GT Sport - Trailers, Videos and Screenshots

[ImaRobot]

Different condition of capture of light

Whatever you're trying to make it, one looks natural and one doesn't. That Audi just sticks out like a sore thumb, and goes exactly along the lines with what @Samus was mentioning earlier what with quality being different between different scapes. When they're right, they nail it, but when its off, its extremely noticeable and odd.

 

[azeeza]

Whatever you're trying to make it, one looks natural and one doesn't. That Audi just sticks out like a sore thumb, and goes exactly along the lines with what @Samus was mentioning earlier what with quality being different between different scapes. When they're right, they nail it, but when its off, its extremely noticeable and odd.

Welcome to the world of photography, same scenary can have different rendering, it depend your setting you choose

 

[ImaRobot]

Welcome to the world of photography, same scenary can have different rendering, it depend your setting you choose

Which has nothing to do with some of the cars not fitting into there surroundings in the scapes, and sticking out like a sore thumb. Some of the scapes just make the cars look too digital and don't blend too well, and with the backdrops being actual real photos, they look odd.

 

[torque99]

I can't wait to get my hands on all those scapes and cars, 100+ cars (multiple cars- maybe 5-10 possible on each scape) x 1000(approx) scape photos = 100,000's of different set ups available along with the normal photo race mode which so far from what I read looks like you will be able to have a slo-mo version or at least pause where you like, and a more powerful camera and more filters, options than GT6 I think @Nato_777 has his work cut out on the photo threads and comps. If you need a hand with anything when it releases I don't mind helping out again with any comps like DC nato if you get bogged down 👍

 

[azeeza]

Which has nothing to do with some of the cars not fitting into there surroundings in the scapes, and sticking out like a sore thumb. Some of the scapes just make the cars look too digital and don't blend too well, and with the backdrops being actual real photos, they look odd.

Well Samus talk about how right the dark shadow is on the Lotus picture, so Yes it does, it depend to the setting who is different here, it doesn't mean the shadow on Audi pic is wrong
Inlay is another thing, what you find odd, it s the lighting Engine who cant replicate exactly those from background, look at dynamic lighting on race, some time is very good and some is not
The second point, the 3D model is placing on a 2D picture with some magic algorithm, sure you will see some fails like the wheel on the Audi picture. That s why you cant compare to an 3D environment that the calculation of the surface contact is more precise

 

[ImaRobot]

Well Samus talk about how right the dark shadow is on the Lotus picture, so Yes it does, it depend to the setting who is different here, it doesn't mean the shadow on Audi pic is wrong

No, it doesn't. He mentioned the Lotus looking more natural in comparison to the odd looking Audi, so it's not so much a different light source being captured within the photo, but more so the blending and more natural lighting that they decided to use to make the final product. The Audi looks completely like someone just plopped a digital model of an Audi onto a live photo, which is honestly all the did, but it didn't work well for more reasons than just the shadow. Where as the Lotus is much more convincing. Either way, yes the shadow is wrong.

Inlay is another thing, what you find odd, it s the lighting Engine who cant replicate exactly those from background, look at dynamic lighting on race, some time is very good and some is not

Which is exactly what people have already been saying. Whatever case, the Audi is off, and just doesn't look natural at all, unlike many of the other scapes.

The second point, the 3D model is placing on a 2D picture with some magic algorithm, sure you will see some fails like the wheel on the Audi picture. That s why you cant compare to an 3D environment that the calculation of the surface contact is more precise

No one is. However, again, that's why the Audi is so off, for a handful of different reasons, and just looks completely wrong. I'm just confused as to why you're disagreeing and agreeing at the complete same time. You might want to make up your mind.

 

[Nato_777]

@torque99 It will be nice to see the GT Sport photomode section come alive when GTS hits the shelves.

 

[MatskiMonk]

The photo used for the Audi pic had too long of an exposure. I believe they match the White Balance, or an element of the background photo's histogram to the rendered 3D portion of the end photo - to make the subject look like it's bathed in the same light as the background, mid ground and foreground.

If you have a play with the levels in the Audi pic, based on the white, grey and black levels of the car, the image doesn't change much. If you do it based on the white, grey and black levels of the background photo, the contrast between the two becomes less noticeable...

Further more, I believe that had the background photo been properly exposed, the lack of shadow under the R8 would have been far less noticeable. Also, had the photo been captured with a much shorter exposure, the leaves above the car would have been far more crisp, and therefore not made the car stand out as being quite so sharp.

I believe that a good deal of the "scape" idea is based on procedural coding based on the EXIF data and histogram of the background photo, and when that photo is not ideal, it produces some odd rendered results.



What I'd be really curious to see, is if you can move that Evora across to it's right, and into the bright sunshine. I'd bet 5 English Pence you can't.

 

[ImaRobot]

If you have a play with the levels in the Audi pic, based on the white, grey and black levels of the car, the image doesn't change much. If you do it based on the white, grey and black levels of the background photo, the contrast between the two becomes less noticeable...

I'm not so sure, it looks just as out of place as the original to be honest. Making it darker just seems to pronounce the fact that you're not looking at an actual photo, and draws out more of the aspects that you'd be able to notice it as something that was digitally rendered. If anything, that made the situation worse.

Further more, I believe that had the background photo been properly exposed, the lack of shadow under the R8 would have been far less noticeable. Also, had the photo been captured with a much shorter exposure, the leaves above the car would have been far more crisp, and therefore not made the car stand out as being quite so sharp.

Well that makes sense, but that's just because if you make something darker, it'll be harder to notice details in the dark spots. I'd go so far to say that it's not the background that makes the car stand out, but the techniques used to implement it into the photo.

 

[azeeza]

No, it doesn't. He mentioned the Lotus looking more natural in comparison to the odd looking Audi, so it's not so much a different light source being captured within the photo, but more so the blending and more natural lighting that they decided to use to make the final product. The Audi looks completely like someone just plopped a digital model of an Audi onto a live photo, which is honestly all the did, but it didn't work well for more reasons than just the shadow. Where as the Lotus is much more convincing. Either way, yes the shadow is wrong.


Which is exactly what people have already been saying. Whatever case, the Audi is off, and just doesn't look natural at all, unlike many of the other scapes.


No one is. However, again, that's why the Audi is so off, for a handful of different reasons, and just looks completely wrong. I'm just confused as to why you're disagreeing and agreeing at the complete same time. You might want to make up your mind.

You cant understand cause for you it s just a photo, so your opinion is based on 'photo'
If you have a consideration into limitation software and so on, you ll find the key, right now i lose my time to repeat the same thing, all you guys have to say, is someone is telling this, someone is telling that, the point is i talk to specific quote, or your own opinion is not enough legit ?

 

[ImaRobot]

You cant understand cause for you it s just a photo, so your opinion is based on 'photo'
If you have a consideration into limitation software and so on, you ll find the key, right now i lose my time to repeat the same thing, all you guys have to say, is someone is telling this, someone is telling that, the point is i talk to specific quote, or your own opinion is not enough legit ?

So now its software limitation? Right. You're right, you are wasting your time, because what you're explaining has no relevance to what we're talking about. I don't need to know about software limitation to know that this Audi just doesn't sit right within the photo, and to know how odd it is and how noticeably unrealistic it looks . Software limitation has no bearing on this discussion we are in, whatsoever, even more so is how odd that you're even saying that when you're here trying to convince us that it is fine.

Wait, are you the one person that said you don't have to wait for uncompressed videos, and can judge off horribly compressed photos/videos because your an imagery expert? Even though the final product looked miles better than the videos/photos it was shown in? It all makes sense now.

EDIT: Yes, it turns out you are the one that said that Thanks for the laugh I suppose.

 

[nocturnalgrey]

I honestly believe the talented photo takers here at GTPlanet are better than the ones at PDI. It was the photo-mode forum that brought me here in the first place and I can't wait to look at some the shots taken and displayed for all to see. Some of you can work magic (even without editing).

 

[SlipZtrEm]

I honestly believe the talented photo takers here at GTPlanet are better than the ones at PDI. It was the photo-mode forum that brought me here in the first place and I can't wait to look at some the shots taken and displayed for all to see. Some of you can work magic (even without editing).

Indeed. Some of the folks here are seriously talented behind the camera in GT6, and I have no doubt that will continue with GT Sport.

I do wonder if any sort of glitches like the Audi image will pop up though. With how popular the Photomode section of the forums are, you can bet any unusualness will be brought to light (ha) quite quickly.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I'm not so sure, it looks just as out of place as the original to be honest. Making it darker just seems to pronounce the fact that you're not looking at an actual photo, and draws out more of the aspects that you'd be able to notice it as something that was digitally rendered. If anything, that made the situation worse.

Well that makes sense, but that's just because if you make something darker, it'll be harder to notice details in the dark spots. I'd go so far to say that it's not the background that makes the car stand out, but the techniques used to implement it into the photo.

I'm not trying to say the my quick photoshop fixes everything, of course it doesn't - I'll pay you good money (or 5 English Pence!) if you can make an over-exposed JPG appear properly exposed.

In post edit!:

Apologies, it doesn't make too much of a difference but I realised I'd attached the wrong image before, this is the one I'd meant to attach, prior to applying blur to the tail end of the car and messing around with colours further...

Anyway, it isn't made "darker" as such. The areas of the Audi that are have the darkest shade (i.e. should virtually appear black) are not the same tone as the areas of the background that have the darkest shade (i.e. should virtually appear black). This applies to the greys and whites too. Once you match these levels between the two elements (the photo, and the car) the apparent difference is less noticeable and more inline with what you'd expect to see (i.e. the midtones and shadows on the car become darker because essentially the car is in shade).

 

[azeeza]

So now its software limitation? Right. You're right, you are wasting your time, because what you're explaining has no relevance to what we're talking about. I don't need to know about software limitation to know that this Audi just doesn't sit right within the photo, and to know how odd it is and how noticeably unrealistic it looks . Software limitation has no bearing on this discussion we are in, whatsoever, even more so is how odd that you're even saying that when you're here trying to convince us that it is fine.

Wait, are you the one person that said you don't have to wait for uncompressed videos, and can judge off horribly compressed photos/videos because your an imagery expert? Even though the final product looked miles better than the videos/photos it was shown in? It all makes sense now.

EDIT: Yes, it turns out you are the one that said that Thanks for the laugh I suppose.

It s an algorithm so yes, there are limitation, you can laugh if you want, it doesnt make you more clever
You dont need to see or know or whatever, but the result is in front of your eyes, it s still your opinion, i really dont care you know
It just an point of view, either you talk with all informations or like you, you talk with just what you see
And FYI i didnt bring the limitation software to my rescue, it s there since my first comment on the Audi

You are really like a kid, bring an off topic here to laugh oat my face, really funny
If you whant to know if i regret what i said, not really, from the direct feed, it s not miles better, in better quality yes, but still, the car is not really well design
Maybe you get offensed cause your re a FM fanboy ? Just let you know i m not impressed with GTS model too

 

[ImaRobot]

It s an algorithm so yes, there are limitation, you can laugh if you want, it doesnt make you more clever
You dont need to see or know or whatever, but the result is in front of your eyes, it s still your opinion, i really dont care you know
It just an point of view, either you talk with all informations or like you, you talk with just what you see
And FYI i didnt bring the limitation software to my rescue, it s there since my first comment on the Audi

You are really like a kid, bring an off topic here to laugh oat my face, really funny
If you whant to know if i regret what i said, not really, from the direct feed, it s not miles better, in better quality yes, but still, the car is not really well design
Maybe you get offensed cause your re a FM fanboy ? Just let you know i m not impressed with GTS model too

To get to the point, everything you just said is irrelevant to the topic at hand. The limitation is irrelevant because no one is talking about it being bad because of it or even wondering for that matter. All I've. Been saying is that the car just isn't convicing like many of the other scapes floating around, and with there being 1000 scapes there are just going to be some that just arent as good as the rest. Meanwhile, you're disagreeing with everyones opinion that it looks wrong and saying it looks fine, and now flip flop all over the place saying its not fine because of software limitation, something of which no one has even mentioned or has any relevance to begin with Mr. Expert of Imagery, whatever that means.

They did a bad job with this one, and i dont believe its due to limitation anyways, because there are literally tons more that absolutely put this one to shame.

Fanboy? No. I like games in general, doesnt matter what side of the fence its from. As for being offended, no. Amused more like it. That was just a ridiculously ignorant and blind post that I couldn't help but reply to.

 

[TokoTurismo]

@azeeza Reported.

 

[Samus]

i really dont care you know

Could've fooled me. People posted that they thought the photo didn't look right, someone who didn't care wouldn't go ultra defensive and try to come up with reasons why we're wrong in our opinion. Guess what, all that stuff you just said? Doesn't change my opinion, I still think it looks wrong.

 

[Robbks]

GT:Sport
The Ultimate Photo Simulator........

 

[Tornado]

And FYI i didnt bring the limitation software to my rescue, it s there since my first comment on the Aud

Not that "limitation software" is a particularly successful rescue for your attempt to find any argument that can stick in this discussion you apparently don't care about, but feel free to explain where software limitations are mentioned in your first comment:

No problem with Audi scape, People need to go out more often
Words from photograph

Because I don't see anything but you basically telling people to shut up in a conversation you admitted to not having read in full when called on it:

Yes you're right, i didn't see his comment on the previous page

In fact, I don't see any mention of software limitations in the rest of that second comment either.

 

[azeeza]

To get to the point, everything you just said is irrelevant to the topic at hand. The limitation is irrelevant because no one is talking about it being bad because of it or even wondering for that matter. All I've. Been saying is that the car just isn't convicing like many of the other scapes floating around, and with there being 1000 scapes there are just going to be some that just arent as good as the rest. Meanwhile, you're disagreeing with everyones opinion that it looks wrong and saying it looks fine, and now flip flop all over the place saying its not fine because of software limitation, something of which no one has even mentioned or has any relevance to begin with Mr. Expert of Imagery, whatever that means.

They did a bad job with this one, and i dont believe its due to limitation anyways, because there are literally tons more that absolutely put this one to shame.

Fanboy? No. I like games in general, doesnt matter what side of the fence its from. As for being offended, no. Amused more like it. That was just a ridiculously ignorant and blind post that I couldn't help but reply to.

Could've fooled me. People posted that they thought the photo didn't look right, someone who didn't care wouldn't go ultra defensive and try to come up with reasons why we're wrong in our opinion. Guess what, all that stuff you just said? Doesn't change my opinion, I still think it looks wrong.

We Re here to debate or not ? So telling my opinion is taking my defensive ? Is it not the same to you all ? So it has nothing to with this.
I know i cant explain well to you, cause it s not my native language, so yes i don t care if youre right or wrong


And you re right, it is funny, you know better than my job @ImaRobot ( sarcasm)

Not that "limitation software" is a particularly successful rescue for your attempt to find any argument that can stick in this discussion you apparently don't care about, but feel free to explain where software limitations are mentioned in your first comment:


Because I don't see anything but you basically telling people to shut up in a conversation you admitted to not having read in full when called on it:

In fact, I don't see any mention of software limitations in the rest of that second comment either.

That s your interpretation, Need is not an obligation, so no it s not a shut up, you guys have the art to change the Words from someone you re disagree, it s really crazy
For the limitation software, if you read my comment, there re 2 types of analyse, so don't need to mention it if i got it in consideration since the beginning

 

[ImaRobot]

We Re here to debate or not ? So telling my opinion is taking my defensive ? Is it not the same to you all ? So it has nothing to with this.
I know i cant explain well to you, cause it s not my native language, so yes i don t care if youre right or wrong


And you re right, it is funny, you know better than my job @ImaRobot ( sarcasm)

You're explaining well enough. It's just that what you've been explaining didn't have much relevance to the topic at hand. You then go off to talk about how you've been talking about it since your first post, which was obviously a lie, and then you go on to say you don't care, when you've made such a fuss(and continue doing so.) It's just odd.

Yes, I suppose it is funny if that is actually your job.

 

[Samus]

You are free to post your opinion, if you had just said "I think it looks OK" there is no problem. However what you initially posted was neither, it was a statement of fact that the photo was fine and then an insult that those who think it is wrong should go outside, as if our eyes are broken.

 

[torque99]

I think personally rather than make the picture darker I tried adding more light in the background picture and it is getting better, as said before I think it could be down to the person setting up the photo or the over exposure on the original..I am sure there will be many debates on realism when the game is released. Another 3 months of this guessing yet!
Original

More light added to the tree section and colour saturation reduced.

 

[azeeza]

You're explaining well enough. It's just that what you've been explaining has no relevance to the topic at hand. You then go off to talk about how you've been talking about it since your first post, which was obviously a lie, and then you go on to say you don't care, when you've made such a fuss(and continue doing so.) It's just odd.

Yes, I suppose it is funny if that is actually your job.

If i care enought, i could just Google translate what i want saying with my native language, bit i dont do it, cause i dont mind
If it appears odd to you, ok but i worked on thousand of picture, at some point things can be weird but it s there
Like hdr, same scenary but with variant of light, there re to many exemple with setting who change literally the real world without editing, but still a picture from real world

You are free to post your opinion, if you had just said "I think it looks OK" there is no problem. However what you initially posted was neither, it was a statement of fact that the photo was fine and then an insult that those who think it is wrong should go outside, as if our eyes are broken.

That is what you want to understand, but that not my intention, in my country it s not an insult
It s like a way how a Master show the way to mastering something, nothing like you guys think

 

[ImaRobot]

If i care enought, i could just Google translate what i want saying with my native language, bit i dont do it, cause i dont mind

If you don't care, then it makes no sense why you've been on such a tirade, and continue to do so. You care a lot more than you're letting everyone off to believe. I've never seen someone so adamant on something they supposedly don't care about.

If it appears odd to you, ok but i worked on thousand of picture, at some point things can be weird but it s there
Like hdr, same scenary but with variant of light, there re to many exemple with setting who change literally the real world without editing, but still a picture from real world

Thousands of pictures huh? It being your job does not make your point of view any more correct than anyone elses, as you've not been able to show much knowledge over anyone in this discussion, nor the ones in the past. Especially considering the whole fiasco you made up about the Ford GT. If it really was your job, and you had experience in the area, I don't think you would have been so quick to dismiss it like you did.

I'm not talking about the photo that seems odd, I'm talking about your persistence, and how you're approaching this subject.

 

[azeeza]

If you don't care, then it makes no sense why you've been on such a tirade, and continue to do so. You care a lot more than you're letting everyone off to believe. I've never seen someone so adamant on something they supposedly don't care about.


Thousands of pictures huh? It being your job does not make your point of view any more correct than anyone elses, as you've not been able to show much knowledge over anyone in this discussion, nor the ones in the past. Especially considering the whole fiasco you made up about the Ford GT. If it really was your job, and you had experience in the area, I don't think you would have been so quick to dismiss it like you did.

I'm not talking about the photo that seems odd, I'm talking about your persistence, and how you're approaching this subject.

Well you & co answer me so naturally i have to answer...if you read carefully, my first word is based on short sentences
Maybe but i have a long observation ( photograph base) and see a lot of conditions, so if it seems good to me, i can say it, cause i saw it on the past or on previous work
You re right, but i m not here to teach my knowledge or else
I assume when i say something wrong, like when i say i m agree with Nato777 on my second post
For you it s maybe odd, but i try to be clear, so at each post i add more details, that doesnt mean i tryed to insisting to something, and if you point first your opinion then next the others, it s normal that I have different subject to answer, cause for me you dont talk the same thing like others

 

[ImaRobot]

Well you & co answer me so naturally i have to answer...if you read carefully, my first word is based on short sentences
Maybe but i have a long observation ( photograph base) and see a lot of conditions, so if it seems good to me, i can say it, cause i saw it on the past or on previous work

It's not problem that you think its fine. I however, don't. It doesn't come close to the realism that plenty of the other scapes produce. From the lighting and reflection on the vehicle, to the shadows, to how abnormally large it looks. So when so many things like this are wrong, it's odd that you dismiss it and bring in your work as if it validates what you're trying push on everyone.

You re right, but i m not here to teach my knowledge or else

Really? Because it really seems like you are, as you've been going into details for some time now about things no one is talking about. Not that you've really been teaching anything, for that matter.

 

[Tornado]

That s your interpretation, Need is not an obligation, so no it s not a shut up, you guys have the art to change the Words from someone you re disagree, it s really crazy

Learn what the words you are saying mean before you say them then.

For the limitation software, if you read my comment, there re 2 types of analyse, so don't need to mention it if i got it in consideration since the beginning

I read your comment. I quoted it in its entirely.



Here's the first sentence:

No problem with Audi scape, People need to go out more often

Here's the other sentence:

Words from photograph

No matter how fractured your English is, there isn't any way you can twist those two sentences into you talking about software limitations; even if you going on about something of questionable expertise on your part was relevant to the discussion in the first place.

 

[azeeza]

It's not problem that you think its fine. I however, don't. It doesn't come close to the realism that plenty of the other scapes produce. From the lighting and reflection on the vehicle, to the shadows, to how abnormally large it looks. So when so many things like this are wrong, it's odd that you dismiss it and bring in your work as if it validates what you're trying push on everyone.


Really? Because it really seems like you are, as you've been going into details for some time now about things no one is talking about. Not that you've really been teaching anything, for that matter.

Like I said my first post is about the lightning shadow to answer on the same page
Otherwise, thing you enumerate or Nato, are there, but these things is not lighting, that s why i found it s good for me
And for the wheel, the blurry reflection, all this stuff is generated with the Engine, that s why i call it limitation software, and you will see on other scapes too, if you want to see default, it s not the only picture.
If i really show you my knowledge, i would talk in more on détails but i miss it intentionnally. Have you found i was clear or just saying some stuff
Please dont say everyone, you dont say all the same thing, so to respond to each one, i have to afapt my answer to the interlocutor

Learn what the words you are saying mean before you say them then.



I read your comment. I quoted it in its entirely.



Here's the first sentence:

Here's the other sentence:

No matter how fractured your English is, there isn't any way you can twist those two sentences into you talking about software limitations; even if you going on about something of questionable expertise on your part was relevant to the discussion in the first place.

It s not the word the problem, i t s the overall meaning that you cant understand, sometimes one word means hundreds
And i clarified the meaning, and you persist to understand with your meaning, it s not my fault anymore
I said it on the previous post, taking consideration doesn't mean i have to write the detail on the post...