New Source *Stuff*

[ZoFreX]

ARGHHHH. Look, new technologies are great. Really, I love them, but if you are aiming for immersion, try to make it look like I am in the scene itself and not in the scene, but looking through a camcorder. HDR? Great, except that if I sit in a pitch black room with it on, I get HDR from the game and my eyes at the same time. And don't even get me started on motion blur. You read that explanation of motion blur and its causes on the linked site? Great, thats totally correct. That is exactly how motion blur works. On a camera. However, my eyes are not cameras, they do not see in frames. Yes yes, I know that people are going to insist that they do, but they do not in fact take "frames", and although the effect is similar, it is not the same. Look at you monitor. Looks like a normal picture right? Now film it with any camcorder, and play it back. See the lines and distortions? Thats because our eyes do not work the same way as a camera. The point is this: if they are planning to have ferraris drive past at 120 mph, 2 meters or less from my body in games, then fine, chuck in the motion blur, its great, because the damn thing would blur in my eyes as well, so I won't see the effect. But nothing else is going to move fast enough to cause blur in real life, so don't replicate it in the game.

This is in dnager of going down the same road as lense flare did 7 years ago. Yes its pretty, yes its clever, but no, its not what a person sees, its what a camera sees.

Like I say, new tech is good, lets just not try and do life through a lense. I prefer life through the eye.

QFT for the last 2 paras, as far as motion blur is concerned tho.. if framerate is high enough, then motion blue isn't required to show motion of fast objects, but if framerate is low then it increases realism. As far as "life through a lense" goes, don't even get me started on lens-flare and HDR

And I do say "my family are going to the house" btw.

 

[OCybrManO]

"nothing else is going to move fast enough to cause blur in real life"

That's weird... because when I reach over to pick up my drink... my hand blurs noticeably if I'm not following it with my eyes. It must be moving at 120mph, right? The only problem with their implementation of motion blurring is that there is no way to tell what you're really looking at or how fast your eyes are moving and it what direction. So, it's obviously going to blur things improperly. It's probably assuming the center of the screen is where you are looking.

EDIT: At most, it might be a little bit too pronounced... but I haven't seen the video in a while and I deleted it.

 

[Bobo.bobo]

This movie is pre-rendered! No one can see it?
Look... there are shadows on he 2, 3, 4 screens, and there are no raytraced shadows on the first image. Strange huh? they just forget to disable it in the renderer (pre-renderer).
Second and the most important: Depth of Field. It is impossible to make it work as good as in this movie. I'm researching with DoF in real-time for a long time and I know that it's impossible to make it work just like that. It is possible to make it work like that but only in specially prepared scenes, so this is not real DoF. Anyway, it is obvious that the rendered it in some 3d program.
It's impossible to blur something right IN FRONT of focus area, cause there should be many, many renders, to render what is behind blurred objects. Look on NVidia demo: Mad Mod Mike. NVidia has done DoF, and only sharp-blurred one, not blurred-sharp-blurred, cause It's impossible to make it properly.
They explained it in Whitepaper.

Here you can see (this black object is blurred, cause of Depth of Field):

You can say that "details from nowhere" came from render of the "background" - yes it is possible, but it would require to render and do copy-to-buffer operation for every blurred object in the scene, and this is too many renders.

This DoF is fully pre-rendered.
I'm waiting for your opinions.

 

[Eejit]

You wearing an asbestos vest btw?

 

[^Ben]

Those are not shadows :roll:

Those are the blurred edges of that object in the first picture.

Thank you, i'll be here all week.

 

[Kouler]

ARGHHHH. Look, new technologies are great. Really, I love them, but if you are aiming for immersion, try to make it look like I am in the scene itself and not in the scene, but looking through a camcorder. HDR? Great, except that if I sit in a pitch black room with it on, I get HDR from the game and my eyes at the same time. And don't even get me started on motion blur. You read that explanation of motion blur and its causes on the linked site? Great, thats totally correct. That is exactly how motion blur works. On a camera. However, my eyes are not cameras, they do not see in frames. Yes yes, I know that people are going to insist that they do, but they do not in fact take "frames", and although the effect is similar, it is not the same. Look at you monitor. Looks like a normal picture right? Now film it with any camcorder, and play it back. See the lines and distortions? Thats because our eyes do not work the same way as a camera. The point is this: if they are planning to have ferraris drive past at 120 mph, 2 meters or less from my body in games, then fine, chuck in the motion blur, its great, because the damn thing would blur in my eyes as well, so I won't see the effect. But nothing else is going to move fast enough to cause blur in real life, so don't replicate it in the game.

This is in dnager of going down the same road as lense flare did 7 years ago. Yes its pretty, yes its clever, but no, its not what a person sees, its what a camera sees.

Like I say, new tech is good, lets just not try and do life through a lense. I prefer life through the eye.

They're not aiming for real life immersion, but rather movie immersion.

 

[Beerdude26]

This DoF is fully pre-rendered.
I'm waiting for your opinions.

Did you even read the article? They said that they use different methods than nVidia :|

 

[ZoFreX]

Bobo.bobo, I think you're wrong - it would be possible to render things behind other things adaptively, by doing an extra pass just over those edges - like anti-aliasing or something. As for depth of field, they never said it adjusted itself automatically or anything - the focal range was probably pre-programmed for that clip, after all these are for making movies, not playing the game.