NOTICE Notice: This is an old thread and information may be out of date. The last post was 870 days ago. Please consider making a new thread.
Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 78910111213 LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 256

  Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.   Thread: rFactor 2 WIP HDR comparison screenshots

  1. #201
    Beemer's Avatar
     

    Newer Member
    Oct 2010
    it's not about monitor calibration if lighting intensity is too high ..it will burnt white/lite colors awyway...and make shadows too dark.

  2. #202
    Lazza's Avatar

     PC Specification Where I race 

    Registered
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Australia
    LCDs are great... but there's a reason graphics pros use CRT or more expensive options. You can throw a lot of these 'contentious' HDR shots on screen, and turn them from 'too dark' to 'too revealing' simply by moving them to the top or bottom of your screen - or move your head so you're viewing them from a different angle

    Quote Originally Posted by K Szczech View Post
    On the other hand, I believe it's a mistake to try and recreate what you see with your eyes in real life. It's simply impossible to put all that color range in 8-bit displays of our monitors.
    It's all the same fairly hopeless striving towards 'realism' whether it's graphics, physics, track detail, wheel/seat feedback, or anything else isn't it? Even if you had a screen capable of reproducing exactly what you would see when looking at a specific object (or point on that object) from a specific place at a given time, season, etc etc, it'll be wrong as soon as you look 10 pixels to the right because the image won't adjust like your eyes would. So then what? Eyeball tracking so the image adjusts realistically based on where you're looking, obviously also compensating for your ambient lighting and its effects on how you'll see the screen...

    No matter the area in the sim it's always a representation of reality, not an attempt to replace the real world with a computer program. Doesn't matter how it looks, some people will say it's unrealistic because we'll all have our own idea of what's actually 'correct' (bearing in mind correct isn't even possible to produce!)

    The glass-half-full viewpoint is that we should be happy we're getting to the point of arguing such fine details when it comes to judging whether a generated image looks real; a far cry from the days of solid polygons, sprites, or (gasp!) wireframe...

  3. #203
    K Szczech's Avatar
     

    Registered
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Poland
    If you had a minotor capable of displaying real values you wouldn't have to adjust anything - you would simply output values you rendered onto screen.
    There would be hovewer problem with what's around monitor. When game takes place at night, user would have to play the game at night with lights turned off, so his eyes would adjust to what's displayed, not what's around monitor.

    And there would be of course risk, when game crashes and goes back to desktop, suddenly smashing user in the face with blinding light
    Anyway that's not the case here, so let's not go to far off topic.

    Of course I wasn't saying renderers shouldn't aim for realism - they of course should. What we can't do is to present that rendered image to user in it's original form. That's why HDR implementations use dynamic exposition to adjust to that image before displaying it on screen and that's why they use bloom to give impression of something very bright.

    What I'm saying is if you take a photo of something, you may see that colors, brightness, contrast etc, do not look spot-on like the object you just photographed, but that doesn't change the fact that what you see on the photo looks realistic to you.
    That's why I don't find it to be some "holy thing" to try and display exactly what you rendered. You may process it in order to make it fit better onto limited display devices.

    I gave an example here: LINK
    Image on the left attempts to display exactly what has been rendered, while image on the right introduces non-linear exposition to simulate effect of taking a photo of what's been rendered.
    Contrast drops, saturation drops - yeah, sure - but does the image one the left look life-like? Well, it tries to display true-to-life values, but fails because it's impossible on our monitors. Image on the right doesn't try to look like real life, just like a photo, and succeds in that.

    That's my point. In my opinion it's better to succeed in making photograph-like graphics, than fail in creating life-like graphics.
    Last edited by K Szczech; 10-02-11 at 09:30 AM.
    SRPL Shader Pack v0.92 is now available for modders: announcements / discussion
    "Be kind whenever possible. It's always possible." - Dalai Lama

  4. #204
    mclaren777's Avatar

     rFactor 2 Validated PC Specification @rFactor2Updates 

    Registered
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Quote Originally Posted by ZeosPantera View Post
    Just calibrate your display to the best of your ability. Don't guess or just turn your monitor down to spite itself. Use these calibrate.

    http://i.imgur.com/406m4.png http://i.imgur.com/97VkS.png
    Any chance you could re-post these pictures using Minus.com instead? Imgur compresses them.

