Odyssey space has "too much contrast" - breaking down the rendering of a frame

[AkenBosch]

And no, it's not realistic, look at real space photography.

But that's the point. Space photography is not realistic, at all. Space photography is extremely long exposures, stacking, light curve processing, de-noising, applying of selective filters, all to make us able to see (and study) stuff that would be all but invisible to our rather limited naked eyes. Space from an extremely dark place, or from space (sorry) is an incredible sight of a sea of stars and a very apparent, yet subtle band of Milky Way, but the colourful and overbright nebulas, the smatterings of very differently coloured stars, that galactic plane so bright it almost blinds you, that's all stuff of either heavily processed photography, or fantasy space games.
As it is currently, in the empty patches Elite's space looks a lot more like actual space that it did before. That is not to say it's better that way, it's still a videogame, I'm perfectly fine with overbright, saturated but visually interesting fantasy space as well.

 

[dreampage]

But that's the point. Space photography is not realistic, at all. Space photography is extremely long exposures, stacking, light curve processing, de-noising, applying of selective filters, all to make us able to see (and study) stuff that would be all but invisible to our rather limited naked eyes. Space from an extremely dark place, or from space (sorry) is an incredible sight of a sea of stars and a very apparent, yet subtle band of Milky Way, but the colourful and overbright nebulas, the smatterings of very differently coloured stars, that galactic plane so bright it almost blinds you, that's all stuff of either heavily processed photography, or fantasy space games.
As it is currently, in the empty patches Elite's space looks a lot more like actual space that it did before. That is not to say it's better that way, it's still a videogame, I'm perfectly fine with overbright, saturated but visually interesting fantasy space as well.

This is not entirely true. If you look up to the night sky from a point on Earth where there's no light pollution then you can clearly see many stars and the Milky Way. The long exposure cameras are only needed to photograph much more distant objects which the naked eye can't see, but that's not the point here. The point is, if you are in space you can see much more than in Odyssey. It's just black. Space is not like that in reality.

 

[dreampage]

Here's a video about how lighting is broken (I personally disregard the part about the planets, but it's worth a look as well). Even in interior spaces like the hangar, there's just not enough light, even when there are light sources. They just don't light up the environment properly. Not to mention emissives. It's a rendering issue throughout the whole game.

 

[Erei]

But that's the point. Space photography is not realistic, at all. Space photography is extremely long exposures, stacking, light curve processing, de-noising, applying of selective filters, all to make us able to see (and study) stuff that would be all but invisible to our rather limited naked eyes. Space from an extremely dark place, or from space (sorry) is an incredible sight of a sea of stars and a very apparent, yet subtle band of Milky Way, but the colourful and overbright nebulas, the smatterings of very differently coloured stars, that galactic plane so bright it almost blinds you, that's all stuff of either heavily processed photography, or fantasy space games.
As it is currently, in the empty patches Elite's space looks a lot more like actual space that it did before. That is not to say it's better that way, it's still a videogame, I'm perfectly fine with overbright, saturated but visually interesting fantasy space as well.

Space is dark, not black. Long exposure camera make it a lot brighter than it is. Camera can't see what we see, so they increase the brightness to be able to actually have something that's not entirely black. I can see fine with only the light of the moon if she is full with no cloud, but for a camera, the picture would be pitch black.
However, space is full of stars. The milky way is colorful and highly visible, even from Earth.
Camera may not see what we do, but they don't lie either. The stars they show are the one we see.

Horizon skybox was too bright, but other than that, it was very much fine for a videogame. Odyssey is the opposite, it's dark but also very black. Rigth now, the milky way from the bubble is a red stain that is barely visible. There are only a few stars in the sky, and it's very black.

 

[Janesha]

Doesn't look like anything changed in the patch today either. This seems like it should be an easy fix if they wanted to fix it, so I assume that the step OP outlined of applying the gamma transform twice is just intended behavior now.

