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

161–170 of 219 posts

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

#161

Post by chihuahua »

pflenker wrote: post #127

I skipped the text and looked at the images and was unable to understand if they were supposed to be bad or good examples. I liked them. Then k read through the text and learned that they are supposed to be bad examples. But why though? I suspect that either I am not good at this kind of thing, or this is a purist thing, like „don’t put pineapples on pizza because they don’t do that in Italy“. I don’t want games to l…

I totally agree. The example pictures in the article look fine.

I don't know what the author wants, but perhaps it's some kind of industry insider view similar to where "true artists' make movies that are so dark you can't see anything, and the dialog is quiet mumbling and the sound effects are ear-shattering. Perhaps there's an equivalent to that in games.

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

#162

Post by the__alchemist »

Arainach wrote: post #61
windward wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some games are sold just so the end user can enjoy exercising their new GPU and monitor. Crysis and Control come to mind.

>Control Did we play the same game? Some of the best lore-building and environmental theming around, paired with some cool mechanics? Sure, the combat got repetitive but this was hardly something to "just sell GPUs"

I was a bit confused by this aspect of control. It was lauded as an example of a top-tier graphics. I liked the game, but its graphics felt mid to me. Maybe due to the grey indoor environments?

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

#163

Post by epolanski »

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…

It's not about being realistic but good looking.

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

#164

Post by theshackleford »

SirMaster wrote: post #126

This seems pretty irrelevant now. This article is from 2017 which is before we had proper real HDR support in Windows 10 and much better HDR support now in Windows 11. And before we had OLED gaming monitors which can actually now display good HDR at 1000+ nits. This was definitely during a transitional phase with mostly fake HDR techniques that needed tone-mapping. Now we have real HDR that doesn't need tone-mapping,…

> And before we had OLED gaming monitors which can actually now display good HDR at 1000+ nits.

It’s worth pointing out these monitors for the most part can not sustain it or achieve it at anything other than the smallest possible window sizes, such as the 1-3% window sizes at best.

> Now we have real HDR that doesn't need tone-mapping, or only a small amount of tone-mapping above the display peak nits point.

For the reasons outlined above (and other) tone mapping is still heavily required.

It’s worth noting that OLED TVs do a significantly better job at displaying high nits in both percentage of the display and in sustaining it. It’s my hope the monitors eventually catch up because I waited a long time for it to become monitor sized.

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

#166

Post by ehnto »

rendaw wrote: post #42
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.

I think, like polygon count, resolution, FPS, etc, realism is very easy to objectively assess and compare even with no artistic background, which makes it a target both for gamers (who want to explain why they like a game, or debate which game is better) and studios who want something they can point to. IMO it leads to really stilted experiences, like where now you have some photo realistic person with their foot hov…

I totally agree with your last paragraph except to add: there has actually been some great advances in interaction, but people vote with their playtime, and I think the reality is that the "median gamer" is totally content with WASD + mouse/the typical controller thumbstick movement. In the same way that so many are content that many game mechanics boil down to combat and health bars.

I am personally not content with that and I explore all I can, and am trying to make games that skirt the trends a little bit.

But that stark contrast between visual fidelity but a lack of interactivity has been a pet peeve of mine for a while. You can even do so much more with just mouse and keyboard interactions, but I think it's overshadowed by the much lower risk visual fidelity goals.

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

#167

Post by tmtvl »

Swizec wrote: post #89
tmtvl wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Photorealism is a bad idea if your movement engine isn't good enough to handle the character walking around on uneven terrain. For racing games or flight simulators or such it is less of a problem, but seeing a regular person being absolutely flummoxed by a knee-high wall is massively immersion breaking. It's something I really noticed when playing Disaster Report 4, where the people look amazingly realistic but some…

> For racing games or flight simulators or such it is less of a problem, Cars are also easier to make photorealistic. Less uncanny valley effect, lots of flat shiny surfaces. What absolutely breaks immersion for me in most AAA car games is the absolute lack of crash, scratch, and dirt mechanics. Cars racing around the track for 2 hours don’t look like showroom pieces! Make ‘em dirty darn it. And when I crash into a w…

I seem to recall hearing that car manufacturers only allow their vehicles to be licensed for use in games if they won't really get visually damaged. Kinda funny to see cars just bounce off each other in Gran Turismo. But rally games tend to be better at that (I may have lost a door or two (or a few dozen, but who's counting) in WRC).

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

#168

Post by kllrnohj »

chihuahua wrote: post #161
pflenker wrote: post #127

I skipped the text and looked at the images and was unable to understand if they were supposed to be bad or good examples. I liked them. Then k read through the text and learned that they are supposed to be bad examples. But why though? I suspect that either I am not good at this kind of thing, or this is a purist thing, like „don’t put pineapples on pizza because they don’t do that in Italy“. I don’t want games to l…

I totally agree. The example pictures in the article look fine. I don't know what the author wants, but perhaps it's some kind of industry insider view similar to where "true artists' make movies that are so dark you can't see anything, and the dialog is quiet mumbling and the sound effects are ear-shattering. Perhaps there's an equivalent to that in games.

> I don't know what the author wants

If only they had written an article about what they wanted...

> but perhaps it's some kind of industry insider view similar to where "true artists' make movies that are so dark you can't see anything

Nope, it's not that.

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

#170

Post by andybak »

theshackleford wrote: post #152
treyd wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this an interesting argument. I wonder if it's a generational thing. If we define immersion as "your vision focuses on what's inside the screen and you ignore the world around the screen, and you mostly ignore that your control of the player character is through a keyboard and mouse", then I've experienced immersion with every first person game ever, including Minecraft . I never considered that some people mi…

> VR to be, while very cool, not some revolutionary new technology VR despite its limitations is the one thing I’ve ever achieved “presence” in, as in feeling if for a brief moment, I was actually there. Elite dangerous, OLED Unit, HOTAS. For a brief moment in time my brain believed it was in the cockpit of a spaceship.

I had a similar experience in a a game meant to simulate regular city car driving.

Most releveant to this comment thread however was the fact that the graphics were very crude and not in a good way. I absolutely dispute the claim that realism equals (immersion/presence - I'm not getting involved in the debate about the distinction between the two)

Post reply on HN