How do the devs make these screenshots?

[Exentryk]

How do the devs make these screenshots?

Do they run the game on the highest settings with highest quality textures, and with ubersampling? And then downsample to 1080p for these crisp screenshots? Or is there some other tech to make screenshots look this good? I mean look at those trees in the background. It'd pass as a photograph!!!

I ask because if the screenshots are just obtained from gameplay at max settings, then this should be playable quality (if not now, then at least in the future).

 

[sidspyker]

Most likely have a engine key bind for screenies which turns on ubersampling, takes the screenie and then reverts back.

 

[Exentryk]

So basically it would be possible to play the game at this fidelity (if not now, then in the future with better hardware)?

 

[freakie1one]

They have a magical game mode that only the devs can access called "Anti-Downgrade Mode". They only use this mode to create controversy because they like to watch their fans squirm in their chairs. One of the planned 16 DLC will unlock this game mode to all PC users with a title screen that shows a hand slapping a face and the words "Thug lyfe foreva!".

 

[sidspyker]

So basically it would be possible to play the game at this fidelity (if not now, then in the future with better hardware)?

In the future? Yes. Now? Not at this level of fidelity and by that I mean a 2x2 downsampled buffer. But outside of that yes Ultra should provide but the fact is that 2megapixels simple aren't enough for that level of clarity, you need to play it as 4K/Ubersampling for that and right now that's sort of like a pipedream.Unless you SLI a few GPUs or buy a few Titan X.

 

[Riven-Twain]

They have a magical game mode that only the devs can access called "Anti-Downgrade Mode". They only use this mode to create controversy because they like to watch their fans squirm in their chairs.

Oh, ay, they gather round for a jolly good laugh, and say to each other: 'Won't they be surprised in May?'

 

[Exentryk]

In the future? Yes. Now? Not at this level of fidelity and by that I mean a 2x2 downsampled buffer. But outside of that yes Ultra should provide but the fact is that 2megapixels simple aren't enough for that level of clarity, you need to play it as 4K/Ubersampling for that and right now that's sort of like a pipedream.Unless you SLI a few GPUs or buy a few Titan X.

That's great to hear. Thanks!

 

[Scholdarr.452]

The screen in the first post looks a lot like rendered/photoshoped to me or at least it was made with unplayable (developer) settings like extreme far LOD.

 

[nemanja_pozega]

Using photoshop for quite a lot of years, I can honestly say that it's not photoshoped. That's coming from someone sceptical by nature You wouldn't believe what PS can do to a image, they can make it uncomparably better looking.

I believe settings witch would make the game look like that exist, the question is how taxing it's going to be on the hardware.

 

[Sirnaq]

They change some engine settings, look at the difference between draw distance in those screenshots and draw distance in gameplay footage. The game looks nice but probably runs couple o fps on double titans.

 

[savioeven]

Do they run the game on the highest settings with highest quality textures, and with ubersampling? And then downsample to 1080p for these crisp screenshots? Or is there some other tech to make screenshots look this good? I mean look at those trees in the background. It'd pass as a photograph!!!

I ask because if the screenshots are just obtained from gameplay at max settings, then this should be playable quality (if not now, then at least in the future).

By using a PC

 

[Sardukhar]

By using a PC

Aaaaand that's an invitation to a flamewar!

At least, around here and on this subject. You might want to edit that statement and make it...gentler. I recommend, "by using the best possible hardware they can find" or, "by using whatever it takes to make it look that good" as alternatives.

Don't be one of those guy who starts a fight where there isn't one, thanks.

This thread stands not a bad chance of being merged or closed, too, since it totters a leeeetle too close to exigent threads.

 

[227]

A year or two or three ago—I have zero sense of time—there was a forum contest where amateur reviewers could sign up to receive a review copy of the Xbox 360 version of Witcher 2 and write a review for it. They gave us some assets to use for these, notable among which were the "pretty Geralt" picture that was super outdated at the time, and this one:

That one was used to hype up the game before release, as memory serves, and the version they had up on the FTP server was HUGE. I mean, absolutely massive. I can't remember the exact dimensions, but it was definitely at least 4k. What struck me even more was that ubersampling seemed to be off (playing with GeDoSaTo for a few months, it's become clear that you don't need AA if you're reducing the size of shots a certain amount since it smooths the whole thing really nice anyway), and looking at the original, it was obviously a normal shot of the game with no Photoshop trickery. It's hard to say if they still make their "hype" images the same way, but I'd imagine that it's pretty likely.

EDIT: Though there was no in-game way to hide the UI in W2 before it was introduced in a patch, so they probably have little tweaks like that for the purposes of screenshots. I don't think they'd mess with the draw distance, but there's really no way to know for sure apart from tormenting a RED until they give you their secrets.

 

[Adamastor]

Do they run the game on the highest settings with highest quality textures, and with ubersampling? And then downsample to 1080p for these crisp screenshots? Or is there some other tech to make screenshots look this good? I mean look at those trees in the background. It'd pass as a photograph!!!

I ask because if the screenshots are just obtained from gameplay at max settings, then this should be playable quality (if not now, then at least in the future).

photoshop

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Using photoshop for quite a lot of years, I can honestly say that it's not photoshoped. That's coming from someone sceptical by nature You wouldn't believe what PS can do to a image, they can make it uncomparably better looking.

I believe settings witch would make the game look like that exist, the question is how taxing it's going to be on the hardware.

You can use picture enhancing methods in all kind of levels for all kind of purposes. If the artist does a good job you wouldn't find the differences without having the "original" shot for direct comparison.

And to get back to the shot: even the trees in the distance are super sharp and detailed. Looks a lot like unlimited LOD which is impossible to get on even the best hardware combined with the rest of the graphical fidellity right now (well, the Titan X might be an exception if the whole 12GB of VRAM was used). So it's imo definitely a "fake" shot and not something that actually represents the ingame graphics of the game.

 

[sidspyker]

Wh- that's an easily doable shot, I don't see what all the fuss is about.

 

[Butcher_of_Cidaris]

I tried settings on max and Ubersampling on W2 on my I7-4970K and gtx 980 but even i experienced some slow-mo during fight (not actual lag), so yes, definitely next gen hardware needed to see full beauty of W3. Or at least 2xvideo card, or 3x..

 

[dragonbird]

And to get back to the shot: even the trees in the distance are super sharp and detailed. Looks a lot like unlimited LOD which is impossible to get on even the best hardware combined with the rest of the graphical fidellity right now (well, the Titan X might be an exception if the whole 12GB of VRAM was used). So it's imo definitely a "fake" shot and not something that actually represents the ingame graphics of the game.

Unlimited LOD means that the texture size is the same on the distant objects as the nearby ones, not whether or not they're in focus. As distant objects only display a few pixels on-screen, and as it's not an animation, which means you're not seeing the AA impact of large textures, I don't think it's possible to detect that there's unlimited LOD.

What you ARE seeing is a shot with a very long DOF - near and far objects all in focus. That's probably just a render setting, and easily achievable (in fact, it's easier than a short DOF, because it requires less processing.)

Oh, and also possibly a long draw distance, but that shouldn't be difficult for a still shot.

 

[Agent_Bleu]

Let's try to settle this by rational debate.

I don't think some people realise the full implication of what they're saying. Claiming that image has been doctored or that it can only be achieved on farm-like hardware is claiming CD Projekt is lying. Lying. Because presenting an image that cannot be rendered by the engine alone under typical hardware constraints as the opposite would amount to very deliberate deceit. Lying.

That's a lofty claim.
Lofty claims require lofty evidence.
I'm all ears.

Personally, I have no reason to believe the screenshot has been photoshoped - even if good photoshoping includes hiding its own tracks. I take it it was rendered on ultra and see it as another suggestion RED Engine 3 is somewhat inconsistent.

EDIT:
@flyingsaucers , I know what bullshots are. I was deliberately avoiding the term.
Go ahead, make the case for this particular image. Pleases provide non circumstantial evidence.
Thanks.

 

[Vigilance.492]

Wh- that's an easily doable shot, I don't see what all the fuss is about.

Yea I'm not really sure what's so impressive about the shot beyond the lack of jaggies.

Aside from the clean nature of the image, I honestly don't see any difference between that Screenshot and what we've seen in the Gameplay Demos.