Jump to content
Fandango831

Photoscan Tech in Games and Beyond

Recommended Posts

With technology in a constant state of growth and innovation where do you see the future of games and graphical fidelity? 

 

I feel this could be a fun topic for everyone to share their views on the future of games and the tech used to make them possible. I for one see the use of photoscan tech as being at the forefront of photorealistic and cinematic game design. Not only can we capture realistic environments and display them in HD, but the ability to capture humans is also becoming more efficient and viable. I found this image all credit to James Busby at Artstation but it really shows how truly impressive this technology is in capturing people. 

33111872962_2ca1658782_o.jpgjames-busby-gunstand-front by Jason Soto, on Flickr

 

Let the wonderful thoughts and ideas flow ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, it isn't the "capturing" the high definition that is the problem (although there have been technological hurdles there too), it is mostly the display of such assets that poses the biggest problem. As hardware and graphics APIs continue to improve, the roadblocks will continue to erode but real time rendering of photorealistic (raytraced) lighting is something that is many years off, as well as the VRAM /processing capability required is still potentially quite a ways away, from what I've come to understand. It's certainly exciting though! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree with you Psyrus. until we get actually-good, realistic lighting in games, these sort of resolutions in textures are kind of a waste of time.

 Lighting, that fools your brain into thinking you're "in it" (immersion), is far more important than MM (or uM)-acurate textures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and as long as people keep playing games on Grandma's computer...the "industry", imho, will never push forward because they cater to the masses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8.3.2017 at 0:57 AM, LaughingJack said:

i agree with you Psyrus. until we get actually-good, realistic lighting in games, these sort of resolutions in textures are kind of a waste of time.

 Lighting, that fools your brain into thinking you're "in it" (immersion), is far more important than MM (or uM)-acurate textures.

 

CRYSIS, a ten years old game managed this pretty well! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I noticed a lot of new monitors adjust the lighting automatically for games to give a more realistic picture now, so does this mean textures can be not up to snuff?  Does this mean the code for lighting your games can be trumped by the monitors detection system?  Is the monitor more important for realism than game code?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/5/2017 at 6:55 PM, Psyrus said:

Honestly, it isn't the "capturing" the high definition that is the problem (although there have been technological hurdles there too), it is mostly the display of such assets that poses the biggest problem. As hardware and graphics APIs continue to improve, the roadblocks will continue to erode but real time rendering of photorealistic (raytraced) lighting is something that is many years off, as well as the VRAM /processing capability required is still potentially quite a ways away, from what I've come to understand. It's certainly exciting though! 

 

As someone who has several 3Dscanners and does it for a living, I completely agree, the capturing side of it isn't the issue, it's the fact that we don't have the tech on the display side of it yet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, LugNut said:

As someone who has several 3Dscanners and does it for a living, I completely agree, the capturing side of it isn't the issue, it's the fact that we don't have the tech on the display side of it yet. 

 

 

I think BF1 really demonstrated this. If you observed the models up close, each one was generated from Photoscans. However, the way the camera (eye) worked in concert with the lighting meant that instead of it looking 1:1 photoreal, it had a strange (but in my opinion enjoyable) scale model feel to it.

 

On my project, we've used photoscans where it has made sense. However, in my opinion the best thing you can do to maintain consistency is use good palette control to curate your art direction. You can have all the beautiful photoreal assets in the world, but if they don't sit well together you'll still have an ugly scene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×