 

[Orvidius]

Today's patch made things slightly better, since it at least will use your gamma setting now. Still not ideal, though.

 

[AkenBosch]

Space is dark, not black. Long exposure camera make it a lot brighter than it is. Camera can't see what we see, so they increase the brightness to be able to actually have something that's not entirely black. I can see fine with only the light of the moon if she is full with no cloud, but for a camera, the picture would be pitch black.
However, space is full of stars. The milky way is colorful and highly visible, even from Earth.
Camera may not see what we do, but they don't lie either. The stars they show are the one we see.

I had already read the exact same arguing you had with another user in a different thread, and already had my laugh, thank you but another one isn't needed. Right on commander! Ciao.

Still doesn't detract a bit from the fact the current lighting in Odyssey is pretty much all over the place.

 

[Helvellyn]

Got to laugh at people who complain about a game set in space looking more like space looks like when you've not been sat in complete darkness for twenty minutes for your eyes to adjust. Can't stand the "space" look that's based on long exposure photos or trying to look "pretty."

As for space isn't black, not that one again. Between the stars it is (well OK not exactly thanks to cosmic microwave background radiation, but within the bounds of human vision it is). The atmosphere still scatters a little at night on Earth. But what you also get are vast, vast numbers of faint stars, too many to convincingly render on a screen, only visible when you've been out of the light for some time to let your eyes adjust. If it wasn't black though it would screw up long exposure photographs, and put an absolute limit on what could be seen even with the largest telescope and no atmosphere to deal with (anything fainter than the background level would be undetectable).

 

[Erei]

Got to laugh at people who complain about a game set in space looking more like space looks like when you've not been sat in complete darkness for twenty minutes for your eyes to adjust. Can't stand the "space" look that's based on long exposure photos or trying to look "pretty."

And I can't stand a pitch black sky with tiny dots. And I can barely see the milky way at all, which turned red for some reason. It's called "milky" for a reason.

But what you also get are vast, vast numbers of faint stars, too many to convincingly render on a screen

So you're saying real life sky isn't convincing ? Odd choice of words.

If it wasn't black though it would screw up long exposure photographs, and put an absolute limit on what could be seen even with the largest telescope and no atmosphere to deal with (anything fainter than the background level would be undetectable).

Camera are not eyes. You can see with faint lighting, like with a torchlight in the night. The camera can't. Movies are made during the day, then a "night" filter is applied, because otherwise there wouldn't be anything to show, even though our eyes can see.

 

[M_Biscotti]

Sky is not bothering me, blackness in the sky feels "normal".

Yes, "normal" in towns on Earth with eyes. Where we are litterally blinded by lights because we fear darkness. This is not the case in the countryside. Have a taste of that with your very eyes, seeing how they massacred the sky and think that it's only your eyes, not a filtered helmet or canopy with probably light amplifiers and polarized (moon further than "Mars with the Sun", being as clear as on Earth, cosmic rays, UVs, Star's direct light at 6- ls ...) 1bit b/w sky is just a scam. Consistency !

The OP explained clearly what makes me angry and desperate. I feel I've been scammed with Odyssey. It's a really bad feeling.
(edit : typos)

 

[Helvellyn]

And I can't stand a pitch black sky with tiny dots. And I can barely see the milky way at all, which turned red for some reason. It's called "milky" for a reason.

Red being an issue is one of the few things we seem to agree on! With no other sources of light present I want that beautiful faintly-glowing glowing white band across the sky (or whatever you call it when you're in space, "sky" isn't really the right word).

So you're saying real life sky isn't convincing ? Odd choice of words.

Er, no. I'm saying that there are aspects of it that can't be rendered convincingly, such as the huge number of very dim stars. Maybe that's where you get your non-black impression from, since it'll probably end up averaging out to a faint grey on a monitor. This is all only with fully dark-adapted vision anyway.

Camera are not eyes. You can see with faint lighting, like with a torchlight in the night. The camera can't. Movies are made during the day, then a "night" filter is applied, because otherwise there wouldn't be anything to show, even though our eyes can see.

There are cameras that can, not that cameras and eyes work in the same way. But that's not the point, it's about the fact that something dimmer than a background level is simply undetectable against that background. To scale the effect up to illustrate the point the sky is too bright during the day to ever be able to detect much in the way of stars; it's brighter than they are. At night though the sky's much, much less bright, so they become visible. But if it truly were a background at a level visible to the human eye then that would be the limit it would be possible to detect anything against.

Those movie "night" filters generally look pretty fake.

 

[Erei]

Er, no. I'm saying that there are aspects of it that can't be rendered convincingly, such as the huge number of very dim stars. Maybe that's where you get your non-black impression from, since it'll probably end up averaging out to a faint grey on a monitor. This is all only with fully dark-adapted vision anyway.

Weird because astronauts are often awed by the magnificent sky in space.

Games are game. Eventually I don't care if it's faked a bit to be better. Right now, it's faked to be worse.

Those movie "night" filters generally look pretty fake.

Technology have changed, the technique is still used. I don't think a single night that was filmed during the night in a movie. Except perhaps some independent movie for some challenges or realism or whatever.

 

[Helvellyn]

Weird because astronauts are often awed by the magnificent sky in space.

Games are game. Eventually I don't care if it's faked a bit to be better. Right now, it's faked to be worse.

Astronauts aren't astronomers. The biggest difference I've heard them describe is the lack of twinkle, which they say can really stand out (now there's something which needs to be complained about more in Odyssey, they twinkle like mad). As well as not being just up above. And the night sky is magnificent, but it isn't what Horizons portrayed and to see it at its most magnifiicent requires being somewhere completely unlit for long enough for the eye to adapt, which isn't what you get sat in an illuminated cockpit.

Games have had quite a trend over the years to achieve graphical realism (aside from deliberately stylised ones).

I don't have a problem with people wanting stylised, just be honest about that's what it is and accept that there's nothing wrong with not wanting that.

 

[Helvellyn]

screwed up edit

 

[Erei]

Astronauts aren't astronomers.

I'm speaking what the eyes see, not the science behind what are the white dot we see. Astronauts have been in space, they are the best people we have to tell us what space look like when you are up there.

And the night sky is magnificent, but it isn't what Horizons portrayed and to see it at its most magnifiicent requires being somewhere completely unlit for long enough for the eye to adapt, which isn't what you get sat in an illuminated cockpit.

Games have had quite a trend over the years to achieve graphical realism (aside from deliberately stylised ones).

I don't have a problem with people wanting stylised, just be honest about that's what it is and accept that there's nothing wrong with not wanting that.

I don't think the illumination of the cockpit is enough to dim all the light. And even if it was, a black sky would be terrible to see, even if you have explanations.

Also, since Odyssey, some cockpit are super dark. I can't see the actual cockpit part in the cutter. It seems dependent of the ambient light, so it won't be dark near a star.

 

[Helvellyn]

I'm speaking what the eyes see, not the science behind what are the white dot we see. Astronauts have been in space, they are the best people we have to tell us what space look like when you are up there.

Stars below too, and not twinkling seem to be the main impressions. I've found these quotes for example:

My God, the stars are everywhere, even below me. They are somewhat brighter than on earth, but the main difference is that they don't twinkle.

To see stars at night we had to turn down all the orbiter's interior lights to make it dark and eliminate the reflections in the windows. Then we could view so many more stars than one could ever gaze at from Earth, and during a single orbit we could see both Northern and Southern Hemisphere stars.

We could probably argue about "more" and "somewhat brighter" (would need to know how often said astronauts have experienced dark skies in a remote location and let their eyes adjust on Earth). Odyssey's stars twinkle like mad for me - that's something I'd definitely like fixed

I don't think the illumination of the cockpit is enough to dim all the light. And even if it was, a black sky would be terrible to see, even if you have explanations.

Subjective; I find a black sky - we're not talking completely black here, nothing at all (although I suppose it should be if you're looking at the local star) - rather better than a gungy background that the night side of a planet is clearly visible against, giving no impression of a crescent from a sliver of daylight side but a black circle with a bright edge.

Also, since Odyssey, some cockpit are super dark. I can't see the actual cockpit part in the cutter. It seems dependent of the ambient light, so it won't be dark near a star.

Not tried the Cutter but it's terrible in my DBX. Even near a star it doesn't seem to light the cockpit as well as it should at times, it doesn't feel like the cockpit's in daylight even if you park yourself 1 AU from Sol, shining right from above. I completely agree that cockpit lighting is totally screwed up.

Anyway, that'll have to do for now, I'm going to the pub.

 

[Vekt Ey'doom]

Try going to a system with a White Dwarf, for some reason the contrast and gamma is corrected in those systems, and it looks much better. Better than Horizons does in my opinion.

I have a screenshot here somewhere...

 

[Erei]

In the end whether you agree or not about the "realistic" part of it, it's a game. And I'd like it more if I was awed by the amount of stars, with varying size and color, the nebula and whatever else, than by having what we have now. Something very black with tiny white dot and a red stain I assume is the milky way.

Try going to a system with a White Dwarf, for some reason the contrast and gamma is corrected in those systems, and it looks much better. Better than Horizons does in my opinion.

I'll wait for a fix myself, but thanks

 

[Vekt Ey'doom]

In the end whether you agree or not about the "realistic" part of it, it's a game. And I'd like it more if I was awed by the amount of stars, with varying size and color, the nebula and whatever else, than by having what we have now. Something very black with tiny white dot and a red stain I assume is the milky way.

I'll wait for a fix myself, but thanks

I wasn't really suggesting this as a fix, Just an odd curiosity. I really wish the rest of the game looked like White Dwarf Systems. I like the Darkness on planets, but I did like seeing the skybox and it's especially useful as we see in my screenshot, for navigation on foot as you can really see the outline of the base. Elite already sacrifices so much at the alter of "It's just a videogame" And that's perfectly fine, ideal in my opinion, in fact (Hell, I wish they did it to a lot of other, way more important for gameplay reasons) so to use the defense of "Space is Dark" is a little disingenuous. Just ay "I like it better" don't try to justify it with some psuedo high ground.

 

[jojon]

"I'll just add what I've said many times before on this forum - the relationships between different lightsources is completely random in Elite and does not even try to be realistic."

I would not say: "random". There is no doubt a fair bit of handplaced scene light sources without accompanying objects pretending to be the light fittings outputting the light, in order to simulate various effects and artistic visions, including backside light sources whose light would otherwise be the result of global illumination (on top of base diffuse ambient light. ...and these effects come out strange when the scene illumination conditions change without them adapting); But I feel pretty confident in thinking the dynamic lighting is systemic - not random; Things happen for a deterministic reason (...such as simply being ignored due to being past a certain distance away), even if one may not always have the chops to figure out what causes their behaviour.

One thing I have spotted on several occasions, and which was a problem already with Horizons, is situations where things in the world changes lighting dependent on whether I am illuminated or not - not if they are illuminated. For example, I drive my SRV into the light cone of a lamp post, night-side, and this causes the moons in the sky above me to flare up like light bulbs; or the distant darkness-shrouded mountains around me do the same when I walk into the area lit up by my ship flood lights. In both these cases, simulated iris adaption in the HDR tone mapping shader should bring about the opposite effect.

These sort of things occasionally also happen with the night side of planets, when in orbit, causing them to go bright, and then dark again,back and forth several times as one round the planet, on the whims of some celestial light switch; For a brief second (EDIT: ...in Odyssey), I wondered if FDev had brought back the hideous flat aritficial light that, prior to the addition of night vision, used to fade in and turn the night on planets into an overcast day.

Man, I can't wait until full raytracing at good frame rates becomes achievable. :7