You can't do this with only video capture (Last of Us *SP*) (Gaming)
by Kermit , Raleigh, NC, Monday, August 11, 2014, 15:38 (3760 days ago)
You can't do this with only video capture (Last of Us *SP*)
by Cody Miller , Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Monday, August 11, 2014, 15:56 (3760 days ago) @ Kermit
Really cool.
Beat my last of us movie trailer out the door :-p
Stay tuned this week.
Like I've said before...
by Korny , Dalton, Ga. US. Earth, Sol System, Tuesday, August 12, 2014, 09:26 (3760 days ago) @ Kermit
No game has an excuse to not have at least a photo mode from here on out, though I'd be happier with (and I'd pay for) a theater mode. I haven't played Second Son, but I'm assuming that the TLoU's photo mode is based off of it, so I hope this tool continues to evolve, especially if it's an in-house thing.
Like I've said before...
by CruelLEGACEY , Toronto, Saturday, August 16, 2014, 09:04 (3756 days ago) @ Korny
Yes, the photo mode in TLoU is based on the one in inFamous (although it's a little better in inFamous... nicer focus effects, IMO)
You can't do this with only video capture (Last of Us *SP*)
by kidtsunami , Atlanta, GA, Tuesday, August 12, 2014, 09:56 (3760 days ago) @ Kermit
An interesting point about their photo mode is that it's anchored on Joel because it still relies on all the "tricks" they use to keep the quality high. One of the amazing things about Bungie's theatre mode has always been that you can explore with the camera and they manage to simulate/render everything, it's very impressive.
You can't do this with only video capture (Last of Us *SP*)
by Kermit , Raleigh, NC, Tuesday, August 12, 2014, 10:47 (3760 days ago) @ kidtsunami
Yeah. It essentially acts like theater mode locked into the second-person view. You've got more flexibility of movement than you do in the game, but it's still limited. I've had a blast with photo mode, but there have been times where it's been frustrating when I can't quite get the perfect POV I want.
Of course another distinguishing characteristic of Bungie's theater mode is that you don't have to use it while playing the game. It's difficult to effectively sneak up on clickers with photo mode on.
You can't do this with only video capture (Last of Us *SP*)
by stabbim , Des Moines, IA, USA, Tuesday, August 12, 2014, 21:09 (3759 days ago) @ Kermit
It's difficult to effectively sneak up on clickers.
Fixed that for you.
You can't do this with only video capture (Last of Us *SP*)
by Jillybean, Tuesday, August 12, 2014, 10:41 (3760 days ago) @ Kermit
Beautiful - but the old 'dust on the camera' during the lens flare moments gets old very quickly.
I can't remember which CGI film it was, but I remember a cinematographer getting very irate at the programmers putting lens flare IN to the scene, when he'd spent his entire life taking it OUT
You can't do this with only video capture (Last of Us *SP*)
by Cody Miller , Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Tuesday, August 12, 2014, 12:24 (3759 days ago) @ Jillybean
Beautiful - but the old 'dust on the camera' during the lens flare moments gets old very quickly.
I can't remember which CGI film it was, but I remember a cinematographer getting very irate at the programmers putting lens flare IN to the scene, when he'd spent his entire life taking it OUT
Isn't that the irony? Here you have a CGI film, which is free from the effects of light bouncing in the various lens elements to create a flare. It is free from film grain or noise. Things that remind you that you are seeing something captured. Yet, we add these things back in.
Maybe on some level we enjoy knowing it's fake.
You can't do this with only video capture (Last of Us *SP*)
by Kermit , Raleigh, NC, Tuesday, August 12, 2014, 12:31 (3759 days ago) @ Cody Miller
Beautiful - but the old 'dust on the camera' during the lens flare moments gets old very quickly.
I can't remember which CGI film it was, but I remember a cinematographer getting very irate at the programmers putting lens flare IN to the scene, when he'd spent his entire life taking it OUT
Isn't that the irony? Here you have a CGI film, which is free from the effects of light bouncing in the various lens elements to create a flare. It is free from film grain or noise. Things that remind you that you are seeing something captured. Yet, we add these things back in.Maybe on some level we enjoy knowing it's fake.
Or maybe it makes it feel more real. I highly recommend the making of featurette. They talk explicitly about how they introduce imperfections, and leave in camera bumps, moments of focus adjustment, etc. Despite the fact that they can make it perfect, they don't because if they do something feels off.
You can't do this with only video capture (Last of Us *SP*)
by Cody Miller , Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Tuesday, August 12, 2014, 12:39 (3759 days ago) @ Kermit
Beautiful - but the old 'dust on the camera' during the lens flare moments gets old very quickly.
I can't remember which CGI film it was, but I remember a cinematographer getting very irate at the programmers putting lens flare IN to the scene, when he'd spent his entire life taking it OUT
Isn't that the irony? Here you have a CGI film, which is free from the effects of light bouncing in the various lens elements to create a flare. It is free from film grain or noise. Things that remind you that you are seeing something captured. Yet, we add these things back in.Maybe on some level we enjoy knowing it's fake.
Or maybe it makes it feel more real. I highly recommend the making of featurette. They talk explicitly about how they introduce imperfections, and leave in camera bumps, moments of focus adjustment, etc. Despite the fact that they can make it perfect, they don't because if they do something feels off.
Real in the sense of "created by humans", not real in the sense of "this is actually happening". Would you want film grain or bad focus pulls on your holodeck?
You can't do this with only video capture (Last of Us *SP*)
by Ragashingo , Official DBO Cryptarch, Tuesday, August 12, 2014, 12:34 (3759 days ago) @ Cody Miller
I heard a several minute piece about the demise of movie film on NPR the other day and laughed a bit when one of the people lamenting film going away gave "film grain" as one of the reasons she would be sad to see it go.
You can't do this with only video capture (Last of Us *SP*)
by Kermit , Raleigh, NC, Tuesday, August 12, 2014, 18:46 (3759 days ago) @ Ragashingo
I heard a several minute piece about the demise of movie film on NPR the other day and laughed a bit when one of the people lamenting film going away gave "film grain" as one of the reasons she would be sad to see it go.
I'm not laughing. Why is black and white often more evocative than color? There is more to visual art than pixel perfect representations of reality.
You can't do this with only video capture (Last of Us *SP*)
by Cody Miller , Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Tuesday, August 12, 2014, 20:56 (3759 days ago) @ Kermit
I heard a several minute piece about the demise of movie film on NPR the other day and laughed a bit when one of the people lamenting film going away gave "film grain" as one of the reasons she would be sad to see it go.
I'm not laughing. Why is black and white often more evocative than color? There is more to visual art than pixel perfect representations of reality.
I rarely find black and white more evocative than color. With black and white, you are playing with light and shadow. In color, you can play with light and shadow PLUS the dimension of color. You are simply afforded more tools to make your art.
Art fight! :p
by Ragashingo , Official DBO Cryptarch, Tuesday, August 12, 2014, 21:07 (3759 days ago) @ Cody Miller
- No text -
Nope
by ZackDark , Not behind you. NO! Don't look., Wednesday, August 13, 2014, 02:23 (3759 days ago) @ Cody Miller
It's pretty much the same reason why most biology books prefer drawings over pictures. When you use full detail (like a picture for biology or color image for film), you're wasting the viewer's attention with stuff you quite possibly didn't mean to. By reducing the number of variables, you can be a lot more certain you will get the message through (in the case of biology, a particular anatomical feature that would be lost in the background noise; and in the case of film, a shadow play that would be lost in the background hue noise).
Well said.
by Kermit , Raleigh, NC, Wednesday, August 13, 2014, 04:43 (3759 days ago) @ ZackDark
- No text -
Nope
by Cody Miller , Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Wednesday, August 13, 2014, 10:16 (3759 days ago) @ ZackDark
It's pretty much the same reason why most biology books prefer drawings over pictures. When you use full detail (like a picture for biology or color image for film), you're wasting the viewer's attention with stuff you quite possibly didn't mean to. By reducing the number of variables, you can be a lot more certain you will get the message through (in the case of biology, a particular anatomical feature that would be lost in the background noise; and in the case of film, a shadow play that would be lost in the background hue noise).
1. There's a difference there because the biology book is meant to convey information. Not convey emotion.
2. You are not giving enough credit to true professionals who know all of this, and meticulously frame, light, and pick colors and color filters for shots.
