The impossibility of photorealism

[mregashu]

So a post in classic games about old and new graphics got me thinking. A number of people have stated before the importance of style in graphics. This had led me to the thought that many are waiting for photorealistic graphics to hit the scene. Anyone else think it's never going to happen?

Here's my reasoning. Textures can improve exponentially. So can polygon counts, etc. However, graphics and character models are still in the hands of an artist. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong art, but I have never seen a portrait done by an artist in any medium that you couldn't tell it wasn't a photograph. Can a human really render the human form on canvas (or the digital equivalent ) that is impossible to distinguish from the real thing.

Even supposing it is possible, can you imagine the sheer amount of man hours it would take to accomplish such a feat, especialy when adding realistic human movement?

I admit I have seen flashes in games that were very, very, real. But it's things like a close up of an eye, or a hand, and it's fmv. I simply can't see it being possible. Of course, there may be some people who have a better idea of the subject who can help the error of my thoughts.

[geelw]

sometimes it's not "photorealism" that's required for a sense of reality. see ICO or Shadow of the Colossus on the PS2 for great examples of games that give off enough of an impression of reality that they'll impress pretty much anyone who sees them in motion.

[njiska]

It all depends on the subject matter. I don't think we can create photorealistic life because of the fluidity of motion. I do think we can get photo real with non-life thought. For example look at the evoltion of racing sims. PGR3 has amazingly realistic graphics. Not photo real, but a step in the right direction and a sign of things to come.

[Bratwurst]

Photorealistic paintings exist, you're either not looking hard enough or not considering a few things. Some painters work with extremely large canvas dimensions so at a distance the results are very good. The principle behind this is the same for 2D graphics in low resolution displays (16-bit, 32-bit consoles) and how they look best at a given distance or scale.

We have the technology right now to scan objects and reproduce physical duplicates (using lasers and resin as one example), not very hard to extrapolate that sort of data into a digital environment. It's the bottleneck of our current consumer grade computers that keeps us from streaming that kind of information into a fast paced entertainment medium.

Somewhat unrelated but those 3D printers are being considered for mass market in the near future, perhaps by the next decade, and that would be really cool. Imagine making your own model car or duplicating that elusive battery cover to a certain Game and Watch or Coleco mini-arcade.

[DefaultGen]

.....

[Virtualogik]

"Maybe I'm looking at the wrong art, but I have never seen a portrait done by an artist in any medium that you couldn't tell it wasn't a photograph."

(how do we make a quote here btw?...)

Take a look at this:

http://www.drublair.com/comersus/store/workshops/tica.htm

[mregashu]

Wow. That floors me. I stand completely corrected on the inability to create photorealistic art.

So, I guess impossibility is proven otherwise. The real question, however, is how many manhours would it take to give that kind of artistic accomplishment reality in movement and animation? Will any studio ever devote that much time and money? How many generations are we from this, 2, 3 more?

[Oobgarm]

Photorealistic IMAGES is one thing.

Coupling that with lifelike fluidity is an enitrely different thing.

Regardless, one can still pick out imperfections if they scrutinize the image enough.

[Wolfrider31]

Photorealistic IMAGES is one thing.

Coupling that with lifelike fluidity is an enitrely different thing.

Regardless, one can still pick out imperfections if they scrutinize the image enough.

The same can be said for actual photographs.

[Oobgarm]

Photorealistic IMAGES is one thing.

Coupling that with lifelike fluidity is an enitrely different thing.

Regardless, one can still pick out imperfections if they scrutinize the image enough.


The same can be said for actual photographs.

A better choice of wording would have been 'flaws or telltale signs that give away the fact that it is not a photostatic copy'.

[mailman187666]

think of it this way. They once thought leaches cured disease. They once though the Earth was flat, they thought space travel was impossible. The common cold used to kill people god knows how many years ago. In other words, things that people once believed was impossible could be the way of the future. Nothing is impossible.

[jajaja]

I remember hearing about photorealistic like 10 years ago hehe, still hasnt happend. I'd say it will happend one day tho, but i dont think we will see anything before atleast 10 years.

[Jestr]

Alex Ross has quite a few "photorealistic" pieces that would look great in a video game.

[jcalder8]

think of it this way. They once thought leaches cured disease. They once though the Earth was flat, they thought space travel was impossible. The common cold used to kill people god knows how many years ago. In other words, things that people once believed was impossible could be the way of the future. Nothing is impossible.

Exactly what I was going to say, well actually I was going to go with flight but close enough.

[ProgrammingAce]

When you see a show on TV or a movie in a theater, do you ever notice that the people are actually fake? They're just 2 dimensional representations of what people really look like. They're still frames broadcast at a speed faster then the human eye can handle to create an illusion of life.

[jajaja]

When you see a show on TV or a movie in a theater, do you ever notice that the people are actually fake? They're just 2 dimensional representations of what people really look like. They're still frames broadcast at a speed faster then the human eye can handle to create an illusion of life.

Movies are pre-rendered tho, so its no problem to make it photo realistic. And a movie is just tons of photos put together, so it not strange that its photo realistic ;) The eye can notice more than 30fps by the way. I just made a small .gif animation with 30 frames that ran for 1 second. It contained 29 black frames and 1 white frame. My eyes easily noticed the white frame.

[Wolfrider31]

When you see a show on TV or a movie in a theater, do you ever notice that the people are actually fake? They're just 2 dimensional representations of what people really look like. They're still frames broadcast at a speed faster then the human eye can handle to create an illusion of life.

Reminds me of a story about Picasso. A critic approaches him and asks him why he doesn't paint pictures showing what things really look like. Picasso tells him he doesn't understand what he means, so the man produces a photo of his wife saying, "This is what she really looks like."

Picasso's response? "She's rather small, and flat."

[mregashu]

That's a cool story about Picasso, Wolfrider. Ironically, Picasso had a huge influence on video games by designing the N64 controller.

[rbudrick]

I remember back when the PS2 came out some Sony bigwig (I think) said it would take something along the lines of 18,000 times more power than the PS2 has to make completely realistic looking games.

I probably have this paraphrased completely wrong, but if someone knows the quote I'm referring to, feel free to post.

-Rob