The Grass and Vegetation colours are too light: Yes or No

[winny]

Originally Posted by JG27_PapaFly

Problem solved.
Your shots also illustrate why Oleg chose a low contrast per default: he found a good compromise that displays the sunlit landscape and important details hidden in shadows. The instruments are pitch-black in the high-contrast image. Our eyes have a dynamic range that is far greater than that of any machine. In real-life, sitting in a plane we see both the landscape and the instruments without problems, and without having the feeling that there is no contrast. To achieve this in a game, or in photography, you have to lower contrast. IMO Oleg did the right thing here.

I really pushed the contrast up high for that, more than I would acually prefer. But I do like my blacks black. CoD is a little too soft looking for my taste.

You're right about Oleg. It's a happy medium. People have different expectations of what they should see on a monitor. Some, because of the medium expect a photo-y version of the world on screen. You're wrong about the eye though. Look at a bright light and then stick something inbetween you and the light. It dosn't take a lot to get a silhouette. And even a bog standard camera 'sees' IR.

My real point is that to have so many people vote saying it's wrong on a developers forum when in fact it's got more to do with how they are set up locally than the actual software seems a bit, well, pointless.

[Macka]

As shown in the above pics, is one way to adjust the way you percieve how the land looks to you. The other is just use the game the way it was designed to and reflect terrain at differing times of day. The way we do in real life Aerial and Survey photography, Rule No.1: Sun Angle. Rule No. 2: Altitude... and a bunch of others I wont go into for fear of boring you all to death, all contribute to contrast on final images.. All the following screenies are in game shots with no monitor adjustments (only time of day changes). As a specialist Aerial Photo Navigator for the last 30 years I can say they (Devs) have made a pretty good replication of the way the terrain reflects the sun and reproduces the look. Here are examples of different times of day and hence different sun-angles reflecting back into virtual camera. Make sure you have your land shading setting on as well it makes a big difference.

Morning through to afternoon with default game time at the end






Nothing too garish or contrasty about those except for default maybe borderline. So have a play with the times of day and you will probably find all is ok

[JG27_PapaFly]

Originally Posted by winny

You're wrong about the eye though.

Don't underestimate the abilities of our eyes m8. As a cancer researcher and biologist i assure you nothing beats our eyes! They reach a maximum dynamic range of 1:1.000.000.

Under normal conditions we still have a dynamic range of 1:10.000, which means i can still resolve details in areas that are ten thousand times darker than the brightest area in my field of view.

A monitor/camera is good if it reaches 1:1000 or 1:2000.

[winny]

Originally Posted by JG27_PapaFly

Don't underestimate the abilities of our eyes m8. As a cancer researcher and biologist i assure you nothing beats our eyes! They reach a maximum dynamic range of 1:1.000.000.

Under normal conditions we still have a dynamic range of 1:10.000, which means i can still resolve details in areas that are ten thousand times darker than the brightest area in my field of view.

A monitor/camera is good if it reaches 1:1000 or 1:2000.

Which is why I have the contrast higher on my screens.

I'm not underestimating. Really, but practical experience tells me that the difference in colour between a good colour photograph taken on a good camera and real life is actually quite small and subtle.

Sometimes I read a post where people make out that a photograph can't be used a reference because it's not RL.. It's pretty close!

Anyway we should probably be comparing video cameras to the eye. No exposure time involved.

[JG27_PapaFly]

Originally Posted by winny

Which is why I have the contrast higher on my screens.

I'm not underestimating. Really, but practical experience tells me that the difference in colour between a good colour photograph taken on a good camera and real life is actually quite small and subtle.

Sometimes I read a post where people make out that a photograph can't be used a reference because it's not RL.. It's pretty close!

Anyway we should probably be comparing video cameras to the eye. No exposure time involved.

No. I'm afraid you don't understand the basics of contrast perception and display.
The image in the default game is already at your monitor's contrast limit. Load your images you've posted into photoshop and have a long good look at the histograms. The default shot has just a tiny little headroom at the bright end, and blacks are black.
The image with increased contrast is just darker. You dial in more contrast, but your monitor can't display that, and this transformy the complete instrument panel into a pitch-black mess. You'd have to switch on cockpit lights to read your instruments at noon on a sunny day, and that's something you just don't have to do normally IRL.

Video cameras, just like photo cameras, have exposure times.

[winny]

Originally Posted by JG27_PapaFly

No. I'm afraid you don't understand the basics of contrast perception and display.
The image in the default game is already at your monitor's contrast limit. Load your images you've posted into photoshop and have a long good look at the histograms. The default shot has just a tiny little headroom at the bright end, and blacks are black.
The image with increased contrast is just darker. You dial in more contrast, but your monitor can't display that, and this transformy the complete instrument panel into a pitch-black mess. You'd have to switch on cockpit lights to read your instruments at noon on a sunny day, and that's something you just don't have to do normally IRL.

Video cameras, just like photo cameras, have exposure times.

I'm not here for an argument about how the eye works.

And don't tell me what I know about the basics of contrast perception and display, I'm talking about what I like, not what is right.

The only opinion I've given is that I like my blacks black. I haven't said that I think the default settings should be like the high contrast images I've posted. I think CoDs standard settings are perfectly ok. However increasing the contast, for me brings more colour depth to my monitor.

Because my specific monitor shows that the spinner on a hurricane looks greyer than it should and the Brown camo on it is not as rich as on a RL hurricane, I turn up the contrast. I'm not on about scientific stuff. I'm on about playing around with your settings till you're happy. Not jumping up and down at the delevopers.

I meant no exposure time in the eye. That's probably wrong too

[unreasonable]

As another Brit who was born and lived in Kent I agree with the posters who are saying that the vomit lime green is just wrong (as well as being disgusting). It is not even the colour of fresh grass. It especially not the colour of grass in late July/ August. You might see it in a very young crop, or immature rapeseed, but not at the relevant time of year. BTW I distinctly remember the first time I noticed a bright yellow rapeseed field from a train window, and it was sometime in very late 70s IIRC.

It is no use blaming us for having crappy illudjusted monitors - the fact is that other sims can get this right - as previous posters have shown with RoF screenshots.

Contrast, lighting etc I am very happy with - I hope CoD lives on, it will be a remarkable piece of work, but I would prefer not to fight back nausea every time I look at that green.

[ElAurens]

Originally Posted by winny

I'm talking about what I like, not what is right.

The entire problem in a nutshell.

In the old days of film cameras (My degree was in Photo Journalism) most people preferred the "look" of Kodachrome slide film over any other color film stock. It was no where near accurate, colors were way over saturated, etc... And every photographer that I knew back in the day would try to mimic the "Kodachrome look" that National Geographic made popular by manipulating camera settings and lighting as much as they could. Because it's what the audience wanted, even if it was totally unreal, and believe me it was unreal.

Now I work on antique cars for a living and have not thought about this in a long time. I'll let you know in ten days, when I get the game, how I think it looks on my monitor.


Knowing what I know about Oleg's photography background, I'm willing to bet that what we are seeing is the best compromise possible on the really poor monitors that the vast majority of us (myself included) are forced to use owing to cost constraints.

*EDIT*

What is default game time? Noon as in IL2 I would guess?

[Robert]

Looks fine on a CRT. On the LCD's I've seen the landscape looks like a different game.