JordanN
Banned
I disagree imperfections make something more real.
This image looks "relatively perfect" but is still 100% real.
Or for another example, look at photographs of toys which are meant to be flawless.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Developers: STOP using Chromatic Aberration
- Thread starter Seanspeed
- Start date
I disagree imperfections make something more real.
This image looks "relatively perfect" but is still 100% real.
Or for another example, look at photographs of toys which are meant to be flawless.
azertydu91
Hard to Kill
I'm no technical expert and have no trouble with chromatic aberation myself but it's a real problem for my girlfriend.
As said before if it's sbtle like the order she won't have any problem but just with destiny's hud after a few minutes she starts to get headaches and it can sometimes lead to migraine (reason why she doesn't play dying light anymore).
So please developpers if you really want to use it make it as subtle as The Order, but if not let us at least deactivate that feature.
As said before if it's sbtle like the order she won't have any problem but just with destiny's hud after a few minutes she starts to get headaches and it can sometimes lead to migraine (reason why she doesn't play dying light anymore).
So please developpers if you really want to use it make it as subtle as The Order, but if not let us at least deactivate that feature.
Shivvy_NTL
Member
So thats what its called... I agree too, get rid of this garbage
SeeNoWeevil
Member
Here, let me help you:
Looks like LCD motionblur and no one seems to give a shit about that.
Garrett Hawke
Member
I disagree imperfections make something more real.
This image looks "relatively perfect" but is still 100% real.
Or for another example, look at photographs of toys which are meant to be flawless.
Both of these photos have very slight CA. The bottom one in particular.
JordanN
Banned
Hence "relatively".
99% of the image isn't drowning in CA but still manages to look real because it's already lifelike. Throwing on more CA/lens flares/noise wont do anything but make it muddier.
Looks like LCD motionblur and no one seems to give a shit about that.
Because that is motion instead of still images too and the combination looks even worse.
ichtyander
Member
I disagree imperfections make something more real.
This image looks "relatively perfect" but is still 100% real.
With all due respect, you're kinda missing the point. That image is in fact 100% real, because it's an actual photograph (unless I'm mistaken and it's a spectacularly good render). I was mentioning the effect imperfections have on computer generated or otherwise artificial images. That's the whole point, make something like a CG render, which tends to sometimes be "too perfect" because of too much or a lack of detail, look more realistic and natural than it already is.
So, at least at this stage in CG quality, we really can't create a render that's 100% identical to your cat photo example. If you'd put this photo and a CG render made by the best artists in the world that's trying to replicate the photo, you would still easily notice which one is the CG one. So then the artists will add some imperfections and make the CG render slightly more realistic looking, even if it doesn't match up with the actual photo, which doesn't have some of those imperfections.
Here's just two example renders that use a bit of CA. The effect is subtle, but the images would look (arguably) even less realistic if the CA wasn't there, especially in the case of the second image with the girl.
But it is important to mention that there are some varied opinions on this matter and some artists and people in general prefer CG images without any imperfections whatsoever. You could say that it's a matter of taste, but I think there's an objective value to these imperfections and would go as far to say that most people react "positively" to these imperfections, saying that the images are in some way "better". Of course, I don't know if there has been an extensive scientific study on the matter so we don't really know for sure, but this whole topic on imperfections is something that is encouraged and even taught to CG artists.
And also, realtime videogame graphics don't have a lot of the luxuries of high quality still renders, so the way CA is implemented is a pretty cheap and easy way to add some of that eye candy imperfection to the image without a massive drop in performance. I agree the effect is often overblown but I think it should be used if the artists so wish it, just in a much better and more subtle fashion, at least something similar to The Order. That might not happen for a while longer though, until we get better and more optimized hardware and software effects, so I'm sure we'll be seeing it for a while in this cheap fashion, as has been the case with most eye candy realtime effects over the years.
JordanN
Banned
I'm still not so sure about that.
Those images get close to realism because the actual lighting and texturing used are very convincing, not because CA is on it. If you applied CA to a 1995 Playstation game, it's not going to look better than those renders, because everything about it is still primitive.
I don't have a problem with CA being used because it's going for an art direction. But I disagree with that it's there to make something more real. Someone already said before, Chromatic aberration isn't even a sought after effect in Photography, and there are even Cameras or software meant to get rid of it.
Jedipottsy
Member
Lol, here we go again
Chromatic Aberration is a really nice touch that can be added to all visual effects that when used correctly helps to make something look more real. However game developers often overuse an effect when it is first introduced. Bloom is another good example
Oblivion was one of the first to introduce the concept of 'bloom' and ran with it. Making every surface look like it was glowing with the light of Jesus. Games today still have and use bloom very effectively - in moderation. There also isnt a Photograph or film ever produced which doesn't have CA. CA is a side effect of light and the refraction of light.
