Videogames STILL don't look as good as a 1995 movie

>Videogames STILL don't look as good as a 1995 movie

Other urls found in this thread:

protoimaging.com/3d-animation-terminology.shtml
artstation.com/mblaszczak
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Movies are always going to have better AA and shit, its just how rendering works.

Close enough.

>Sup Forums understanding video and movies

graphics stagnated after 2008

...

the human eye can only see graphics as good as the left picture

>better AA

you can only name shit from settings menu, eh?

>what is ambient occlusion
>what is shading
>what is a radiosity model
etc

Right, they look a lot better. Toy Story looks like a student film shat out with default renderer settings.

>24 fps

look for unintentional polygon clipping

name 7 (sev3n) videogames that look better

*unintentionally quoted

Congratulations, it only took 23 years.

It was made in the fucking nineties. Shit was cash and the story is just as good for kids and adults.

Real time rendering is a bitch. Cant realistically expect nerds to spend days rendering a single fram let on alone own rendering farm to spend the day rendering the shit.

SOMEBODY POISONED THE WATERHOOOOLE

you’re probably that one friend that everyone hates to drag along.

autism

KH3 looks better

>friend
???

am I on reddit?

>scene rendered in real time along with all the other shit the game has to do
>scene rendered over several days in a farm made specifically for that purpose and nothing else

Animated movies arent being limited by hardware, it took 7 hours to render a frame for toy story 3. Video games are limited by how much you can have on the screen from dropped frames and such, its a stupid comparison to compare a rendered movie to a video game

>rendering in real-time STILL uses shortcuts to bypass having to run literal hours-worth of calculations per frame

wow colour me surprised

>tfw surrounded by plebs

Picture on the right is from Toy Story 2. A 1999 movie. You idiot.

How's that video game degree going faggot?

>I legit think they look the same.
look at the eyebrows of Woody

kh3 look drawn
toy story eyebrows have lights and shadows

Good job but it's the other way around you deceitfull faggot.

Did you know that each Toy Story frame took a datacenter worth of hardware an average of 2-3 hours to render?

It also only needed to product 24 frames per each second of film.

...

Where is the best database to start learning about video game graphic terminology like radiosity models, sparse-rendering, etc. that I do not currently know about?

>Picture on the right is from Toy Story 2. A 1999 movie. You idiot.

ready to kill yourself now?

Meant for

toy story (1995)

google each of these terms

protoimaging.com/3d-animation-terminology.shtml

or download blender and look for a guide

How is everything so smooth? Did they use tessellation?

>real time rendering looks worse then pre rendered movie
no shit idiot.

Why, because the image you posted looks considerably worse than the image from Toy Story 2?
I was merely stating that OP was making a false comparison by taking a shot from a 1999 movie and saying it was from 1995.
What exactly was the point of your post?

Thanks

No

Real time hacks like tessellation aren’t a concept in pre rendered movies. It’s just a massive amount of triangles.

>30-60 frames per second
vs
>4 hours per frame

...

delet

Why the fuck would you apply subsurface scattering to a doll's plastic skin?

>How is everything so smooth? Did they use tessellation?
subsurface scattering, a technique that simulates how light is absorbed, scattered and re-emitted by skin

>40 hour game doesn't look as good as a 1 hour 30 minute movie
>EXPLAIN THIS

This scene turns sadder once you know the backstory of why it was in

>yfw the subsurface scattering kicks in

enlighten me, please

...

nice

> In all, Toy Story has about 1700 shots, and each shot has been modeled, animated, texture-mapped, shaded, lighted with a combination of proprietary and off-the-shelf computer graphics tools (running primarily on Silicon Graphics workstations), and rendered on rack after rack of Sun SPARCstation 20s--87 dual-processor and 30 quad-processor SPARCstations (294 processors in all) running 24 hours a day in a special room aptly named the "Sunfarm."

This

Thinking Toy Story still looks good is a sign that somebody is an absolute braindead pleb. Its on the same level of ignorance as saying "the eye can't see past 30 fps".

Literally all the Toy Story movie has going for it, by modern standards, is a high poly count and good anti-aliasing. The lighting is SHIT. The bump mapping is SHIT. There's pretty much only 3 levels of reflection index that they can apply to surfaces and it shows, making even wood and dirt look like cheap plastic.

