Announcement

Collapse

The Infinity Blade Forums Have Moved

We've launched brand new Infinity Blade forums with improved features and revamped layout. We've also included a complete archive of the previous posts. Come check out the new Infinity Blade forums.
See more
See less

MASSIVE SCREENSHOTS! (By Qx9)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    When Epic adds DX10 code ... then and only then will we have true MSAA support in UT3. That is a fact and there is no getting around it. I've been on a "crusade" about this from jump ... and when I see this pics and then go into the game and start playing sometimes I want to cry ... as great as UT3 looks now that I can really see how it could look its hard not to feel a little pain when you see some jaggies.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by heathward View Post
      awesome pics! apparently i am not the only one that is infatuated with Akasha. you would have won the poster contest .

      EDIT: whoops...nevermind!
      LOL! Yah, I was happy when they put in Akasha. It was the first name I played under in Unreal. It's also my dog's name

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by D2F[Leo] View Post
        Nice stuff. :> I've been using tiledshots for quite a while to do decent screenies of demos I have, but I had no idea about the 8x8 version. Some quick tries:

        [shot]http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg68/Leoz0r/UT3/HIGH-EUNA-resized.jpg[/shot]

        Yeah, mostly tried some landscape shots tonight, will do some close action ones tomorrow maybe. Last one taken from the big EU vs NA Warfare event. ;> They are more interesting if you compare them to a normal screenie, but cba to post standard ones as a comparison atm. :P
        All the posts here have been gorgeous but as a Warfare player, I'm particular to Leo's post.

        If you could get some larger-sized captures from that EU/NA event, I'd be really interested in snagging them. 1680x1050 since I'm asking.

        My mobo is on RMA right now so no Warfare for me for a few more days.

        Cheers!

        Comment


        • #49
          those are some sweet screenshots. i'll check out tiledshot later this weekend - i'm curious what my 7800gt is capable of ;P

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by commiecat View Post
            All the posts here have been gorgeous but as a Warfare player, I'm particular to Leo's post.

            If you could get some larger-sized captures from that EU/NA event, I'd be really interested in snagging them. 1680x1050 since I'm asking.
            Hehe. I'll try to take some more HQ screenies in the next days (at the latest on Sunday), gonna post them here. ^^

            Comment


            • #51
              Just to let you all know.

              DO NOT, try to set the res to 3840x2400, then attempt a tiled shot @ 16x16.

              Even though it would be amazing, after 1 whole hour, yes 60 whole minutes of rendering, the final file was corrupt.

              Just so you don't all waste your time trying.

              Comment


              • #52
                Awww cr4zy. :[ :P

                Two more screenies, while I'm here already:

                http://aycu16.webshots.com/image/460...5438007_rs.jpg

                http://aycu22.webshots.com/image/445...4753616_rs.jpg

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Qx9 View Post
                  Agree totally. That's basically what you're doing..."scrunching" or compacting the image into millions of fine "grains" or pixels. The smoothness and "clearness", if you will, is the end result we're looking for. If you have ever taken a pixelated image and resized it to...let's say 1/4 it's original size, you'll notice the pixelating effect has diminished. You can prove that by taking a 640x480 image and resizing it to 1600x1200. Doesn't look too go huh! Well, if you then resize the image to 320x240, it'll look clean, crisp, and generally smooth.
                  That is actually wrong. When you take a huge image and downsample it, you are not "scrunching" the many pixels into smaller and more detailed pixels (that is impossible, you can not change the size of a pixel, it is the basic computer graphics unit of measure, that would be like trying to change the size of a centimeter). You are getting rid of pixels, and keeping the ones that maintain the image (to the best of the resizing algorithm's extent of determining which ones to keep). The reason it gets rid of the aliased edges is because of the downsampling algorithm, which has an alias filter in it, otherwise it would be more aliased than it was to begin with.

                  In other words, if you applied an anti aliasing filter to a large image, it would achieve the same effect.

                  The reason things appear "sharper" is because you have anisotropic filtering enabled at the huge size, and this the level of anisotropic filtering is what is appropriate for the large image. When you downsample a capture of a real time rendered 3d image with anisotropic filtering, the level of anisotropic filtering is not proportionally scaled down, because it is a realtime filter. Same reason why the high dynamic range lighting and fog look less intense on the scaled down images. They are rendered in realtime in a level appropriate for the large render, and they are not appropriately scaled down when you resize the image. Then you are taking all of these realtime rendered filters and passing them through a resizing algorithm which processes them how it sees fit, and algorithms vary in quality, but they all bring it down or change it to one degree or another.

