Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

As of 4.15, Bloom has ZERO artistic control.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    [RENDERING] As of 4.15, Bloom has ZERO artistic control.

    EDIT: If you're going to vote no on the poll, at least provide a valid reason and enter the discussion.

    EDIT #2: I am not arguing against the physical-correctness of the new Tonemapper. I am arguing that it removes artistic control.

    This thread has already been done here, so you can already see the problem in detail. However, it's in the Rendering section and we've had no official feedback on it. I'm going to pinch some images from that thread to highlight the problem.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Bez tytułu.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	156.3 KB
ID:	1219883

    I'm making a very VFX-heavy game and in all honesty, the changes to bloom and the Tonemapper in 4.15 are making life extremely difficult. It is impossible, to get nice saturated bloom or glow on objects - a desired aesthetic for thousands of games. What irks me is that it was always possible to get this desaturated / white glow before by toying with your settings - but it isn't possible to go back to old behavior in 4.15. You are now forced to change the look of your game if you want to adopt 4.15 and future versions of the engine.

    Another Example in this post

    I understand that this is NOT physically-accurate - but I'm not making a physically accurate game and neither are many other users. The biggest issue is that switching back to the old Tonemapper does not restore the effects to the way they looked in previous versions (it's not even close!, and I like some of the features of the new Tonemapper so don't want to lose everything. As I understand it, the old Tonemapper is eventually going to be phased out too, which is another problem.

    This doesn't just affect your users, it affects Epic content too. Look at how Elemental Demo looks in 4.15 compared to previous iterations. 4.15 on the left, 4.11 on the right. 4.11 is arguably much more desirable and most importantly - you could achieve 4.15's effect by just de-saturating the emissive values. It's impossible to get the look of 4.11 in 4.15.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	screenshot.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	841.5 KB
ID:	1219884

    To further the issue, reflections don't produce the desired results either:

    Click image for larger version

Name:	SSR.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	35.3 KB
ID:	1219885

    What would it take to get our beloved, saturated, colourful bloom back?
    117
    Yes, we should have both styles available
    93.16%
    109
    No (Reason In Comments)
    6.84%
    8
    Last edited by TheJamsh; 05-09-2017, 09:02 AM.

    #2
    Well, nothing changed since the buzz it had after release.

    Official reply to the issue I've seen on AH and forum threads was something like "It's a better photo real system. You can replicate similar to the old look by hacks" and Tonemapper stream just solidified the stance.
    At this point it impossible to get old result, but you can achieve similar look by methods described in above mentioned thread. However it's also been said that one of required hack probably will be removed in future release soo... Adapt, I guess =/
    SuperGrid: Marketplace Page | Feedback Thread | Demo | Website
    Level design and prototyping for newbies

    Comment


      #3
      The film tonemapper is affecting the result you see in 4.15. Try disabling it and see if it looks any closer to that of 4.11?
      Artstation
      Join the support channel
      Gumroad Store

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by Maximum-Dev View Post
        The film tonemapper is affecting the result you see in 4.15. Try disabling it and see if it looks any closer to that of 4.11?
        I know, but see the first image. It's not possible to get the old effects even when switching back to the old Tonemapper, or by tweaking any post process settings.
        Last edited by TheJamsh; 05-08-2017, 10:21 AM.

        Comment


          #5
          In 4.16 prev 2 it work D:! saturated bloom <3
          But when bloom is turned on or off, it affects the entire map :v

          Comment


            #6
            I understand there are some people requiring more of the artistic flexibility, but when it comes to photorealism the new behavior of the glow is much more realistic and generally superior. I remember, back in the day, in offline rendering, people were migrating from old blinn/phong shaders and point light workflow to modern microfacet shaders and area lights workflow, and many of them complained how they were to able tweak highlight size and intensity independently of the light size and intensity, and things like that, to make their renders "pop" more.

            In reality, it was a longer and more complicated way of achieving inferior results, and eventually, those people either adapted or lost their jobs.

            Unless you are aiming specifically for cartoon game, then new behavior should give you simply more appealing result, given that the rest of the scene is set properly too.

            What I initially wanted to say though, is that I would definitely not claim that new behavior sucks for all VFX artists. It would be more accurate to say it sucks for your specific need or artistic control.
            Last edited by Rawalanche; 05-08-2017, 04:58 PM.
            https://www.artstation.com/artist/rawalanche

            Comment


              #7
              Main problem is they plan to remove the old tonemapper so people will lose the "cartoony bloom" completely, which was basically with Unreal from the very beginning.

              That's just a big no for many.
              Fighting Game Template: PROJECT: Unreal Fighter 2D

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Achilleon View Post
                Main problem is they plan to remove the old tonemapper so people will lose the "cartoony bloom" completely, which was basically with Unreal from the very beginning.

                That's just a big no for many.
                This is a tough one...

                On the one side, backwards compatibility preservation is a strong argument. On the other side, a software, which preserves all of the legacy tools and UI switches tends to get so bloated it loses usability very quickly. It's the problem UE4 is facing already now, and it's scary to think it can get even worse.
                https://www.artstation.com/artist/rawalanche

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Rawalanche View Post
                  This is a tough one...

                  On the one side, backwards compatibility preservation is a strong argument. On the other side, a software, which preserves all of the legacy tools and UI switches tends to get so bloated it loses usability very quickly. It's the problem UE4 is facing already now, and it's scary to think it can get even worse.
                  Yap. Imagine they say "Eye Adaptation is realistic so we are making it always on and we also made it look completely realistic in all situations so it's good to have it on. Realism yo."

                  I will eventually hire a mathematical genius to write my own tonemapper as you can override it in post process material. Still there is literally NO gain from losing the old bloom. It's not like people hated it. People who loved old bloom still happy that the realistic bloom is there and needed in some cases, but we still don't understand what's the desire for removing the old on.

                  Noone asked for it's removal.
                  Fighting Game Template: PROJECT: Unreal Fighter 2D

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Rawalanche View Post
                    I understand there are some people requiring more of the artistic flexibility, but when it comes to photorealism the new behavior of the glow is much more realistic and generally superior.
                    I completely agree that from a realism point of view, it looks far better. Don't get me wrong, I like the changes and will adopt them for another project, which is meant to look more realistic. For a stylized game however, I need that flexibility and colorization without getting blown-out highlights and whites.

                    Originally posted by Rawalanche View Post
                    Unless you are aiming specifically for cartoon game, then new behavior should give you simply more appealing result, given that the rest of the scene is set properly too.
                    It's not a cartoon game, but it does need to be colourful and relies on lots of glow/bloom for it's aesthetic. What was previously a relatively colourful looking game now looks very washed out by comparison.

                    Originally posted by Rawalanche View Post
                    What I initially wanted to say though, is that I would definitely not claim that new behavior sucks for all VFX artists. It would be more accurate to say it sucks for your specific need or artistic control.
                    I would still say that it sucks if you want artistic control which I would say the majority of VFX artists want, whether they're aiming for realism or not. Nevertheless, I changed the thread title a wee bit.

                    My biggest complaint here is that the new highlighted / desaturated glow could be easily achieved in prior versions of the engine with careful tweaking of parameters - so you could have the best of both worlds and you had control on a per-instance basis. Now you only have one option.

                    Originally posted by Rawalanche View Post
                    On the one side, backwards compatibility preservation is a strong argument. On the other side, a software, which preserves all of the legacy tools and UI switches tends to get so bloated it loses usability very quickly.
                    I agree with the overall sentiment that keeping backwards compatibility adds bloat, but there's a difference between that and cutting out desirable features for "the greater good."



                    In 4.16 prev 2 it work D:! saturated bloom <3
                    But when bloom is turned on or off, it affects the entire map :v
                    I think that would be a suitable compromise. You can design the whole project around one style then, and you can still get realistic glow by carefully tweaking parameters.
                    Last edited by TheJamsh; 05-09-2017, 04:04 AM.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      just want to say that I agree with the artistic control sentiment.
                      UE3 and UE4 never had a proper glow feature, and the intended workaround was to use the emissive color and let the bloom handle it. we've all come to accept it as a valid workflow due to its convenience (easy control via material params) despite its drawbacks (glow size is screenspace-based, maps with different bloom settings cause inconsistencies, turning off bloom for scalability completely removes all glow)

                      so we either need artistic control of the emissive/bloom, or we need a proper glow feature in exchange
                      Follow me on Twitter!
                      Developer of Elium - Prison Escape

                      Comment


                        #12
                        4.15 on the left, 4.11 on the right. 4.11 is arguably much more desirable and most importantly - you could achieve 4.15's effect by just de-saturating the emissive values. It's impossible to get the look of 4.11 in 4.15.
                        I kinda agree that that achieving new looks with old versions was just a matter of lerping to a more desaturated color for hotter spots. It is the approach everyone got used to.
                        I would expect that it is equally easy to get old look with newer versions... but... on practice it is a headache.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Here's another working example. The image on top is a particle system in 4.13, which has nice colour and the right amount of glow for the effect I want. The Emissive intensity is somewhere around 15 or so.

                          Click image for larger version

Name:	whatiwant.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	16.5 KB
ID:	1127836

                          This is what I get in 4.15. I've been tweaking this for about 20 minutes and I cannot get the same colour , glow or effect I had in 4.13 no matter how much I twiddle with the colours.

                          Click image for larger version

Name:	get.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	16.0 KB
ID:	1127837

                          There's only one way for me to get around this, to artificially add a 'glow' radius in the material by bleeding out the texture. That also means my particle sprites need to be about 10x the size they currently are AND I have to spend ages iterating the bleed. So not only is this inefficient, but as a workflow it's shocking.

                          Realistically Superior or not, it's ugly AF and gives me pretty much no control.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by TheJamsh View Post
                            Here's another working example. The image on top is a particle system in 4.13, which has nice colour and the right amount of glow for the effect I want. The Emissive intensity is somewhere around 15 or so.

                            [ATTACH=CONFIG]140366[/ATTACH]

                            This is what I get in 4.15. I've been tweaking this for about 20 minutes and I cannot get the same colour , glow or effect I had in 4.13 no matter how much I twiddle with the colours.

                            [ATTACH=CONFIG]140367[/ATTACH]

                            There's only one way for me to get around this, to artificially add a 'glow' radius in the material by bleeding out the texture. That also means my particle sprites need to be about 10x the size they currently are AND I have to spend ages iterating the bleed. So not only is this inefficient, but as a workflow it's shocking.

                            Realistically Superior or not, it's ugly AF and gives me pretty much no control.
                            This is pretty much it. I really don't want to live with the fear of a random Unreal 4 update will simply go "oh we just removed the old tonemapper now." This is a needed feature, regardless of it being realistic or not.

                            People who desires realistic bloom now has their own tonemapper and I am happy for them. But PLEASE don't remove the old one. There are still people who NEED it.
                            Last edited by Achilleon; 05-09-2017, 09:15 AM.
                            Fighting Game Template: PROJECT: Unreal Fighter 2D

                            Comment


                              #15
                              This is pretty much it. I really don't want to live with the fear of a random Unreal 4 update will simply go "oh we just removed the old tonemapper now."
                              Y'know, things like this are in the Release Notes. Nothing random about. If you want to use the old Tonemapper, use a version with the old Tonemapper.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X