ss_lemonade
Member
I remember this getting high scores for graphics on game magazines back thenFor reference, this is the Toy Story game that came out on Mega Drive/SNES in 1995:
I remember this getting high scores for graphics on game magazines back thenFor reference, this is the Toy Story game that came out on Mega Drive/SNES in 1995:
Those few details equate to massive gains in overall image quality and complexity. Literally no one is taking anything away from the game's impressiveness, just simply challenging what the OP asserted. We are geeks, and this is a fun exercise after all.
I respectfully disagree.
Parts are better (outside grass, materials shading), but it's way flatter looking on the inside room scenes and gives it a very drab and dull look.
I'm aware it was that resolution on release, but it was also going to be played on sub-HD equipment. There was no mainstream HD option, so rendering higher wasn't necessary. Even still, it had zero aliasing and all the other things that put it up over the PS4 version.
On the surface, they are close to each other. At least with what little we have to compare.
If there was a PS4 version of the film rendered in real time, but with these newer models, I'd say it would have more victories over the original than it does atm. So there's that.
Right now we are just comparing this slice.
Honestly, I find something like say, Zero Horizon more impressive anyway.
Edit: a God of War movie done with the new engine on PS4 would smoke Toy Story 1. So the point is, overall, we surpassed OG TS1. This thread is just a continuation of a silly benchmark. Like, "Can it run Crysis?".
Fun fact: the original Toy Story was rendered at a resolution lower than 1080p (1,536 by 922 ) when it was originally released. If we actually had this available (and not the re-rendered blu-ray) I think the image quality side of the conversation would be different.
The first Pixar movie (and perhaps the first feature length CG movie) to ever use ray tracing was Cars. They didn't use it in movies before that. Toy Story 1, Toy Story 2, Finding Nemo, The Incredible certainly do not use ray tracing. TS1 also lacks ambient occlusion and any form of GI.
It looks better on a proper screen without smoothing filters.For reference, this is the Toy Story game that came out on Mega Drive/SNES in 1995:
Except that it looks flat because there is no self-shadowing.Near everything is better than 1995.
People getting hung up on a few details are missing the forest for the trees. The overall picture is frankly aeons more pleasing to look at than the original Toy Story.
Look at this pic. Look at the hat in the left picture. It looks like it's floating in front of his head, you can't tell he is wearing it. That's what flat lighting and lack of shadows do.
You can't respectfully disagree
Current gen graphics easily surpass Toy Story 1 in terms of textures, materials, lighting, shading and shadowing. The only area where it still has it best is geometry and that's because Toy Story doesn't really uses poly counts and as such direct comparisons can't be made but in terms of how 'round' something looks you'll still find Toy Story 1 to be 'round'.
Environment lighting looks more nuanced in TS1, polygon counts still a lot higher, and shadows (baked or not) look better.
Everything else, KH3 beats it. I'm seriously blown away how far we've come here. Especially materials shading. Geeze.
For reference, this is the Toy Story game that came out on Mega Drive/SNES in 1995:
I was going to type up a long post literally addressing every detail but I feel like I can shorten it by posting my true feelings.It's pretty sad that people on a dedicated gaming forum can't tell how the CGI even from 90s still does the shading and IQ better than a current game. The shading is better than the real-time KH3 footage, this isn't an argument. That is a fact. The ran tons of passes of shadows far more than real-time can ever do, and even approximating that level of lighting quality is still extremely hard.
It's pretty sad that people on a dedicated gaming forum can't tell how the CGI even from 90s still does the shading and IQ better than a current game. The shading is better than the real-time KH3 footage, this isn't an argument. That is a fact. The ran tons of passes of shadows far more than real-time can ever do, and even approximating that level of lighting quality is still extremely hard.
It should be obvious, but sadly it isn't apparent to people here. It tells a lot about people being able to tell "good graphics" between games and other games themselves too.
And it has nothing to do with nostalgia goggles or anything. Yes, the asset quality in a lot of ways is equally as good and sometimes even better in the KH3 footage, but not the lighting, not even close.
For reference, this is the Toy Story game that came out on Mega Drive/SNES in 1995:
It's pretty sad that people on a dedicated gaming forum can't tell how the CGI even from 90s still does the shading and IQ better than a current game. The shading is better than the real-time KH3 footage, this isn't an argument. That is a fact. The ran tons of passes of shadows far more than real-time can ever do, and even approximating that level of lighting quality is still extremely hard.
It should be obvious, but sadly it isn't apparent to people here. It tells a lot about people being able to tell "good graphics" between games and other games themselves too.
And it has nothing to do with nostalgia goggles or anything. Yes, the asset quality in a lot of ways is equally as good and sometimes even better in the KH3 footage, but not the lighting, not even close.
