Are game engines the future of rendering?

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03 March 2013   #16
Originally Posted by fablefox: Crytex would not invest into CryEngine for Cinema if there is no money in it.


Crytek does some strange things... Their games aren't selling that well, their engine is not licensed as much, and yet they still invest a huge amount of money in them. So just because they're developing a product it doesn't mean there's such a big demand for it.
__________________
Tamas Varga
 
Old 03 March 2013   #17
Most software renders have plenty of cheats themselves

Photon based global illumination doesn't have nearly as many photons in real life, it's just an approximation

Fast SSS shaders use lightmaps that don't respect anything other than the surface color maps

Bump and normal maps are flat out cheats

Polygon surfaces are empty shells are themselves a cheat. Proper "dirty" material refraction and SSS requires a physical volume filled with 3D color

Reflection maps are a cheat. Realistically the model surface should be rougher on a micro level where it's less reflective



the point is, if it looks good enough to sell the shot and the audience or client can't really tell the difference, and that's the primary goal, who cares how technically physically correct it is.

Last edited by sentry66 : 03 March 2013 at 08:11 PM.
 
Old 03 March 2013   #18
Originally Posted by Laa-Yosh: Crytek does some strange things... Their games aren't selling that well, their engine is not licensed as much, and yet they still invest a huge amount of money in them. So just because they're developing a product it doesn't mean there's such a big demand for it.



Crytek's primary money doesn't come from their game development division, it comes from their military and simulation division called RealTime Immersive http://www.rt-immersive.com/

They started out using their engine only for games, but that hasn't been the case for many years now.

Last edited by sentry66 : 03 March 2013 at 08:20 PM.
 
Old 03 March 2013   #19
Originally Posted by Jules123: CryEngine only has say 40ms to draw each frame, so it has to employ a lot of cheats. The motion blur in the image you have is a 2D image processing technique I believe where you follow the vector motion of the object and blur surrounding pixels along the line of motion.


You're wrong.
I can render a frame in 1 minute or 5 minute. I don't have to spend 40ms per frame. Just like you can increase the render time on your Vray by increasing quality.
So what's the benefit then with a cryengine render ? The benefit is the-what-you-see-is-what-you-get workflow. The fact that the lower quality preview in viewport in 98 % similar to the final image you get with a 1 minute render per frame.

You are making assumptions based on conventional game rendering. But I'm telling you that conventional game engines can't have real-time playback composited color corrected video layer of a real person.

Game engines don't have multiple selectable depth of field and motion blur algorithms. I can select between 3 different types depending of how accurate this scene needs to be.

The effects in the images I posted are impossible to get with the methods you described. That's why I posted the pictures. It's clearly visible in them. Just notice how the wings on the mosquito gets more transparent and blurrier because of the high speed beating of the wings. Just like in reality.

And if you wanna get this effect with mental ray - you have to choose the slowest and most accurate algorithm available in Vray or Mental Ray.
Because in Mental Ray you have also a faster cheat fake like option for motion blur. But that wouldn't work in the type of shot I posted.

I read here on CGTalk these days, that when pixar developed renderman even though they didn't had most of the things in a modern renderer they insisted on having an accurate motion blur and depth of field. They thought this is vital for a cinematic like feeling.
And I'm happy to report that cryengine 2 can have an absolute perfect quality similar to a raytrace solution motion blur working correct in any situation.

And other impossible effects until now.
 
Old 03 March 2013   #20
yeah, it's like people think pixar and software render engines have some sort of monopoly on motion blur and DOF. Renderman developed their motion blur and DOF over 20 years ago without raytracing.

That type of code has since been optimized. When using capable hardware, realtime engines can do it on the fly.

The current gen consoles have to make concessions and use cheap motion blur and DOF or none at all (usually if it's a 60fps game), but PC's with nice hardware can do some nice DOF and motion blur now.

Last edited by sentry66 : 03 March 2013 at 08:43 PM.
 
Old 03 March 2013   #21
Originally Posted by sebastian___: And other impossible effects until now.

Can it have realistic blurred reflections and refractions? GI? Correct soft shadows? If I'd see a render of something like a high-quality product viz in it, it would be nice. With correct fresnel reflections, refractions. How hi-quality we can get with it?
 
Old 03 March 2013   #22
Originally Posted by mister3d: Can it have realistic blurred reflections and refractions? GI? Correct soft shadows? If I'd see a render of something like a high-quality product viz in it, it would be nice. With correct fresnel reflections, refractions. How hi-quality we can get with it?



yes to all those with some concessions. Blurry refractions I don't think are quite there yet. Blurry reflections are, but they're not completely accurate. GI and soft shadows work, but are a lower quality approximation compared to traditional GI. Fresnel reflections works fine.

With blurry reflections and GI, realtime engines use a high quality approximation vs a noisy low quality accurate solution. It doesn't respond perfectly to every little thing in the environment that it's reflecting, but the general colors and look are correct.

Last edited by sentry66 : 03 March 2013 at 08:58 PM.
 
Old 03 March 2013   #23
Originally Posted by sebastian___: You're wrong.
I can render a frame in 1 minute or 5 minute. I don't have to spend 40ms per frame. Just like you can increase the render time on your Vray by increasing quality.
So what's the benefit then with a cryengine render ?

I've tried to use CryEngine on a film set. By the way, I'm a filmmaker too...

In a green screen studio, I tracked my camera orientation and position and hooked this into CryEngine sandbox. So I had the background rendered by CryEngine, I did real-time chroma keying of the live actors performances and composited this in real-time with the game engine's rendered output of a virtual set.

The problem was that the actors came up to me and asked why it looked like a cartoon. When the 'laymen' can tell the difference then that's when you have something that doesn't work and you have to really think if that is the write tool for you for the film you are trying to do.

I decided to dump CryEngine. I'm attempting to write my own hybrid ray-tracing/rasterising solution with promising results.

For the OP, I wonder if the people investing in to developing a new pipeline, know the software technology used for a rasterisation engine is very different to something like e.g. a path tracing ray tracer? Be like trying to turn copper into gold by chucking money at it.

Jules
 
Old 03 March 2013   #24
Originally Posted by mister3d: Can it have realistic blurred reflections and refractions? GI? Correct soft shadows? If I'd see a render of something like a high-quality product viz in it, it would be nice. With correct fresnel reflections, refractions. How hi-quality we can get with it?


I tried to implement only the features I thought I would need for my project. In fact I have somewhere a picture with a bad quality glossy mirror like where the further the objects from the surface the blurrier they get. But I didn't finish that feature.

But if I managed to implement these options and I don't know any programming, think about a real programmer how much could do with an engine like this.

And speaking of raytrace this and unbiased that, do you know that many recent films with quality special effects actually are not using any of this. At least until very recently they still used cheat fake like options. Just now I read here on CGtalk that ilm only recently started to use area lights.

Here it is :

Originally Posted by thatoneguy: For instance it wasn't until I think IronMan 2 that ILM started using area lights. Why? Because they thought they were too slow to render.


So you can get good results even without unbiased raytrace everything solutions.

EDIT : mister3d see the pictures with the overlapping soft shadows on my blog, but keep in mind they are just some quick and rough tests.

Last edited by sebastian___ : 03 March 2013 at 09:04 PM.
 
Old 03 March 2013   #25
Originally Posted by Jules123: I've tried to use CryEngine on a film set. By the way, I'm a filmmaker too...

In a green screen studio,


That's great. So we speak the same language after all

Do you still think it looks like a cartoon the image and the short gif animation I posted with the person composited ? And keep in mind it;s unfinished and without motion blur or DOF.
With accurate raytrace like DOF it looks so much better. Maybe I will post in a few days a picture and a short movie with those applied.
 
Old 03 March 2013   #26
Originally Posted by sebastian___: That's great. So we speak the same language after all
Do you still think it looks like a cartoon the image and the short gif animation I posted with the person composited ?

I also have bad thoughts about CryTek. I signed up for CineBox and a year later they got back to me, would I like to sign the NDA? So I was all excited thinking I'd be on the beta program etc. I signed, filled out a 20 minute long questionnaire, sent them lots of other info. After multiple emails they then said I couldn't use CineBox, something about future strategy BS. I obviously didn't have enough *military* money :(

Sebastian you seem really talented. Some amazing stuff on your website. Maybe CryEngine is not the right way to go though?

I've just recently made an enquiry about Octane Render SDK, whether or not that is available? Though I'm a bit concerned that the recent GTC demo needed 112 GPUs to interactively remote render a robot and a car, maybe internet lag?


I'm also tackling other things in the filmmaking pipeline that are incredibly slow at the moment, like asset generation. Things I'd like to do on set are change lighting on the fly, swap materials etc.


Yeah, feel free to ignore my advice which is to think if your approach is right for you. Goal posts keep moving higher in CGI for the movies, lots of incredible stuff coming out now.

Jules
 
Old 03 March 2013   #27
Originally Posted by Jules123:
I've just recently made an enquiry about Octane Render SDK, whether or not that is available? Though I'm a bit concerned that the recent GTC demo needed 112 GPUs to interactively remote render a robot and a car, maybe internet lag?

Jules


You should check out the GTC demo of Brigade that Otoy is developing for "realtime" use. The first 30 seconds is very impressive and running on 2 Titan cards:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...d&v=pXZ33YoKu9w

more info here:

http://raytracey.blogspot.com.au/

Which makes me wonder if the OP has it the wrong way round....are path tracers the future of game engine renders? Not in a hurry anyway, but maybe eventually
 
Old 03 March 2013   #28
What is happening here is technology convergence, as computers become more power and everything becomes more standardized having the need for super specialized rendering techniques for different applications diminishes..
__________________
Vizual-Element | Automotive Superstore
 
Old 03 March 2013   #29
I think the guy doing those tech demos now works for Octane.

It's amazing stuff and makes me super pissed that companies like mental ray charge so much for each license of their software (standalone or maya) when in a few years a whole lot of people who just need basic rendering features will be able to get by with a realtime engine.

I can't wait to ditch MR's noisy, slow GI that takes a lot of complicated slow tweaks to look smooth. I don't even need GI to look perfect, just need the lighting to not look harsh which realtime engines do a great job at.

Last edited by sentry66 : 03 March 2013 at 06:24 AM.
 
Old 03 March 2013   #30
I work in arch vis. Every so often, we have to revisit the whole realtime thing, because some client has a kid who plays Call of Duty, and thinks it would be cool to be able to walk around their space. And so I have to remind my boss why it's 'currently' still not viable.

-poor quality compared to prerendered images
-takes very long to setup
-texture quality is constrained to video card memory.
-requires making sure every corner looks good, even areas of little importance. adds to production time.
-final deliverable is usually something that has to be installed, is large in size, and then of course the clients computer has to be able to run it. Good luck with that.
-little to no chance for post processing ie photoshop/after effects etc etc
-did I mention the quality is extremely poor compared to prerendered images?

It just ends up being too expensive for the client for it to be profitable for the studio. I find just doing the quicktime VR in a slick package that you can view with a tablet and use the accelerometer for rotating around the space provides a good enough experience and allows me to make the image truly nice looking.

I have no doubt that we will get there eventually, but it can't be a step backward in quality and it can't have a lower cost/profit number, than what we're achieving now.
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.