Even your eyes will cause light to refract slightly
I think it is a technique that can really add to the realism of CG when used correctly. Ie, a 1pixel shift of 'some' elements, depending on their disatance from the lens, along with the position on screen, ie edges have more CA than center.
not this:
The other problem is game resolution, 1pixel of CA on a photograph, is many many more times detailed than a 1080p game, due to sheer quality of each pixel and magnitude of pixels. Most cameras Shoot around 10-20mp, thats 5-10x the pixel count, along with games having to alias pixels, whereas photographs don't have to 'sample' each pixel, they get the exact value of the light hitting that individual pixel sensor.
that image has multitude of things doing on, pentagonal bokeh (bit noisy for me, personally, detracts from the cat, softer/creamier bokeh would be nicer) and CA for a start, its just more 'subtle'
Example of creamy bokeh (not apples to apples, as this is clearly a lower apperture, but still not much noise in the background)
Chromatic Aberration is a really nice touch that can be added to all visual effects that when used correctly helps to make something look more real. However game developers often overuse an effect when it is first introduced. Bloom is another good example
Oblivion was one of the first to introduce the concept of 'bloom' and ran with it. Making every surface look like it was glowing with the light of Jesus. Games today still have and use bloom very effectively - in moderation. There also isnt a Photograph or film ever produced which doesn't have CA. CA is a side effect of light and the refraction of light.
Even your eyes will cause light to refract slightly
I think it is a technique that can really add to the realism of CG when used correctly. Ie, a 1pixel shift of 'some' elements, depending on their disatance from the lens, along with the position on screen, ie edges have more CA than center.
not this:
The other problem is game resolution, 1pixel of CA on a photograph, is many many more times detailed than a 1080p game, due to sheer quality of each pixel and magnitude of pixels. Most cameras Shoot around 10-20mp, thats 5-10x the pixel count, along with games having to alias pixels, whereas photographs don't have to 'sample' each pixel, they get the exact value of the light hitting that individual pixel sensor.
I disagree imperfections make something more real.
This image looks "relatively perfect" but is still 100% real.
that image has multitude of things doing on, pentagonal bokeh (bit noisy for me, personally, detracts from the cat, softer/creamier bokeh would be nicer) and CA for a start, its just more 'subtle'
Example of creamy bokeh (not apples to apples, as this is clearly a lower apperture, but still not much noise in the background)
ichtyander
Member
But the CA was added to that image with the girl for the exact purpose of making those final touches that more realistic in those lighting conditions, otherwise the artist wouldn't have put the effect in at all. And while I agree with you about the 1995 Playstation game part, I think there are many who would also argue that it would indeed look better or more eye candy with an added CA effect (and other simulated imperfections as well), so there is a matter of taste involved to some extent.
And yet Hollywood, music video directors and all sorts of visual artists tend to put these imperfections back, in what, at least IMO, looks to be a rising trend in popularity. I mean, it's a bit schizophrenic in a way, I know. You could maybe call it a juvenile trend, like Instagram filters, but people react to it anyway. As I said, there are divided opinions on this matter, and I can agree with you on some points but I guess I just like having imperfections in my CG that are usually put there to mask the flaws and perfect lines of CG renders, and CA is no exception when done at least somewhat right.
I know I'm going to be crucified by everyone but I even did a whole playthrough of Dark Souls 2 with SweetFX with pretty much just CA enabled. Blasphemy, I know.
But anyway, I'm just trying to point out to folks in general who ask why would anyone even do this, that there's a reason, a thought process involved in why such imperfections should be used in CG imagery, that's all.
EDIT:
Just wanted to post an example of one of many tutorials by digital artists on how to make CG renders more realistic.
I'm glad this thread got bumped because I'm actually coming around to enjoy the look of subtly applied CA. When done properly, I think it can really add a touch of needed softness to certain graphics.
Of course, when you are able to see the rainbow effect distinctly, you've gone too far.
Of course, when you are able to see the rainbow effect distinctly, you've gone too far.
Bolivar687
Banned
Agreed. I spent a lot of time tweaking The Witcher 3 and decided to leave it on.
FunkyDealer
Banned
Does this work for gameplay? I don't give a toss about photomode.
TouchMyBox
Member
OP, you should play SOMA. Kappa.
Dick Laurent
Member
SOMA is the first legitimately correct use of CA? Think so
yanipheonu
Member
I'm honestly terrible at seeing chromatic aberration, it barely registers with me it's even in these screenshots. Though I'm wearing glasses that constantly get dirty, so I may just be seeing stuff like that day to day.
I do like it In Bloodborne, if only because "Lighting Effect that only happens in Inaccurate Lenses" probably makes sense in "Game where Everything could be a Dream and Illusions are Everywhere". If we see it in Dark Souls III....
And yeah, like any photography trick, it can be use used in both clumsy and appropriate ways, but most should be sticking with proper image recreation otherwise.
Evidence seems to be this is the Bloom Lighting of this generation. Man, at least this is more subtle than Bloom Lighting D:
I do like it In Bloodborne, if only because "Lighting Effect that only happens in Inaccurate Lenses" probably makes sense in "Game where Everything could be a Dream and Illusions are Everywhere". If we see it in Dark Souls III....
And yeah, like any photography trick, it can be use used in both clumsy and appropriate ways, but most should be sticking with proper image recreation otherwise.
Evidence seems to be this is the Bloom Lighting of this generation. Man, at least this is more subtle than Bloom Lighting D:
TheAdmiester
Member
I'm amazed to see defense of this. In every single case, *ever*, where I have seen CA, it looks better without it.
I really like the effect in Teleglitch. It's used on certain environmental hazards and it shows up when you fire a weapon (ammo is limited so it's not nearly as annoying as it sounds).
Destroying the beautiful artwork and image quality with this filter is not worth that tenuous connection. The game should and does deliver that vibe in other ways. I played it pre-patch and the feeling is still there. All it did was give me a headache.
Sniffynose
Member
So all this time I have been buying Canon L series lenses with better or superior CA control I was just making my images "less realistic" and I could have gotten away with just putting beer bottles on my camera for the best/most true to real life pictures.
Wish I had known this 15 years ago it would have saved me tens of thousands of dollars =(
/s
Wish I had known this 15 years ago it would have saved me tens of thousands of dollars =(
/s
ichtyander
Member
Wait 'till you start buying expensive virtual lenses to negate the virtual effects of CA in virtual reality, all the while the software needs to render additional CA to negate the CA caused by the special lenses in the headset. Chromatic aberraception. ;D
Anyway, I'm sure you get the distinction between reality and computer generated imagery that's trying to mimic realistic imperfections while being mostly oriented at mimicking Hollywood and the visual trends in the film industry.
Nobody has yet managed to capture a screenshot or a video of human vision, and people see things slightly differently depending on various factors. Also, you don't really see anyone putting floaters, afterimages, visual noise and all sorts of common phenomena we see every day with our natural vision (would be neat though). On the other hand, film is a visual medium that looks pretty much identical to all of us. So games, also being a visual medium, mostly replicate movies, which are a visual interpretation of reality (with all the color corrections, effects and so on).
So IMO it's silly to say that taking a photo of real life is more or less realistic in any way, since it's reality from the start. All of the other artificially created photorealistic (and otherwise) imagery can be made to resemble a more "realistic" look (in the same way a Hollywood movie looks "realistic", with all of these orange skinned people, teal skies and lens flares galore) if you put it through the filters of all of those imperfections we see through devices that actually record reality.
Then again, you could also say it's silly to purposefully degrade the image quality of a medium, but people have been doing that for a long time.
I don't think CA is about realism. To me, it's a stylistic choice.
Sniffynose
Member
Oh I know, it's just to me and I'm sure anyone in photo/film it must seem insane to purposely degrade image quality no matter the medium unless they are going for the "we filmed our game using a $5 point and shoot lens" lol
I figure it's useless to complain since it's a new trend apparently but in my opinion it's just ugly and serves no purpose other then to check off another filter on the list of effects.
I'm sure people who are actually in photo/film understand why you would want CA just as much as black and white, lens flare, warm white balance, overexposure or any other 'image degrading' technique that enhances a certain feel of the shot.
A video game isn't a photo, though.
A video game is a collection of art assets, often polygons and textures, and they are attempting to blend everything together and make it seem like one consolidated, real piece. Post effects such as CA can help with this.
As has image editing software.
(edit: I thought you said improved, image editing software also has improved--that's the thing the camera captures it as accurate as possible so you have a choice what to do with it; even then, there's a reason why black and white, toy cameras, fish eye lenses and even polaroids are making a resurgence)
Photographers and game makers are working from opposite ends. Photographers are capturing something and game makers are trying to create something. It makes sense, therefore, that a photographer may want to clear away as much artifacting as possible, whereas a game maker is trying to make something seem authentic and consolidated, they might add the artifacting in for that purpose.
Similar threads
- Locked