Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Games Look Bad: HDR and Tone Mapping (2017)

ventspace.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 219 posts

Re: Games Look Bad: HDR and Tone Mapping (2017)

#131

Post by PaulHoule »

dahart wrote: post #98

I truly don’t understand the author’s opinions about contrast here. The RE7 image is the only one here that looks ‘realistic’, and at a glance could be mistaken for a photograph, and he says it’s got way too much contrast. No other image here comes anywhere even close, definitely not Zelda nor GTA5. Personally I think the whole problem with the first 5 images is that they don’t have enough contrast, and they have too…

For me games being too dark and not being able to see anything is a pet peeve. I can see the point in a horror game, but I will set the gamma or turn up the brightness if it makes the game hard to play.

Re: Games Look Bad: HDR and Tone Mapping (2017)

#132

Post by armonster »

otikik wrote: post #128

The article lacks some examples of what "done right" means. It points to some videogames that "do it terribly" (they look ok to me? not photorealistic, but not every videogame has to be like that?) but it does not show how "a correct" version of each image would be. Just says "it looks obviously bad". Sorry but I don't see it. I'm fine with videogames looking videogamey.

The article shows 5 images from games showing it done poorly, and 4 images from games showing it done well.

A fifth image of it done well was added in an edit.

Re: Games Look Bad: HDR and Tone Mapping (2017)

#133

Post by PaulHoule »

kevingadd wrote: post #107
dahart wrote: post #98

I truly don’t understand the author’s opinions about contrast here. The RE7 image is the only one here that looks ‘realistic’, and at a glance could be mistaken for a photograph, and he says it’s got way too much contrast. No other image here comes anywhere even close, definitely not Zelda nor GTA5. Personally I think the whole problem with the first 5 images is that they don’t have enough contrast, and they have too…

One problem with photorealism is a lot of players are on bad displays, or in bad viewing environments. Games often take this into account in their visual direction so that they will be more legible in these different environments. It used to be even worse when designing a game for say the Gameboy Advance or original Nintendo DS where you knew the screen wasn't backlit or wasn't particularly bright so your images need…

I made thermal prints (receipt printer) of concept art from Pokémon Sun and Moon for the Nintendo 3DS and Switch, like this one

https://safebooru.org/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=1821741

and found they did really well because the art was designed to look good on bad screens and poor viewing conditions. I think of it in terms of Ansel Adam's Zone theory in that the ideal image is (1) legible if you quantize it to 11 tones of grey (looks OK printed in the newspaper), but (2) has meaningful detail in most or all of those zones.

I'm kinda disappointed that the Nintendo 3DS version didn't use the stereo effects but they would have had to decided if her hair forms a sheet or a cone.

Re: Games Look Bad: HDR and Tone Mapping (2017)

#134

Post by ethan_smith »

perching_aix wrote: post #28

Note that this post is of course about high internal dynamic range specifically and the necessary tonemapping that then follows for presenting an SDR image, not about how modern games do actual HDR (but then that should be pretty similar on a high level to the extent I understand anyways). > In the real world, the total contrast ratio between the brightest highlights and darkest shadows during a sunny day is on the o…

The static contrast ratio (1000:1+) you mention is different from effective perceived contrast after tone mapping - manufacturers' specs measure black-to-white in ideal conditions, while tone mapping algorithms must compress real-world luminance ranges (millions:1) into that limited display range while preserving perceptual detail.

Re: Games Look Bad: HDR and Tone Mapping (2017)

#135

Post by TurkTurkleton »

markus_zhang wrote: post #96
glimshe wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't need photorealism in games, but it does help with immersion. Many people, like me, feel like they are inside the game world, rather than playing a game with a TV/monitor in front of them. Photorealism is essential for this feeling - at least for me . The most amazing gaming experience I've ever had was walking around the city at night in Cyberpunk 2077. For the first time in my life, I felt I was actually in…

I’d argue that immersion has little to do with graphics, even for FPS. Actually I had more immersion in some text adventure games than in some AAA games — and not out of nostalgia because I never played the said text adventure games before. I’d agree that certain degree of graphics helps with immersion, but photorealistic graphics only offers cheap immersion which turns off the immersion centre in the brain — Ok this…

Agreed. Immersion in a game world, at least for me, is less about how accurately it visually reflects reality and more about how detailed the overall world feels -- whether the designers have crafted worlds that feel like they live and breathe without you, that you could imagine inhabiting as someone other than the protagonist. For instance, I can imagine what it would be like to live in Cyberpunk 2077's Night City, whether I was a merc like V or just one of the nobodies trying to get by that you pass on the street; I can imagine living in Dishonored's Dunwall (or the sequel's Karnaca) in the chaos and uncertainty of their plagues; I can put myself in the shoes of one of the faceless, downtrodden members of the proletariat of Coalition-occupied Revachol in Disco Elysium; a lot of AAA games, on the other hand, feel like theme park rides--well-crafted experiences that are enjoyable but don't stick with you and discourage you from thinking too deeply about them because they don't withstand much scrutiny. But Cyberpunk 2077 is evidence that they don't have to be that way, and Dishonored and Disco Elysium are equally evidence that you don't need a half-billion-dollar budget and photorealistic graphics to create immersive worlds.

(edited to clarify that I'm not laboring under the misapprehension that Cyberpunk 2077 isn't a AAA game)

Re: Games Look Bad: HDR and Tone Mapping (2017)

#136

Post by Arainach »

windward wrote: post #104
badsectoracula wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but Control isn't sold "just so the end user can enjoy exercising their new GPU and monitor", it is sold for gamers to play a great game. And IMO it is Remedy's best game since Max Payne 2 (i haven't played Alan Wake 2 though) because of its gameplay and atmosphere, not because of its visuals (which, do not get me wrong, are great, but that is largely because of the art direction and visual design, not because of…

I don't really see your point. It was used by benchmarking youtubers for that benchmarking, so it at least sold to them for that reason. It's also the reason I bought it: any later enjoyment is unrelated.

Lots of things are used for benchmarking. Very few are made with it in mind.

Crysis' system requirements at launch were so far above what most people had that I'll give you that. Control wasn't that way at all.

Re: Games Look Bad: HDR and Tone Mapping (2017)

#137

Post by pradn »

os2warpman wrote: post #88

Why does everything (in big-budget video games) look shiny and wet? If it is an attempt at realism, reality is not constantly shiny and wet. If it a subjective artistic choice, it is objectively wrong and ugly. Is there an expectation that everything look shiny and wet to make it seem more "dynamic"? Is it an artists' meme, like the Wilhelm Scream in cinematic sound design?

Recently, some of it seems to be just to highlight raytracing hardware. Cyberpunk uses a lot of metal reflective surfaces to give a futuristic/tech vibe. But that's one sort of futurism. There'll be plenty of use of natural stone, wood, and tile far far into the future.

Re: Games Look Bad: HDR and Tone Mapping (2017)

#138

Post by perching_aix »

ethan_smith wrote: post #134
perching_aix wrote: post #28

Note that this post is of course about high internal dynamic range specifically and the necessary tonemapping that then follows for presenting an SDR image, not about how modern games do actual HDR (but then that should be pretty similar on a high level to the extent I understand anyways). > In the real world, the total contrast ratio between the brightest highlights and darkest shadows during a sunny day is on the o…

The static contrast ratio (1000:1+) you mention is different from effective perceived contrast after tone mapping - manufacturers' specs measure black-to-white in ideal conditions, while tone mapping algorithms must compress real-world luminance ranges (millions:1) into that limited display range while preserving perceptual detail.

I'm not entirely sure how that's relevant to what I was saying.

Re: Games Look Bad: HDR and Tone Mapping (2017)

#139

Post by carlosjobim »

dahart wrote: post #98

I truly don’t understand the author’s opinions about contrast here. The RE7 image is the only one here that looks ‘realistic’, and at a glance could be mistaken for a photograph, and he says it’s got way too much contrast. No other image here comes anywhere even close, definitely not Zelda nor GTA5. Personally I think the whole problem with the first 5 images is that they don’t have enough contrast, and they have too…

You're arguing that game engines should imitate photographic cameras, but they should imitate our eyes, which will never blow out whites outside in the sun.

Re: Games Look Bad: HDR and Tone Mapping (2017)

#140

Post by pradn »

markus_zhang wrote: post #30

One big issue I never understood is why do we need photorealism in games at all. They seem to benefit card manufacturers and graphic programmers, but other than that I feel it has nothing to do — and in fact may have negative impact on game quality.

A large section of the gaming public sees photo-realistic games as serious, and prefers them for high-budget games. It's a rat race for devs though - its just incredibly expensive to create high quality models, textures, maps.

I've been playing Cyberpunk 2077, and while the graphics are great, it's clear they could do more in the visual realm. It doesn't use current gen hardware to the maximum, in every way, because they also targeted last-gen consoles. I'm thinking in particular of the PS5s incredibly fast IO engine with specialized decompression hardware. In a game like Rachet and Clank: A Rift Apart, that hardware is used to jump you through multiple worlds incredibly quickly, loading a miraculous amount of assets. In Cyberpunk, you still have to wait around in elevators, which seem like diegetic loading screens.

And also the general clunkiness of the animations, the way there's only like two or three body shapes that everyone conforms to - these things would go farther in creating a living/breathing world, in the visual realm.

In other realms, the way you can't talk to everyone or go into every building is a bit of a bummer.

Post reply on HN