In what Universe is this not good IQ?
You guys must be trolling, as OP stated.
Careful, that's artistic vision.
No need to imagine, just apply small fix and remove that trash.
Yes, it looks incredible. Absolutely nailed the FILM aesthetic they were going for, thanks to FILM grain....Is this a good IQ?
Everything is blurry and fuzzy.
Top one looks better. Bottom one looks stale and boring and unfinished.Is this a good IQ (bottom without CA)?
You might fuck up your eyes if you look at this for too long, your brain thinks your eyes can't properly focus (many people can't handle CA in games).
Is there film grain and CA in this shot from the Odyssey? I see some motion blur but im too blind to see CA and film grain. All i know is that it looks amazing and i wish games looked like this at night.
All of them look better without this shit on screen.Went from looking like a Cinematic piece of ART, to a cheap, cookie cutter Netflix show that doesnt know anything about post processing.
Hellblade II
RE9
Alan Wake 2
GTA 6
HALO
Crimson Desert
Black Flag
Black Myth WUKONG
Quite literally all of the best looking games this gen are covered in CA and film grain.. its a you problem
What? It is pretty much a lock to win best cinematography. Its stunning use of real light over post processed digital mess we've been getting the last few decades is precisely what you guys want, no?
There isn't even a gameplay trailer.
You mean on consoles. My condolences.
What? It is pretty much a lock to win best cinematography. Its stunning use of real light over post processed digital mess we've been getting the last few decades is precisely what you guys want, no?
Are you implying those Renaissance hacks had an understanding of art on the level of Ninja Theory? Are you insane?
yes, but even those legendary artists took liberties and didnt just create a 1:1 photorealistic painting did they they? these paintings you use are heavily stylized.All of them look better without this shit on screen.
I protest that we don't see CA, FG and Radial Blur on 500 year old paintings from great masters!! Looks like they didn't know what true ART is!!!!1111
because we are specifically talking about cinematography here.
Games don't, though. There's nothing wrong with stylization when it's genuine artistic expression, not just cheap effects used to make the image look artificially worse.
I disagree. i think games have even more limitations because even if you can scan in photorealistic textures and assets, you will see need photorealistic lighting to get them to look good. We've seen how poor lighting can bring down good character models. If they have to rely heavily on post processing effects to get them to look good without needing path tracing or 50 tflops GPUs then i guess thats a pretty big limitation they have to get around, and they are using these cheap effects to get there. For now at least.
For the same reason modern movies recorded digitally still have film grain. They are added to convey something beyond what the camera captures. Is that always effective or done meaningfully? Definitely not. But there is something to it... It shouldn't be seen as any different than color grading. Every movie has color grading. As a result, they rarely ever capture reality as-is. It would look like a documentary or soap-opera if 1:1 replication and maximum IQ was always the goal. It would be objectively better, but less effective in its subjective impact. It loses visual identity and every movie would start looking the same.You know why film grain is even present in the old movies shot on film? Because that's the physical feature of film, you don't have that in your eyes or modern digital cameras.
Game devs do the same, why?! What's the fucking point? To fuck up the contrast on OLED screens (nothing can be black with FG on)?
And yet, even after the switch to digital, filmmakers and DPs far more talented than us are keeping those effects. the tried removing it and movies looked like they were shot on camcorders.CA and FG were never intended effects in the first place, they are just properties of early cameras and film tape.
Right now they simulate those effects because some people are nostalgic. Same way we see some shitty video quality to simulate dogshit videotapes from the 80s
Do we need games to look like this?
I disagree. i think games have even more limitations because even if you can scan in photorealistic textures and assets, you will see need photorealistic lighting to get them to look good. We've seen how poor lighting can bring down good character models. If they have to rely heavily on post processing effects to get them to look good without needing path tracing or 50 tflops GPUs then i guess thats a pretty big limitation they have to get around, and they are using these cheap effects to get there. For now at least.
Halo is getting rave reviews for its graphics from virtually every corner of the internet, from fans to tech critics to industry artists on youtube, and only this thread and a few others seem to have an issue with CA. Everyone else is impressed by the graphics fidelity regardless of the so-called bad CA implementation.
I am looking at the gifs below and marveling at the water quality, the fantastic lighting, reflections and asset quality. The CA is not distracting in anyway. Even Gonzito who thinks CA is gay keeps raving about the graphics. Again, it's really not that big of a deal.
For the same reason modern movies recorded digitally still have film grain. They are added to convey something beyond what the camera captures. Is that always effective or done meaningfully? Definitely not. But there is something to it... It shouldn't be seen as any different than color grading. Every movie has color grading. As a result, they rarely ever capture reality as-is. It would look like a documentary or soap-opera if 1:1 replication and maximum IQ was always the goal. It would be objectively better, but less effective in its subjective impact. It loses visual identity and every movie would start looking the same.
Criticizing the very existence of artificial flaws in movies/games is like criticizing distortion in a guitar solo. Those are artificial flaws too. Perfection doesn't have to be the goal. That's not the purpose of art.
I actually think this shot would have been more potent with more film grain. Not less. It still looks too clean and a little bit at odds with the scene's context. It's just not messy enough. Purely subjective opinion.
The "eye" argument is not valid either. First person games are just PoV cameras. Rarely eye simulation.
I do agree there is something to be said about when these defects are effective and when it is not. But I do believe it's all subjective. Your appeal to logic isn't as strong an argument as you believe. There is not much logic either way, just like we can't actually see the veins in our eyes when we are low on health. All of it is make-believe. Some of it just more effective than others. And finding that right balance is the job of an artist. Some are simply better at it than others.
I agree with these. All fair points. Devs are definitely abusing it and using it to fill gaps in render quality. The Mirage shot, for example, does look more unfinished without CA. But it can be headache inducing with CA. There's just no winning either way. That's a failure of art direction.
They also never use these effects globally.
I don't see what you mean by "limitations" here. Developers have complete freedom over the rendering. It can be realistic or not.
You're marveling (I'm too) at the game's graphics. That's not the same as image quality.
They don't, though. _Some_ of them use it for artistic purposes, but it's not _that_ common.
Good, that's YOUR choice.And I am turning it off for players intent.
That's YOUR opinion.
If the devs added it, it was intended, what don't you understand?
This is opinion. period. simple.
No one is saying that there shouldn't be options, the problem is that there are asshole opinions saying "CA, Film grain and motion blur don't belong in video games, they arent movies!!!111!!"
I agree it's not as common in movies anymore, but its not that rare either. Massive films well known for their cinematography still use it. A lot of good TV shows as well. Here's an analysis on Dune, The Batman and Project Hail Mary, all captured first on digital. They went to great lengths to bring film grain back into digital. One of the techniques is called film-out. They print the digital imagery onto film stock and then scan it back to digital. Completely unnecessary from an objective standpoint and intentionally "ruining the image". But the end result is a more striking visual presentation.
So what? It's ARTISTIC INTENT... what don't you get? These effects are added to convey a mood or tone. Lawd have mercy lol.
Where does ARTISTIC INTENT stop though? Is low detail textures artistic intent? Is flat lighting artistic intent? Is low poly models artistic intent? Couldn't all of the above be labeled as artistic content ie added intentionally by Devs to portray a mood or tone?
Artistic Intent can be anything. Art isn't a science, but art can be badly implemented.
Side note, happy 1000 page-threadResetEraVetVIP
Hope to see you there at 2000 when we are all talking about the Playstation 6.
Was literally about to post this... great minds... congrats
I like CA very much. Don't fan of Film Grain. My OLED getting dimmed when per pixel Motion Blur kicks in, therefore I don't wanna use it but I like MB as well generally.
So come at me bros!
Note: I definitely support the idea of making these things optional. Let people play with what they like most.
While we are on the topic of camera defects, how do people feel about lens flares these days? I still cringe when I see it being slapped on as a replacement for actual lighting. Plenty of it in Wolverine. The one below is acceptable. Actual bright laser beam causing a "flare":
But I can't stand these types of bullshit headlights that can't even light up the road ahead, but "flaring" to cover up that fact.
Even spotted one in GTA 6
Can't wait for the complete transition to megalights-style solutions so we don't ever have to see these anymore. These are objectively being used as crutches to hide rendering inadequacies. Flares are not a replacement for real lighting!
they are both visual mediums. TV shows have also switched to making sure they look just like movies. Everyone realizes that movies have figured it out and those defects were actually a blessing in disguise because it lets them standout.
Represent.
Go there and stop spamming this thread with your blurry shots please: https://www.neogaf.com/threads/chro...n-vignette-do-you-like-these-effects.1699589/
While we are on the topic of camera defects, how do people feel about lens flares these days? I still cringe when I see it being slapped on as a replacement for actual lighting. Plenty of it in Wolverine. The one below is acceptable. Actual bright laser beam causing a "flare":
But I can't stand these types of bullshit headlights that can't even light up the road ahead, but "flaring" to cover up that fact.
Even spotted one in GTA 6
Can't wait for the complete transition to megalights-style solutions so we don't ever have to see these anymore. These are objectively being used as crutches to hide rendering inadequacies. Flares are not a replacement for real lighting!
