is GT6's photo mode better than Forza 5?

[ImaRobot]

Not only has this got nothing to do with photo mode, it would appear you're slighting Forza for using... a different LoD in photo mode compared to in-game, something I assure you GT6 does as well.

I don't even think he's stating that, more so that they just use it in general, across the whole game. Photomode is not even part of that post.

While I'm hear I figure I might as well share some problems I have with the Photomode/autovista. I'm sad that there is only one location available for Forzavista, now. If they would add more locations, as well as actually let you move your car around, instead of being in the exact same position all the time, I'd probably be inclined to use it more often.

What was the point of letting you take photos in the cockpit of cars, if you are going to be locked in a frontward facing position, auto-centering you as soon as you let go of the stick. Good thing I learned how to glitch into interiors for more of a free flow.

 

[gtuned]

What was the point of letting you take photos in the cockpit of cars, if you are going to be locked in a frontward facing position, auto-centering you as soon as you let go of the stick. Good thing I learned how to glitch into interiors for more of a free flow.

But at least you had the option. I loved Autovista in 4 and how you could open up the whole car just about and really explore it. Always irritated me PD never implemented that in 5 or 6, and probably won't in 7.

But PD pulled another genius decision of allowing 2 fully modeled cars that nearly killed a PS3, but still no option for opening hood and doors. I'd rather of taken that option than the 2 cars in photo travel. What's the point of supposedly modeling everything if we can't access it? Didn't they even fix the glitch in 5 with a certain patch?

I also still can't believe I said that I didn't care about FPS issues...

 

[ImaRobot]

But at least you had the option. I loved Autovista in 4 and how you could open up the whole car just about and really explore it. Always irritated me PD never implemented that in 5 or 6, and probably won't in 7.

But PD pulled another genius decision of allowing 2 fully modeled cars that nearly killed a PS3, but still no option for opening hood and doors. I'd rather of taken that option than the 2 cars in photo travel. What's the point of supposedly modeling everything if we can't access it? Didn't they even fix the glitch in 5 with a certain patch?

I also still can't believe I said that I didn't care about FPS issues...

I'm not sure what glitch you may be talking about as I've never looked up any, but found it on accident. The way I do it hasn't been patched. I quite literally just smash my way into an open passenger door.

 

[gtuned]

I'm not sure what glitch you may be talking about as I've never looked up any, but found it on accident. The way I do it hasn't been patched. I quite literally just smash my way into an open passenger door.

There was a glitch in GT5 where you could move the car out of the restricted area, and get into the car and freely move the camera and the car allowing for some pretty cool interior shots.

 

[ImaRobot]

There was a glitch in GT5 where you could move the car out of the restricted area, and get into the car and freely move the camera and the car allowing for some pretty cool interior shots.

Ah yeah I remember reading that, although never got around to trying it. Although, I was talking about fm5 while in Forzavista

 

[Terronium-12]

New rule: If you post anything that has nothing to do with the actual topic, and no, a vaguely-worded single sentence is not going to cut it, your post will be deleted. If you don't like that, well, too bad. I've had to get this thread back on topic far too many times.

So, in short:

- I don't care, nor is this thread about which game's headlights are a joke compared to the other.
- I don't care, nor is this thread about which game has working headlights.
- I don't care, nor is this thread about which game has night racing, or weather.
- I don't care, nor is this thread about which game has a dynamic day/night cycle.
- I don't care, nor is this thread about which game looks more realistic.
- I don't care, nor is this thread about which developer copied whom.

The topic is photo mode. Photo. Mode.

 

[Terronium-12]

Does anyone remember how GT4's photo mode worked? I know the interface was a little more simpler but not much else, and I really don't feel like digging out my PS2.

 

[Ameer67]

Does anyone remember how GT4's photo mode worked? I know the interface was a little more simpler but not much else, and I really don't feel like digging out my PS2.

You would drag the car around from the topographical view and rotate it with L2/R2. The 4 icons right next to each other under '70mm' are for the camera settings. First: point camera up, down, left, or right. Second: rotate. Third: move camera forward, back, left, right (panning). Fourth: move camera up or down. Rest of the buttons are self explanatory I think.

 

[Terronium-12]

Right. Although it only serves to remind me how much GT5 and 6 left behind.

GT5 Prologue, and the full release were brilliant in that they used photo travel locations as a 'living background' sorts, something a lot of us were livid over since Prologue seeing as we couldn't outright access those locations, but I'd like to see something like that moving forward that's firmly established and well thought out.

@gtuned mentioned the inability to open hatches and the likes for photo mode and I'm reminded of the Apex book and the SLS with one of its doors opened - an actual game model and that was immediately off-putting.

 

[zzz_pt]

GT6.

Several people already explained why. @gtuned @SlipZtrEm

A professional eye will spot the difference right away. This has nothing to do with polygons or models but with realism and photography.

I love the light engine in GT. Simply great. I can only imagine what GT7 will bring.

 

[Terronium-12]

GT6.

Several people already explained why. @gtuned @SlipZtrEm

A professional eye will spot the difference right away. This has nothing to do with polygons or models but with realism and photography.

I don't know if I can agree with this outright as there are too many subjective roles at play. A professional eye doesn't automatically lend itself to the credibility of either game's photo mode if there's even the slightest hint of unfamiliarity; a learning curve is a learning curve despite who's at play.

And, again, photo-realism can be achieved in either game at the discretion of the person holding the controller. Will a professional or even an amateur be able to extract more than the lowest common denomination from either games camera? Absolutely. On the same token I'm willing to bet someone that has never touched a camera can just as easily fool someone because they're wholly familiar with the virtual camera they've been provided with.

ps: PCars has some really great shots as well but I need to see it in first person.

I can't recall if anything has changed on the console front, but every picture you've seen of the PC version of pCARS is taken directly from in-game, as in there is no photo mode (well, there's an option now but the point remains), there is no LoD swapping, everything you see (short of the SMAA injector) is the same as you'd see during actual gameplay.

In that respect it is in a league all of its own at the moment.

 

[FastFurious77]

The GT6 photo mode manages to give you dslr like features but makes it simple. For example when playing around with Focal stop it manages to keep out the over exposure like issues than can pop up in real life photography to a minimum. I like how when using a low f stop and low aperture, the image around the centre of focus has a realistic looking blur or haze bokeh effect. It seems more convincing than the photo mode bokeh effect in forza horizon 2.

 

[pasigiri]

IMO, I have to admit, GT6's photo mode really does show up next to Forza 5's. Even though FM5 is next gen (current gen???) and shows it in it's photos, GT6's photos make you stop and stare for quite a while especially with the knowledge of it being from a last gen console. There are a LOT of shots where the cars in GT6 look as good, if not better, than their FM5 counterpart. The environments (trees, grass, background, etc.) in FM5 photos typically get the nod IMO, but the lighting and car models in GT6 are just incredible considering. Heck, the existence of this comparison is a testament to GT6's photo mode in and of itself.

... if we dared to add Driveclub's photos to this comparison ... well let's just say even though the car models are not "as" good (oh they still are DANG good), those environment and lighting effects are something EVERY racing game needs to pay attention to.

 

[gtuned]

well let's just say even though the car models are not "as" good (oh they still are DANG good)

Don't want to turn it back into that conversation, but are you for real right now.

But on topic

Bokeh in GT5/6 isn't bad. It's not as realistic, it's nowhere nearly as smooth as it really should be and should be improved for GT7. Driveclub renders theirs much in the same way GT does to a degree, (I think.) but it ends up looking much smoother, probably from the extra power.

GT seems to render it more as a near sighted bokeh, while DC's looks more photographic, like from a DSLR.

 

[oink83]

In a word, no.

I can notice the color banding in the sky, the flat-textured grass, and that the ambient lighting is simply not the same.

It's a common misconception however, as many tend to confuse photo-realism with literal realism.

I've seen this quoted a few times throughout the thread and it makes me more and more certain that this argument makes no sense at all. Take a real photo with a real camera, in real life. Is that realistic? Or has that all of a sudden become photo-realistic? In photomode of all these games we are not deliberately trying to recreate "real life" photos with our own in game photos. In the context of the game, the game itself is "real life" and the photos are literal photos of that reality. As such they should be judged in terms of how realistic they are, not how "photo-realistic" they are, because that is how we would also judge the game itself - how realistic is it compared to real life. I mean, sure if someone took a photo in-game and then attempted to recreate that image beyond the original photo, then I would say that would be judged on a scale of photo-realism.

Is it a a photo of an egg? If it is, is that a photo of real life (and intrinsically realistic)?
Is it in fact not a photo of an egg? Therefore it would be photo-realistic.

If we could get a real photo of a car, and a photo from in game where it were impossible to say which was the game and which real life, that means that the game's reality looks close enough to reality. Therefore a photo of that reality is realistic not photo-realistic. The photo below of the Audi could be told apart by probably most of us here but that is because we are enthusiasts and we know what tell-tales to look for, so the game perhaps is not quite close enough to reality. However if I showed this to my mum without telling her that either was a game, she would not know either were not real life photos. So to the average eye, the game has succeeded in replicating the look of reality, as such a photo of that game is realistic.

 

[ImaRobot]

I've seen this quoted a few times throughout the thread and it makes me more and more certain that this argument makes no sense at all. Take a real photo with a real camera, in real life. Is that realistic? Or has that all of a sudden become photo-realistic?

Taking a real picture in real life would just be that, a photo of real life. Why would you call it realistic? Its when you use something that is not of real life to try to replicate these circumstances, that you'd be able to judge it as such. When you get something to function like it does in real life, that's what you can describe as realistic. When you get something to look like its from real life, that would be photorealistic.

In photomode of all these games we are not deliberately trying to recreate "real life" photos with our own in game photos.

That depends on the photographer really. Some aim for it to look as realistic as they possibly can, others can care less. I used to use very vibrant colors, which probably wouldn't fool anyone in thinking it was a picture from a game.

In the context of the game, the game itself is "real life" and the photos are literal photos of that reality. As such they should be judged in terms of how realistic they are, not how "photo-realistic" they are, because that is how we would also judge the game itself - how realistic is it compared to real life. I mean, sure if someone took a photo in-game and then attempted to recreate that image beyond the original photo, then I would say that would be judged on a scale of photo-realism.

This part is really odd. The game will never be real life, but yes the photos would be based of that games reality. I'm honestly a bit confused at the statement though, and I just feel like you're getting to deep into that. I think any visual information you see(in short, the graphics) would be off of photorealism, while all things technical(physics for example) can be based from realism.

Is it a a photo of an egg? If it is, is that a photo of real life (and intrinsically realistic)?
Is it in fact not a photo of an egg? Therefore it would be photo-realistic.

It depends, if its just actually a picture of an egg, then that's all it should be, shouldn't it?

If we could get a real photo of a car, and a photo from in game where it were impossible to say which was the game and which real life, that means that the game's reality looks close enough to reality. Therefore a photo of that reality is realistic not photo-realistic. The photo below of the Audi could be told apart by probably most of us here but that is because we are enthusiasts and we know what tell-tales to look for, so the game perhaps is not quite close enough to reality. However if I showed this to my mum without telling her that either was a game, she would not know either were not real life photos. So to the average eye, the game has succeeded in replicating the look of reality, as such a photo of that game is realistic.

That's the thing, you present something to someone that doesn't know either or, or anything inbetween, then it'll be easy to fool them. What you want to do is convince those ones that have experience, fool them into thinking that its actually real. I've had older fellows actually say they couldn't tell if something was real life or not, when it was ever more clear then what we're comparing right now.

