4 ms·
interestingly many of us feel that there's a huge gap between the past and now. But how many of us can actually verbalize what will change in the rendering of p
by wiz21c 6y ago
interestingly many of us feel that there's a huge gap between the past and now. But how many of us can actually verbalize what will change in the rendering of pictures in, say 3 years.
For example, I can clearly see that ray tracing produces better results. But it's a bit harder to tell how better it is, to find the words that describes how better it is. Of course, one can say that, for example, photon tracing is more physically accurate. But still, what words can we use to describe how real (or not real) a still image is ("more realistic" doesn't count :-))
- bonoboTP 6y agoGame graphics look sterile, too clean, sharp, plasticky. The real world is messier with less clear separation between objects, things blend together more, subtle shadows, surfaces are less uniform, there is more clutter, dirt, wrinkles, details.
- formerly_proven 6y agoIn games and animations, everything is textured, but few things actually have a texture to them :)
- nightski 6y agoIs that an artifact of the graphics capability? Or the art style? I think the two often get confused and many games are specifically designed for a sterile/clean look.
- bonoboTP 6y agoNot sure. It's hard to analyze as it's more of a visceral impression. It could be in part the way natural environments tend to structure themselves over time, like how we throw our stuff around in natural ways. But also, the design often adapts to the capabilities. Games like GTA3 used to have thick fog just to hide the fact that they couldn't render stuff far away in time. You can say that's an artistic choice to give a smoggy big city atmosphere, but clearly it was a practical choice as well. Even today, game designers like to make things dark, blurry and rainy, so that the un-realism becomes less obvious.