"Graphics realer than life"

[Korian]

Anyone else hear the term "Graphics Realer than life" when shopping at Gamestores? Hmm I guess that't the new sales pitch to sell systems. Why they use the term is beyond me but maybe it works?

[MechDeus]

I suppose the funny part is how insanely ironic it is.

For many games, they actually have to create graphics that are "more real" then real life in order for it to look right. For some reason, if you create, say for example, a pond in a 3D modeling program and have it at the right transparency and reflection and everything as one right outside your house, it will still look fake. But adding more reflection, deeper transparency, using brighter colors, creating more ripples and so on then almost any real pool has will make it look real.

Question I'm still not sure of is: Why? What is it that makes realistic 3D modeling not look real?

[Freeter]

Originally posted by MechDeus
Question I'm still not sure of is: Why? What is it that makes realistic 3D modeling not look real?

That's just how it is. We can imitate reality, but we can never duplicate it, no matter how hard we try or how far we come.

[Lordmrw]

There are so many subtle details that we either don't notice or overlook on a daily basis that would take too long for game developers to imitate. That is why it probably won't be a reality for a long time.

[StriderKyo]

Originally posted by MechDeus

Question I'm still not sure of is: Why? What is it that makes realistic 3D modeling not look real?

Because it's still being projected on a two dimensional medium; a flat screen. Your eyes are being tricked into seeing depth that's not there, so the artist has to overcompensate for the flat display.

[MechDeus]

Originally posted by StriderKyo
Because it's still being projected on a two dimensional medium; a flat screen. Your eyes are being tricked into seeing depth that's not there, so the artist has to overcompensate for the flat display.

But what about movies? We watch things on a 2D plane every day, a flat screen is the primary source of our day-to-day media.

[StriderKyo]

Originally posted by MechDeus
But what about movies? We watch things on a 2D plane every day, a flat screen is the primary source of our day-to-day media.

Yes, and there have been volumes written about how this affects our perception of media. You'll notice that even with high quality cameras and film, anyone on tv wears tons of makeup with glaring lighting, which isn't all that different from 3D programmers overcompensating graphically. You just have to do more to add depth and life to the image.

It's a subtle difference, but apparently one that matters.

[Ranji]

In theater, actors wear even more make-up and lighting is exagerated more than in the cinema as well, but I hardly think that's overcompensation for a three dimensionality which already exists. It's a matter of illumination and of making clear human movement and especially emotions and expressions. Even a cheap unedited home-made video has a likeness to life far beyond any video game. It's a technical matter, that may take generations, but I think eventually the illusion of realism will be achieved.

[MechDeus]

I believe the lighting is to compensate for the darkness of film. Ever film something in room lighting? Dark as hell and you can't see half of what you could in real life.

The makeup thing I understand, especially since so many people tend to be damned ugly that close up (movie theaters... *shudder*), but I'm guessing part of it is just the whole fake/reality bit. We get so used to seeing things that don't actually exist in that state that reality seem less real. I mean, we're so used to seeing perfectly smooth skin in pictures and movies, and yet for CG to create realism we need to make the skin imperfect. God's probably laughing his ass off at animators about that one.

My, we could probably go on forever delving the human mind and the freakish ways it compensates and deals with that around, but a lot of that is far beyond what I comprehend.

[MechDeus]

Originally posted by Ranji
In theater, actors wear even more make-up and lighting is exagerated more than in the cinema as well, but I hardly think that's overcompensation for a three dimensionality which already exists.

Well, that's simply so that people in the theater who are sitting far away can still see the actor's features. That's built for range, but movies and TV are very up-close.