccess/57278/kitchen_old_flash_final_web.jpg)
(http://gamingw.net/pubaccess/57278/predator2.jpg)
guess which are pictures and which are 3d and say why.
-
my mum didnt notice at first, untill i started hinting.
oh, and for steel i think this:
Fruits are real, way too much variety of fruits and the lighting seems very natural
The toilet seems to be, mainly due to the lack of shadow or anything from the little object next to the toilet, on the floor.
The guy has some aspects that makes me think so, the texture on his nose seems very flat and plain. Plus his eyes have too much "shine".
The kitchen seems more than possible, much of the architecture is quite square, but i kinda doubt it.
A naked women's body is hard to imitate END OF (if it was done on the computer, it would be very obvious).
This other kitchen is also possible for similar reasons, but I doubt this one due to the blinding light on the chair at the front.
I can't really tell with the last one, res is too low!
I'm probably completely wrong, but i tried!
-
My argument was that 3D characters aren't realistic enough, so unless you got any vids of 3D people that are moving and speaking then this test doesn't mean anything to me. I know we can render scenes and shit fairly well (though none of the pics in the first post were convincing to me), and I've seen a handful of renders of faces that looked fairly real, but none of that shit matters unless it can MOVE properly.
-
Bathroom and Kitchen looks off to me... hmmm... but I'll say the kitchen anyways.
EDIT: Misread and didn't realize there were more than one.
My guess: Kitchen, bathroom, face.
-
all those pictures look real except maybe the guys face, but that just looks like it's been run through a few filters
-
it's a trick question they are all photos
-
I can't really tell with the last one, res is too low!
the last one's 3d because there's a pair of legs but no body.
-
sticking my neck out and saying the last is a photo.
-
there's a body, it's invisible, you can still see the contours of it though.
-
photo, CG, CG, photo, photo, CG, photo
-
let's settle this. do this without cheating.
guess which are pictures and which are 3d and say why.
Last one's definitely a photo. There's a person sitting in the picture if anyone can see it.
If any, I'd say #2, #3 and #4 are rendered, just because they would be the easiest to render in 3D. Something about the dude's eye in #3 looks unnatural. Seems like there's a "dead" look in the eyes of any 3D model that is almost impossible to put a finger on. Though, I could be wrong, wouldn't be surprised if they're all real photos.
-
no ones gotten them all yet. at first I was going to say X AMOUNT ARE FAKE WHICH ONES but then I realized this is not the hypothetical I said!
also no its not a trick, some are CGI, some are real.
I'm gonna wait for marcus or girlbones since they said they got the other ones instantly. also none of these are screenshots obviously some are just 3d renderings.
-
let's settle this. do this without cheating.
guess which are pictures and which are 3d and say why.
Fruits, Real: Dynamic specular highlighting and organic textures.
Bathroom, Fake: The noise filter does not hide the fact that the lighting is too clean.
Face, Fake: The looks like a composite. I don't even think it's 3d.
Kitchen 1, Uncertain: The Dynamic/ reflective lighting and organic wood textures are very convincing... but there are aspects of the picture that still bother me. The wear on roof looks forced and the placement and design of the windows, doorway, and shelves strike me as odd. As if it where something a 3d modeler would create and not necessarily a designer.
Person with snake, Real: The shading is of a quality I have yet to see in 3D art. The color scheme and noise lead me to believe this is a scan of a photo.
Kitchen 2, Fake: The horrible/ clean lighting.
Table and Chair, Uncertain: I'm not entirely sure what I am looking at. I want to say it's real... but it looks like someone chopped two pictures together. One with a person sitting in the chair and one without.
-
you fucko you linked the image urls.
WE CAN ALL GO HOME! CHAINER RUINED THE GAME.
-
its a little too late now that kaworu is all HEH A MAPPLETHORPE but the fake ones are the ones chainer said were fake. all the rest are unedited except for maybe lighting.
-
kaworu did nothing, nobody saw anything and all is fixed.
-
oh man I thought kitchen 2 was real just really odd color scheme, the light on the chair is really convincing because it's so subtle and not like HEAVENLY GLOW like it usually looks like in CG
but yeah guy's face looks too FINAL FANTASY SPIRITS WITHIN to be real. Like his eyes are too glassy or something, and the wrinkly stuff below his eye
also fruit stand is fake because somebody spelled it GRAPFRUIT stupid european CG nerds - seriously like that picture and all demoscene guys make some pretty realistic stuff until you notice something's spelled completely wrong and it completely ruins the atmosphere - seriously how can you know that much about computers and not SPELLCHECK
-
its fine topics ruined your both gonna die.
-
yeah i recognised the bottom one and the lady with the snake. i think the fruit makes the point though
-
1. REAL - the fruit looks natural, the lighting is different on every dimple of the tangerines, pic is grainy like a photo, tons of details, sense of depth is correct
2. REAL - hmm, this is hard. it is quite SIMPLE and plain, which makes me think it might be generated, but there is't really anything OUT OF PLACE or "wrong." actually, the right side of the toilet paper dispenser looks fishy but that's abut it. there's even some rust on the toilet side.
3. REAL - lots of hair! the photoshopped people i've seen are all "perfect" models with ridiculously smooth skin and perfect contours, but this guy has stubble, you can see the pores in his nose, etc. His hair strands criss-cross in a pretty random life-like pattern, and his iris looks complicated
4. REAL - the hardwood floors are definitely reflecting light in a very complex, scattered manner. assuming the room is symmetrical on the other side, those squares of light on the floor make sense. Depth looks good.
5. REAL - damn, this is b&w so it's harder to tell. her collarbone is poking through the skin, but her knees looks really weird. the wood could be a texture filter, i guess but it looks pretty good. her boob looks naturally imperfect so that's +1 for real
6. FAKE - There's something about the angles that all of the cabinets/ovens make that tell me it looks fake. The oven glass doors are really dirty/grainy, so it's hard to tell if they're reflecting the room objects or not. The chair that got in the way of the camera "flash" is pretty convincing for the REAL side, but I'm gonna go with my gut feeling. Also, i can't tell what the fuck is goin on with that table. Is it glass? Where are the edges???
7. FAKE- whoah this is ridiculous. Is that supposed to be a semi-transparent person sitting at a stool and fallen asleep at the table with his head buried among the newspapers? My mind is playing tricks on me, but I'm gonna assume this is a fake.
-
wow i'm bad at this
-
is the second kitchen really fake? Because it has this feel like every photograph ever taken with a digital camera that I thought would be hard to fake
-
i had a lot of fun picking those btw. like I knew if I threw in a guy who looked too obviously modeled people would doubt themselves, and the mapplethorpe pic helped do the reverse. throw in some generic house photo and a fruit stand and people get flustered.
the point being uncanny valley works a LOT better in motion and with people. something like the CGI head of Benjamin Button still looks fake but it's really really good and the fact that the entire head is fake, the WHOLE THING, for like the first hour of the movie, is pretty impressive. but with still photos, not only do you have to look really close (and you might still be wrong) but they don't have to be people making face movements.
if you really want to understand how people are conquering the uncanny valley, check out Emotions Revealed by Paul Eckman. if you go tot he library there will probably be a hold on it, as fox made a show based ont he book, but he's basically the foremost expert on understanding how emotions come out in the face. it also makes you surprisingly good at noticing weird tics; I noticed my friend had a facial hesitation and an expression of shame for like .1 seconds before telling me he was going to see an MC Chris concert. it's lots of fun. soon gw will become a collective of Monk-like detectives.
-
oh and the last image is from some artist collective that paints people so they match their backgrounds and look like the Predator, I thought most people had seen it before. i think it's called urban camo or something. just helped sow the seed of doubt.
http://weburbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/urban-camo-main.jpg
-
Ah. So there is a person there. They just painted the background on him. I saw this type of thing before... just not that picture in particular.
