Euclideon Makes World’s Most Realistic Graphics Part 2

I sent them the right compression settings for close to true HD quality on YouTube looks like it worked! OMFG!
 
doesn't look right. looks like some sort of parallax scrolling. Nowhere near unlimited detail.
I was far more impressed by farcry 4 demos.
 
So they're taking so long their advantage is already disappearing.
 
Looked like they were moving through a still picture. Nothing was moving, I felt like I was playing Myst again. Not impressed by anything about that video.
 
JohnnyGatt said:
I sent them the right compression settings for close to true HD quality on YouTube looks like it worked! OMFG!
Click to expand...

I hope they took your suggestions. Because now it looks much better. A whole lot better than it did before.

Still can tell it's computer animation, but it's much more detailed. I don't know what it would take to be "photo real", but there is something missing. Lighting, whatever...

Also - everything is static. It's a non-moving, stopped time world. Throw some dust in there, a couple bugs, a fly, a leaf in the background, something....
 
It looks to basically be a way to do texturing very effectively. Which goes to show how important texturing really is. Unfortunately, the focus has shifted away from textures, in favor of convoluted effects.

Effects are nice, but really great texturing amplifies the entire set of visuals.
 
that is amazing, maybe i have bad eyes but on my 2560xsomthing tablet, that looks stunning real.
 
Ur_Mom said:
I hope they took your suggestions. Because now it looks much better. A whole lot better than it did before.

Still can tell it's computer animation, but it's much more detailed. I don't know what it would take to be "photo real", but there is something missing. Lighting, whatever...

Also - everything is static. It's a non-moving, stopped time world. Throw some dust in there, a couple bugs, a fly, a leaf in the background, something....
Click to expand...

I think they need to do a hybrid demo. Or at least demonstrate that their pointbased system can handle physics/animations. Like I said with part 1, this is great for digital tourism but will suck for gaming until they can show that this engine can handle dynamic lights, physics, animations, and effects.

I did notice that there was a pop-in at some points where it went from blurry to clear.
 
My guess is the reason the camera was constantly moving around was to mask some sort of flaw with the detail. I noticed the edges of everything looked kind of grainy, so maybe that's part of it.
 
NickJames said:
Looks like Google Street View...
Click to expand...

And no that's not a compliment. It looks like they just took a bunch of photos and stitched them together to create a pseudo-virtual panoramic like Google Earth does when you use street view. Essentially you're just looking at a bunch of stitched together photos that are rendered into a 3D world with some matte keyed objects. This will not work for games.
 
Spidey329 said:
I think they need to do a hybrid demo. Or at least demonstrate that their pointbased system can handle physics/animations. Like I said with part 1, this is great for digital tourism but will suck for gaming until they can show that this engine can handle dynamic lights, physics, animations, and effects.

I did notice that there was a pop-in at some points where it went from blurry to clear.
Click to expand...

Even with some dynamic stuff, it would be great for digital tourism. Coupled with a Oculus Rift, this would be excellent. But, I don't want to visit a 3D photo. I want to visit an interactive, dynamic world (not like the pre-rendered stuff from old games that use photos as their background, either).
 
If they wanted to 'trick' people into thinking they were looking at real images and not 3d ones, they should have done away with that horrible stutter.. Was pretty clear the entire time that it was a capture of a 3d render based on that alone.

Dont really have strong thoughts otherwise about their video.. More promises, and now we wont hear from them for another year. Maybe there'll be an announcement of some game thats going to include their tech, eventually. Few more years and maybe there will be a dumbed down release of their tech included in an experimental non-"game" title.

New tech takes time to develop, i get that. Its not a perfect procedure, understood. Problem is that they sure try to talk as if they've got it all figured out, when all we've actually seen are lots of promises about how revolutionary this is. They would garner vastly more support if they actually bothered to have some transparency and showed meaningful in-development videos that went into some detail about the process. We've been shown that the cake has frosting on it. Now its time to show us that the inside is not full of woodchips and filler i think.
 
I agree ... that looked like still images doing parallax scrolling.... it looked weird as hell. A lot of it looked really really flat.
 
Didn't like the bouncing that was done, doesn't matter how much you bounce when you walk the world does not look like it's bouncing like that.
 
I love the possibility we have with voxels. But they aren't going to be viable without some serious algorithms and through put in the gpu to support this stuff real time.
 
the head bob was shit, they should just make a image tilt of 1 degree to imitated footsteps. no one walks like a penguin turning their head the way the video showed.

Now if they can remake delta force 2 on this.... ;P voxels baby!!
 
Despite it looking like flat diffuse scans (that is, no dynamic lighting/specularity) I am glad folks are working on this and it does show some progress. I could see a google app, perhaps within maps, using tech like this to zoom around pyramids and other historic locals. For games, it seems a very very long ways away still.
 
pothb said:
I agree ... that looked like still images doing parallax scrolling.... it looked weird as hell. A lot of it looked really really flat.
Click to expand...

Wasn't until you mentioned it that i finally realized what was so off about it. There's no lightsource, the reason it looked so familiar was because it reminded me of Half-life 2.
 
I think it's clear that they still sit in the uncanny valley by all of the comments. It's awesome that they are likely on the far side, which has sparse competition because it is so much more difficult.

The real problem here is that the camera flies through the scene, but nothing in the scene moves. If it was just a bunch of stills, we wouldn't have the same problem. But we are shown movement and nothing else in the scene moves. It comes off as just a fancy photo. Animation and Dynamic lighting will be the money maker.
 
Nice demo, but it's hard to get excited without a real product coming up any time soon. It's a lot easier to make a "smoke and mirrors" presentation than a real product.
 
yeah, this video is MUCH better than the last one. Damn, that forest...make it run at 60fps or better yet VR with 60Hz per yet and it might be something. Too static though, gotta add breeze to the vegetation.
 
Ur_Mom said:
I hope they took your suggestions. Because now it looks much better. A whole lot better than it did before.

Still can tell it's computer animation, but it's much more detailed. I don't know what it would take to be "photo real", but there is something missing. Lighting, whatever...

Also - everything is static. It's a non-moving, stopped time world. Throw some dust in there, a couple bugs, a fly, a leaf in the background, something....
Click to expand...

The lighting is the problem apparently. Especially areas like hallways or recessed areas on the wall seem off, they're not shaded and 100% in focus. The graphics looks like it's 100% focused no matter which part of the view or depth you look and that alone makes it seem a bit unnatural.
 
Looking better, but needs much more refinement. Everything's still too shiny. No dirt, and imperfections.

It's our imperfections in our world that make it remarkable. Without them, you cannot come anywhere close to reality. And yet, if perfection existed in our world, we would likely discard it as being "too perfect"
 
If you look at fine details in that video you realize that everything is very blocky in reality. There is no fine detail, the texture gives an illusion of detail but the texture is 2 dimensional.

It's a bit like watching an oil painting from distance. It looks incredibly life like and detailed. Move in closer and you see individual strokes of brushes that are not fine detailed at all.
 
Stoly said:
doesn't look right. looks like some sort of parallax scrolling. Nowhere near unlimited detail.
I was far more impressed by farcry 4 demos.
Click to expand...

Unlimited detail refers to the amount of information the search engine can process.

They can index as much data as they want, and at render time, the algorithm only pulls the desired data, and ignores the rest (This is the beauty of efficient search engines, like Google!).

As far as the 'parallax' scrolling, the proof of concept is there, tweaking the viewwindow to display a more natural looking image is not a point of issue...
 
the details look pretty fuzzy in that video. Everything looks good at a distance, but up close they are missing a lot of detail
 
people dont get this is point cloud solution not a polygons as result of that it will still have "points or pixels"

point cloud does not provide T&L so what you got is just a point with RGBA
 
allenpan said:
people dont get this is point cloud solution not a polygons as result of that it will still have "points or pixels"

point cloud does not provide T&L so what you got is just a point with RGBA
Click to expand...
Point clouds can carry arbitrary data. Capturing normals and reflectivity on all surfaces might be a challenge, but it's been done before. That is still just one of many problems they haven't solved.
 
Youn said:
Despite it looking like flat diffuse scans (that is, no dynamic lighting/specularity) I am glad folks are working on this and it does show some progress. I could see a google app, perhaps within maps, using tech like this to zoom around pyramids and other historic locals. For games, it seems a very very long ways away still.
Click to expand...

A Google Earth/Maps thing with this tech would be awesome. Laser scan various parts of cities (eventually when tech catches up, add laser scanning to the Google cars for Streetview) to make them walk though. Still be static, but Google maps already are. You're looking at a point in time, not a real time thing. That would be the 'killer app' for me. I would love to have detail like that.

Great technology, but I see that there are other companies that can accomplish similar visuals, but with different tricks.
 
B00nie said:
The lighting is the problem apparently. Especially areas like hallways or recessed areas on the wall seem off, they're not shaded and 100% in focus. The graphics looks like it's 100% focused no matter which part of the view or depth you look and that alone makes it seem a bit unnatural.
Click to expand...

Actually, they had depth of field going. In the first forest clip, it was GROSSLY overused. They've been looking at too many Skyrim mod shots.....................
 
These guys have claimed they could do animation for like 4+ years now, again, and again, and again.

Yet, we've never seen it.

Its like if the dude who made The Phantom picked a new project.
 
Gobsmacked, have been to where many of the forest scenes are from, I'm almost certain as it looks and sounds like a national park in Thailand.. now that is incredibly impressive to recognize the very track they took, which follows the stream up in to the mountains.
Have video of similar stuff sitting around at home.
 
its really flat, the detail is great but either shadows and lighting need working or some sort of illusion to really make details pop. other then that the detail was nice
 
chameleoneel said:
Actually, they had depth of field going. In the first forest clip, it was GROSSLY overused. They've been looking at too many Skyrim mod shots.....................
Click to expand...

I don't think what you're seeing there is depth of field in a classic sense, I think it's point cloud "pop in."

Youn said:
Found this interview, where he talks a bit along with a demo about dynamic lighting and animation:

http://youtu.be/j5vbLmH8YS0?t=31m58s
Click to expand...

I love how he says, "they shouldn't be asking if it can do it, they should be asking if it's compatible." Uh... that's what compatible means. The question really isn't "is it compatible?" anyhow, the question is "is it efficient?" There's no doubt you can do all the things with point clouds that you can do with polygons, but the question is can you do it in real time with a full point cloud scene and have it perform as well as polygons? I don't think so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top