am I the only one who think the thread title is enormously over-stated.
i was thinking the same thing...
Bah i did it with my ATI card....looks nice but kinda bright in some spots but easy to seen and more detailed
It must be a lot easier, just smearing the screen with a big load of vaseline 
Or mount some bad see through plastic
Or mount some bad see through plastic
And I suppose you tried it or watched the video OR looked at the picture before you made that statement?
After looking at his video I think so too. He just has increased contrast. Maybe his monitor has bad settings or bad contrast in general. There is more to HDR than just increased contrast. The thread title should be: Must Read! - More contrast for junkies!
Exactly. This has nothing to do with HDR. Or at least there's no point likening it to HDR rendering of any kind. The look may seem more exciting to some people, but essentially you've said "hey, look, turn up your contrast and it looks cool."
I tried your ATI setting and even after toning it down a bit all the nice detail in the clouds had gone to white. That's low dynamic range, all the top end colour being forced so high into one colour. That would be fine if the during the game it was dynamic, but it's not.
Obviously, feel free to view LFS how you want
I tried your ATI setting and even after toning it down a bit all the nice detail in the clouds had gone to white. That's low dynamic range, all the top end colour being forced so high into one colour. That would be fine if the during the game it was dynamic, but it's not.
Obviously, feel free to view LFS how you want
I said it's fake, never said it would be perfect. however, you can't get true HDR on a regular monitor anyway, so why not get it close?
A regular monitor doesn't have the contrast ratio to display true HDR so realy all that fancy crap in DX9 is for nothing unless you get a special monitor. well, unless you want bloom and enviromental contrast differences, neither of which applys to LFS since you arn't constantly going in and out of buildings or trying to get blinding blur effects from things (which is about all bloom is good for).
Just read up on HDRR on wikipedia, HDR is a mostly usless function on DX9 since older games just faked it with boosted contrast settings anyway and you need special hardware (an HDR monitor) to get real HDR.
Plus, boosting your contrast has no effect on performance.
I won't argue that the HDR in games does look better sometimes, but it would look even better if it was displayed on an HDR monitor.
Like I said several times, THIS IS FAKE HDR, it doesn't have to look like real HDR because it can't! Not just because of hardware though, it can't even come close to that HDR crap in games.
And about the clouds, I have the high ress reflections which change your skys. I didn't notice the over expossed clouds, they look fine to me.
I also found out that my monitor isn't as bad as I thaught, I looked at the screenshot on a school monitor and it didn't look bad, it actualy looked better, and my school has realy nice TFT displays in the 2d/3d desighn class I was in.
A regular monitor doesn't have the contrast ratio to display true HDR so realy all that fancy crap in DX9 is for nothing unless you get a special monitor. well, unless you want bloom and enviromental contrast differences, neither of which applys to LFS since you arn't constantly going in and out of buildings or trying to get blinding blur effects from things (which is about all bloom is good for).
Just read up on HDRR on wikipedia, HDR is a mostly usless function on DX9 since older games just faked it with boosted contrast settings anyway and you need special hardware (an HDR monitor) to get real HDR.
Plus, boosting your contrast has no effect on performance.
I won't argue that the HDR in games does look better sometimes, but it would look even better if it was displayed on an HDR monitor.
Like I said several times, THIS IS FAKE HDR, it doesn't have to look like real HDR because it can't! Not just because of hardware though, it can't even come close to that HDR crap in games.
And about the clouds, I have the high ress reflections which change your skys. I didn't notice the over expossed clouds, they look fine to me.
I also found out that my monitor isn't as bad as I thaught, I looked at the screenshot on a school monitor and it didn't look bad, it actualy looked better, and my school has realy nice TFT displays in the 2d/3d desighn class I was in.
It either is HDRI or it isn't. There is no such thing as fake HDRI
Actualy there is, just look up HDRR on wikipedia. Older games faked it with enhanced contrast settings.
Even the "Real" HDR you see in video games isn't truly HDR, because standard monitors can't show the full contrast ratio of HDR.
Belive me, I did my reseach on it before hand.
Even the "Real" HDR you see in video games isn't truly HDR, because standard monitors can't show the full contrast ratio of HDR.
Belive me, I did my reseach on it before hand.
HDRI is not just high contrast images, I guess you didn't do too much research?
Did you even read what I said?
REGULAR MONITORS CAN'T DISPLAY TRUE HDR!
do the research.
"The human eye supports a very high dynamic range, around 1,000,000:1. This is achieved in part through adjustments of the iris and slow chemical changes, which take some time (ie, the delay in being able to see when switching from bright lighting to pitch darkness.) At any given time, the eye's dynamic range is smaller, around 10,000:1. However, this is still much higher than the dynamic range achievable by most current display technology.
Negative black and white film can capture a dynamic range of about 4096:1 (12 stops) maximum, while colour slide film reach can typically capture a dynamic range of 64:1 (6 stops). Printing has the same problems as displaying on LDR monitors as colour paper only has about 64:1 (6 stops).[citation needed]
On average, most computer monitors have a specified contrast ratio between 500:1 and 1000:1, some reaching 2000:1 or higher, such as LG Electronic's L194WT models or ASUS Technology's LS201 models.[citation needed] Current plasma displays are specified at a 10,000:1 contrast ratio (most are 50% lower). However, the contrast of commercial displays is measured as the ratio of a full white screen to a full black screen in a completely dark room.[citation needed] The simultaneous contrast of real content under normal viewing conditions is significantly lower.
One of the few monitors that can display in true HDR is the BrightSide Technologies HDR monitor, which has a simultaneous contrast ratio of around 200,000:1 for a brightness of 3000 cd/m2, measured on a checkerboard image.[citation needed] In fact this higher contrast is equivalent to a ANSI9 contrast of 60,000:1, or about 60 times higher that the one of a TFT screen (about 1000:1). The brightness is 10 times higher that the one of the most CRT or TFT. But such display should only be useful if it needs to operate in a pitch-black room and in two seconds under bright lighting, and the eye should be able to see a full dynamic range on the display in both situations.
This means that HDR rendering systems have to map the full dynamic range to what the eye would see in the rendered situation. This tone mapping is done relative to what the virtual scene camera sees, combined with several full screen effects, e.g. to simulate dust in the air which is lit by direct sunlight in a dark cavern.
There are currently two graphical effects used to combat these limitations, tone mapping and light blooming, which are often used together." - wikipedia
I did mine.
edit: forgot this part
"Before HDRR was fully developed and implemented, games would create an illusion of HDR by using light blooming and sometimes using an option called "Enhanced Contrast Settings"." - also wikipedia
REGULAR MONITORS CAN'T DISPLAY TRUE HDR!
do the research.
"The human eye supports a very high dynamic range, around 1,000,000:1. This is achieved in part through adjustments of the iris and slow chemical changes, which take some time (ie, the delay in being able to see when switching from bright lighting to pitch darkness.) At any given time, the eye's dynamic range is smaller, around 10,000:1. However, this is still much higher than the dynamic range achievable by most current display technology.
Negative black and white film can capture a dynamic range of about 4096:1 (12 stops) maximum, while colour slide film reach can typically capture a dynamic range of 64:1 (6 stops). Printing has the same problems as displaying on LDR monitors as colour paper only has about 64:1 (6 stops).[citation needed]
On average, most computer monitors have a specified contrast ratio between 500:1 and 1000:1, some reaching 2000:1 or higher, such as LG Electronic's L194WT models or ASUS Technology's LS201 models.[citation needed] Current plasma displays are specified at a 10,000:1 contrast ratio (most are 50% lower). However, the contrast of commercial displays is measured as the ratio of a full white screen to a full black screen in a completely dark room.[citation needed] The simultaneous contrast of real content under normal viewing conditions is significantly lower.
One of the few monitors that can display in true HDR is the BrightSide Technologies HDR monitor, which has a simultaneous contrast ratio of around 200,000:1 for a brightness of 3000 cd/m2, measured on a checkerboard image.[citation needed] In fact this higher contrast is equivalent to a ANSI9 contrast of 60,000:1, or about 60 times higher that the one of a TFT screen (about 1000:1). The brightness is 10 times higher that the one of the most CRT or TFT. But such display should only be useful if it needs to operate in a pitch-black room and in two seconds under bright lighting, and the eye should be able to see a full dynamic range on the display in both situations.
This means that HDR rendering systems have to map the full dynamic range to what the eye would see in the rendered situation. This tone mapping is done relative to what the virtual scene camera sees, combined with several full screen effects, e.g. to simulate dust in the air which is lit by direct sunlight in a dark cavern.
