Renders versus Screenshots

[bazzar]

For those interested, we have been asked many times whether lighting model renders can give an adequate representation of how the model will actually appear in the sim. With PBR, it is possible to get very close. Here's a comparison, using the new Hurricane cockpit. We are hoping that with V4.5 here and V5 to come, ambient lighting control wll improve to take full advantage of PBR.

[modelr]

To my untrained eye, the RAW screenshot looks more realistic. At least, it looks a lot like what I see in my semi when I drop something and have to look "up" while reaching down. Looking forward to both the Hurricane and the Cessna.

[Obie311]

Both images look fantastic. They easily could pass for real life photos. Although I'd doubt you ever see a Hurricane that pristine.

As far as "truth in advertising" I think a developer should use images in their advertising that approximate what a potential consumer will see on a mid-level system. When we did food commercials, we had to use the exact same product as the company provides to its consumers. That didn't mean we couldn't pick through 150 hamburger buns to find a photogenic one or hire a professional food stylist to cook and arrange the product.

The visible difference is what we film photogs called "latitude" or dynamic range. Wide latitude is the linear gradient display of detail in an image or filmstock. The render displays very wide latitude. The highlights blow out or "clip" in electronic terms in the P3D screenshot. modler has a valid point in that the human iris will contract or (stop down) in response to the brightest most prevalent source in its field of vision. I guess developers understand this when they design their wares.

Here's some pertinent info from the www.cambridgeincolour.com if anyone is interested.

SENSITIVITY & DYNAMIC RANGE

Dynamic range* is one area where the eye is often seen as having a huge advantage. If we were to consider situations where our pupil opens and closes for different brightness regions, then yes, our eyes far surpass the capabilities of a single camera image (and can have a range exceeding 24 f-stops). However, in such situations our eye is dynamically adjusting like a video camera, so this arguably isn't a fair comparison.

Eye Focuses on Background	Eye Focuses on Foreground	Our Mental Image

If we were to instead consider our eye's instantaneous dynamic range (where our pupil opening is unchanged), then cameras fare much better. This would be similar to looking at one region within a scene, letting our eyes adjust, and not looking anywhere else. In that case, most estimate that our eyes can see anywhere from 10-14 f-stops of dynamic range, which definitely surpasses most compact cameras (5-7 stops), but is surprisingly similar to that of digital SLR cameras (8-11 stops).
On the other hand, our eye's dynamic range also depends on brightness and subject contrast, so the above only applies to typical daylight conditions. With low-light star viewing our eyes can approach an even higher instantaneous dynamic range, for example.
(*Quantifying Dynamic Range. The most commonly used unit for measuring dynamic range in photography is the f-stop, so we'll stick with that here. This describes the ratio between the lightest and darkest recordable regions of a scene, in powers of two. A scene with a dynamic range of 3 f-stops therefore has a white that is 8X as bright as its black (since 2³ = 2x2x2 = 8).)

[modelr]

Obie311, thanks for that description, dissertation on the human eye vrs the camera eye. I am always amazed by the screen shots of some of the people on here, how they can pose and frame their shots, as well as the lighting and coloring, as well as the painters, and all the discussions about what does this, and what does that for the picture and the paint. Me, I only can "see" action in real life. "Framing" a shot is way beyond my imagination. When I do take pictures, and screen shots, they are just the "point and shoot" type. I rarely see the background, or foreground, because my eye focuses on the "subject." I usually see and think in the "hindsight is always 20/20" mode. Bazzar's captures are both very good, to my eye, but, at the same time, very different. P3Dv4- is becoming so good at rendering what our eyes see in reality, as compared to even FS9, where even the best required our brains to suspend reality to imagine the shots as real. Many of the shots by the masters on here now require us the search for something to confirm that these shots are NOT of real life planes. It is when some are asked if their shots are raw or retouched, and they answer truthfully, yes or no, that I really have to look closely to "see" the enhancements.


All the excitement and discussion about PBR and it's effects are totally over my head, but I do understand, when shown, what it means. From what I can gather, we will soon be having to really "squint" to determine whether or not a shot is "real" or "digital."

Interesting, indeed.