Why do video games still look worse than Toy Story (1995)?

because there's this thing called raytracing that you brainlets think is a meme when it's the path to real cgi lighting.

Attached: 1568325866619.jpg (750x1000, 491K)

No, Its Toy Story 2 actually.
No,u. Toy story 1 looks perfectly fine.

It took over 100 computers several hours to render a single frame in Toy Story, and even then it would have been at a low standard resolution.

Yes, but 1995 Pixar renderfarms didn't render in real time. A modern GPU could output what the pixar farm did at probably twice the speed, but it still wouldn't be real time.

Attached: 1556721587533.jpg (1440x810, 146K)

Maybe in another 20 years we'll be able to match Toy Story in real time.

They use a smoothing algorithm on their models, and they apply it multiple times over. It multiplies the amount of polygons by a fuckload each time, but when it doesn't need to be rendered in real time that doesn't matter, you only need to make the frame once, then it's good for the movie, it doesn't matter that the one frame takes an hour to render.

Ray tracing

RAM memory, ultra high polygon models.

you're underestimating the scale of processing time
it's 60fps vs several hours per frame, besides all the post processing on movies

Pixar didn't use raytracing until cars you tards

>whatever amount of time you want to render one frame vs. 1/60 of a second or less to render one frame
hmm I wonder

That's a different technology.

cars looks better than toy story so my point still stands, but thanks for letting me now.

they didn't use the modern ray tracing algorithm, but they did calculate how light reflected and refracted in the entire scene, so effectively the same thing

iirc toy story 1 and 2 is made with nurbs curves, not polygons

We're beyond Toy Story 1 for some things, and behind for others.
Our shaders are better and more physically accurate, post processing is pretty much on par technically but sampling is probably higher in Toy Story, because they couldn't afford to leave any artifacts.
Image resolution is 4 times higher in video games, but Toy Story got away with it with good antialiasing.
I think we're only behind in term of polycount and sheer stupidly brute-forced naive techniques.
But in the minds Toy Story's scenes will still look better because everything was presented within limits, whereas in vidya you'd have to take care of every detail because the worlds are explorables.

Attached: 1563242569154.jpg (1334x750, 96K)

ambient occlusion, global lightning and that thing whose name I forgot that makes skin the semi transparent material that it is.

sub-surface scattering. yeah all those aren't in Toy Story 1.

this is literally from when they remade the original two movies about ten years ago.

HAKUNA MATATA

How many years until we can match "Money for Nothing" in real time?

i still haven't seen the lion king but it's probably funny so I'll giggle along

Attached: tomie says.jpg (420x299, 58K)

bitch

Are you fucking retarded? They never remade Toy Story.

I've never liked Toy Story, the characters look like they're made of plastic.

No, you're fucking retarded. The post 2010 versions of the movie were re-rendered when they made the movies for 3D.

because fuck you that's why also check this 3

RTX is getting it close.

Attached: 1565995153293.png (562x409, 399K)

holy fucking shit

based

Attached: 1550339834393.jpg (597x597, 32K)

i bet your hand smells like penis too

OP's rectum just got demolished.

How can OP even compete?

post-processing and lighting techniques that are currently not entirely feasible for real-time rendering.

how long until video games look like Chicken Run?

Attached: 1563380313974.jpg (700x460, 91K)

Good question

Attached: 48239048923.jpg (1280x720, 106K)

OH U

Molly and (mostly) Sid were the only ones that seen the toys alive.

Don't forget parallax mapping (and tessellation) that can make flat textures appear to be 3D.

Shieeeeet, Andy's mom still lookin FINE

also
>baby carseat in the passenger side
oh shit nigger what are you doing

Keep in mind that those computers had all the time in the world to render a single frame and use that time to implement advanced lighting techniques. Games have 16 milliseconds, they can't afford realistic lighting and have to settle with shit.

>uses pic of 2000 for 1995
Nigga KH3 Toy Story looked much better than Toy Story.

They surpassed Toy Story, but Sherk 1 & Toy Story 2 is when games start to fall behind a bit

What technique did they use?
Image-based lighting, reflective shadow maps, point-based illumination? Something else?

>using kingdom hearts as the example
kys

At least we're better than Tin Toy (1988) by now. That baby still gives me nightmares youtube.com/watch?v=ffIZSAZRzDA

Attached: maxresdefault (1).jpg (1280x720, 80K)

Nice, I wanted to make a thread about this topic.
Whenever someone posted a toys story picture and asked why games don't look like that, some people always said because it's not rendered in real time and it uses ray tracing and some kind of anti aliasing and filmic motion blur.
Now we have real time ray tracing and pretty good anti-aliasing, fuck motion blur anyway.
So why don't we have games that look that good yet?
Pic related, games with this graphic fidelity

Attached: [email protected] (621x414, 24K)

Name one other current gen game featuring Woody.

there are games that look better than toy story is the point

I never knew about this.

Yeah but they don't feature Woody

who cares. kingdom hearts looks like shit everywhere

Because movies aren't interactive retard.

How come we have computers that can render beautiful scenes at high framerates yet all we have are movie games that just emulate the shit that films do

When are we going to use the power of PC for something other than videogames. I want realtime rendered HD porn. Not fucking anime VR shit. Not fucking streaming videos of porn rendered on someone else's PC. I want to just download an hour long gangbang, carefully modelled and fully animated. The closest we have is sex mods for The Sims but the models there are way too primitive and the game is processing a bunch of other shit. I want the entire power of my PC dedicated to rendering 4k clunge in REAL TIME

If the future is now then I'm not fucking seeing it.

You don't seem to get the point.

Holy shit you're a smart one.

1995 Pixar server farms were probably about the strength of a modern PC (not gaming PC, just a normal PC) and didn't even render a single frame every minute.

Raytraced lighting for the most part makes the movies look a bit better. Although, there are some scenes where the game looks better due to ambient occlusion shading. That tech simply didn't exist back in the mid 90s. It makes objects appear much more grounded.

we're slowly getting there. still needs more polys and specific shaders.
Also it's not economically sustainable, when movies do not have any skill floor, in your case you have to sacrifice things like gameplay for graphics if you don't want to go bankrupt.

Attached: 1561688350984.png (1920x1143, 3.2M)

for real? for that shitty ass movie? how long did the terminator take at the end after the tanker explosion? that scared me so fucking bad as a kid

porn is a different topic with different reasons. we get shit products because companies (full of the needed artists and programmers) don't want to be associated with porn, and it doesn't even sell that well as 90% of the users will pirate the software.

>random access memory memory

The original toy story of 1995 is not the same as the toy story dvd at walmart. Theyve gone back and updated it multiple times.

No they haven't.

ignore graficsfags
do not reply to graficsfags

pixarplanet.com/blog/toy-storytoy-story-2-re-rendered/

SSAO is useless if lighting is raytraced. But Toy Story 1 wasn't ray-traced.

>speed reading the thread

Attached: 1556399530099.gif (480x480, 2.56M)

That's from Toy Story 2 (1999).

user, that's what's playing in the car during the scene from that pic

are you an idiot?
>graphic fidelity
thats all there is to it, if you can wait for hours and use a shitload of computers for it for a single frame then you can use whatever techniques that do give you that high fidelity (shit like hair, clothing simulation, light passes, , extremely high-poly, etc...).
With games you can only use one pc, and it has to fucntion with a certain minimum, while providing realistic realtime rendering, aka, good fps. So yeah, you have to use techniques that simply arent as high fidelity, like how reflections were made up until recently, Screen Space Reflections. Also why hairs are mostly a mesh with the texture plus planes with alphas.

sorry then. it's been a while.

Wow, a retard who doesn’t know anything about rendering.

Because Toy Story is just a giant prerendered cutscene you faggot.

They used micropolygons iirc, which is very similar to modern tesselation.

Doesn't seem like anything was touched beside resolution
hifi-writer.com/he/bdreviews/toystory.htm

all that under 8ms to appease PC gamers.

>re-rendering is not changing anything
Fuck

>also
>>baby carseat in the passenger side
>oh shit nigger what are you doing
I remember that still being pretty common back then. A lot of cars didn't have airbags yet.

Yes, but there's also things like artstyle. Someone could argue that Okami looks better than Toy Story, but they'd be saying that for the style. Here you're looking at the exact same character with the exact same style so the comparison is pretty much as black and white as it could possibly be.

Ambient occlusion is unnecessary if you have proper global illumination. AO just mimics the shadows that naturally occur with indirect lighting.

because it would be egregious if we had to render a single frame a day to play our games

I imagine making the baby horrifying adds to the immersion of being a small helpless toy

Andy's mom looks like she uses her forehead to navigate the dark arctic waters.

Fuck realism. Here's what I want.
youtu.be/9VdHrA8SKSg

Attached: 1542928387077.png (854x480, 318K)

Yes but other games go for different aesthetics. The world's in KH3 tried to replicate the aesthetic style of their source material so it works as a side by side comparison.

I WANT YOU FOR A LIFE TIME, SO IF YOUR'E GONNA THINK TWICE

THE STATE OF JP GRAPHICS

Attached: 1523744582112.jpg (320x180, 7K)

>we're

bro!!

/thread

Consoles

Was about to post this
youtu.be/_4gl-FX2RvI
I straight up want to play a 3D demo tape in real time

I don't like to use buzzwords like PURE SOUL, but if you want some : youtube.com/watch?v=KxcUE5Vh2mU

Very based.

This is a big part of it. Modern games look better than Toy Story in many aspects but lighting/shadows is an area where it is still far superior just due to the fact they were able to take hours and hours per frame to pre render all the lighting instead of it being in real time.

At that point though, the question really isn't "can we", the question now becomes, "should we?" Because we're already at the point where I can hardly tell the difference between the two top images besides different lighting styles, we're long past the point where we're getting diminishing returns on adding polys.

>Yea Forums unironcially thinks this should be the standard for graphics
Literal PS3 tier

Attached: 546D6AEC-267C-4C49-9F9A-80B8FFC235C4.png (644x340, 81K)

The main issue with the left image is the lack of shadows, since in that scene the sun is the only light source set to cast shadows. Aside from that the lighting in Kingdom Hearts 3 is leagues beyond Toy Story 1, with proper physically based materials.
The movie uses several hand placed light sources both for dramatic effect and to fake aspects of light Renderman couldn't handle at the time (which is how I believe they got that shadow on the right), but I think real-time path tracing would be able to produce much more convincing results today. Sadly the PS4 and KH3 came out a bit too soon to take advantage of that.

Attached: afdsakf.png (126x403, 41K)

Attached: 1544058889853.png (563x488, 424K)