It might seem close, but we aren't even half way there yet. This is an approximation of the a 1995 CG movie that cuts corners everywhere. I think we now have enough of polygons as long as we don't go too close to the models. As soon as the camera moves in close, it is easy to see the polygonal edges and low res blurry textures. Look at how blocky Woody's fingers are. When the camera gets close, the button on his shirt looks like it could cut you with its razor sharp edges.
Toy Story 3 PS3
Where's the news?
You have this misguided romantic vision of Toy Story, that's totally wrong. TS didn't use raytracing. Pixar hasn't used that technique until Cars. They actually faked just about everything until Monster's University, which is their first movie that used ray tracing with physically based shading. Lighting in toy story is super-simplistic compared to what is being done in UE4 today (i.e. stuff like realtime GI, volumetric lights, area lights etc), and indeed more simplistic than the lighting used in this game. Toy Story didn't have sub-surface scatter on plastic surfaces, this game does, giving plastic a much finer, softer look. TS didn't have ambient occlusion, this game does (just look at how unnatural it looks in TS every place where two surfaces touch under an angle - there's no naturally occurring shadow there. On top of that, original TS was rendered in something like 1600x900p for theaters, and was only re-rendered in higher quality for a blu-ray re-release several years ago.It's pretty close. But it's no realtime raytracing. The lighting in Toy Story is just not possible to do in realtime yet, mainly because it just doesn't cheat. Material properties and rays of light. Nothing more, nothing less. Rex is the obvious stand out. That's a texture, in the movie, his scales are modeled. And Woody's arms don't look like fabric when really close.
Still this looks pretty impressive for realtime rendering. Good effort and all. And remember we are comparing realtime with "takes several hours per frame" here. Getting this close is commendable.
For reference, this is the Toy Story game that came out on Mega Drive/SNES in 1995:
Shading != Shadows.It's pretty sad that people on a dedicated gaming forum can't tell how the CGI even from 90s still does the shading and IQ better than a current game. The shading is better than the real-time KH3 footage, this isn't an argument. That is a fact. The ran tons of passes of shadows far more than real-time can ever do, and even approximating that level of lighting quality is still extremely hard.
Also y'all gotta remember when Toy Story rendered out it was like a frame a minute or something. Only when the project was done did it look smooth in motion as a video file.
KHIII renders 60 frames a second.
Also y'all gotta remember when Toy Story rendered out it was like a frame a minute or something. Only when the project was done did it look smooth in motion as a video file.
KHIII renders 60 frames a second.
Shading != Shadows.
Material shading is by far more advanced in KH3 than it was in TS. Game is most likely using PBR. Shadows in TS could be cast from multiple light sources, which this game likely doesn't do (but overall, in a dedicated demo of some kind it would be possible). In terms of shadows, TS didn't have ambient occlusion, which is a huge contributor to its super-fake flat look by today's standards. AO is of course used in KH3, so you have things like shadows where two surfaces meet etc.
Also, the IQ of TS original release with 900p, even with the really good AA used, was certainly not better than the best we see in today's games.
This needs to be re-posted:
That's what TS looked like, resolution and all, before the recent blu-ray release re-render.
You're right, there are apparently no self-shadows in the game, but I don't agree that the hat looks like it's floating.Except that it looks flat because there is no self-shadowing.
And there are obvious edges since the polycount is lower.
Look at this pic. Look at the hat in the left picture. It looks like it's floating in front of his head, you can't tell he is wearing it. That's what flat lighting and lack of shadows do.
You have this misguided romantic vision of Toy Story, that's totally wrong. TS didn't use raytracing. Pixar hasn't used that technique until Cars. They actually faked just about everything until Monster's University, which is their first movie that used ray tracing with physically based shading. Lighting in toy story is super-simplistic compared to what is being done in UE4 today (i.e. stuff like realtime GI, volumetric lights, area lights etc), and indeed more simplistic than the lighting used in this game. Toy Story didn't have sub-surface scatter on plastic surfaces, this game does, giving plastic a much finer, softer look. TS didn't have ambient occlusion, this game does (just look at how unnatural it looks in TS every place where two surfaces touch under an angle - there's no naturally occurring shadow there. On top of that, original TS was rendered in something like 1600x900p for theaters, and was only re-rendered in higher quality for a blu-ray re-release several years ago.
What TS has that this game probably doesn't, is shadows cast from multiple dynamic point lights. That's about it. I'm not sure how much something like this would have been used in the movie, but it's the kind of thing that's expensive in realtime rendering, and generally is being avoided like a plague.
Btw, Rex's scales in TS are almost for sure not modeled or displacement-mapped. They look like very simple bumpmapping to me:
A technque that's been long replaced by much better things in realtime rendering, like parallax mapping or of course, actual tesselation.
They did a re-render? Any info on how long it took them this time and on what machines they rendered it?