Improved tone mapping for 1.61 proposal

[tremanarch 6]

I made two comparison Videos. I guess you are wrong.. In my eyes they seem equal..

93701:

87580:

maybe you didnt notice the effect before you focused on it? Or maybe I am doing sth. wrong? DId you mean this HDR Effect - no?

Edited June 13, 2012 by tremanarch

[rundll.exe 12]

I have to agree that this is a step in the wrong direction. In combination with the ever-adjusting HDR, there are some very sudden changes in bright (normal) to dark (you can't see your own feet kind of dark) for no apparent reason.

Better coloring is welcome ofc, but it didn't get better this time unfortunately

[Witherfield 1]

Well I'm sure we've covered most of it now with examples. So I'll just end with: The night is too damn dark, and I don't like it (I have doubts that it'll revert back to the old settings, so I guess I'm done with arma and dayz :)

Been fun.

[themaster303 22]

Well I'm sure we've covered most of it now with examples. So I'll just end with: The night is too damn dark, and I don't like it (I have doubts that it'll revert back to the old settings, so I guess I'm done with arma and dayz :)

Been fun.

http://www.img-hoster.de/uploads/2012/06/i89bkrkwd.jpg

this is not to dark. its just the time of the moonphase. so no moon, its dark like hell. like in rl. with moon you can see.

and in dayz you can join server they have day. so no need to stop playing it :D

[tpw 2315]

Well I'm sure we've covered most of it now with examples. So I'll just end with: The night is too damn dark, and I don't like it (I have doubts that it'll revert back to the old settings, so I guess I'm done with arma and dayz :)

Been fun.

Witherfield, this new tonemapping is part of a beta patch, provided for testing and feedback. You don't have to use it, none of us do.

What do you base your doubts on? You haven't been on this forum for long enough to know that there have been and will be many more betas until the final patch candidate (and that a big issue like this will be explored further). And it sounds like you won't be around long enough to use them.

[kremator 1065]

Witherfield, ...... And it sounds like you won't be around long enough to use them.

Boom ... owned ! What he said.

[Witherfield 1]

Oh shucks you totally owned me!

The beta patch is going to be required to play the new dayz update.

Anyway, yes. I won't be around here, but I will still play DayZ if this change reverts to a more sane setting.

Cya.

[max power 21]

The beta patch is going to be required to play the new dayz update.

Right, but you can set the tone mapping to default.

Been fun.

Cya.

Either quit saying goodbye or leave already.

[Make Love Not War 10]

Witherfield, this new tonemapping is part of a beta patch, provided for testing and feedback. You don't have to use it, none of us do.

Sure, none of us have to play ARMA, either. We get it now.

What do you base your doubts on? You haven't been on this forum for long enough to know that there have been and will be many more betas until the final patch candidate (and that a big issue like this will be explored further). And it sounds like you won't be around long enough to use them.

The only reason a big issue like this will be explored further is because certain people are brave enough and generous enough to take the time out of their busy day to criticize, complain and voice concerns.

Better coloring is welcome ofc, but it didn't get better this time unfortunately

We got better coloring because contrast was increased. There's other ways to improve saturation without changing the contrast.

Also, yes, let's be assholes and run all the new customers out of town...

[gammadust 12]

The beta patch is going to be required to play the new dayz update.

That looks like an unwarranted certainty. Remember this is a feature under test in a beta version of arma, to the extent it is being raising some cepticism around, it is apparently tied to DayZ mod which itself is under "severe" test as an alpha.

Those are sufficient doubts to disallow your certainty.

Also, if there is a developer i know of which as shown ever a concern and take seriously into account player's input, go nowhere else! You just found it.

I suggest as a player to another to give these chaps the benefit of the doubt. :)

[max power 21]

Sure, none of us have to play ARMA, either. We get it now.

The only reason a big issue like this will be explored further is because certain people are brave enough and generous enough to take the time out of their busy day to criticize, complain and voice concerns.

We got better coloring because contrast was increased. There's other ways to improve saturation without changing the contrast.

Also, yes, let's be assholes and run all the new customers out of town...

I'm not really sure what your problem is. They put out the tone mapping with this thread with the very purpose of generating feedback. You don't like the nights, we get it. With your opinion noted, here are your options:

• Don't use the public beta.
  
• Set the tone mapping to default for the time being.
  

I don't know why you are equating an experiment and a request for user customer feedback with 'being assholes' and 'running customers out of town'. I can only imagine you are trolling. By all means, voice your opinion, it is what this thread is here for, but the insulting hyperbole stops now. It is not necessary to make your point, and it is certainly not a valuable part of feedback.

[tpw 2315]

I'll reiterate that it's a beta patch, put here for testing/feedback. Given that many many people have bravely and generously posted constructive (and visual) feedback in the true spirit of beta testing, and given the way BIS works, I'm fairly certain that the current implementation won't be forced onto users in the final patch.

Coming here after 2 days on a forum, and saying that a beta patch that you are not forced to use has destroyed your game experience and that you have no faith in the developers to do anything about it, is neither brave nor generous. It's just ignorant. Am I an arsehole for pointing that out? Mea maxima culpa.

No-one is running new customers out of town, some of them are taking their bat and ball and going home all by themselves.

Sure, none of us have to play ARMA, either. We get it now. A non sequiteur of the highest order.

Sure, none of us have to play ARMA, either. We get it now.

The only reason a big issue like this will be explored further is because certain people are brave enough and generous enough to take the time out of their busy day to criticize, complain and voice concerns.

We got better coloring because contrast was increased. There's other ways to improve saturation without changing the contrast.

Also, yes, let's be assholes and run all the new customers out of town...

[OMAC 254]

These new tone settings are excellent overall, and the opportunity to test them is typical awesome BIS. I like the Arma setting the best so far, followed by Reinhard, using Maruk's params in first post (setToneMappingParams [0.9, -0.003]). Dwarden’s -0.00987 setting is way too dark in the veg shadows (especially the pine trees). Vegetation shadows are much harder and darker with Reinhard (way too much so with Filmic for me) in certain conditions. Reinhard looks better in good weather/bright light/low sun angle/high contrast (wide histogram) conditions with Params set to [0.9, -0.001 or -0.002]. In bad weather with narrower histogram, Reinhard with -0.003 is fine. But in general, I don’t see much need for the super-dark shadows which will have people squinting and adjusting their in-game gamma/brightness settings or their monitor contrast, especially in Chernarus.

I use gamma 1.1 brightness 0.9, but perhaps I'll adjust these given the new tone settings...

[xxbbcc 6]

I think the Arma setting is the best, then Reinhard and finally default. I don't like Filmic at all, because there's hardly any contrast in it.

[.kju 3245]

The problem is that some setting has to get default and cannot be customized in normal MP play.

So it matters a lot that the new setting has no negative effects on gameplay.

This is not about the beta patches or testing beta patches - the key is to make sure 1.61 will have a good setting.

[metalcraze 290]

Also, yes, let's be assholes and run all the new customers out of town...

That's strange. All I see is "baaaaww if you won't do what I demand I will leave forever!"

Also I kinda don't see any difference between Reinhard and default.

ArmA setting is too colorful and filmic is unusable (way too dark).

Edited June 14, 2012 by metalcraze

[HawkGB 1]

I've made a little comparison page for those wanting to see the difference between the patches in a little more detail :cool:

http://www.nomandown.com/arma2/tm_comparison/index.html

Original (before resize) images:

• Current
  
• Beta
  

Edited June 14, 2012 by HawkGB

[GROM64 10]

[...] With your opinion noted, here are your options:

• Don't use the public beta.
  
• Set the tone mapping to default for the time being.
  

Could someone please give me step by step instructions how to "Set the tone mapping to previous default values"

or at least point me to a place where I can find out.

Thx.

[.kju 3245]

Max Power is talking nonsense here. In MP you cannot use individual settings.

And it is imperative to test the new betas and give feedback to help BI make the change meaningful.

[twisted 128]

well i have tested it, and it seems using the beta gives you a profound disadvantage vs someone not using it as they can see a lot well with the new patch you cant see much at night even with almost full moon. if all had equal dark then things can be quite interesting then.

[themaster303 22]

utes 11.10 23:29

new: http://www.img-hoster.de/uploads/2012/06/i89bkrkwd.jpg (93701)

old: http://www.img-hoster.de/uploads/2012/06/i90bfhbpt.jpg (87580)

gamma and brightness = 1.0

do you really see a diffrence that is that much ? i dont. i have the feeling the new patch is even a bit more light.

check it out.

p.s. and this on from other mate who posted here:

http://www.nomandown.com/arma2/tm_comparison/index.html

[tpw 2315]

do you really see a diffrence that is that much ? i dont. i have the feeling the new patch is even a bit more light.

check it out.

p.s. and this on from other mate who posted here:

http://www.nomandown.com/arma2/tm_comparison/index.html

Thanks themaster303, that's a very nice bit of code on that page, makes for an excellent comparison. I'd like to know what is being compared though: default vs arma, arma vs filmic etc.

Personally I find the new tone mapping to be a trade off between increased vividness (contrast/saturation) vs loss of detail in dark or shadowed areas. It's most pronounced with "Filmic", the effect is almost like putting on polarising sunglasses.

If I'm not mistaken, the tone mapping in the latest beta patches now defaults to "Reinhard". "Reinhard" looks pretty good in well lit situations, but destroys shadow detail low light situations.

My call is something like this:

settonemapping "Arma": gives the old style tonemapping (pre beta 93666). I think this is what Max Power was alluding to.

settonemapping "Reinhard": gives the default tonemapping in beta 93666 and later

settonemapping "Filmic": gives the most contrast and saturation, lowest overall brightness

Interestingly, "Filmic" actually gives better apparent shadow detail than "Reinhard" in low light situations, even though the overall brightness is lower.

Personally, I use "Arma" for low light and "Filmic" for well lit stuff. I don't think there's a one-size fits all tonemapping solution at this stage. I do however think that "Reinhard" as a default is pissing a lot of people off!

Edited June 14, 2012 by tpw

[OMAC 254]

tpw's excellent summary post above raises interesting questions. Is Reinhard really the default? If so, with what params? It seemed to me that Reinhard with Maruk's params is different than the default setting (no tone mapping set) in 93701.

In nomandown's cool comparison page, I dare say I like the 1.60 image a little better, even though the contrast of the grasses is better with the new tone mapping. That's a pretty tough call, though... I assume he used the default for 93666?

[domokun 515]

tpw's excellent summary post above raises interesting questions. Is Reinhard really the default? If so, with what params? It seemed to me that Reinhard with Maruk's params is different than the default setting (no tone mapping set) in 93701.

In nomandown's cool comparison page, I dare say I like the 1.60 image a little better, even though the contrast of the grasses is better with the new tone mapping. That's a pretty tough call, though... I assume he used the default for 93666?

My thoughts precisely. I'd really appreciate some documentation on this. Usually BIS is quite good about noting such evos in their wiki. But this time ... ?

[MavericK96 0]

I've made a little comparison page for those wanting to see the difference between the patches in a little more detail :cool:

http://www.nomandown.com/arma2/tm_comparison/index.html

Original (before resize) images:

• Current
  
• Beta
  

Thanks for the pictures. I definitely do like the improved tone mapping but it does seem to come at the cost of extremely dark contrast. Hopefully a balance can be found.

When I was playing Skyrim I used the FXAA sharpen injector with some custom settings to change tone mapping, and it is possible to make colors more vibrant without sacrificing contrast.