Now, thats just my 2 cents. How right it is, I wouldn't know

 

[Terronium-12]

I've seen this quoted a few times throughout the thread and it makes me more and more certain that this argument makes no sense at all.

How could it not make sense? It's a virtual world with an option to capture still images from said virtual world, and within that world there are blatant contrasts between what's literal and what isn't.

"Photorealism" is literally trying to reproduce a painting, a drawing, or any other form of graphic representation as realistically as possible.

Take a real photo with a real camera, in real life. Is that realistic? Or has that all of a sudden become photo-realistic?

Since the photo was taken with a real camera in the real world it would simply be 'real'. I know exactly what point you're trying to make but I think you were a little... too on the nose there.

In photomode of all these games we are not deliberately trying to recreate "real life" photos with our own in game photos.

I would imagine some of us very well are trying to do so, the challenge is certainly enticing but there are too many variables at play that prevent it outright. However, I would say you have a point in the grand scheme of things once you begin to work within the confines of what's presented.

In the context of the game, the game itself is "real life" and the photos are literal photos of that reality. As such they should be judged in terms of how realistic they are, not how "photo-realistic" they are, because that is how we would also judge the game itself - how realistic is it compared to real life. I mean, sure if someone took a photo in-game and then attempted to recreate that image beyond the original photo, then I would say that would be judged on a scale of photo-realism.

I can't quite agree with this for two reasons. 1. If you're taking a photo of something virtual and are presenting it in a physical world I would be of the opinion it's only natural to compare that to what you see outside of your window, or what's right in front of you; it's one of the chief reasons visuals in games appear to evolve more than actual gameplay mechanics because the developers want you to be immersed in that world, and that can only be achieved if you feel that it's real.

2. Gran Turismo, as a whole, is categorized as a simulator that simulates, you guessed, real life, and that is exactly how many of us judge the game - especially those with legitimate racing experience.

Is it a a photo of an egg? If it is, is that a photo of real life (and intrinsically realistic)?
Is it in fact not a photo of an egg? Therefore it would be photo-realistic.

If you're asking, and you are, that actually looks like a painting, thus it would be photo-realistic.

If we could get a real photo of a car, and a photo from in game where it were impossible to say which was the game and which real life, that means that the game's reality looks close enough to reality.

That's exactly what photo-realism is.

Therefore a photo of that reality is realistic not photo-realistic. The photo below of the Audi could be told apart by probably most of us here but that is because we are enthusiasts and we know what tell-tales to look for, so the game perhaps is not quite close enough to reality.

And here's where I'm sure to confuse at least one person: knowing what tell-tales to look for does not immediately detract from its photo-realism, all it means is that after careful studying you were able to spot why it's photo-realistic and not simply 'real'.

However if I showed this to my mum without telling her that either was a game, she would not know either were not real life photos. So to the average eye, the game has succeeded in replicating the look of reality, as such a photo of that game is realistic.

No one ever said a photo from either game can't fool someone who isn't giving it a second glance, or for lack of a better expression, is none the wiser to what's being placed in front of them. In fact I've said that you can easily fool someone with a well-taken photo from either game. But to pretend there isn't a blatant difference between the two pictures is where the problem lies.

Even without seeing the picture below I knew right off the bat which one was real and which one wasn't.

 

[oink83]

If you're asking, and you are, that actually looks like a painting, thus it would be photo-realistic.

You would be correct

Edit: To add to this though, I'm glad people disagree with me because that's how healthy debates work. I guess my overarching point is this: Both GT6 and Forza 5 are deliberately trying to be as realistic and close to life as possible. They are trying to replicate reality [of motorsports]. Because of that, the graphics are attempting to be genuinely realistic (whether or not they are succeeding is probably a matter of debate ). But I oppose this to, for example, The Last of Us. Which has a very photo-realistic look because they are deliberately trying to look photo-realistic. It's lifelike, but you can see there is a distinct amount of creative feel and look to the presentation.

I hope that comparison makes sense.

 

[Thomas__633]

Forza 5 wins on outright quality but with GT6 you can take a photo everywhere.
Note: I have ACTUALLY PLAYED BOTH, so I do know what I am talking about.

 

[ImaRobot]

Forza 5 wins on outright quality but with GT6 you can take a photo everywhere.
Note: I have ACTUALLY PLAYED BOTH, so I do know what I am talking about.

What do you mean exactly?

 

[Thomas__633]

I didn't find a way to take photos while moving on FM5 for some reason...
And in FH2 when I did the contrast was too damn high for another reason that I don't get

 

[ImaRobot]

I didn't find a way to take photos while moving on FM5 for some reason...
And in FH2 when I did the contrast was too damn high for another reason that I don't get

While moving? Do you mean in game? You just press start and press photomode.

Contrast is adjustable...

 

[FiftyBelowZero]

delete

 

[Terronium-12]

delete

Even though you deleted your post I'll address it anyway:

- The Community Spotlight wasn't a thing one year ago.
- The Weekly Rewind wasn't outright about featuring threads on a weekly or even bi-weekly basis unless they were recommended, and seeing as this thread wasn't recommended (and still wasn't, I featured it on my own accord as I genuinely enjoy the debate when it's on topic) I'm sure you can put two and two together.
- The Weekly Rewind chiefly focused on Gran Turismo, so talking about a versus thread of any nature would have resulted in idiotic statements.
- If there's one thing I hate, more than anything else involving the Rewind and now the Spotlight, it's people that criticize what content is featured when when they themselves have made no attempt to bring it to our attention beforehand.

 

[FoRiZon]

Forza Horizon 2 vs Forza 5 vs GT6?

 

[WyldAnimal]

Not only has this got nothing to do with photo mode, it would appear you're slighting Forza for using... a different LoD in photo mode compared to in-game, something I assure you GT6 does as well.

Umm Excuse ME? This has Everything to do with Photo Mode..
The Photo Realism is due to the extra Detail in the car model of GT6.
using a Photo Texture on a Flat Surface, just doesn't give you that fine Detail.

Plus 10 to GT6 for the fine Details in the Model, Minus 10 to Forza 5 for using flat details and photo textures.

 

[WyldAnimal]

 

[Terronium-12]

Umm Excuse ME?

You're excused.

This has Everything to do with Photo Mode..

As a byproduct but I'll entertain the thought.

The Photo Realism is due to the extra Detail in the car model of GT6.
using a Photo Texture on a Flat Surface, just doesn't give you that fine Detail.

So what you're saying, and please correct me if I'm mistaken, is that GT6's photo mode is better by default because of the debatable superiority in the car models?

Because if that's the case I'm going to nominate Driveclub as being better than both of them.

Plus 10 to GT6 for the fine Details in the Model, Minus 10 to Forza 5 for using flat details and photo textures.

I see, now we've created an arbitrary rating system for something you won't notice unless you're doing extreme close-ups?

And yes I deleted the above post because it has some of the same images that have been posted in this thread umpteen times over.

 

[Stylel_Code]

And yes I deleted the above post because it has some of the same images that have been posted in this thread umpteen times over.

I don't understand why you'd delete it though. It's his right to post these images as it's the author of topic who brings them, he can use it to prove his point. And it's not like he's spamming these images. In fact no one does, they have been maybe reused 5 times (or more or less) but there is no problem with that.

 

[Terronium-12]

I don't understand why you'd delete it though. It's his right to post these images as it's the author of topic who brings them, he can use it to prove his point. And it's not like he's spamming these images. In fact no one does, they have been maybe reused 5 times (or more or less) but there is no problem with that.

Other than having rights (you don't really have such a thing on an internet forum) everything else you've said is perfectly valid.

If you guys think it adds to the discussion (personally, I'm tired of seeing them and the deletion had zero to do with who posted them) I'll happily put them back.