When is the last time you looked across the street and couldn't see the side of a building in broad daylight because it was in its own shadow? That pic on the right isn't a better depiction of reality IMO. Sure the one on the left is to bright in some spots but I still like it better than the one on the right.
When is the last time you looked across the street and couldn't see the side of a building in broad daylight because it was in its own shadow? That pic on the right isn't a better depiction of reality IMO. Sure the one on the left is to bright in some spots but I still like it better than the one on the right.
blckgrffn
Diamond Member
No, it is the way AA and HDR is applied. According to an interview with some high up guy in Nvidia that was in the news section a while back, the only way to have them both is to have the game engine do the AA.
Originally posted by: Ginfest
Glad to see the voice of reason in amongst the nonsense we see posted here daily, thanks Ben
Oh BTW, your reminder that HDR is a DX standard as opposed to an nV feature makes me wonder how many of the usual suspects that posted in this thread are critical because they assumed that it was an nV feature, hence it must s**k?
Maybe thier opinions will change once they educate themselves on the finer points
Nah:laugh:
HDR is a DX feature, but OpenEXR is an nV feature that does the HDR.
Thing with HDR is its better in motion, as HDR in real life should make things like coming from a dark corridor with the light at the end of it very bright so you can barely see it because the eyes have only been adjusted to darkness so bright lights are far brighter than supposed to be.
HDR really works well when there is a big contrast from dark to bright as in real life the eyes have to get accustom to one of the contrasts and this will leave the other side of the scale overly bright or very dark.
HDR with those shots where things are really reflective and shiny shouldnt be like that unless the user is in a dark room at the time.
So if HDR is a DX feature why is nVidia touting it as one of the "3"? Are ATI cards completely incapable of rendering HDR? I know ATI cards are supposed to be able to do it okay in Lost Coast.
Its marketing. Even tho there are different ways, as weve only seen the one way at the moment. But as time goes on there will be better and more advanced ways of doing HDR.
Their HDR can be touted as because ATi dont have that specific way of doing it which is using OpenEXR.
blckgrffn
Diamond Member
So you don't have these features, and you make up a sarcastic post to tell everyone they aren't worhtwhile.
To what end? I don't understand what is accomplished by threads like this other than starting an argument over the feature set of the current cards.
The thread was to simply say that that pic made HDR look pointless. That's all. You just need something to worry about.
rbV5
Lifer
- Dec 10, 2000
- 12,632
- 0
- 0
HDR is far from pointless, although the early implementations for gaming graphics may make it appear so.
HDR is an emerging technology, with various implementations in various imaging solutions, gaming graphics being just one narrow aspect
Here is a decent paper on existing and emerging HDR technology Link.
Comparisons of HDR images using different methods Link
Photography is where HDR offers an obvious benefit that is easily seen.Link and Link, and now Photoshop CS2 has HDR image features Link
rbV5
Lifer
- Dec 10, 2000
- 12,632
- 0
- 0
The other shots dont look that great either. Why do they always have to go over the top? Tone it down some! Its also a little strange that there is this huge light off the statue, and its dark everywhere else. Looks fake, and bad.
People have different preferences. To many (myself included) the shot without HDR looks better. It looks too fake, too bright, and just not as good to me. Your attitude makes you look foolish and ignorant.
People have different preferences. To many (myself included) the shot without HDR looks better. It looks too fake, too bright, and just not as good to me. Your attitude makes you look foolish and ignorant.
I wonder if they could do partial selective HDR so things arent overbrightened. (ex, in SC:CT, the stone wouldnt look like a mirror, but sam would still have much more detail on the body. All this reflective metallic stuff dosent look right on most stone or ground textures.)
I think SC:CT looks the best, out of all the games Ive seen.
Ive reinstalled Farcry after getting this GTX, because of a great mod I wanted to try. And I got XP 64-bit last week, and wanted to try the new patch. For the heck of it, I tried HDR again. And again I didnt like it. Killed my frames, and was just too bright most of the time. Some parts of the game is looks really good in, but then some pars it looks too fake and washed out. I tried several settings, just didn work right for me. Not to mention I didnt get playable frames, at all. For me, the 64-bit patch is a MUCH better graphical upgrade. You can see much farther, and things come into play much earlier.
Ive reinstalled Farcry after getting this GTX, because of a great mod I wanted to try. And I got XP 64-bit last week, and wanted to try the new patch. For the heck of it, I tried HDR again. And again I didnt like it. Killed my frames, and was just too bright most of the time. Some parts of the game is looks really good in, but then some pars it looks too fake and washed out. I tried several settings, just didn work right for me. Not to mention I didnt get playable frames, at all. For me, the 64-bit patch is a MUCH better graphical upgrade. You can see much farther, and things come into play much earlier.
Wait so...Is there a way to have sm 3.0 with AA?yes right? I like how HDR looks but too many jaggies if AA cant be enabled.
Yes you can have AA and SM3. SM3 is not HDR per say.
As of now, you cannot have AA enabled with HDR. Which is a major complaint for me. Because to get playable frames (to me) you have to lower the res down, which makes jaggies more apparant. Its not a tradeoff I would make.
As of now, you cannot have AA enabled with HDR. Which is a major complaint for me. Because to get playable frames (to me) you have to lower the res down, which makes jaggies more apparant. Its not a tradeoff I would make.
The makers of Halflife 2 are going to eventually release HDR enabled levels, but not for the whole game. In their words, most of the existing levels in the game look better without HDR.
AznAnarchy99
Lifer
- Dec 6, 2004
- 14,695
- 117
- 106
Originally posted by: blckgrffn
When are we going to see lost coast for HL2? Or is out already? I haven't had installed for awhile
Nat
soon i hope.. at least they finally have it in the "Play Games" list
Left definitely looks better but it seems like you could do about the same if you turned up the contrast and brightness for the image on the right?
Originally posted by: Nextman916
Wait so...Is there a way to have sm 3.0 with AA?yes right? I like how HDR looks but too many jaggies if AA cant be enabled.
The only reason why AA cannot be enabled is because AA is applied before the FP Buffer applies the Tone Mapping for HDR. So AA has to be switched off otherwise it will look wierd and conflicted.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter