I saw like 10 copies of a blurred pencil
Ysop wrote in Mon Nov 21, 2022 10:47 pm:Continued from the C310 thread:
How to help you finding the most realistic impression? Maybe at best find something from everyday experience.
Thorsten wrote in Tue Nov 22, 2022 1:16 pm:It is a simple, non magical problem to compute.
There's already some processing going on at such a "low-level" that not every receptor that crosses a certain threshold automatically triggers even a ganglion.
Thorsten wrote in Tue Nov 22, 2022 6:45 pm:As far as I can see that's a sentence with rather fancy words which don't contain much meaning, sorry.
toThorsten wrote in Tue Nov 22, 2022 6:45 pm:What do you possibly mean by 'a receptor that crosses a threshold automatically triggers'
Now THAT is fancy rubbish! Just sluggish or can't you do better? Or is it just because you think that you talk to void like talking to an ape who wouldn't understand anyway?oThorsten wrote in Tue Nov 22, 2022 6:45 pm:with spurious signals like all sorts of organic noise).
varying vec3 normal;
varying vec4 vertex;
…
// If gl_Color.a == 0, this is a back-facing polygon and the
// normal should be reversed.
n = (2.0 * gl_Color.a - 1.0) * normal;
n = normalize(n);
…
fragColor.rgb += getClusteredLightsContribution(vertex.xyz, n, base.rgb);
varying vec3 normal;
varying vec4 vertex;
…
vertex = gl_Vertex;
normal = gl_NormalMatrix * gl_Normal;
May I ask what makes you conclude with such an obvious offensive sentence? -
Because of a sloppy sentence that I wrote in a lazy "Sunday afternoon" mood, you are able to judge that I use "fancy" words" to show-off something I don't understand?
I have studied Psychology (though I have to admit, a long time ago), with a bias to Neuro-, Bio- and Evolutionary-Psychology;
That sentence was just to introduce that using a computational approach seems to me a good starting point but will not be able to walk the whole complex path from photon to "personal experience".
Making a psychogram out of that is really, uhm, at least 'interesting'.
Now THAT is fancy rubbish! Just sluggish or can't you do better? Or is it just because you think that you talk to void like talking to an ape who wouldn't understand anyway?
Or is it just because you think that you talk to void like talking to an ape who wouldn't understand anyway?
Perhaps there's a subtlety in perceiving a propeller IRL, 'modulated' by the shadow casts by the physical propeller, which in turn introduces a subtle strobe that somehow affects perception and makes it difficult to model for 'a videogame'.
Or effects like boke, lens flare, 'dirt', chromatic aberration that is (overused imho) to make things look 'more real' because that way,
But a real camera has lens flare.
But some digital animator out there, is trying his best to emulate it to make the 2d animation look more 'real'.
People, to my knowledge, have theorized advanced gpu/graphics stuff 100 years ago, but simply did not have the hardware to realize concepts like tesselation and the like.
Like the wrong eyes even realism painters often add, because even while seeing a thin sliver of iris from the side, cheating it gives a more pleasing result.
In other words, trickery can aid perceived realism. And can be vastly cheaper, processing wise, on top of it all.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests