- 858
- United Kingdom
Hey buddy, you just triple posted.
(Unfortunately I did not read your comment so sorry about that).is GT6's photo mode better than Forza 5?
- Thread starter bashfulboson
- 727 comments
- 70,559 views
(Unfortunately I did not read your comment so sorry about that).
- 4,771
- New York
- GO6DoRiFUt0
- gtun3d
I've been the one doing that, and numerous members, who are real photographers have agreed with my points. And from what I see in the OP... there's a few close ups. That's it. The rest are full shots.
But I basically ended this thread a while ago.
GT's photomode is more realistic to a real DSLR. Forza's is just a screen capture tool. They both produce amazing shots that border on photorealism, but GT's is better as it's a real camera and teaches real photography elements.
- 2,824
- Massachusetts
- GBO-Possum
I miss an USB transfer option, too. Maybe T10 isn't allowed to do this on 360 and XB1.
In FM5 you are limited to compressed 1080p images. The uncompressed, 4k "big shots" from FM4 are gone :/.
Thanks for the heads up. For me, that's a major disappointment. In FM4, despite the glacial speed of image transfer, I always used "big shots". Given the higher resolution source material and the vast increase in compute power in the Xbox One, I thought that they might even raise the megapixel limit, not lower it. It's a long time since I used a two megapixel camera (it was a Nikon Coolpix 950), and I don't want to revisit that past era!
- 40,419
Actually, no. The guy who spammed up a page with a several dozen odd pictures of FM5 photomode (of extremely varying quality) with no context or explanation, to the point of deliberately ignoring when someone asks a question about one of them, is the one derailing this thread. Just like it was earlier when bashfulboson was doing the same thing for GT6.
That's before we note the transparent motives for posting.
Along those lines:
I'd say it was probably off topic the very first time SlipZtrEm said it was off topic 250 posts ago. Then when he said so a second time 230 posts ago. Or the third time 10 posts after that. Or, hell, this post from T-12 400 posts ago about the exact thing King1982 decided to do when he posted a ton of pictures without saying anything about them, then abjectly refused to discuss them.
Pick your poison.
Last edited:
- 4,978
- Val d'Orcia,Tuscany
- hardvibes
- ACR HardVibes
Thank you, I'm glad I'm not the only one noticing it.
And you know what? I just saw that around 4 hours ago he (mr King1982) deleted the picture I wanted to talk about and know his advise (which he refused to give). It was somewhere between the Lamborghini Veneno and the old Formula cars https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/thre...tter-than-forza-5.312855/page-15#post-9901661
I wonder why he deleted it
...There it is again:
Last edited:
Zer0
(Banned)
- 1,624
Forza 5 has some incredible detail, here's one I took of the Nordschleife and even the paint looks real.
The problem with Forza's texturing is how fake often the result it looks. One of the causes is the lack of cohesion between different elements, like a photo collage made with raw-cutted layers of random pictures with no relation between them. With different color grading and contrast, different level of detail, wrong scaling with the world (yes again), different lighting, etc.
In a "collage" like that, higher resolution photos are not going to give more realism if first the photo cuts does not blend naturally in order to mimic the desired real picture (track). That is another factor of the infamous cartoonish graphics attribued to Forza. If you focus the photo at a close-up texture can looks reallistic (is just a photo of a photo) but if the camera is positioned in a farther view, with other elements on track, the illusion is very different. There are other factors that remove realism like overdoing the details (asphalt cracks, skidmarks, bump mapping) or repeating a texture along a track as a "carpet". Basically Forza lacks in the art department.
ColouredBadger
(Banned)
- 396
- England
- ColouredBadger
I kept out of this for a while because of arguments before but I'm coming back in with a response after reading some of the points made.
The only way you are going to make a realistic photomode is to create a realistic lighting engine. Forza 5 doesn't have a realistic lighting engine, therefore no matter how much the fanboys defend static lighting it will never look as realistic as Gran Turismo's.
On the other side of the coin however. Forza Horizon 2 has finally figured out how to do real time lighting and weather dynamics. If the fanboys can get some photos from Forza Horizon 2 and compare them to GT6 then I feel it'll be a better discussion and a fairer comparison between the photomodes as they both represent a realistic lighting engine and the photomodes can go head to head.
I'm going to give a few examples of how GT looks in it's photomode, in different lighting environments. Things Forza 5 simply cannot do, even with a talented editor. You can compare these to the Forza 5 photos already posted.
All photos are unedited, I rarely edit them because they just look so natural already.
I reiterate my point. It is the realistic lighting engine that creates a realistic photograph. There is no way of avoiding that fact.
The only way you are going to make a realistic photomode is to create a realistic lighting engine. Forza 5 doesn't have a realistic lighting engine, therefore no matter how much the fanboys defend static lighting it will never look as realistic as Gran Turismo's.
On the other side of the coin however. Forza Horizon 2 has finally figured out how to do real time lighting and weather dynamics. If the fanboys can get some photos from Forza Horizon 2 and compare them to GT6 then I feel it'll be a better discussion and a fairer comparison between the photomodes as they both represent a realistic lighting engine and the photomodes can go head to head.
I'm going to give a few examples of how GT looks in it's photomode, in different lighting environments. Things Forza 5 simply cannot do, even with a talented editor. You can compare these to the Forza 5 photos already posted.
All photos are unedited, I rarely edit them because they just look so natural already.
I reiterate my point. It is the realistic lighting engine that creates a realistic photograph. There is no way of avoiding that fact.
King1982
(Banned)
- 832
- 90203
- King1982
Yeah the picture wasn't loading on my page hence i deleted it. The illuminateed grill has been like that forever, it depends on the location and light direction, but it doesn't really bother me at all, till you brought it up. The headlights on the Ruf in Forza look a bit foggy compared to the one in Gt. No all cars in Forza are premium and offer an Forzavista experience. There..happy now
Ps: im still not quite sure whats wrong with the headlights of the F50.
Them pics are meh, i've seen better in the photomode section, but i will agree that Gt's lighting engine is just better but, that doesn't mean Forza photomode cant look better than one from GT.
Does this not look photorealistic too you?
In a "collage" like that, higher resolution photos are not going to give more realism if first the photo cuts does not blend naturally in order to mimic the desired real picture (track). That is another factor of the infamous cartoonish graphics attribued to Forza. If you focus the photo at a close-up texture can looks reallistic (is just a photo of a photo) but if the camera is positioned in a farther view, with other elements on track, the illusion is very different. There are other factors that remove realism like overdoing the details (asphalt cracks, skidmarks, bump mapping) or repeating a texture along a track as a "carpet". Basically Forza lacks in the art department.
Last edited:
- 4,066
- United States
This thread is almost to the point where it's run it's time. 16 pages of random and sloppy comparisons.
- 2,110
- Russia
King1982
(Banned)
- 832
- 90203
- King1982
I'm just speechless. Sadly in-game IQ is nowhere near, but anyway - FM5 has best tracks quality.
At least it runs at a locked 60 fps..
- 2,110
- Russia
- 5,068
- Glasgow
- GTP_iainoflo
ColouredBadger
(Banned)
- 396
- England
- ColouredBadger
Does this not look photorealistic too you?
Honestly, no. The lighting looks too bold, the car looks flat and the textures are weird and tiled as well as the overall colour pallet being too orange. The car is also too sharp. It could do with some anti-aliasing.
Now, you tell me this doesn't look photo-realistic?
I still find it hilarious that people are defending a Next-Generation game from a game which is on a console with 32x less graphical capabilities and one that is getting on for 10 years old... Forza should be doing better with the equipment they have.
As I said in my original point. Once Forza gets real-time lighting, potentially FM6, then the photomode will look more realistic and potentially as good as GT6's. Still sad that a game that isn't in development yet needs to catch up to one on the PS3...
King1982
(Banned)
- 832
- 90203
- King1982
Honestly, no. The lighting looks too bold, the car looks flat and the textures are weird and tiled as well as the overall colour pallet being too orange. The car is also too sharp. It could do with some anti-aliasing.
Now, you tell me this doesn't look photo-realistic?
I still find it hilarious that people are defending a Next-Generation game from a game which is on a console with 32x less graphical capabilities and one that is getting on for 10 years old... Forza should be doing better with the equipment they have.
As I said in my original point. Once Forza gets real-time lighting, potentially FM6, then the photomode will look more realistic and potentially as good as GT6's. Still sad that a game that isn't in development yet needs to catch up to one on the PS3...
Really? 2D trees?
Meh i've seen better pictures than that. Let PD just focus on important things like getting a locked framerate next time.
Last edited by a moderator:
- 2,824
- Massachusetts
- GBO-Possum
- 67
- Germany/Hildesheim
- X30DRIV3R
A few pictures that I have just made. Forza looks damn good, but does not come close to the realistic look of GT6.
ps: sorry for my bad english.
Last edited by a moderator:
- 84,364
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Please don't just post a page of images from one game or the other without any other comments. It doesn't really contribute anything to the discussion.
I've changed the images to thumbnails. It doesn't add any particular value, but it does at least allow the page to load in a reasonable amount of time.
I've changed the images to thumbnails. It doesn't add any particular value, but it does at least allow the page to load in a reasonable amount of time.
- 858
- United Kingdom
Good photos man. Also your English is actually good dude, I know how it is to learn another language.
- 4,066
- United States
A photomode shot of Forza doesn't even represent what the game looks like in game.
It's not exactly the fact that GT6 is better than FM5 while being on less capable hardware, that's a shallow argument. You're really just saying that GT6 is better because of a couple of images. That Image of FM5 is honestly terrible, as well as that GT6 image. The things going on in FM5 are actually more complex than GT6. Just because it has dynamic lighting doesn't exactly mean anything. Turn 10 could turn around in FM6, hire new artists and people that are much better with shaders and make everything a bit more bland to match the lighting of GT6. There is nothing wrong with FM5s lighting but you decide to write it off because it isn't dynamic which is something that is completely wrong. You can have static lighting and have it be miles better than the lighting that the GT series has.
Sure, that image you uploaded of GT6 is realistic within terms of lighting but there are many things in the image that are holding it back as well as the image in FM5. When it comes to a image being taken in FM5, consider the fact that the image may have been tampered with in it's photo mode.
Truly, all you're really talking about is the color palette.
Much better, yeah? The top one looks sooo much better than the lighting in FM5, which is basically what you're are assuming with the two shots you're comparing.
ColouredBadger
(Banned)
- 396
- England
- ColouredBadger
A photomode shot of Forza doesn't even represent what the game looks like in game.
It's not exactly the fact that GT6 is better than FM5 while being on less capable hardware, that's a shallow argument. You're really just saying that GT6 is better because of a couple of images. That Image of FM5 is honestly terrible, as well as that GT6 image. The things going on in FM5 are actually more complex than GT6. Just because it has dynamic lighting doesn't exactly mean anything. Turn 10 could turn around in FM6, hire new artists and people that are much better with shaders and make everything a bit more bland to match the lighting of GT6. There is nothing wrong with FM5s lighting but you decide to write it off because it isn't dynamic which is something that is completely wrong. You can have static lighting and have it be miles better than the lighting that the GT series has.
Sure, that image you uploaded of GT6 is realistic within terms of lighting but there are many things in the image that are holding it back as well as the image in FM5. When it comes to a image being taken in FM5, consider the fact that the image may have been tampered with in it's photo mode.
Truly, all you're really talking about is the color palette.
Much better, yeah? The top one looks sooo much better than the lighting in FM5, which is basically what you're are assuming with the two shots you're comparing.
I have already been warned about my responses to you fanboys so I will keep this simple for you.
Actual real life -
How Forza sees real life -
Real life is a little dull isn't it?.. It's such a shame Gran Turismo 6 replicates this really well.
- 4,066
- United States
No, you don't exactly have to simplify anything for me. You can't stop and reinforce your own argument because you read my post and got caught choking on your own ********.
You post two photos, one of a grassy area with no sun, and another with a grassy area with the sun out with added post processing effects. I call you out and put a little sense into what you're really talking about which is color palette and you can't exactly process what I'm talking about. Going out and saying that FM5 looks like some sort of fantasy land is absolutely stupid. If you get out of the house at all, you'll understand how early morning sunlight can effect even the most mundane of fields.
Also, you're touching on the sun glares that FM5 has, if you go outside and look into the sun what do you see? A big ball of fire of course. The sun flares in FM5 are just a graphical effect (comparable to a sprite, I guess you can say) and has nothing to do with what is being put through lighting wise. If you were to go into the engine of FM5 and adjust the sun, you'll probably see that the sun in the game is just a wire mesh, and the lighting adjusts to wherever it is.
Like you said.
The colors being produced in FM5 has nothing to do with the actual lighting of the game.
That's like going out and saying that Uncharted 3 has horrible lighting because The Last Of Us has more realistic colors.