  5. #205
    Pandamasque's Avatar

     PC Specification @Pandamasque 

    Registered
    Oct 2010
    For those who complain about HDR making things too dark at dawn/sunset:


  6. #206
    O11's Avatar
     

    Registered
    Oct 2010
    Though I have no interest in joining the HDR discussion I have to say that what cameras show is something entirely different than the eye sees in real life.
    t's a stylistic choice that has to be made. Do you choose realism (what the eye sees) or percieved realism (what the cameras have shown racefans for decades and they now percieve as real).
    The problem is that the "realism" choice can be experienced by the users as "unremarkable". It's just bland because it's what we know from everyday life. Putting emphasis on contrast and lighting effects can spice things up and give the users more of what they expect in terms of excitement.


    Same with sound. The interior enigine sounds of racecars in games have way too much exterior exhaust note in them a lot of the time. Because that's what the fans know and love. There are ofcourse cars that DO sound epic from the interior.

  7. #207
    Pandamasque's Avatar

     PC Specification @Pandamasque 

    Registered
    Oct 2010
    Quote Originally Posted by O11 View Post
    Though I have no interest in joining the HDR discussion I have to say that what cameras show is something entirely different than the eye sees in real life.
    t's a stylistic choice that has to be made. Do you choose realism (what the eye sees) or percieved realism (what the cameras have shown racefans for decades and they now percieve as real).
    The problem is that the "realism" choice can be experienced by the users as "unremarkable". It's just bland because it's what we know from everyday life. Putting emphasis on contrast and lighting effects can spice things up and give the users more of what they expect in terms of excitement.
    Is it even possible to depict what you actually see while staring directly at the sun? I don't think our eyes and brains are capable of seeing normally in such conditions. It's like trying to simulate hallucinations.

  8. #208
    O11's Avatar
     

    Registered
    Oct 2010
    Yup. Haha, I think there's some kind of paradox here.

    To simulate what the driver sees we show them what we see in real life, but shown on a screen that's not what you see in real life.

  9. #209
    ZeosPantera's Avatar

     PC Specification 

    Registered
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NYC
    The only way to avoid doing any HDR would be to have a monitor capable of brightness equal to the sun so that looking at it in-game causes our real eyes to open and close our iris.

    Since I like these in-car video's I will post two that I have been holding back on.

    First is a Ferrari F40 LM showing what a real driver goes through. Look at that man drive.


    Here is a very recent lap of the Nurbergring Nordschleife done by the 580HP Chevrolet Camaro ZL1.


    This on-board video is a very good one because the camera seems to be mounted to a flexible stabilizing arm and moves almost like a real head. Kind of like the head movement in rFactor emulates.

  10. #210
    Carbonfibre's Avatar

     PC Specification 

    Registered
    Oct 2010
    Location
    England
    Quote Originally Posted by O11 View Post
    Do you choose realism (what the eye sees) or percieved realism (what the cameras have shown racefans for decades and they now percieve as real).
    The problem is that the "realism" choice can be experienced by the users as "unremarkable". It's just bland because it's what we know from everyday life. Putting emphasis on contrast and lighting effects can spice things up and give the users more of what they expect in terms of excitement.
    Here I was thinking that the camera is "realism" because our brains are so easily fooled.

    So really, we endeavour to calibrate cameras to what we interpret as real...

    You know what, I'd rather not get unnecessarily philosophical either because it's such small feature. If people want a temporary "white-out" when coming out of a tunnel and that's a feature people want, then it should happen.

    Instead ISI's top priority should be shaders.

    Just look how much more real the latest batch of shots from C.A.R.S is, based on how much better their graphic engine materials are responding to light.
    I cherry picked that for lowest light conditions.

  11. #211
    LRT24's Avatar
     

    Newer Member
    Feb 2011
    I think you are right - the shaders, the reflections, the textures, the shadows all need to be really sorted before you start messing around with things like HDR.

  12. #212
    Woodee's Avatar

     rFactor 2 Validated PC Specification @woodee_uk 

    Registered
    Oct 2010
    Location
    UK
    Quote Originally Posted by Alesi View Post
    yeah!! they makes only 10% (finished in 2012, started not long ago), but there u can find more videos then ISI does (we still looking on some WIP pictures after 3 years). they (C.A.R.S) every weeks making game, its a new build every weeks, they asking for opinion on customers.. what about ISI? nothing, only wip pictures...and new (old) videos, that can makes anybody who can use video programs((( this game will kill iracing, rfactors, and others. And u may continue makes your game, maybe someday u finally finished it, but there will be 2014.. and graphics will be too poor and too old.. WELL DONE!!
    Don't buy RF2 then.

    CARS Vs RF2 ..... Apples Vs Oranges

    CARS is a community/commercially funded simulator. ALOT different to what ISI has created. You can't compare the two so why bother?

  13. #213
    Beemer's Avatar
     

    Newer Member
    Oct 2010
    Actually peoples misunderstand what HDR really is...HDR is summary from those effects (SSAO, Bloom ..etc) C.A.R.S use hdr as well to force lighting , but now
    released version using effects very neutrally...everybody who purhased , can push the button and start adjust effects and hdr types..and realize it using HDR ..

  14. #214
    K Szczech's Avatar
     

    Registered
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Poland
    I think you are right - the shaders, the reflections, the textures, the shadows all need to be really sorted before you start messing around with things like HDR.
    First you need to develop a solid lighting system (including shadows of course).
    Then it doesn't matter if you go for HDR or for shaders/materials first. It's only important to get both right.

    Sometimes it's also helpful to have HDR working before you get on with serious work on textures. Especially when you're using non-linear tone mapping that can change appearance (brightness, contrast and saturation) of objects.

    Actually peoples misunderstand what HDR really is...HDR is summary from those effects (SSAO, Bloom ..etc)
    I can see that you don't understand what HDR is either

    Rendering things using HDR means you're unrestricted in terms of lighting, reflections and blending. SSAO has absolutely nothing to do with HDR. Bloom also has nothing to do with HDR in fact.
    SSAO and Bloom are postprocessing effects while HDR is all about freeing rendering engine from restrictions of 24-bit color palette and then fitting it onto screen at the end which may (but doesn't have to) include postprocessing techniques like tone mapping.


    In other terms - in HDR you no longer think of colors, but of light intensity. For example - in classic rendering you would say that sunlight is white (RGB = 255, 255, 255). Nothing can be brighter than white and that's it. In HDR however, you can say that sun has the intensity of (0.8, 0.8, 0.8), but you can say that it has intensity of (5000.0, 5000.0, 5000.0).
    So as you can see, the whole point of HDR is to get rid of unnecessary restrictions and calculate lighting in real-life values.


    Another example - when you turn on your headlights during sunny day, you'll find that they don't light things up that much, but during night they of course make huge difference. To get that without HDR game would have to weaken headlights during day which is a workaround, not realism.
    With HDR you can make sun produce light intensity of 100.0, moon produce 1.0 and headlights produce 10.0 during both night and day. When camera (eye) will adjust to current brightness of the scene, then you will get the impression that headlights are weak during day, but the actual value of their light intensity is the same.


