What's the point of photography when we can simulate it

>>2957912
someone's got to make all the stuff you photograph in videogames, you can just go outside while they're fussing with photogrammetry

>>2957912
errything looked good until the trees came ive seen better.

>>2957912
What's the point of writing when neural networks can generate articles?

>>2957917
Thank you. My friend sent this to me a few days ago and I was like,
"the trees and foliage looked really fucked"
"really i think its great"

had to ask if we were watching the same video.

Whats the point of art when we have cameras?

>>2958083
What's the point of art when a computer can generate something more aesthetically pleasing than any Human could make?

>>2958087
Whats the point of sports when cars are faster than sprinters?

But the real answer is because photography or art isn't just about pleasing aesthetics. It's about the intent and skill of the artist, the documentation of places or people, the story it tells etc etc.

And anyway, art forms never get replaced. Fucking pottery is still a thing.

File: 1433210137774.jpg (45KB, 680x680px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 680x680px

>What's the point of playing piano when a computer can generate mathematically perfect music?

>>2957912
I'm slightly triggered that it's called "the future of gaming" when it's just special effects. We've had realistic special effects in movies for a while now, it's nothing new.
Meanwhile you can't really game like this when it takes 10 minutes (a wild guess) to render one frame on a high-end commercial-grade computer which costs $10,000, can you?

>>2958203
in the future everyone will have cloud based render farms for half life 3

Without question, this is good, however, not near real life.

I remember my early years when special effects were indistinguishable from real scenes. Looking back at the same stuff, it's ridiculous and clearly recognizable as special effects.
Back there, a bad television picture concealed poor effects and maybe now I'm more trained to see even little inconsistencies because of d&b and stamp-tool experience. I firmly believe this to be an onward journey as displays get better in quality and resolution or people get more attentive.

In the video, the distribution and directions of waves are suspicious. Right in the first scenes waves don't obey the Huygens Fresnel Principle. For grass scenes, you'll find pairs of same patterns right next to each other, just having a slightly different angle. Snowflakes should be randomly rotated or clustered, here it's a 2d crystal model being crisp and sharp. Trees are missing structure and shadows, this applies both the trunk and the leaves. Also an overly sharp sheen on stones is false, wide areas of water are in the same matte sheen and there are missing reflections for parts (even walls) that are out of focus, building a sharp edge near parts in focus..

So much for the first 4 minutes. And this is even motion pictures, which still conceal more than detailed stills. I'd rather ask, whether high resolution photographs can still be edited inconspicuously.

>>2957912
Those scenes are obviously fake. The trees in particular look like crap.

I blame this stupidity on the sedentary indoor lifestyles that kids have lead for the last 15-or-so years. The only way you could confuse that for real video is if you've never actually looked at a tree in real life.

Whats the point of women when you can have porn and love dolls that never have a headache

File: 1470501851005.jpg (23KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 300x300px

>>2957912
>why go outside and actually enjoy the natural beauty of real life, when instead we can sit inside on computers all day for a year simulating one scene to look like reality

>>2957912
>What's the point of photography when we can simulate it in our computers?

Case 1: you use photography to get massive popularity and you do not care about the way which gets you to it.
Answer: there is none.

Case 2: your photographs depict your feelings, impressions and helps you to communicate your reason to other people.
Answer: there is no point in simulating photography.

Easy.

>>2957912
>what's the point of photography when we can simulate it
Because a lot of people incorporate photography with their desire to travel and see and experience particular things. You can't really replace that desire with hyper-realistic renderings or even just setting up scenes at home in a studio.

>>2957912
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRTsl1jCqq8

File: Alexey Steele 1967 - Russian-born American painter - The Novorealism Movement - Tutt'[email protected] (727KB, 740x1230px) Image search: [Google]

727KB, 740x1230px

>>2957912
What is the point of painting when you can take a photograph?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	740
Image Height	1230

>>2957912
Bespite the stupid question, the video sucks and lacks realism. You're an aesthetically blind videogamecuck
kys

Canon released a VR photography sim.

https://www.oculus.com/experiences/rift/1032993353450807/

It's that stupid polygonal style too.

>>2961893
>https://www.oculus.com/experiences/rift/1032993353450807/
Awesome reality simulation: 5DIII focus fields are those built in the 6D.

What's the point of washing dishes when we have dish washers?

ITT: Autism

>>2957912
That looks like absolute trash.
It slanders the cg industry with it's incompetence.

What's the point of having a point when could let someone else have a point?

>>2962202
Are you claiming to be better at washing dishes than a dishwasher

>>2957917
>>2958079
I figured out what it is. The leaves on the trees and ferns are just flat decals. They dont have actual models. Its just a texture on a part. If each leaf were to be independent of the others then it'd look a lot more realistic. It'd also produce better shadows.

As an example, part of what gave the game Flower such great visuals was every single plant having its own model that could bend and move independently.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAftDQN4SNg

>>2962419
What the fuck does a machine know about cleaning?