44 thoughts on “Soon…

  1. I photoshopped the image to improve color, mostly get rid of vignette, and get rid of soon text
    Do you see anything new?

  2. I’m really hoping that despite the lack of optimization, we get to see the volumetric fog at least buried in the pack. It doesn’t even have to be enabled, I would be satisfied knowing that it’s there and that I can turn it on and maybe even make my own modifications to it.

  3. I think a bit more contrast and gamma correction would really help your pack out. I went through and applied it to the depth of field in your most recent beta and moved over a 60 sample array for the offsets so it’s more obvious. This is done on 2.2 gamma.
    The first image shows gamma correction at gamma 2.2 applied to your most recent beta, it gets rid of the falloff with no cost to performance or color differences. The second image is my pack, where I’ve fine tuned the depth of field to be more accurate to cinema. I thought I’d show you this just to kind of show you the potential of your pack, and how little things can really improve an image.

      1. Yeah, I didn’t expect you to do anything with the 60 sample offsets I’m using in the picture, but I just wanted to show you the impact gamma correction can have on an image. It looks just as good with the 28 sample offsets. Really though it looks better when applied to fog, bloom, and god rays.

    1. That looks nice. I may agree with Sergeant Sarcasm on this one, but: What difference will it make (rather than the difference in gamma) really?

      1. Gamma correction is simply putting the base color into gamma space, putting the effect color into gamma space, applying the effect, then putting it back into linear space which is used by exponents and simple division. The one impact it will have is making the image look more realistic and cinematic, without performance impact. If I were to do this to depth of field at 28 samples, you would see the same thing, just a little more rough looking because of the lower samples. As far as applying gamma correct to things like fog and god rays, it gives the atmosphere a more realistic appearance with again no impact on performance.

        TL;DR Gamma correct on depth of field makes it look realistic without changing color or performance, and gamma correct on other things like fog and god rays makes it look more realistic without effecting performance.

        1. Because I really like this more cinematic effect on the shader, specially now that it doesn’t affect the performance in any way.

          1. The first effect would be the most realistic one for DeDelner to make, but the oval shape in the second one is also easy to implement (the oval shape is anamorphic DoF). The second one contains much more than just depth of field, and runs at about 30 FPS on my nVidia GTX 660 compared to the 40 to 60 that the version used in the first picture does. The second one has effects such as lens shift, where you see the blue or red outlines around the circle of confusion, fringe which is similar to lens shift but is in relation to the distance from the center an image is, a large bias, and anamorphic depth of field lens. But, if you are referring to the first picture’s cinematic effects, then yes more gamma correction would be wise considering it has no performance impact at all.

          2. Didn’t say it shouldn’t, just saying it could. It’s one of those cinematic effects you see in modern day movies, it’s a matter of preference.

  4. check architecturecraft with your shader, make some corners, and stuff, texture looks weird, optine 1.8.9 H4 internal shader looks fine.

Leave a Reply