• DX11 Raytracing Running on a i7 + Radeon 5870
    53 replies, posted
DOF is realistic, just the extent to which it used is unrealistic. The only way DOF could be used realistically in games is if it actually tracked your eyes and focused on what your eyes were focusing on point: put your hand in front of your face and focus on your hand, observe the background image, it is out of focus/depth of field. But no where to extent that games do it, because your eyes aren't "focused" on what's out of focus, so if you try to actually LOOK at the background image, it'll automatically focus up etc. also i'd just like to say, it doesn't really look that "Realistic", it's just shiny and gimmicky looking too me, like someone left the exposure on their camera way too high. This could really use a lot of improvement in terms of "Realism", but it's nice to see these kind of effects and raytracing running in real time, that's what's impressive about it to me. reminds me of RTHDRIBL
[QUOTE=Inzalonus;36806184]DOF is realistic, just the extent to which it used is unrealistic. The only way DOF could be used realistically in games is if it actually tracked your eyes and focused on what your eyes were focusing on[/QUOTE] that defeats the point of using depth of field tricks in movies and games. it's supposed to attract attention to help support the visuals of the movie/game/etc. if it was realistic, you wouldn't be able to look at a sample of bokeh for more than a second before your eyes refocus.
Ok I see what you mean now but like Inzalonous said, it's unrealistic when used in games unless you literally only look where your character looks. I always saw it as unnecessary in games because aren't your eyes practically doing it themselves as you move your actual eyes, so no point really doing it from the characters perspective.
[QUOTE=Aurora93;36806246]that defeats the point of using depth of field tricks in movies and games. it's supposed to attract attention to help support the visuals of the movie/game/etc. if it was realistic, you wouldn't be able to look at a sample of bokeh for more than a second before your eyes refocus.[/QUOTE] i suppose it's another situation of artistic vs realistic input then. I'm just saying, if they wanted to go for all out "realism" with depth of field in video games, that's how they'd have to do it. I like the use of artistic DOF in order to emphasize or draw attention in specific areas and shit though, that's always nice
yeah I find it too distracting in gameplay to be honest. it's why I never got why people always used the DOF enb settings for skyrim etc. There's not much of a point, just slows your game down and creates superficial focus that basically forces you to only look at the center of the screen
The future of game graphics? Looks noice.
[QUOTE=dvondrake;36804819]The problem with that kind of DOF is that it blurs the surfaces, but not the final image. So the silhouette of the object is still perfectly linear, and isn't blurred at all (like it should be).[/QUOTE] The problem is, the blur is usually applied as a postprocess after the whole (sharp) image has already been rendered. If you wanted to blur the silhouette of the object in the foreground, you'd also have to render whatever is behind the object, since the blurring of the silhouette would make parts of the object near its edges partially transparent.
Should make a Chess game out of that to replace the standard Windows version
I can't wait for games to incorporate some sort of eye tracking and cornea monitoring to entirely simulate this effect in a way that feels natural.
DOF looks good everywhere except in video games. If I'm looking at my monitor, I want to see shit clearly, just like in real life. [editline]17th July 2012[/editline] Is there a download available for this demo? I want to try it out on my 580 (i5, though)
It's relatively easy to make shiny flat surfaces look realistic. Just look at car racing games like Gran Turismo. Achieving the same level of realism with uneven surfaces, hair, skin, fluids etc. is where the challenge is at. That, and animations.
10 years ago, I literally thought computer graphics could never achieve things like this.
[QUOTE=Sharker;36804465]The dof always annoys me in these type of videos, I feel like it would look a lot less realistic if there wasn't any.[/QUOTE] It's so it doesn't have to load every texture and detail in the file. If there was no DoF it would make the computer explode. :v:
Other than the Bokeh threshold being too low, it looks pretty good. What I mean, is you get ugly blur because the shader (I presume) for the depth of field is making anything that's somewhat bright become a highlight, instead of being smoothly blurred. [img]http://puu.sh/JhQB[/img] [img]http://puu.sh/JhRc[/img] [img]http://puu.sh/JhRY[/img] [editline]17th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=pebkac;36807787]The problem is, the blur is usually applied as a postprocess after the whole (sharp) image has already been rendered. If you wanted to blur the silhouette of the object in the foreground, you'd also have to render whatever is behind the object, since the blurring of the silhouette would make parts of the object near its edges partially transparent.[/QUOTE] You can do gaussian blur DOF in post process using the depth buffer, and if you offset the depth lookup for each sample you can do it without having leaking blur from the object in focus onto the background.
[QUOTE=PollytheParrot;36804377]Eh it kind of hurts my eyes to look at it, because its blurry and my eyes are trying to focus but it doesn't work.[/QUOTE] Well if you're eyes are trying to focus you have an issue. Your eyes focus to the screen. [editline]17th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sharker;36804465]The dof always annoys me in these type of videos, I feel like it would look a lot less realistic if there wasn't any.[/QUOTE] What you're asking for is complete DOF. DOF references what is in focus. A small/shallow DOF is when only a small amount is in focus. [editline]17th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;36805115]Isn't this being rendered on GPUs that aren't even on the market yet?[/QUOTE] 5870 is about 2-3 years old. [editline]17th July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=bobsynergy;36806174]I don't see it, maybe it's cause of my glasses? but it only looks like that without them on and its more annoying then good to look at so I don't understand the obsession of it in games[/QUOTE] You don't see it mainly because your brain don't concentrate on what is out of focus. And due to aperture and the size of our eyes, things don't generally get crazy out of focus. DOF in games is related around a lens for a camera, not so much out vision. Also the DOF scale changes depending on the distance to the lens, this is why macro shots look crazy blurry. Because it's nearly a ratio. 1/3rd of the focus infront of the point, 2/3rds behind it. When you're that close to an object, like a foot or less the blur behind the object looks intense.
[QUOTE=Master Kief-117;36804354]We are starting to reach a singularity in terms of computer animation. Soon it's going to come to a point where even video evidence can't be used in court because it can be falsified using CG. I don't know what the outcome of that will be...[/QUOTE] I don't think anyone charged of such a crime would have the resources or cunning to pull something like that off. I mean it's not as if this was done with one person.
The video is private. Anybody have another link?
[QUOTE=GeneralSpecific;36811951]The video is private. Anybody have another link?[/QUOTE] Why would you even make this private, Some people... honestly.
[QUOTE=MadBomber;36813031]Why would you even make this private, Some people... honestly.[/QUOTE] if this is by the icenhancer guy he's an insufferable whiny cunt despite making some good stuff
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.