Nope
by Kermit , Raleigh, NC, Wednesday, August 13, 2014, 12:15 (3758 days ago) @ Cody Miller
It's pretty much the same reason why most biology books prefer drawings over pictures. When you use full detail (like a picture for biology or color image for film), you're wasting the viewer's attention with stuff you quite possibly didn't mean to. By reducing the number of variables, you can be a lot more certain you will get the message through (in the case of biology, a particular anatomical feature that would be lost in the background noise; and in the case of film, a shadow play that would be lost in the background hue noise).
1. There's a difference there because the biology book is meant to convey information. Not convey emotion.
Are you really saying that drawings can't convey emotion?
2. You are not giving enough credit to true professionals who know all of this, and meticulously frame, light, and pick colors and color filters for shots.
And there are professionals that know that sometimes any color at all is distracting from what they want to convey.
Nope
by scarab , Saturday, August 16, 2014, 14:59 (3755 days ago) @ Kermit
Are you really saying that drawings can't convey emotion?
No he's saying that biology textbook diagrams are trying to convey information.
You can't do this with only video capture (Last of Us *SP*)
by kapowaz, Wednesday, August 13, 2014, 02:28 (3759 days ago) @ Ragashingo
I heard a several minute piece about the demise of movie film on NPR the other day and laughed a bit when one of the people lamenting film going away gave "film grain" as one of the reasons she would be sad to see it go.
Film grain isn't always a bad thing. In moderation, it adds texture to a shot. Besides, its equivalent still exists in digital photography — try shooting in low light conditions at high ISOs and you'll get noise in the image, very much like the analogue equivalent.
You can't do this with only video capture (Last of Us *SP*)
by Cody Miller , Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Wednesday, August 13, 2014, 10:18 (3759 days ago) @ kapowaz
edited by Cody Miller, Wednesday, August 13, 2014, 10:22
I heard a several minute piece about the demise of movie film on NPR the other day and laughed a bit when one of the people lamenting film going away gave "film grain" as one of the reasons she would be sad to see it go.
Film grain isn't always a bad thing. In moderation, it adds texture to a shot. Besides, its equivalent still exists in digital photography — try shooting in low light conditions at high ISOs and you'll get noise in the image, very much like the analogue equivalent.
It is fast going away. The sensor in the Dragon is pretty insane. You can shoot low light, 2000 ISO, and with no processing have scant noise. With processing, it's incredibly pristine. There was a demo on the previous sensor for the Epic where Leonardo DiCaprio lit a match which was the only light source in the image. There was barely a shred of noise in the darks with no processing at 2000 ISO.
Sounds impressive, and out of my price range. :)
by Ragashingo , Official DBO Cryptarch, Wednesday, August 13, 2014, 10:25 (3759 days ago) @ Cody Miller
- No text -
As someone who wears glasses...
by RC , UK, Tuesday, August 12, 2014, 14:36 (3759 days ago) @ Jillybean
Beautiful - but the old 'dust on the camera' during the lens flare moments gets old very quickly.
I HATE that. Stop ruining my image quality!
As someone who wears glasses...
by kapowaz, Tuesday, August 12, 2014, 14:40 (3759 days ago) @ RC
I HATE that. Stop ruining my image quality!
On the same subject… I thought the chromatic aberration effects of Destiny looked cool from screenshots, but it turns out when I'm playing I can't tell whether they're post-processing effects or my glasses (which tend to add chromatic aberration fringing at the edges of my vision anyway). Net result: the effects might as well not be there.
As someone who wears glasses...
by RC , UK, Tuesday, August 12, 2014, 14:53 (3759 days ago) @ kapowaz
On the same subject… I thought the chromatic aberration effects of Destiny
No joke: I thought my video equipment was broken.
So, about Sony and screenshot modes.
by uberfoop , Seattle-ish, Wednesday, August 13, 2014, 00:18 (3759 days ago) @ Kermit
Slightly off-topic.
But.
Hopefully the camera control from gamescom winds up in DriveClub's shipping product.
Because, umm.
Wow.
So, about Sony and screenshot modes.
by kapowaz, Wednesday, August 13, 2014, 02:21 (3759 days ago) @ uberfoop
Because, umm.
Wow.
Those clouds are the most convincing I've seen in a game. Usually they're 2D textures (like Destiny) but those are clearly volumetric. Crazy driving games with their ultra-realism…!
Forza 3 burned my first 360
by ZackDark , Not behind you. NO! Don't look., Wednesday, August 13, 2014, 02:24 (3759 days ago) @ kapowaz
True story.