Bandwagoning this post to tell you my appreciation for your work. I'm sorry that some posters here can be hostile and use flatout dumbass excuses to satisfy their own wrong opinions.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Marvel's Spider-Man: The Complete Digital Foundry Analysis!
- Thread starter zombiejames
- Start date
I need to go back to that one. The main reason why I didn't use that part is because my capture was way out of sync with the demo and it didn't work in side by side. That last section of comparisons was the last thing I did and almost as a bonus and only kept bits where the footage lined up in Premiere. Which is insight into how the comparisons work - I took my captured bit, lined it up with the demo and simply cut them apart to line up all the matching sections while cutting things that were out of sync.
That said, you can clearly see that there is dynamic lighting there with the explosions in the final - it's not as exposed, though. The shots that our resident "Detroit UE4 demo maker" posted aren't fully in sync there so it shows dynamic lights on the left before they appear on the right.
I suppose it's like...go ahead and criticize the findings all day but do not criticize the motive.
Exactly. That's what I was pointing out to him. That kind of accusation is not something you just throw out there because you feel like it. Honestly, that kind of shit should warrant a warning or ban.
Your work is truly amazing. Don't let a vocal minority discourage you. The people that appreciate the material you guys at digital foundry put out far outnumber the trolls and haters. However this is the internet, there will always be people acting like jerks. The ignore list is your friend ;)
fwiw I found the Shenmue video really useful. You couldn't have predicted all the stuff that came after that. You nailed the graphical aspects in that video
I remember quite a few downgrade believers in that thread said they know for a fact that it is downgraded because they have eyes and they can see it. Well today a video of Neil deGrass popped up in my YT feed, and I couldn't help but chuckle for first few minutes of that video.
https://youtu.be/lM_HPAXwJFw?list=WL&t=16
https://youtu.be/lM_HPAXwJFw?list=WL&t=16
It's like a few seconds long corridor run, with so much that comes before and after it looking clearly better or at least the same in the final release, lol. For all anyone knows they may have decided to make that scene more clear with less smoke just so that you can easily run through it without dying in some stupid way, because you can't see what's a few meters ahead. But nooo, it's a DF conspiracy, lol.
Last edited:
The shots i posted are in sync (they are like .15 secs off) and from the IGN video. You can go ahead and watch the video yourself. Those explosions on the left never happened on the right. And there were more aswell. I just thought 3 pictures were enough to show the difference. I could have posted 20 pics and cluttered the thread.
Yes.Dear Every Console Developer.
MAKE A MENU IDENTICAL TO THIS!!!
I will turn those all off in a heartbeat, with the potential to put blur at 1 or 2.
Do that, devs.
It looks like they took out the dramatic explosions there, presumably because they weren't as realistic to that scene (eg why would there be giant explosions coming from the pillars that are collapsing). They did however add the explosions/sparks and lighting to the helicopter scene instead, which makes far more sense and is realistic to the event.
Last edited:
So, looking closely at that scene again, it seems like the main big change here is the intensity of the dynamic light. Both versions use a dynamic light during the explosion but it's higher intensity in the demo. In the final game the light doesn't seem to penetrate objects in front of it. Like, you see those ceiling bits? In the demo, everything lights up - the explosion happens behind the ceiling piece but the opposite side is orange. They also use a strong radial blur. In the full game, it seems like the light can be occluded perhaps.
It looks like there are a lot of particles in both. Would be interested to hear the reason for the changes. I could see visibility being the reason for toning down the radial blur - they still use a similar effect but it's less strong. I do think it still appears quite detailed in the final game if you look at all the individual objects in the scene. It's difficult to make out in the demo as there's too much motion which causes macro-blocking.
There seems to be one or two additional explosions that happen in the demo as well. I can't imagine they would be "too expensive" to render, though. There's no indication of that as there are a lot of other scenes with heavy explosions.
I think that is part of the folly of focusing too much on this demo. It's like, oh this detail is missing from the final...but that same detail can show up in other places in larger quantities. What do you guys think? Does this explosion look better or worse to you?
These shots are paused using photo mode, by the way - the rendering doesn't change, though. It's just to remove the motion blur so we can get a closer look at the detail.
http:///2fUc.jpg
http:///3fUc.jpg
http:///5fUc.jpg
http:///4fUc.jpg
Demo
http:///6fUc.jpg
It looks like there are a lot of particles in both. Would be interested to hear the reason for the changes. I could see visibility being the reason for toning down the radial blur - they still use a similar effect but it's less strong. I do think it still appears quite detailed in the final game if you look at all the individual objects in the scene. It's difficult to make out in the demo as there's too much motion which causes macro-blocking.
There seems to be one or two additional explosions that happen in the demo as well. I can't imagine they would be "too expensive" to render, though. There's no indication of that as there are a lot of other scenes with heavy explosions.
I think that is part of the folly of focusing too much on this demo. It's like, oh this detail is missing from the final...but that same detail can show up in other places in larger quantities. What do you guys think? Does this explosion look better or worse to you?
These shots are paused using photo mode, by the way - the rendering doesn't change, though. It's just to remove the motion blur so we can get a closer look at the detail.
http:///2fUc.jpg
http:///3fUc.jpg
http:///5fUc.jpg
http:///4fUc.jpg
Demo
http:///6fUc.jpg
Last edited:
I think I've figured it out. In the demo most of the explosions aren't from the building collapsing, but the rockets being fired in to the building. In the final build of the game, he isn't firing normal rockets, but some sort of electric or ice based power blast. The big explosion in the final build is from the ceiling, presumably from the upper floors collapsing or a ceiling gas pipe blowing or something.
Last edited:
This is pretty much what I was thinking. Watching the IGN video comparing the two, the same effects are there in that particular scene, they just aren't as prevalent or happening at exactly the same spot.
Hmm, you might be right about that. They changed the attack type for the final game.
In the demo, Martin Li is in the chopper with another guy firing rockets and those rockets are damaging the building. In the final game, there is a different type of rocket with blue-ish smoke. Those rockets project a blue light instead of an orange one.
So it seems like the entirety of the explosions are resulting from that large transformer crashing down onto the roof - the building is damaged. In the E3 demo they simply have a different style of attack coming from the chopper and those extra explosions originate from that.
This is a good point.
2018:
2017:
There we go.
What's funny is you can see that they made changes. From the mask to the prompts to the rockets.
Yeah, the explosions in the final look like it's from a different source.
Even the lighting, to me it looks washed out in the demo, like too much contrast?
Seems like some ppl, even if there's changes, want things to look the same, even if it doesn't make sense?
How about for what both the demo and the final shows, it looks good. In the context of what they wanted to show.
You would think after puddle gate this would be known. Some ppl really need to....let it go....
Last edited:
Jesus are people still talking about downgrades? It's like they actually WANT these sorts of issues just so they can create drama. Oh wait, that's exactly what they want.
The fire explosion in your picture is NOT fully visible during game-play, hence doesn't fully affect performance. You achieved those pic using photo-mode and it looks like different pics of the exact same explosion. Whereas the demo had 9 big explosions.
I counted NINE BIG fiery explosions in the demo. Half of them being in full view during gameplay.
And that's without mentioning the performance heavy alpha effects in the dense smoke particles compared to the final game. From the IGN demo I only see two small explosions in the final game and both are occluded by objects. If anyone has a better final game footage then i would like to see it.
Last edited:
Damn. What happened here?
lmao Detroit: Become Human, God of War, now Spider-Man. iamthatiam what did Sony do to you? Stole your candy in high school?
You really have no idea what you're talking about do you. Nor do you understand my post. Go finish that Detroit demo then we can talk.
He's like Bizarro thelastword.
Also, could you direct me to a post of yours where you criticize an Xbox or Switch title to this degree?
You sure do like to insult developers, though. Why exactly? Why does this matter?
You won't find it to this degree Dark.
When it comes to Sony AAA games he is be out in full force .
Thanks for all the hard work and question you answer so far .
For them it has nothing to do with you or the quality of what you captured and how you presented it.
Their problem is that this awesome and high rated game is again exclusive to the bad bad Playstation 4 and nothing else.
Some people try in this cases to find every dust particle missing from a video from 3 years ago.
They would rather be a web swinging Super hero like Spiderman or an axt swinging god instead of being a hardcore pirate or hardcore zombie hunter :)
I think Dark1x would like to hear the reason for the changes from the developers, not from you. Unless you have access to the game's code that we don't know about, which I doubt, this is conjecture on your part. The least you could do is mention when your contributions have conjecture as part of them, because others contributing to this thread have already done so.
So the game will be playable by the public in a mere few hours. Plenty of additional footage will be created and made available. The E3 demo will be moot, and everyone will have their preferences on what looks better or worse in-game. I expect that people here will remain respectful of others' work creating video games, and others' work creating content in appreciation of the craft of video games. This should be easy to do because we all love video games, yes? Thank you.
For good reason. Differences are super minimal. Did you check out the comparison shots in the main article? It's mostly just a change in resolution.
You just don't know how to admit you're clueless, haha. Please keep making these embarrassing posts so I can keep laughing at you.
Do you always insult anyone who posts anything that you don't like?
I mean, I'm not the one who said there's no performance difference between a potentially 4k parallax corrected cubemap versus a generic 128 cubemap.
If only you took your own advice.
Appreciate the analysis DF and Dark1x. It was a good watch.
Also it's been said but just skip the people trying to throw out bait. It's obvious and everyone can see the intentions.
Discussion is good, but wild accusations arent even worth a mention.
Also it's been said but just skip the people trying to throw out bait. It's obvious and everyone can see the intentions.
Discussion is good, but wild accusations arent even worth a mention.
Insomniac's interview from PSBlog made it seem like they've tried something different with HDR:
"We've tried to find the right balance with our HDR implementation such that the medium tones and dark tones in the image look the same as they would in non-HDR, but the brightest parts of the image really pop."
Does this matchup with your findings so far?
Help me out here, please. The only things I see in the article linked in the OP (on Eurogamer?) are comparison shots between E3 2017 and Final. I just want to see the change in res and such
It's still baffling how one person can ruin a thread and we somehow let it happen every single time...
Read my post again. I made that post as a concerned community member, but I am making this post now as a moderator.
Stop this back and forth, and move on.
So what I've finding is that for the bulk of gameplay the image sits in a very similar range of luminance to SDR content, VERY bright in game objects such as the Sun and explosions seem to peak at approx 700 nits and of course this is seen in lower values in specular highlights.
I've caught a couple of pixels in the centre of particle effects reaching higher values, but these have been super rare.
This is often the way that many UHD 4K discs are mastered, as either the content itself was created with HDR in mind or the HDR master of the disc is deliberately trying not to deviate from the directors SDR vision for the movie.
Blade Runner 2049 is an example of this as well as many older films that have had 4K releases
It may be that later on in the game, when certain other effects such as electricity become more visible, that we see more of these higher values.
On the plus side, the fairly low dynamic range that the main game is using will give a very familiar filmic vibe, which may well be intentional given the type of game it is.
The game also readily outputs near black data, not raising the blacks and tinting them to give them teal movie shadows.
The main issue that this approach will give for some users is that certain common models of HDR TVs are expecting videogame content to be 4000nits, so when presented with content such as this that has significantly lower peak brightness code values, the TV will hold back , reserving it's peak brightness output for high values of data, which of course it never receives, resulting in a dim image.
No game to data to date has produced metadata to stop this happening, however I will check this later too, in case Sony have open up some extra tools in the SDK.
Yes, let's move on. Blocking the user (first time I've used it here and it works well) in question and will continue as usual. Not worth engaging trolls.
Anyways, regarding HDR.
I agree with Boris as well. On the LG C8, I do feel it looks noticeably better in HDR but it's use is still fairly limited. On the older B6, it can appear dim for the reasons he's noted.
Anyways, regarding HDR.
I agree with Boris as well. On the LG C8, I do feel it looks noticeably better in HDR but it's use is still fairly limited. On the older B6, it can appear dim for the reasons he's noted.
Where did he insult you?
If only you stayed true to your word about that Detroit level.
Edit: just read the mod post.
All i said was this. I counted 9 big explosions in the demo verse the two in the IGN video. There are also a big disparity between the density of alpha smoke particles. These are facts that others can look in the video and count for themselves.
This isn't conjecture, I have never once even mentioned downgrade or came to a formal or informal conclusion. All i have posted are about the fact there is difference between this scene in the demo and the scene in the final game.
Isn't this a graphic thread? Isn't that what this is supposed to be about? If not can you then point me to the graphics analysis thread? Because I tried to make a thread and it will closed and told to come here.
I have politely responded to a few posts addressed to me in a calm and cool manner.
This is supposed to be a graphics thread and was referred to by several mods. I have no animosity against anyone. If i can't freely talk about graphics in any thread, especially one that is supposed to be a "graphics analysis", politely, with supporting evidence, calmly and respectfully. Then tell me so i can leave and never come back.