There are currently two graphical effects used to combat these limitations, tone mapping and light blooming, which are often used together." - wikipedia
I did mine.
edit: forgot this part
"Before HDRR was fully developed and implemented, games would create an illusion of HDR by using light blooming and sometimes using an option called "Enhanced Contrast Settings"." - also wikipedia
But that's exactly it, that last paragraph should be "games would mislead consumers by implying the use of HDR techniques whilst only using light blooming and sometimes using an option called 'Enhanced Contrast Settings'. Although some games do this well.
I'm using high-res skies and reflections too, no difference.
More stuff.. HDR photos are composites of different exposures of the same scene. To retain the details of say, bright skies and dark shadows; not to blow out the top and bottom end of the scale with enhanced contrast.
The point of HDR in games is that it changes to imitate the camera lense exposure. You do seem to understand some technical stuff about HDR, but what you've done is simply fixed post-processing.
I'm trying to think of a good analagy to what you're doing but I can't. But it's like you're saying "look at this way of making LFS look vintage!" if you were to simply apply a tinted filter. In fact there would be lots of processes and variable stuff that you would need to do to make a modern video look vintage. If you've just done one of them, then that's all you've done.
I know you keep saying "like HDR" and now "fake HDR", but it's not even that. You have just changed the contrast. You should know how different this is to true HDR. Hope this helps to understand this. Correct me if I'm wrong. ( I haven't looked to see if wiki agrees.)
ok so this is a very long thread on telling us higher contrast setting will give you errr.....higher contrast.
Entertaining read..
I find HDR, even when it is actually applied in some way (i.e. unlike you can do to LFS
) a bit odd.
One way to actually increase the 'range' would be to play games in a pitch dark room with the image being darkish to make normal light situations comfortable to the eye.. Then 100% white will be a lot more intense to the eyes than it is in normal room light.
I'd say HDR tries to simulate / achief things that it really never can do properly.
I find HDR, even when it is actually applied in some way (i.e. unlike you can do to LFS
) a bit odd.One way to actually increase the 'range' would be to play games in a pitch dark room with the image being darkish to make normal light situations comfortable to the eye.. Then 100% white will be a lot more intense to the eyes than it is in normal room light.
I'd say HDR tries to simulate / achief things that it really never can do properly.
oh my god i want one of those right now
actually it can when its done properly
what hdr is really all about isnt simulating a camera with a low dynamic range and a sluggish exposure regulation its about woking in a colourspace thats larger than 32 bit rgb thus giving you the frameset needed to calculate a larger dynamic range
of course all of this only wokrs if your monitor is even remotely capeable of displaying such a large dynamic range ... and a crappy (which is all current ones btw) lcd with a contrast ratio well below 10.000:1 just doesnt cut it
I vote for Doom2 having a high dynamic range.. Last night I played it just like I did on the 486 over a decade ago: Lights off, monitor slightly less bright.. headphones.. That is some scary sh!t! Mostly very dark but some lit areas appear pretty bright then.. What a cool game it still is!
Mostly very dark but some lit areas appear pretty bright then.. What a cool game it still is!HDR in games has the opposite effect of HDR in photography. A HDR photograph is how a none HDR game looks. In game HDR effects are how a none HDR camera would see the world.
They're literal polar opposites, and is done to make games appear more like how the human eye would perceive them. The game behaves as if you had "spot light metering" or equivalent enabled on your camera. It's funny that they're both called HDR.
They're literal polar opposites, and is done to make games appear more like how the human eye would perceive them. The game behaves as if you had "spot light metering" or equivalent enabled on your camera. It's funny that they're both called HDR.
dunno bout youre eyes but mine see the world much more like a hdr camera then like a cheap ldr camera
the dynamic range of the retina appears to be much higher than of any camera or display and that is before the additional increas in dynamic range from the iris come into play (which is what "hdr" games try to replicate)
That's the illusion I think. Because you only "look" at the center spot of your vision, obviously. If you're standing in a dull room with a window to a bright exterior, and looking at an object in it, you can't "look" out the window, without it effectively being another picture/viewpoint. It's in the corner of your eye. Granted the eye has a much higher range than any camera sensor or film, but the effect it still there.
If you could take a screenshot of your vision looking at something in this room, and then look directly at where the window would have been in the corner of your eye, it would be brighter/duller respectively.
When you look at a HDR photograph, it effectively emulates a still scene which you can focus at different points of and get the same effect as if you were doing just that when you're there. That's why it "looks", in a way more realistic, but it's not exactly how the eye works.
HDR in game doesn't try to replicate HDR photography in any way shape or form. It tries to do exactly the opposite. If you get a none HDR game like Unreal Tournament, and stand in a dull room with a window to a bright outside environment, and take a screenshot, the view out the window, and the detail inside this room will all have good contrast, just like a HDR photograph.
If you do the same thing in a HDR game like Half Life 2: Lost Coast tech demo, you'll get the same effect as when you take a picture with a normal camera. While you're standing, and focusing on objects inside the room the view out the window (which is effectively "out the corner of your eye") will be just a big white overexposed area. If you focus outside the window, you'll see detail, and things inside will all go dull.
So if you want a game to emulate what HDR photography does, then all games currently do. If you want a game to respond how normal cameras, and to a degree how the eye does, you need a HDR game.
Here we go, a perfect example!
The right hand side of this picture is what a normal camera would see as it has some overexposure "bleed" and underexposure, and the left hand side is what you'd get if you took multiple exposure levels and combined them, aka a HDR photograph. Yet, in the game, they are the opposite! So once again, a HDR photograph, is nothing like what HDR in video games tries to emulate. The effect HDR photographs are aiming for has always existed in computer games from day 1.
If you could take a screenshot of your vision looking at something in this room, and then look directly at where the window would have been in the corner of your eye, it would be brighter/duller respectively.
When you look at a HDR photograph, it effectively emulates a still scene which you can focus at different points of and get the same effect as if you were doing just that when you're there. That's why it "looks", in a way more realistic, but it's not exactly how the eye works.
HDR in game doesn't try to replicate HDR photography in any way shape or form. It tries to do exactly the opposite. If you get a none HDR game like Unreal Tournament, and stand in a dull room with a window to a bright outside environment, and take a screenshot, the view out the window, and the detail inside this room will all have good contrast, just like a HDR photograph.
If you do the same thing in a HDR game like Half Life 2: Lost Coast tech demo, you'll get the same effect as when you take a picture with a normal camera. While you're standing, and focusing on objects inside the room the view out the window (which is effectively "out the corner of your eye") will be just a big white overexposed area. If you focus outside the window, you'll see detail, and things inside will all go dull.
So if you want a game to emulate what HDR photography does, then all games currently do. If you want a game to respond how normal cameras, and to a degree how the eye does, you need a HDR game.
Here we go, a perfect example!
The right hand side of this picture is what a normal camera would see as it has some overexposure "bleed" and underexposure, and the left hand side is what you'd get if you took multiple exposure levels and combined them, aka a HDR photograph. Yet, in the game, they are the opposite! So once again, a HDR photograph, is nothing like what HDR in video games tries to emulate. The effect HDR photographs are aiming for has always existed in computer games from day 1.
PMSL
minimal maybe
i just tried an tested what kind of contrast i percieve in the corners of my vision while looking into a 60w spot bulb (not the brightest idea tbh) and i didnt notice any flattening
so im inclined to beleive that the retina itself has a rather high contrast ratio
but thats the point ... rendering should not emulate how your eyes work it should persent you with a scene for your eyes to work with
basically yeah but thats missing the point of hdr as what it actually is is a very very flattened hdr pic
yeah and i absolutely never expierenced any of that with my eyes
neither did i ever see any blooming ... i get some kind of beam effect when i look into a bright light but i never really expierenced any blooming
no they dont cause neither your screen not the game have the contrast needed for an accurate representation of hdr or the real world
from my own expierence my eyes work nothing like hdr in games
like i said earlier the only effect hdr does correctly is not seeing much of anything when going from a light to a dark area ... other than that its complete bollocks
and flatten the hell out of them ... never forget that bit
again hdr photos are not supposed to be flat
Why? I prefer the more accurate 'mid range' with clipped extremes, because it feels more like reality, and not drab and muted and computer gamey... why is this wrong? It's pretty clear in LFS that you're focus is going to be on the road in front of you.
youre missing my point which was rendering and the monitor you use should idealy be able to display a dynamic range that comes close the dynamic range offerend from sunlight
I dunno, I'm kinda glad my monitor can't burn my retinas out...
Must Read! - HDR like effects for DX9 junkies!
(131 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG