is GT6's photo mode better than Forza 5?

[gtuned]

That P1 shot is beautiful and IMO, blurs the line between game and photorealistic.

Let's look at this one of mine though.



It's both realistic, yet clearly a game shot. But why?

To me, around the rear wheel and side, it looks the most realistic. But as you move closer towards the front, it loses that feel. For me, it's the reflection and gloss of the paint. It looks... dull, or a Satin finish. This is where some of Forza's high gloss reflections would come in, somewhere a mix between GT6's diffused reflection, and Forza's Mirror like.

If you view the full 100% of the 7000px, it looks real though. Mostly cause of the grain and slight out of focus touch.

The grain is a little too big, but that's on my end. I still haven't worked out the perfect method for upsizing 2x to 24MP+

 

[phillgt2002]

Just took a stroll through this thread from beginning to this point and I have come to the conclusion that 85% of the things people are saying aren't even related to the discussion even part of my post.

I saw a few of gtuned posts and he's mainly right. GT6 does have basically a better image processor (if that's what you want to call it) allowing for minute adjustments. In GT6 you actually take the photo and worry about the F-stop, shutter speed, exposure comp, focal length and so on. In FM5 if you don't increase the shutter speed while a car is in motion the photo will not have a sense of motion, it'll just seem like a still. When you increase the shutter speed the car will seem like it's moving. All FM5 does is blur the background if the main subject is moving when you have the shutter speed increased.

We all should know that if you're going to take a photo of a car moving in real life you'd have to have a slower shutter speed and you'd have to do tracking of the subject to achieve the feeling of motion. In GT6 you have to set the settings properly to get proper results. Anyone can go into FM5 and take a photo, and in GT6 you have to know what aperture, shutter speed, and focal length are in order to get anywhere; this is the main reason why you see mainly nice shots coming from GT6 because the majority of GT photographers have dealt with photography.

Even when you upload the photos of GT6 to Flickr they show the Exif data.

GT6 has a better photo mode in general. It doesn't use sliders instead it uses actual information you would need to know as if you were using a actual camera of real life. Does GT6 have better car models? Who cares? Does Forza have cartoonish lighting? Who cares? If you look at the title of this thread it is asking if the photo mode in GT6 is better than FM5, but as expected this just turned into a fight of who has tessellation and who has the best lighting. Not even the OP knows what they're mainly talking about. FM5 and GT6 have different ways they process lighting in photo mode, if you go to both and go in-game you'll find that some things in game don't reflect what is in photo mode, that can go for certain reflections and lighting.

I don't know if I'm completely right but I always found that GT5/6 images have more information for you to work with which is why images from the two games are edited so well. I feel like FM5 is limited, if you adjust the exposure, contrast, and other things in FM5 you're basically editing the photo. I haven't played much of GT6 but in GT5 they separated the actual photo filters from the photography.

Basically:

GT6 - You are taking a raw photo that has much more information.

FM5 - You are taking a photo, but it doesn't have the tools that can help replicate what taking a real photo is like.

 

[GranTurismo guy]

I think a more appropriate title for this thread is "is GT6's lighting engine better than Forza 5's?"

 

[diegorborges]

Just took a stroll through this thread from beginning to this point and I have come to the conclusion that 85% of the things people are saying aren't even related to the discussion even part of my post.

I saw a few of gtuned posts and he's mainly right. GT6 does have basically a better image processor (if that's what you want to call it) allowing for minute adjustments. In GT6 you actually take the photo and worry about the F-stop, shutter speed, exposure comp, focal length and so on. In FM5 if you don't increase the shutter speed while a car is in motion the photo will not have a sense of motion, it'll just seem like a still. When you increase the shutter speed the car will seem like it's moving. All FM5 does is blur the background if the main subject is moving when you have the shutter speed increased.

We all should know that if you're going to take a photo of a car moving in real life you'd have to have a slower shutter speed and you'd have to do tracking of the subject to achieve the feeling of motion. In GT6 you have to set the settings properly to get proper results. Anyone can go into FM5 and take a photo, and in GT6 you have to know what aperture, shutter speed, and focal length are in order to get anywhere; this is the main reason why you see mainly nice shots coming from GT6 because the majority of GT photographers have dealt with photography.

Even when you upload the photos of GT6 to Flickr they show the Exif data.

GT6 has a better photo mode in general. It doesn't use sliders instead it uses actual information you would need to know as if you were using a actual camera of real life. Does GT6 have better car models? Who cares? Does Forza have cartoonish lighting? Who cares? If you look at the title of this thread it is asking if the photo mode in GT6 is better than FM5, but as expected this just turned into a fight of who has tessellation and who has the best lighting. Not even the OP knows what they're mainly talking about. FM5 and GT6 have different ways they process lighting in photo mode, if you go to both and go in-game you'll find that some things in game don't reflect what is in photo mode, that can go for certain reflections and lighting.

I don't know if I'm completely right but I always found that GT5/6 images have more information for you to work with which is why images from the two games are edited so well. I feel like FM5 is limited, if you adjust the exposure, contrast, and other things in FM5 you're basically editing the photo. I haven't played much of GT6 but in GT5 they separated the actual photo filters from the photography.

Basically:

GT6 - You are taking a raw photo that has much more information.

FM5 - You are taking a photo, but it doesn't have the tools that can help replicate what taking a real photo is like.

A good post sir. 👍

 

[kollosson]

That P1 shot is beautiful and IMO, blurs the line between game and photorealistic.

Let's look at this one of mine though.



It's both realistic, yet clearly a game shot. But why?

To me, around the rear wheel and side, it looks the most realistic. But as you move closer towards the front, it loses that feel. For me, it's the reflection and gloss of the paint. It looks... dull, or a Satin finish. This is where some of Forza's high gloss reflections would come in, somewhere a mix between GT6's diffused reflection, and Forza's Mirror like.

If you view the full 100% of the 7000px, it looks real though. Mostly cause of the grain and slight out of focus touch.

The grain is a little too big, but that's on my end. I still haven't worked out the perfect method for upsizing 2x to 24MP+

Next time you are driving on the road just take time to look at reflections on cars, sometimes depending on the lighting a shiny car appears flat without a huge amount of reflections and you can see how developers could possibly feel the need to add reflections. I feel GT's lighting mimics reality incredibly well, you don't get loads of reflections on every panel of a car all the time.

 

[gtuned]

Next time you are driving on the road just take time to look at reflections on cars, sometimes depending on the lighting a shiny car appears flat without a huge amount of reflections and you can see how developers could possibly feel the need to add reflections. I feel GT's lighting mimics reality incredibly well, you don't get loads of reflections on every panel of a car all the time.

I Think I know a thing or 2 about cars and their reflections. But the way the light is reflected on the front and the gradient it produces, it makes the paint seem like a Matte/Satin finish.

Because of where the sun is, there should of been a reflection of the sun itself on the front, but it's not.

 

[Zer0]

To me, around the rear wheel and side, it looks the most realistic. But as you move closer towards the front, it loses that feel. For me, it's the reflection and gloss of the paint. It looks... dull, or a Satin finish.

I Think I know a thing or 2 about cars and their reflections. But the way the light is reflected on the front and the gradient it produces, it makes the paint seem like a Matte/Satin finish.

Because of where the sun is, there should of been a reflection of the sun itself on the front, but it's not.

Is not this real picture what you are describing as unrealistic?

Reflections are very dependant of the environment, and in your GT6 pic the front of the car is reflecting the big gradient of the sky. There are no obstacles on that side and it should not have any strong reflection over there.

Also there is an important physical characteristic that GT always have rendered better than other games regarding to how the reflections are computed over all the material surfaces. A complex effect often applied with very low precission in video games.

That's one of the reason because is said that GT looks more reallistic. Is not just the light but how all the materials physically react with the environment given the viewer angle.

Below for example the fresnel reflections are "lighting" the rubberized material, no matter being in a shadow zone or out of the sun direct spotlight. In the Forza picture that zone is almost dark with no detail. That is one of the causes of the infamous cartoonish graphics attribued to Forza.

 

[ImaRobot]

And yet, that car isnt loosing its gloss, which Gtuned mentioned in the pic of GT.

On that last picture, Isnt Forza on the right? Thats what I'm guessing, because doesnt GT put the name of the cars on the license plates? (the NSX in the back).

EDIT: Read last post.

 

[buickgnx88]

From the pics of the Ferraris above, he is saying that the way PD do their lighting is more accurate to life, since there's some gradiance in the black plastic of the pillars, compared to Forza where it looks flat and not realistic.

I will say that sometimes the over polished look of Forza is overpowering, since it appears more of a chrome finish than painted.

 

[ImaRobot]

From the pics of the Ferraris above, he is saying that the way PD do their lighting is more accurate to life, since there's some gradiance in the black plastic of the pillars, compared to Forza where it looks flat and not realistic.

I will say that sometimes the over polished look of Forza is overpowering, since it appears more of a chrome finish than painted.

Then I am confused as to why he said "dark with no detail" When the Forza picture is not.

EDIT: haha im sorry, I thought he was talking about something else. My fault for not reading Correctly.

 

[gtuned]

Is not this real picture what you are describing as unrealistic?
Reflections are very dependant of the environment, and in your GT6 pic the front of the car is reflecting the big gradient of the sky. There are no obstacles on that side and it should not have any strong reflection over there.

The real shot of that Huarya, you can see the reflections on the front bumper and front air brakes have a sharper blow out point. They're a much brighter blue and white from the sun. GT6's just isn't as close to that, it's a duller blue which gives the look of a flat paint that diffuses light instead of reflecting it.

It's really noticeable with the air brakes because of the higher contrast gradient from the top to the bottom. Where as GT's it's not as contrasted.

 

[ImaRobot]

Its hard to see where the direct sunlight in GT is coming from in your Image Zero.

It kind of looks like it might be directly above the car, or from the left of it.(to be honest its hard to even tell because its not casting much of a shadow.)

EDIT: It could be coming from the right too, actually, I think.

While FM5 is having it coming from directly to the right, seeing the shadow.

All though, both are in a shadow area, wouldnt the area of the light source still affect that depending on where its coming from?

 

[Zer0]

The real shot of that Huarya, you can see the reflections on the front bumper and front air brakes have a sharper blow out point. They're a much brighter blue and white from the sun. GT6's just isn't as close to that, it's a duller blue which gives the look of a flat paint that diffuses light instead of reflecting it.

It's really noticeable with the air brakes because of the higher contrast gradient from the top to the bottom. Where as GT's it's not as contrasted.

If you want to spot flaws the best is to choose a real photo and try to recreate it with GT6 photomode, in the same track, with the same car and color, same lighting conditions/time and same viewing angles. Or at least to the closest possible.

No one tried that? It would make an awesome topic.

Then if the same is done with Forza you will have the real target to compare what game is doing good and bad and on when. Heavily edited pictures should be avoided.

Its hard to see where the direct sunlight in GT is coming from in your Image Zero.

No matter how is the direction of the sun, a daylight picture with a similar angle should not show that window and pilar zone with pitch black details. Is just not realistic.

 

[kollosson]

The real shot of that Huarya, you can see the reflections on the front bumper and front air brakes have a sharper blow out point. They're a much brighter blue and white from the sun. GT6's just isn't as close to that, it's a duller blue which gives the look of a flat paint that diffuses light instead of reflecting it.

It's really noticeable with the air brakes because of the higher contrast gradient from the top to the bottom. Where as GT's it's not as contrasted.

That real pic of the Huarya proves to me that GT6 is bang on, bearing in mind that the GT6 pic is taken at a slightly different angle with nothing but the sky in front, the real pic obviously has something casting a reflection in front somewhere. You know the Forza fans will argue till the cows come home, the fact is GT6 has a dynamic lighting engine and Forza 5 does not, obviously the lighting in GT6 will be superior and it is.

If you want to spot flaws the best is to choose a real photo and try to recreate it with GT6 photomode, in the same track, with the same car and color, same lighting conditions/time and same viewing angles. Or at least to the closest possible.

No one tried that? It would make an awesome topic.

Then if the same is done with Forza you will have the real target to compare what game is doing good and bad and on when. Heavily edited pictures should be avoided.


No matter how is the direction of the sun, a daylight picture with a similar angle should not show that window and pilar zone with pitch black details. Is just not realistic.

Lol, I thought that was a shot from GT6...

 

[ImaRobot]

No matter how is the direction of the sun, a daylight picture with a similar angle should not show that window and pilar zone with pitch black details. Is just not realistic.

Yeah, the FM5 does look odd with it that dark, I'll have to test that out when I get home. What I also find odd is that the GT6 car appears to be completely engulfed in shadow, though, shouldnt it be less reflective then that of the real life car that is exposed in sunlight.

 

[gtuned]

Well, let's just say this.

10,000+ Views, and 250+ favorites on Flickr, and the shot reaching explore says something for Gran Turismo's capibility of it's photomode. That it's that good to compete with real pictures that are just as beautiful.

Numerous times the photomode pros from GTP have gotten on explore with their shots.

 

[kollosson]

Reflections are not just dependent on direct sunlight, its the ambient light scattered in and off the backround that generate reflections too, in fact a car out of direct sunlight is often showing more reflections. I tend to look at cars when driving and comparing them to GT6 and I have noticed that a car engulfed in direct sunlight often has very subtle reflections, hardly noticeable, GT6 simulates this very realistically.

 

[diegorborges]

Its hard to see where the direct sunlight in GT is coming from in your Image Zero.

It kind of looks like it might be directly above the car, or from the left of it.(to be honest its hard to even tell because its not casting much of a shadow.)

EDIT: It could be coming from the right too, actually, I think.

While FM5 is having it coming from directly to the right, seeing the shadow.

All though, both are in a shadow area, wouldnt the area of the light source still affect that depending on where its coming from?

Interesting pictures. Thanks for posting, guys.

See what I was saying about the headlight and blinker materials? It's odd. FM5 seems to get a good alloy/chrome material sometimes but they just can't get headlights/taillights right. They could simply use a chrome material for the inner parts of headlights but they doesn't. I would give better results.

 

[gtuned]

And to really start with, I'm not degrading GT6's photomode and capibilities, I'm just pointing out what I think is just wrong, or where the shot loses it's realistic feel. Even though the reflections may be technically real, they don't give the realistic look.

 

[ImaRobot]

Reflections are not just dependent on direct sunlight, its the ambient light scattered in and off the backround that generate reflections too, in fact a car out of direct sunlight is often showing more reflections. I tend to look at cars when driving and comparing them to GT6 and I have noticed that a car engulfed in direct sunlight often has very subtle reflections, hardly noticeable, GT6 simulates this very realistically.

That is true, but for rubber, wouldnt that be the opposite? That is a material that doesnt reflect much in sunlight, and should even less in when there is less light source.

Interesting pictures. Thanks for posting, guys.

See what I was saying about the headlight and blinker materials? It's odd. FM5 seems to get a good alloy/chrome material sometimes but they just can't get headlights/taillights right. They could simply use a chrome material for the inner parts of headlights but they doesn't. I would give better results.

I agree, I was never really fond of the brakelight/headlight materials on some cars in Forza. I always loved how GT's brake lights looked when illuminated, worked especially well in photomode.

What do you guys think is wrong with Forza's reflection's?

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

A night shot of my R34 Paul Walker FF replica, not bad.

 

[bashfulboson]

Is not this real picture what you are describing as unrealistic?

Reflections are very dependant of the environment, and in your GT6 pic the front of the car is reflecting the big gradient of the sky. There are no obstacles on that side and it should not have any strong reflection over there.

Also there is an important physical characteristic that GT always have rendered better than other games regarding to how the reflections are computed over all the material surfaces. A complex effect often applied with very low precission in video games.

That's one of the reason because is said that GT looks more reallistic. Is not just the light but how all the materials physically react with the environment given the viewer angle.

Below for example the fresnel reflections are "lighting" the rubberized material, no matter being in a shadow zone or out of the sun direct spotlight. In the Forza picture that zone is almost dark with no detail. That is one of the causes of the infamous cartoonish graphics attribued to Forza.

welldone
nice explanation

 

[Sick Lenny]

That is true, but for rubber, wouldnt that be the opposite? That is a material that doesnt reflect much in sunlight, and should even less in when there is less light source.

If you read near the end of Zero's post above where it is talking about Freznel and reflectance, it says (and has a graph) that shows that as you approach maximum (or is it minimum?) incidence, basically where the light would just be grazing the surface of the object, reflectivity approaches 100% for any surface, even rough ones like rubber. This is why you see thin white banding along the black rubber edges in the photo. That is the light that is just grazing the suface and hitting your eye, and since the surface is rounded, at most angles that would give you that thin line/edge. Even in shadow, as was said, during the day there is a ton of scattered light (notice how on cloudy/hazy summer days your eyes squint MORE without sunglasses due to the even greater scattering) and it will still produce these effects. Anyways hope this helps to clarify.

Interesting side note is that the levels of light our eyes perceive is heavily affected by our brains which seem to take into account context factors as shown here with this famous demonstration

A and B are the same color (use photoshop to validate). When we perceive it to be in shadow, we tend to see the lighter colors as lighter than they are.

 

[phillgt2002]

To be completely honest, this has nothing to do with the lighting of the game. All this has to do with FM5 is the shaders.

 

[kollosson]

That is so weird, your right, make a hole with your hand so you can only see the square and go from A to B and they are the same !!

To be completely honest, this has nothing to do with the lighting of the game. All this has to do with FM5 is the shaders.

Are not the shaders part of the lighting engine ?

 

[gtracedriver1]

When did this thread go from Forza 5 vs. GT6 to GT6 vs. real life? Of course it looks like a game, it is one. Even PCars looks like a game. We are not at a place where any racing game looks good enough to be mistaken for real life up close without tampering.

It is easy to trick most people with these days with the photo mode pics as real pics.

This is old video of GT5P I have shown this to many and back then during that time they have mistaken it as real lol

 

[iainoflo85]

Comparisons between real-life and GT6 are mentioned in this blog-post by EXP on PitStop.

 

[phillgt2002]

Are not the shaders part of the lighting engine ?

Yes, but the material being used for the pillar on the Ferrari is not the right kind. Unless I'm completely wrong, FM5 should have materials that have similar properties to what is shown in GT6, if they don't then the pillar has literally no shaders on it and that isn't the case of the lighting being bad instead a matter of detail. The pillar is actually painted GT6. If they were to just use a pillar that is painted black, it'll look a-lot more realistic.

edit: I just noticed that in the REAL photo of the Ferrari that it is a flat almost matte plastic look. If anything FM5 would be somewhat closer but both of them are inaccurate. The fact that they aren't even in the same position to the real photo isn't helping also.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Comparisons between real-life and GT6 are mentioned in this blog-post by EXP on PitStop.

Wow, a nice blog, anyone up to the challenge ?

 

[bashfulboson]

It is easy to trick most people with these days with the photo mode pics as real pics.

This is old video of GT5P I have shown this to many and back then during that time they have mistaken it as real lol

some people say GT5P has best graphics