-
Ok i'm gonna do this without looking at chainers answers just for fun:
fruits - real, because of the blur in the background and close objects, and the coconuts.
bathroom - fake: perfect angles, the window looks like standard 3D stuff
face - fake: wrinkles on his face don't cast shadows properly, too smooth lighting in general
room - gonna say real but not 100% sure, imperfections on floors and ceilings, details outside the windows, make me thing its real. but the architecture is weird, what's the couch doing there for example. if it's a 3D rendering it's a DAMN GOOD one
woman with snake - real (pretty obvious :p )
kitchen - fake. the way the light blurs in the camera lens on the close chair was convincing but you can't fool me:
*reflections in table look fake
*texture on microwave glass has too much contrast to be a real image
*canister on table has unconvincing material
*reflections in glasses on table are too sharp and perfect
*drawer in bottom left is open, no reason for it to be if it were a real photo
Overall it's like a 3D modeller threw in a lot of shiny surfaces. Indoor stuff without people in it are a standard subject for 3D modelling and everything here looks too clean. I'm amazed by the way they blurred the lighting on the close chair though, like it was really through a camera lens
last - real. cant tell what the fuck is going on but, details on clothes, lightning on floor, are too good to be in 3D
EDIT: Whee I think I got them right...?
-
Haha aww fuck I was going to poke into this topic and do the exact game steel just did... I even picked out that picture of that guy #3 (I was going to do strictly humans/humanlike renders). But yeah check out CGSociety if you want to see some stunning shit... that's all I can say.
-
the point being uncanny valley works a LOT better in motion and with people. something like the CGI head of Benjamin Button still looks fake but it's really really good and the fact that the entire head is fake, the WHOLE THING, for like the first hour of the movie, is pretty impressive. but with still photos, not only do you have to look really close (and you might still be wrong) but they don't have to be people making face movements.
if you want to see the failed prototype look up David Fincher Orville Redenbacher commercial
afaik some people really thought Benjamin Button looked too creepy too
-
This was cool several years ago. Now it's just ridiculous. Why care that someone would take the time to invent an engine noone can use to it's full potential.
Perhaps not now, but to me it seems as though we're looking at the graphical potential of the next generation of video-game console titles. For all I know, this may already possible with the PS3.
But I can tell you this: from my perspective, even MGS4's visuals cannot match the depth of the images that Bisse linked to. I was fooled for a second, certainly. There are a couple of giveaway details, but overall it's pretty convincing.
The second kitchen photograph that Steel posted completely had me, though. In fact, I still can't differentiate it from the real thing.
-
MGS4's visuals aren't any better than 360 visuals. Something like 80% of the disc space is uncompressed audio, which is nice but won't be noticeable by the vast majority of customers...
-
yeah we had this exact discussion when I played MGS4 and was really confused how it could possibly take up a whole blu-ray. then it turned out he didn't compress anything for some reason.
-
Wow. Hello 40-min install times.
That's like Doom 3, which had an Ultra high graphics setting that most computers at the time couldn't even run at all because it was so good. Then it turns out it was just the High textures but uncompressed, making a barely noticable difference.
-
oh and the last image is from some artist collective that paints people so they match their backgrounds and look like the Predator, I thought most people had seen it before. i think it's called urban camo or something. just helped sow the seed of doubt.
http://weburbanist.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/urban-camo-main.jpg
This stuff is cool
-
I think that a lot of what it takes to make "realistic" 3d graphics is stuff like motion blur methods, methods of making ray tracing more dynamic, appropriate focal and luminosity techniques, a lot more than just polys and textures. There is also the question of whether or not the digital artists are trying to make something that looks "cinematically real" or "visually real", which I think plays a major role in what kinds of effects they want to use. Persistence of vision in the mind is actually quite different than filmic exposure, so if we are staring at a screen to take in the image, there is the question of "does the artist want to remove the screen or project his image onto it?"
There is some deep ontological shit going on here too that I won't even touch.