Explain to me why we don't just scan in photos of real people and items and use these photos as textures for the best...

Explain to me why we don't just scan in photos of real people and items and use these photos as textures for the best graphics possible.

Wouldn't everything look flat then?

We can. There is a method called Photogrammetry which does exactly that. You can look at Vanishing of Ethan Carter to see how that works. It's actually suprisiningly cheap and quick. It has it's limitations, especially on dynamic objects, but it's slowly making it's way into the industry and more and more studios are embracing it apparently.

We do. Then we have to compress and layer them onto a model of like a tree or a rock so it won't look perfect. There is technology to scan both the rock and it's texture to get an exact texture-to-model result that looks realistic but unless you spend time doing that to hundreds of plants, trees, rocks, etc. you'll end up with a bunch of duplicate rocks and plants in the world. Also it's more expensive and time consuming.

...

There's a porn studio making static models of real life girls for Oculus and shit.

Good for a quick fap.

Up until recently, games couldn't take that many vertices in a scene and still maintain a playable frame rate. As technology progresses we will be able to do it.

For photos, its a resolution issue which is similar, it will bog down the game. Just think about how long it takes to load up a high res photo on your computer.

Why do you think movies always look better than vidya? Theres a reason. The movie doesn't have to calculate physics, gameplay, and everything.

post em

vrgirlz

er we do we've been doing it for at least ten years

Best graphics right here

Didnt sonic adventure 2 do that?

Literally mortal kombat and old resident evil games did that. The problem is we didnt have the raw computing power to translate it to be realistic, detailed and dynanic until now. See games like Battlefront and Ethan Carter.

if you absolutely have to misuse "literally", at least put it in the right spot, grammatically.

Battlefront did this.

big words for a faggot op

FFXV did it and Sup Forums flipped their shit for not using a 10 year old stock photo instead

The texture is not the only thing that defines how something looks in real life. There are a ton of material properties that can't be recorded just by camera.

Isn't that what the RE4 HD guy is doing?

Already getting done.

The future is here, boys. I await my Hive for the best faps I'll ever have.

This is a silly argument. Movies have pretty realistic grafix, and they're recorded just by camera.

IT'S PAYNE! WHACK HIM!

A movie does not need to present every material in the scene in 100 different lighting conditions and a billion different viewing angles

Point taken, I didn't think about that.
I wonder how fast you'd be rocking into the uncanny valley if you use a photo as a texture in a 3D game and apply different lighting effects.

sauce?

Dude are you fucking stupid. Look at battlefront

Uncanny valley refers to what people look like, not a bunch of plants or whatever.

that is what they do, retard

Google.com, they do tons of such photo scans. Don't jerk your dick off.

that's ho uncharted and ff15 do. remember ff15 had a blog entry celebrating the end of months of taking photos of rocks.
The problem is that you can't take andom photos, you need to turn around the object and keep a neutral light with no reflection. It's doable for human in studions, and for small objects but for buildins and trees and other big animals you are going to spen hours and hours taking really small shots and stitching it together.

Dumb frogposter