GT5 has so far better photomode shaders

[emula]

Look these images, GT5 has very better shaders effect and reflections than GT6, I'm very disappointed

GT5

GT6

PS also you can see that the sl has been a bit modified

 

[GTPorsche]

Different locations, different lighting.

Hard to prove any difference there.

 

[Dom00000]

This is the worst attempt at trying to prove your own point by comparing two completely separate things..... lol.

 

[Cano]

Different locations, different lighting.
Hard to prove any difference there.

This...

This is the worst attempt at trying to prove your own point by comparing two completely separate things..... lol.

And this.

 

[MXH]

This is a joke, right?

 

[emula]

locations are different but the shaders are evidently worst than GT5, deny this means to be blind

 

[RcWr]

locations are different but the shaders are evidently worst than GT5, deny this means to be blind

Make a comparision photos on the same track, same cars, exactly the same location. Then come back and we will do this again.

 

[hardvibes]

Someone should do some comparisons between GT5 and GT6 photomode (using same locations, cars, settings, filters etc of course) but this is something I've been saying since the first GT6 photomode shots: the result in GT5 was better.


Please prove me wrong...but what I've seen so far in the GT6 realistic photo thread is not as realistic as it's predecessor. I remember way better shaders

 

[emula]

Make a comparision photos on the same track, same cars, exactly the same location. Then come back and we will do this again.

Photos on track are downgraded in polygon cars model and paint shaders equally in GT5 and GT6, but I'm talking about photo travel

 

[GTPorsche]

Photos on track are downgraded in polygon cars model and paint shaders equally in GT5 and GT6, but I'm talking about photo travel

At least use the same photomode location to prove your point....

 

[emula]

At least use the same photomode location to prove your point....

if PD reintroduce all the GT5 beautiful photomode locations that they have thrown in the garbage bin I will be happy to do this....

 

[CTznOfTime]

Without even getting to the location and lighting condition, there are definitively some differences on the car between GT5 and GT6.

We can tell also that they have used a slightly different lighting engine.

I think emula and hardvibes are right. When i go onto the Photo section of this forum, there are photos taken that looks like FM4 rather GT5.

Looks like PD kinda simplified things... GT5 looks more glossy, GT6 looks more matte à la FM4

Of course there are gorgeous GT6 photos, but the overall feel seems different than GT5.

 

[Shirrako]

Photos on track are downgraded in polygon cars model and paint shaders equally in GT5 and GT6, but I'm talking about photo travel

How? the GT6 picture is reflection just the sky while the GT5 picture is reflection buildings and the sky, resulting in a very different lightning on the car.

 

[Lewis_Hamilton_]

I personally thought photos from GT6 were a lot better than GT5, it is much easier to get a truly realistic photo.

Like other's have said, we need the same location, lighting, weather, time of day and paint in order to compare. Otherwise, I will completely disagree with the OP based on some of the GT6 vs real life comparisons that I've seen.

 

[CeeJay]

I can't say much about the shaders and stuff but your pic does prove GT5 had much better photomode locations.

 

[eran0004]

In the GT5 picture, there are buildings surrounding the car on all sides. The walls of those buildings are in the shadow, so they give a dark reflection on windows and on the body.

In the GT6 picture, it's an open space where the only structures are behind the car. As a result, the hood is mostly reflecting the sky.

It's hard to compare reflections when the environments are so different. See if you can find some environments that looks similar.

 

[sparkytooth]

The environments are completely different, hence why the ambient lighting is different.

In GT5's Ahrweiler street, you had buildings and puddles of water surrounding the machine and giving off their own reflections on the machine, in GT6's Gemasolar, you're basically in an open space with a road with a few solar panels around to put your car under.

 

[GranTurismo916]

I personally thought photos from GT6 were a lot better than GT5, it is much easier to get a truly realistic photo.

Like other's have said, we need the same location, lighting, weather, time of day and paint in order to compare. Otherwise, I will completely disagree with the OP based on some of the GT6 vs real life comparisons that I've seen.

I had trouble on the first one finding out which one was GT6.

 

[FT-1]

I had trouble on the first one finding out which one was GT6.

If it wasn't for the GT logo at the top right hand corner, I would still be baffled

 

[twitcher]

If it wasn't for the GT logo at the top right hand corner, I would still be baffled

Really? To my eye, the differences pop out immediately. The first give away I noticed was the dirt on the real R8. The GT R8 is 100% clean. The second thing that jumped out at me is that the GT R8 seems to have been covered with some sort of matte clearcoat. It is especially evident on the blue parts of the car. I don't know what you call those little bright white spots (the shiny spot on a picture of an apple?), but there is not a single one of them in the GT photo, while they can be found all over the real photo (again, especially in the blue). The most obvious one can be found above and to the left of the rear wheel. There is also no reflections in the windscreen of the GT photo, making the glass nearly transparent. From that angle, there should be enough reflection that you can barely see through the glass, just like it is in the real photo.

The BRZ photos are much closer imo. However, I was still not fooled, as I felt the lighting and toning in the real photo are simply much more...real. The other big give away is the missing sponsor decals (Michelin) and missing details (two silver vents at the back of the small triangle window).



I haven't played around with photomode too much in GT6 yet, but so far, I'm finding GT6 much better for taking action shots (especially since I drift primarily, and GT6 made huge steps in fixing tire smoke in photos), but I am not impressed with the results I've been getting in photo travel mode. I don't have pics, but I was playing around with my E92 M3 in that "City of Science and Technology" or whatever it's called in Spain, and no matter where in the area I went, and no matter what angle, I was getting HORRIBLE reflections and lighting effects coming off the trunk. It appeared as though the trunk was painted a completely different colour, and finished in a completely different sheen.

 

[sparkytooth]

I'm gonna have to try this out myself. But none of the new photo locations aren't very interesting to be honest, except maybe the city of art and sciences.

 

[Soundtrack]

@twitcher they're called specular highlights and yes on the R8 shot they look like they are missing, hence the mat look of the coating. Still the lack of shadow of rear-view mirror is more distracting IMO.

 

[twitcher]

@twitcher they're called specular highlights and yes on the R8 shot they look like they are missing, hence the mat look of the coating. Still the lack of shadow of rear-view mirror is more distracting IMO.

Haha I missed that one! Good find. And maybe it's just due to the angle that the sun is in the GT photo, but is it also possible that the shadow for the rear wing is missing as well?????

 

[lancia delta hf]

I notice when in photomode that things like wheel arches or steering wheels or basically anything round look far worse in gt6 than gt5

 

[sumbrownkid]

I notice when in photomode that things like wheel arches or steering wheels or basically anything round look far worse in gt6 than gt5

I think it's the adaptive tesselation thing that does that. I noticed it too but after taking a photo the hard edges seemingly smooth out.

 

[lancia delta hf]

I think it's the adaptive tesselation thing that does that. I noticed it too but after taking a photo the hard edges seemingly smooth out.

Yes i had considered that and checked it out, I took a shot of an archwheel and it was rounded on the photo but moving the camera around freely it doesnt look too good, Also it seamed quite random too, Some times it just had no effect