Started by Denis Sirenko, July 26, 2017, 07:40:59 am
Quote from: Denis Sirenko on April 29, 2018, 03:13:13 amWhat two approaches are you talking about?
Quote from: Denis Sirenko on April 29, 2018, 03:13:13 amOur game engine has some post-processing, but it will not affect the contrast or brightness of the picture. In addition, those images (that I'm sharing here) are not the ones that will go for our background, for example I can not do aberrations or make nebulae so bright.
Quote from: Denis Sirenko on April 29, 2018, 03:13:13 amYes thank you! I love aberrations. It's great that someone noticed this ) And here I have a legitimate reason to use them - on all real space images and can be seen quite well.
Quote from: Kadri on April 29, 2018, 04:11:58 am"Chromatic aberration" Photographers try to avoid it. Render people try to incorporate it to perfect renders... (We talked this quite a lot here and i tried not to post but i can't hold myself)
Quote from: Kadri on April 29, 2018, 06:36:11 pmOur eyes does have chromatic aberration too. But we have DOF, myopy, presbiyopi and what not too. Some of those we are aware, some not so much.Should every image contain those things? You can of course use them as an artistic choice whenever you want.But like the shaky cams in movies it feels cheesy, bad and the easy way to do something after a while.So when someone says, he likes chromatic aberration, i get that feeling that he tries to put it in anything he does.Basically what i don't like is the overuse mostly. I like clear images because i hate blurry images (i have goggles). But i like of course when those "imperfections" are used in good places.I don't care if this or that is used now much. It won't be 5-10 yeas later. Probably something"new (!)" will come. From the hype of HDR TV's (for itself it is a good thing actually) it looks like something on that line will be overused for a time.Edit: Screw that. When i read what i wrote it felt more like i have an obsession. Should take a break probably.
Quote from: Dune on April 30, 2018, 01:47:22 amI kind of agree with Kadri; all this fiddling to get imperfections in is sometimes too much. Or becomes a trick. Wisely used in appropriate images it's okay.And btw. QuoteDenise's work... it's Denis, not Denise. Denis might not like it
Quote from: Kadri on April 30, 2018, 06:09:26 am"hyper realism" of what? Cameras,photos or how we see the world?Even if you use googles that have cracked glasses you won't see the cracks after a while. The world will look perfect despite what you have in front of your eyes.Popularity doesn't mean "good". Having to adjust the effect shots to the real shots is one of the things i can understand and have no problem.But putting the same things "always"to shoots that doesn't have those kind of problems is laziness and just because of"they like these" attitude and has nothing to do with art in general. For me at least. But as i said they have their places of course.Technical limitations of the past (and now) are one of the problem that some things are still considered for some ok.With 4K and maybe latter 8K you will look at movies done today and say 40 years later"Wow what shit have they done to that movies?".You can't use the same techniques (at least at the same pixels levels) on 4K movies. It wouldn't look "hyperrealist" it would look bad.My eyes have those kind of imperfections. When you add those imperfections to what i see those imperfections get doubled.Show me how it should be as clear as it can be. Then my own imperfections will do the rest already.There are more nuances of course. Can you go more realistic then a documentary? When i look at the word documentary something like these come up: *- Which serves to document (record and: or illustrate) a subject of, related to, or based on documents *- A film, TV program, publication etc. which presents a social, political, scientific or historical subject in a factual or informative manner presented objectively without the insertion of fictional matter *- A factual and objective presentation Would you add those imperfections (or use even black and white today) to a documentary to get "hyperrealism" (I hate that word too by the way ) ?
Quote from: Kadri on April 30, 2018, 06:03:17 pmI wrote too much and still looks like i could not write clearly what i actually mean.Using those imperfection in renders is not realism (like showing how the real world looks).It is only mimicking the look of cameras, photos. Labeling the later as "realism" is what i don't like. Otherwise nor chromatic aberration nor DOF etc. or whatever in itself is what defines art. What art is is quite another very subjective topic.I know for example that Hannes uses it mostly and i like to tease him about that mostly That doesn't mean that i don't like his pictures. Quite the opposite. Anyway. Sorry Denis.