PDA

View Full Version : High definition computer graphics of the future



civix
02-15-2003, 03:26 PM
Do you think there will ever be a console that has graphics that look like they were real life?

Magos
02-15-2003, 04:05 PM
In the future, I guess so.

Theoretically, you just have to send the same data as the eyes send to the brain to give a 'real' simulation.

Panopticon
02-15-2003, 04:42 PM
Its possible in theory... but then I wonder what the fps of a person's vision is... [if u can measure it like that]

dP munky
02-15-2003, 04:51 PM
i dont think a persons vision is digital, im not sure, but i think if you showed me a thousand fps i would be able to see it just as easily as 60fps.........right?

Travis Dane
02-15-2003, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by dP munky
but i think if you showed me a thousand fps i would be able to see it just as easily as 60fps.........right?

No, It's 100. Why do people always say it's 60? ITS 100! At
least for me. Anyway, I do think graphics will reach the real
level eventually but it's going to take ages, And i mean really
ages, something like....150 years?

dP munky
02-15-2003, 04:59 PM
i think people say 60(and the reason i said 60) is because a lot of games run at about that rate

Travis Dane
02-15-2003, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by dP munky
i think people say 60(and the reason i said 60) is because a lot of games run at about that rate

Wrong again!:D Games run at 100 (at least most can be set to
run at 100), The thing in question is your VSync wich with most
people is not that high, about 75 or so.

[edit]

I made a post about VSync let me look it up.

[edit2]

Dred! Can't find it! At least the search can't.

dP munky
02-15-2003, 05:36 PM
GRRRR ok, on MY cheezy crappy 16mb graphics card computer im lucky to hit 60 fps :)

Cheeze-It
02-15-2003, 06:33 PM
10 years from now graphics will be photo-realistic... Look how far
graphics have come in the last 10 years. Huge difference in what
we see now compared to what we saw then.

Besides, photo-realistic rendering is already possible. There are
images on Alias|Wavefront's website that are impossible to
tell if they're rendered or realistic.

Look at this picture.

http://www.aliaswavefront.com/en/etc/mayamasters/portfolios/alceu_baptistao/800x600/kayaposelow3_800.jpg

It's only a matter of time before there are GPUs that can render
that in real time. I mean, it's been almost two years since nVidia
and Square rendered the Final Fantasy movie in real-time (or
2.5 fps. I don't know if there's a set framerate that defines "real-
time.")

Besides, remember that Pixar video with the two lamps that was
released in the late 80s? That took forever to render back then;
but when nVidia was showing off the Geforce 3 -- they were
rendering it in real-time.

I don't know if I'd even want to play photo-realistic games, though.
I generally like the more creative, cartoonie/anime-ish graphics.

civix
02-15-2003, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by ethic
10 years from now graphics will be photo-realistic... Look how far
graphics have come in the last 10 years. Huge difference in what
we see now compared to what we saw then.

Besides, photo-realistic rendering is already possible. There are
images on Alias|Wavefront's website that are impossible to
tell if they're rendered or realistic.

Look at this picture.

http://www.aliaswavefront.com/en/etc/mayamasters/portfolios/alceu_baptistao/800x600/kayaposelow3_800.jpg

Its pretty easy for me to tell that one's rendered. Look at the eyes. Pretty digitalish-looking, no?

Travis Dane
02-15-2003, 06:42 PM
When whey're talking about about this, I've taken it into
assumtion that realtime graphics was ment, Yes, We can render
near real images on the pc but that takes alot of time (5 hours?),
And whey're talking realtime here, that means 60FPS. The FF
movie wasn't all that impressive on the graphic front, At least
that's my opinion. It's true that we've advanced quickly over ten
years but are still far from photorealistic.

Travis Dane
02-15-2003, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by civix
Its pretty easy for me to tell that one's rendered. Look at the eyes. Pretty digitalish-looking, no?

Her hat looks a little fake as well to me.

OneStiffRod
02-15-2003, 08:01 PM
I think the eyes see at 20fps - or maybe just a little bit more - the eyes can be easily fooled remember and something that runs at 60fps fools the eye into seeing something that is continuous.

I think your TV runs at a 60fps rate and movies have a higher quality - it's the amount of data that can be pushed out per frame or second that really matters.

If you've ever seen a ray-traced scene, those look absolutely real b/c it handles lighting the best way possible - if u find a way to accurately fool the eye with your lighting technique in another way than ray-tracing (faster) then realistic games are just around the corner, otherwise it's a bit of ways off.

...
02-15-2003, 08:43 PM
in actuality, television runs at 30fps, and movies only 24fps.

the minimum fps rate to trick your eyes into seeing movement is 12fps.

Cheeze-It
02-15-2003, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by Travis Dane
Her hat looks a little fake as well to me.

Okay, let's try another.

http://www.aliaswavefront.com/en/etc/mayamasters/portfolios/alceu_baptistao/640x480/kayaposelow1_640.jpg

That is photo-realistic. I don't even think it's a debatable issue.

Any imperfections you see probably come from the artist, not the
technology. Pretty soon, the artists will be more important than
the programmers... (in game-makin')...

golfinguy4
02-15-2003, 09:39 PM
In the first one, the eyes looked unrealistic.

In the second one, the lips look unrealistic.

Silvercord
02-15-2003, 10:46 PM
in actuality, television runs at 30fps, and movies only 24fps.


I read in OpenGL superbible that it's 24 frames per second. But also keep in mind televisions blend frames together, you aren't seeing just one frame at a time, you're seeing 3 (current frame, last frame, next frame all blended together somehow). That's why computers need to fun so fast, because it takes up too much processing power to blend frames together (it's possible with the OpenGL accumulation buffer, but not a realistic option).

I would also like to point out that the new engine from id expected to be powering doom 3 and quake4 utilizes bump mapping very effectively. The engine doesn't render alias/wavefront-like scenes, but the texture detail makes things look realer than real (don't bother trying the demo if you don't have a dump mapping enabled gpu). So therefore we're already at 'real life rendering' in a lot of ways.

Cheeze-It
02-15-2003, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by golfinguy4
In the first one, the eyes looked unrealistic.

In the second one, the lips look unrealistic.

Whatever! Have ever even seen another real human? Jeez, she
looks realistic. She just needs a little chapstick.

Silvercord
02-15-2003, 10:52 PM
I wonder if they'd find it unrealisitic if they didn't know it was computer generated. Freudian slip.