    That's exactly what HDR is for - to work with real values of light intensity.
    Last edited by K Szczech; 10-16-11 at 05:19 PM.
    SRPL Shader Pack v0.92 is now available for modders: announcements / discussion
    "Be kind whenever possible. It's always possible." - Dalai Lama

  15. #215
    Ernie's Avatar

     PC Specification 

    Newer Member
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Quote Originally Posted by K Szczech View Post
    In other terms - in HDR you no longer think of colors, but of light intensity. For example - in classic rendering you would say that sunlight is white (RGB = 255, 255, 255). Nothing can be brighter than white and that's it. In HDR however, you can say that sun has the intensity of (0.8, 0.8, 0.8), but you can say that it has intensity of (5000.0, 5000.0, 5000.0).
    So as you can see, the whole point of HDR is to get rid of unnecessary restrictions and calculate lighting in real-life values.


    Another example - when you turn on your headlights during sunny day, you'll find that they don't light things up that much, but during night they of course make huge difference. To get that without HDR game would have to weaken headlights during day which is a workaround, not realism.
    With HDR you can make sun produce light intensity of 100.0, moon produce 1.0 and headlights produce 10.0 during both night and day. When camera (eye) will adjust to current brightness of the scene, then you will get the impression that headlights are weak during day, but the actual value of their light intensity is the same.


    That's exactly what HDR is for - to work with real values of light intensity.
    Great explanation. Thanks.

  16. #216
    Beemer's Avatar
     

    Newer Member
    Oct 2010
    like i said , there isn't just HDR...it's many things summary which you see in ya displayed image ..when talking about "HDR" ..below you can take a look Valve's
    method.

    http://www.siggraph.org/chapters/sig...01d-technology

  17. #217
    mclaren777's Avatar

     rFactor 2 Validated PC Specification @rFactor2Updates 

    Registered
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    I wouldn't be surprised if C.A.R.S. had a development team that was five times the size of ISI (100 vs 20).

    Comparing the products made by each studio is somewhat unreasonable.

  18. #218
    Lenniepen's Avatar

     rFactor 2 Validated PC Specification 

    Registered
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Quote Originally Posted by mclaren777 View Post
    I wouldn't be surprised if C.A.R.S. had a development team that was five times the size of ISI (100 vs 20).

    Comparing the products made by each studio is somewhat unreasonable.
    I disagree with you. Just look at what K Szczech is capable of, on his own.

  19. #219
    K Szczech's Avatar
     

    Registered
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Poland
    Quote Originally Posted by Beemer View Post
    like i said , there isn't just HDR...it's many things summary which you see in ya displayed image
    Well, you said something different previously: "HDR is summary from those effects (SSAO, Bloom ..etc)" - that's why I replied

    Quote Originally Posted by Beemer View Post
    ..below you can take a look Valve's method.
    Outdated
    It was designed to be compatible with Shader Model 2.0 hardware like GeForce FX or Radeon X. For example, you couldn't do blending in HDR on that hardware - that's why blending is done in LDR in Valve's implementation.
    Current implementations assume Shader Model 3.0 hardware as minimum (or even 4.0) and therefore are much simplier and allow everything to be processed in HDR.
    SRPL Shader Pack v0.92 is now available for modders: announcements / discussion
    "Be kind whenever possible. It's always possible." - Dalai Lama

  20. #220
    Pandamasque's Avatar

     PC Specification @Pandamasque 

    Registered
    Oct 2010
    Quote Originally Posted by Alesi View Post
    yeah!! they makes only 10% (finished in 2012, started not long ago), but there u can find more videos then ISI does (we still looking on some WIP pictures after 3 years). they (C.A.R.S) every weeks making game, its a new build every weeks, they asking for opinion on customers.. what about ISI? nothing, only wip pictures...and new (old) videos, that can makes anybody who can use video programs((( this game will kill iracing, rfactors, and others. And u may continue makes your game, maybe someday u finally finished it, but there will be 2014.. and graphics will be too poor and too old.. WELL DONE!!
    Don't be fooled, CARS is not a new sim, it's NFS SHIFT3.

Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 78910111213 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •