why do the blink vids have less effects than the big cam vid.

H

HUGEkebab

Hunter
Joined
Jul 18, 2003
Messages
77
Reaction score
0
the cam vid 600meg film seemed to have more advanced lighting and graphical effects than the blink vids. is this because the blink vids run on my dx8 card and hence cannot show the dx 9 effects or is it because the cam vid was somehow warped and showed all these better effects.

im talking about lighting mainly, u know that nice dx 9 lighting.

has anyone else noticed this?

:cheers:
 
quite a few people have wondered wether these movies are rendered real time on your computer, but they are not

regardless of your hardware, everyone will experience the same video (in essence, frame rates can vary)
 
These are made similar to normal movie clips, there just becoming rather popular for showing off new games because it can give you a much better picture of whats being played.

Far-cry is another 1.
 
jesus thats pretty bad cus these blink vids dotn look half as impressive as the 600 meg vid, the lighting effects and stuff r not in the same league in the bloink vids.

am i mad. im convinced the shaky cam vid had much better graphics on it.
 
You got some pseudo-anti-aliasing thanks to the shaky cam. Of course it looks better.
 
that's pretty much the reason. the smoothing out of the jaggies which are extremely prominent in the bink videos. if they had fsaa cranked in the bink videos, you'd be saying the same thing about them. I remember a long time ago before the first playstation came out. There was a full page add for ridge racer showing off the cars and I was totally blown away by and insanely psyched to get it. it turns out that sony was using fraudulent advertising, and they were anti-aliasing all of the graphics in the magazines to make it look better. imagine my surprise when i got the ps home and was confronted with tons of horrible jaggies. I pulled out the magazine and took a closer look and saw what was really going on. anti-aliasing makes a WORLD of difference.
 
It appears as though AA is on in the Tunnels and Bug-Bait videos.
 
First off, LOL @ BLOINK
Second of all, after seeing the 600Mb version and telling my girlfriend and friends how awesome it was and buying a 9800 Pro was a TERRIBLE experience. Especially when I saw the first G-Man video and only got worse with the second. The graphics are not nearly as nice as I thought them to be. :(
 
...do i sense a dissapointment there?
That g-man was the most beautiful 3d-rendered face i had ever seen (except for Alyx' and no i am not gay). if that's what it's gonna look like in realtime while playing, you won't hear me complain (and with that 9800pro of yours you can turn up anisotropic filtering and anti-aliasing, making it look way better overall ;))
 
lol yeah bloink im king of typos guys.

um yeah, my main problem wasnt the jaggies cus i know anti aliasing was off, it was that the lighting effects seemed much less impressive on the vid and it looked a bit stale compared to shaky cam fotage, i mean look at the luight coming through the windows on the shaky cam (and the light on the characters) then look atthese blink vids. not the same, ive had them running side by side.

oh well.
 
thats what you get when you record stuff from a projector or screen.. the lighting wont look the same. diffrent colours etc, brighter. you name it
 
The graphics are not nearly as nice as I thought them to be
Click to expand...


thats exactly how i feel too. i mean the physics are nice, but the graphics are pretty crappy compared to doom3. i mean even some parts in chaser looked better than half life2 bink vids.
 
I posted this another thread of similar subject:

...I think that's because we were watching shaky cams or lower resolution Quicktime movies of the feed. It kind of blurs the gaming engine look and makes it feel more realistic.

Here's my best example. The other day, I watched "Jurassic Park" on a local TV station that was transmitting in analog. I watched this on my 32" analog TV and the special fx looked nothing short of stunning, almost...dare I say..."real", especially for a 10+ year old movie. Then, out of curiousity I popped in my DVD copy of it and watched the same scenes on my computer monitor in hi-definition goodness. Know what I saw?

CGI, robotic puppets, and blue screens.

It still looked great; don't get me wrong. But with the advent of high-res video, we have become spoiled from special fx - it's harder to mask their believability when you can no longer make the fx in high res and scale them down to lower res for viewing.

When I first saw the shaky cams of the Half-Life 2 E3 clips, I felt like I was almost watching a film - it looked "that good". Now that I can see the BINK's in 1024 x 768, I can see aliasing and some bump mapping on models that...well - I shouldn't even be able to tell that they were bump mapping on models! See what I mean, though?

It's almost as if the Half-Life 2 game footage looked better scaled down - almost more believable. But now that we have the original high-res clips, we can tell that it's CGI.

IMHO, it still looks damn good - and the gameplay will more than make up for these gripes. I think it's just a lesson that illustrates that we are still pretty far away from photo realistic gaming.

Cheers,

EnochLight
 
I really don't get what people are complaining about!
THE HALF-LIFE² BLOINKYDOINK VIDEOS LOOK AMAZING! :D:bounce:

Really, are you even dissapointed at the blink videos? i don't get that.
The graphics are beautiful, the AI and physics seem great too! Remember that AA and AF aren't used either, so that may increase the quality too when HL2 comes out.
As for the lighting: maybe the brightness of the vids are a little too high, i'm not sure, but maybe when you turn down your brightness a bit, and increase color temperatures (if your monitor supports it), it'll look better.
 
Traptown was not close to beautiful. physic are awesome, but graphics are good,not great.
 
yeah the garfics are great...guys it's like you're saying that it's been done before or something like that..it has not! ...game looking that great are in dev. but they are not out yet!... you have just been spoiled too much...HL2 is nothing but beautifull! gerrr ;)
 
Re: I posted this another thread of similar subject:

Originally posted by EnochLight
...I think that's because we were watching shaky cams or lower resolution Quicktime movies of the feed. It kind of blurs the gaming engine look and makes it feel more realistic.

Here's my best example. The other day, I watched "Jurassic Park" on a local TV station that was transmitting in analog. I watched this on my 32" analog TV and the special fx looked nothing short of stunning, almost...dare I say..."real", especially for a 10+ year old movie. Then, out of curiousity I popped in my DVD copy of it and watched the same scenes on my computer monitor in hi-definition goodness. Know what I saw?

CGI, robotic puppets, and blue screens.

It still looked great; don't get me wrong. But with the advent of high-res video, we have become spoiled from special fx - it's harder to mask their believability when you can no longer make the fx in high res and scale them down to lower res for viewing.

When I first saw the shaky cams of the Half-Life 2 E3 clips, I felt like I was almost watching a film - it looked "that good". Now that I can see the BINK's in 1024 x 768, I can see aliasing and some bump mapping on models that...well - I shouldn't even be able to tell that they were bump mapping on models! See what I mean, though?

It's almost as if the Half-Life 2 game footage looked better scaled down - almost more believable. But now that we have the original high-res clips, we can tell that it's CGI.

IMHO, it still looks damn good - and the gameplay will more than make up for these gripes. I think it's just a lesson that illustrates that we are still pretty far away from photo realistic gaming.

Cheers,

EnochLight
Click to expand...

youve hit the nail on the head, exactly my thoughts, i agree it mmust have been the shaky cam made it look more realistic, im quite dissapointed actually by the blink, not half as good as stalker looks.
 
The graphics are just as amazing. It's just that your fanboyish self got hyped up over a blurry video, and immediately assumed it was the greatest thing you'd ever seen, because nothing is better than HL!

By the way, it's Bink.
 
ahhahah ok pal. dude i duuno why u guys get upset when someone else has a different opinion about the graphics. to me they aint that great. to me the doom3 gfx look waaay better.


look at the window shatter in traptown, hahahah that looks so crappy.
 
check out far cry which is set to be released around christmas. this video is nothing short of amazing. what's great about it is that even with direct feed videos, it looks just as good. for some strange reason valve didn't completely move to the new shadow and lighting systems that doom3 and far cry are. they're missing out on a huge ability to scare people and things because of it... ugh... anyway, check this out if you haven't seen it. it was the interview that giga.de put up.

http://www.filerush.com/torrents/FarCry Giga.de E3 video DivX5.0.avi.torrent
 
oh yea farcry is dope man. i totally forgot about this game. the maps are supposed to be pretty huge also.
 
man most of you guys are not answering HUGEkebab's question, he's not complaining about hl2 graphics or gamelpay, he's just wondering why hl2 videos in quicktime looks better than in bink. Compare the videos carefully, you will see what I mean. Of course, the bink one has better resolution and looks clearer and the quicktime one looks blurred. However, the quicktime one seems to have better color and lighting effect. I had a similar thread lately and you guys don't stop bs in my thread and giving me some very confusing answers. btw, maybe doom3 or far cry or whatever crap will also look worse in bink than in other video format.
 
er... we specifically covered why we think they're different, mainly because of the anti-aliasing effect. colors are one thing, but having insane jaggies all over the place is going to make your video look bad no matter what. same thing goes for all the ads for playstation games that show tiny screenshots in the magazine. But once you get the game home and up on the big tv is looks horrible. rather simple answer.
 
festivalman, I got your point from your previous post, you don't need to post it again. I said most of you didn't answer the question on this thread but I didn't mean all of you didn't...
 
not all the effects are on (so says gabe)...
that cant be in 1024x768... looks more like 800x600 or lower.
Hl2 still looks breath taking, I cant wait to slap on all the graphical effects.
what I didnt really notice before the binks, was the sound.... I love the positional audio... crank up that srs and give it a listen :D
 
its BINK! not BLINK, B-I-N-K
"Bee" "eye" "en" "kay"

BINK

BINK

BINK

BINK

B-I-N-K

B-I-N-K

B-I-N-K

"Bee" "eye" "en" "kay"

"Bee" "eye" "en" "kay"

"Bee" "eye" "en" "kay"
 
dont forget, doom 3 videos and pictures are "direct feed", and there is a leaked alpha version.

doom 3 has always looked "better" than hl2, its done by the king of engine design, John Carmack...btw quakecon in 8 days...W00T!

im looking forward to HL2 more than doom 3 however, due to the fact that the first HL ruled so much, and the physics engine in HL2 is amazing, the gameplay is gonna be awesome, the graphics are amazing...
 
btw, all the pics and videos for doom 3 are only in medium quality...
 
holy ****, if you tell me that u like doom3 better than hl2 and u show up ur ass here only to spoil hl2, i'm going to burn down ur house, maybe kill ur pet also.

the thing is that I'm crazy, I don't like there are too many good games out there; the world of gaming needs hierarchy and absolute regime, like hl rules over quake, unreal and all other crap, so I don't have to play all of them.

btw, what's quakecon, tell me more about it.
 
what's Quake Convention? i mean what's the game like, how is it? what type? what story? or what so ever could make the game original, special and fun......
 
every now and then you get snapped back to reality and to the realization that most of the people playing these games never had a computer before CS came out...
 
im looking forward to HL2 more than doom 3 however, due to the fact that the first HL ruled so much, and the physics engine in HL2 is amazing, the gameplay is gonna be awesome, the graphics are amazing...
Click to expand...


yeah same here, im looking for hl2, and i cant wait for it to come out.




doom 3 has always looked "better" than hl2, its done by the king of engine design
Click to expand...

yeah i played the d3 alpha and it looks f*ckin insane. the graphics rip up hl2's graphics.
 
DOOM3 = Great graphics/shadows/A.I.

HL2 = Graphics not as good as doom3, Great A.I., Awesome as hell physics engine

They both have good spots.
 
i'm wondering how much great AI can really be shown in tiny hallways like doom3. so far cry has the best i've ever seen where they strategically advance and hide based on how many are in their group. so far we haven't seen any AI in these halflife 2 demos other than the enemies moving straight towards you.
 
In my opinion, the hostages in Counter-Strike have better A.I. than humans.
 
haha i'd sit there and run at full speed into a wall for 5 minutes if i were in the same situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
Half Life 2 Video Details And Stuff (with new format!)
2
Replies
65
Views
5K
Gorgon
Gorgon
Back
Top