By by far the worst thing is the lighting. The lighting just looks pathetic, even worse than Unity

That's not even what was used at all, retard

This looks awful. The only thing Toy Story has over modern real time rendering is that it can make things more round and the lighting is better.
Everything else is garbage. Look at how shitty those two pillows clipping into each other look.

>To create the asphalt for the street, for example, Pixar scientist Loren Carpenter merged several photographs of gravel and sand in such a way that the texture looks random enough to be real. "We used a combination of techniques," says Carpenter. "It's semimagic." Among them, the merging of color space coordinates using noise functions to perturb the coordinates so they wouldn't be coincident, and a scaling of the texture that changes as the pictures "swim downstream."

Except right isn't from 1995

They use ray tracing for lighting. The shit you are describing are hacks to make real time rendering look more realistic. They don't use any techniques from your favorite video game's graphics menu.

>lighting is better

absolutely not. They don't have ambient light simulation of any quality, they don't render light from reflections, and shiny surfaces don't actually reflect anything.

>he doesn't know

how does radiosity work
explain it to a brainlet

Looks like 2005 video game bullshot

Your video games don't reflect anything either you dip it just makes a copy of what's in front of it

>According to Susman, the Pixar team initially thought they could render the film over 20 months using 53 processors. Each of the machines in the render farm was named after an animal, and when it completed a frame it would play the corresponding animal’s sound. The number of machines eventually grew to 300, but even that pales in comparison to the computing power Pixar wields today. Susman said that the company now has 23,000 processors at its disposal — enough to render the original Toy Story in real time.

Just get 20k gpus in SLI and you'll run a game like that at a blazing 24fps.

Direct lighting says that "if light bounces from a light source to your eye, it is lit. Otherwise, it is not."

Radiosity takes into account the light bouncing multiple times, like bouncing off the floor onto the wall and then into your eye

A lot of programs that use direct lighting will just fill everything in the scene with a generic "ambient" brightness to simulate bouncing light but it doesn't really work very well

>Susman said that the company now has 23,000 processors at its disposal — enough to render the original Toy Story in real time.

muh dick got hard

What the fuck was Sid's problem?

>2005
this was a year after half life 2 and resident evil 4, user. that looks more like a 1998 bullshot.

>framerate
>mattering at all in renderfarmed animation

I want to fug the ice queen.

Why not pre-render?

unironically kys

>enough to render the original Toy Story in real time.

Even if you had all those processors, could you actually connect them together somehow and build a supercomputer capable of rendering the original Toy Story in real time?

Whoa look at those shit normals

Were they even called normals back then? Is this like bump mapping or some shit?

that's what they have, retard

they work in parallel

So tell me

Explain to a brainlet on this subject, what takes up the majority of rendering time? The lighting?

The fuck you're smoking, OP?
Even the shirt collar clips in the same way.

They really loved their bump maps in the 90s

that and chrome textures

>I had a masters in video game theory

>The lighting?
that and movement

for Monster Inc (2001) each fur hair moved independently

This is something that's always bothered me. How do they manage to cram so much detail into 3D models for pre rendered stuff? Even when you look at some of those shitty student movies, the models tend to have so much detail that it makes my head spin when I think that it might have been made by a single person.

bullshots are pre rendered, just like toy story

Is it possible to use video game tricks to make video games look just as good as toy story 1 if you try hard enough or is such a feat still ways off?

It's a lot easier than you think it is to add "detail".

The easy tricks are to just draw detailed textures and add bump mapping, or using photographs as textures or bases for textures

Computers must've gone into over time any time Sully was on screen.

The biggest barrier to making a game that "looks as good" as Toy Story is that Toy Story had a lot of bad, shitty outdated garbage in its rendering but dumbass 90s kids think those are good things. So, since modern technology isn't designed to let you make ugly crap, it's basically impossible to reproduce exactly.

Treats lit surface as a secondary lightsource, whose characteristics depend on the reflective material. Here you see the red from the floor lighting the ceiling.

>Sup Forums doesn't know what ray tracing is

artstation.com/mblaszczak

1 extremely specialized modeler makes few very character models over a period of time.

Nice photo senpai

nigga the photo is in the quoted post

>all that work for a shit game
dropped tw3 at the griffon

>open world games are bad
>movie games are bad
>Let's make an open world movie game!!!

That cant be real poster can it?
It must be a bot that responds to key words.

You simulate light ray trajectories. What's so hard about that?

video games also aren't art while we're at it

yeah now do that a million times per frame

Why is it always Toy story that people fixate on?

>it's smoother so it still looks better!!!