Instead of coming to me with some lame joke about FM5, take time to reinforce and clarify your own argument. Games like BF4, COD, movies like, LOTR, Star Wars, even animated movies like Toy Story or 9 have different color palettes because of either they're aiming at a certain audience, or B. Deciding to have it like that to fit a specific story, not because they suck at animation or lighting.
Edit:
Calling people fanboys is only going to get you a bad look. I'm not exactly a fan of either series anymore, this is just a technical argument for me, and I'm not taking any sides although it may seem like it. I'm just looking through these posts and finding constant misinformation and people not knowing what the hell they're talking about... but hey, if calling me a fanboy makes you feel better than please, continue.
Last edited:
- 4,771
- New York
- GO6DoRiFUt0
- gtun3d
I'd still would love to know what framerate has to do with photomode... is anyone else confused by that? As for your little 2d trees issue...
I don't see how 2d trees are that big of an issue. Sure fully modeled trees would be nice, but I honestly don't care. Then you'd have everyone complaining that PD modeled trees.
This thread was rather civilized to a degree a while ago where people were actually discussing and debating, giving credit to both games and pointing out their flaws, but now it's just reducing to every other Forza/GT thread.
- 5,068
- Glasgow
- GTP_iainoflo
And this is the whole point - to maintain as much realism as possible a game needs to be/look/feel realistic - if you make a racing game look like a film then you've failed to do that.
This is @ColouredBadger 's point - Forza looks like a movie, GT6 doesn't, so your point about colour is fine, but that's fine if you're making a game like The Last of Us or Uncharted, not a game that strives to be a "Real Driving Simulator".
- 4,066
- United States
So I'm taking away from these two things that GT6 is better than FM5 default because of a better color palette.
This forum confuses me.. Just wow. I don't even think the topics in this thread will be settled. It'll just end up with them being spun around constantly.
- 5,068
- Glasgow
- GTP_iainoflo
That's what a discussion is - differing viewpoints of one topic.
And I think a few people have already said this - Forza looks like a movie no matter how people try to say it looks good/better than GT6, it does but at the expense of looking more like a movie.
- 27,385
- Toronto
- NewAesthetic
- SlipZtrEm
How's about we ignore quoting and responding to the (now-banned) member in an equally trollish way, yes? Good.
How's about we remind ourselves (for the half-dozenth time, only a few hours since the last mod's post) that this topic is about the Photomode. Not about which 2D trees people prefer in a game. Good.
How's about those that want to continue resorting to name-calling in a discussion instead of debating stop before yet more points are handed out? Good.
How's about we remind ourselves (for the half-dozenth time, only a few hours since the last mod's post) that this topic is about the Photomode. Not about which 2D trees people prefer in a game. Good.
How's about those that want to continue resorting to name-calling in a discussion instead of debating stop before yet more points are handed out? Good.
- 4,066
- United States
Way back, I even explained and clarified.. The things being discussed aren't even on topic with what the thread title is even mentioning, I'm simply just saying that some arguments (whatever they are) are generally wrong and providing the actual facts to back my argument. Instead of saying FM looks like a movie just say it has a more exaggerated color palette, it's just like saying cartoonish which is a horrible way to describe the game . FM is in no way cinematic in terms of gameplay. Both FM and GT look good in their own ways.
I'm done in this discussion.
Zer0
(Banned)
- 1,624
I have been reading the excuse of the color palette to justify the Forza graphics since the first Forza and not, it does not work like that.
Photorealism is not just adjusting the color levels in photoshop to your prefered reallistic style. That could work to an extent one time for a single static image but is not a magic formula that could be applied to an entire game to patch what is not physically rendered. A photorealistic engine is a very dynamic thing and depends of a lot of physical factors and computed effects, "colors" change every time in a very complex iteration with the light and environment. To start, Forza lacks some of the required effects and represent wrong others. Try to edit any cherry-picked FM5 image to your likings and then use the same steps with the same parameters in other images and will not work the same. If FM5 will be adjusted with linear levels it would look very bland and unrealistic, far from the extremely well calibrated GT6 all visual components. The excessive high contrasted and colorful style in the Forza games is a patch to hide some of the rendering flaws and make it look graphically appealing in its own style.
For example, it's not remotely possible that the first gif will become comparable in realism to the second just with some postprocessing color changes within its graphical engine.
- 28,471
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
