Comments on: No Need For The Real?

By: Crispy

Crispy — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 18:13:34 +0000

The Bravia ad was originally made with the intention of getting across the three qualities of beauty, richness of colour and sharpness of picture. I hate to say it but the Far Cry attempt only really flirts with the beauty factor because it’s lacking in the other two departments. It’s a noble effort, though.

By: Al Fire 101

Al Fire 101 — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 02:34:06 +0000

They actually dumped 250,000 bouncy balls and they have a new commercial out that is with play-doh. Its amazing and you can find it: http://bravia.sony.eu/bravia.html

By: Kadayi

Kadayi — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 01:06:30 +0000

@Jens Arnesen

I say we might never achieve it partly because, reality is so much more random than man made virtual creations tend to be. Even really high end animations don’t hold up under scrutiny, take for example the recent Beowulf film. Impressive CGI all the way through, and no doubt the result of some serious render farms, a single frame can look pretty realistic, but when it’s running and in motion, the illusion falls apart quickly. As Muzman says, the more CGI pushes, the more people become adept at spotting it. I recall when the Abyss came out and everyone was like ‘whoa’ about the water tentacle scene. Now you look at it and think…that’s some bad CGI, but at the time it blew people away.

By: caesarbear

caesarbear — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:14:37 +0000

While it does look quite impressive, I am hoping that those of you claiming that you can’t tell reality from CG are just engaging in hyperbole. There is still a very long way to go before a computer can completely fool a human eye.

By: Muzman

Muzman — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 21:50:08 +0000

It’s not a matter of perspective, it’s a matter of experience. The audience is gradually becoming more visually sophisticated and learing to recognise consciously the errors that present themselves in such material. Unconsciously you always knew something wasn’t quite right.

By: Sum0

Sum0 — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 21:39:47 +0000

I agree with Jens, photorealism is a matter of perspective. I remember the first time I saw Max Payne or even Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, and they looked so real… Now, of course, they’re outdated, but it’s marching on so fast that we won’t be able to see the joins in a decade or so. (Look at the leap between HL1 and Crysis in 10 years, and then extrapolate…)

By: Muzman

Muzman — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 21:39:25 +0000

Yeah, it’s cute that what would have been pre rendered a few years ago is in real time and they went to a lot of bother, clearly, but it does serve to illustrate that it’s not there yet.
(The traditional CG stumbling block of motion blur is still the biggest giveaway. It doesn’t help that the Crysis using folks didn’t even attempt to replicate the high speed work in the original ad, by the looks).
Cute though. They should have just remade it instead of the whole picture in picture thing (with the crysis frame generally the smaller). Maybe that version is floating around somewhere.

By: Zell

Zell — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 21:38:59 +0000

Jens: Aye, but when you’re looking at the 20-year perspective it’s not the quality of the rendering that’s the choke point, but of simulation. Movies have absolute control over their environment. Games have to illustrate a dynamic reality, and the more precise they get at showing nuance, the more work you have to put into simulating the nuances. Sometimes, the obviously CG is better than the almost-perfect-yet-eerile-just-a-bit-wrong-on-some-animal-level.

By: Masked Dave

Masked Dave — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:33:07 +0000

(apart from the chicken at the end it’s almost impossible tell which is the real ad, well, the chicken and the labels.)

Eh?

All I saw was Crytech saying ‘Wouldn’t it be great if we looked this good?’

That was a really damn poor advert for their engine. (If they’d compared it to any other game engine doing the same thing I’m sure it would have been great, but that’s not the point.)

It’s like that solider game that’s advertising at the minute that starts with live action and then shows you exactly how much the game doesn’t look like that.

You don’t compare yourself to what you’re not as good as.

By: terry

terry — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:15:07 +0000

Procedural rust, anyone?

edit: dang I miss that comments preview :(

By: Jens Arnesen

Jens Arnesen — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:17:25 +0000

Kadayi: “Never” is a very strong word. Remember when the first Far Cry came out? Everyone thought “this is as realistic as it gets!” – and look at Far Cry 2 trailers now, just a few years later. I think photo realistic videogames are not too distant into the future – perhaps 20-30 years, at a minimum. The medium is evolving insanely fast, and well-done CGI effects are almost indistinguishable from actual movie material already, it’s only a matter of time before they take the leap and leave you in control of it.

By: Phil

Phil — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:55:52 +0000

My sight is so poor after years of infrequent blinking and games induced eye strain NES graphics look photo realistic to me.