                  Therefore the best way of taking a screenshot is not with this downsampling business, but rather native size, and just force the highest quality mip mapping, anti aliasing and anisotropic filtering in your video drivers.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Well, it's obvious that the shot's going to look better full-size than resized (a shot will look better at 12800x9600 than at 1024x768), but a shot taken at 12800x9600 and resized down to 1024x768 will look better than a shot taken at 1024x768, regardless of how many filters you put on it (especially considering that AA doesn't work in UT3.)
                    The whole point is to get shots that not only look great, but are useful for practical purposes like backgrounds and such. 12800x9600 isn't really practical for most rigs.

                    For example, I cranked up all my filters through the nvidia control panel as best I could, and took two screenshots.
                    The first is just taken at 1024x768 and had no further treatment:
                    [screenshot]http://my-image-hosting.com/out.php/i9078_originalres.bmp[/screenshot]

                    The second was taken at 5120x3840 (1024x768|5,) then resized down to 1024x768:
                    [screenshot]http://my-image-hosting.com/out.php/i9077_fullfiltersresized.bmp[/screenshot]

                    I guess I just don't know enough to know which filters or what-not I'm supposed to apply to make the first shot look better than the second...

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      AA, highest quality, and highest AF, and highest mip map quality detail (for nvidia that is called optimize for (performance, mix, quality, and high quality) or something like that. AA will be supported for ati in catalyst 8.3, they made an official announcement about that. It is supported now, but very poor speed.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Like I said, I cranked all my settings in my nvidia control panel (using the provided descriptions as to what settings provide best image quality,) and the second shot still gives me more detail.
                        So the only other option is that there're settings that I can't access that way, that will do what you claim.

                        Since AA is out of the question for nvidia owners, it seems, I think I'll stick with a screenshot method that gives me smooth, crisp lines, finer detail and a clearer image. Even if it does somehow look worse...

                        Originally posted by Cr4zyB4st4rd View Post
                        Just to let you all know.

                        DO NOT, try to set the res to 3840x2400, then attempt a tiled shot @ 16x16.

                        Even though it would be amazing, after 1 whole hour, yes 60 whole minutes of rendering, the final file was corrupt.

                        Just so you don't all waste your time trying.
                        You probably didn't have enough RAM to properly put it together, as indicated by how long it took.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by martinblank View Post
                          That is actually wrong. When you take a huge image and downsample it, you are not "scrunching" the many pixels into smaller and more detailed pixels (that is impossible, you can not change the size of a pixel, it is the basic computer graphics unit of measure, that would be like trying to change the size of a centimeter)...
                          Partly what I'm trying to convey is true. I'm not actually referring to "scrunching" pixels. I agree with you that you can't do that. I'm referring more to down sampling the image and not about the dimensions of each individual pixel. I'm more focused on printing and the importance of width and height of image and pixels per inch resolution. But I'm not going to get into printing, since we're talking about screenshots for display on a monitor. I think that's where I'm confusing others, since it's all about the printing for me.

                          The rest of what you're talking about sounds reasonable.

                          - Q

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Cr4zyB4st4rd View Post
                            Just to let you all know. DO NOT, try to set the res to 3840x2400, then attempt a tiled shot @ 16x16. Even though it would be amazing, after 1 whole hour, yes 60 whole minutes of rendering, the final file was corrupt. Just so you don't all waste your time trying.
                            I was sucessful with 3840x2400 tiledshot 8. I don't know about 16. Assuming success at tiledshot 16, the image would be 61440x38400. PhotoShop would take quite a long time to open that image, if at all. Even Irfanview may crash. Who knows. I may try it tonight.

                            - Q

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              I'm not even gonna try for these HUGE resolutions on my rig, (Single Core AMD with an X800XL and 1GB of ram) but I did try several tiledshot 8x8 pics. Resized them and made a few Curve adjustments and High Pass filtering for added clarity and color definition.

                              [screenshot]http://www.acliffhanger.com/ut3/Highres21.jpg[/screenshot]

                              [screenshot]http://www.acliffhanger.com/ut3/Highres25.jpg[/screenshot]

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                I did a file, just like crazy *******, and just like him, my file got corrupted.

                                It did however do a whooping 2.1 GB on my HDD.. 2.1 GB?!?!!!!

                                My measly 4gb ram on a 32bit OS couldn't do the job.

                                Note: My PC only took 30 minutes to do the picture

                                Edit: Actually the weird part was, that first time I tried to open it, it rendered some of the picture, then the rest turned white.

                                My screenshot was 61440 x 38400

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X