Improved tone mapping for 1.61 proposal

[Beagle 684]

O.K. in that case its just me but after testing them all I still think the "ArmA" tonemapping works best on all maps and all lighting conditions. The main problem is shadows and the way all objetcs tend to turn black on the shadowes side negating all kind of camoflage just as liek there is no ambient lighting or reflecred light at all...just sunrays like in open Space.

[Dwarden 1125]

i see no such thing ... even if i make the one lil darker or lil brighter ...

[Beagle 684]

i see no such thing ... even if i make the one lil darker or lil brighter ...

This is what I mean, 12:00h in june with tone mapping Reinhard (like Maruk proposed in the first post) the back of the LAV should not look like someone painted it black nor should the shadows on the crew. Edited July 8, 2012 by Beagle

[Dwarden 1125]

oh, i though You not talking about Rainhard, try my last Filmic, it was made to counter Rainhard and keeps the shadows fidelity... :)

[OMAC 254]

setToneMapping "Reinhard"; "Reinhard" setToneMappingParams [0.9, 0];

What about [0.9, -0.0005] or [0.9, -0.001] for a bit darker shadows? But I'll bet that few will argue with [0.9, 0].

Dwarden's new filmic is also excellent with a slightly wider histogram and deeper shadows. It's a tough call between the two. With brightness=0.9 and gamma=1.1, both are very pleasing in many different seasons/times/moon intensities. The Reinhard is the safer call, and Dwarden's filmic is a bit of a bolder choice.

[Dwarden 1125]

i don't like Reinhard due to loss of detail in dark colors and shades of grey overall ... also the overall color fidelity is worse

the Filmic is way never and imo seems works better ...

the settings are also way wider to fiddle with

[OMAC 254]

There is no question that your Filmic is phenomenal. :) The more I try it, the more I like it. Where are those settings documented?

Filmic:

Maruk's Reinhard:

Edited July 7, 2012 by OMAC

[Tonci87 163]

Oh yeah, filmic looks great!

[maturin 12]

I'm still hoping that this never sees the light of day, because through so many betas, it only seems to work at certain times on certain maps.

I was playing Lingor just after dawn, and whenever I looked in the direction of the rising sun, my screen got so dark that the whole team PUT ON THEIR NVGS.

On what planet does the sun make things dark?

[maruk 80]

I'm still hoping that this never sees the light of day, because through so many betas, it only seems to work at certain times on certain maps.

I was playing Lingor just after dawn, and whenever I looked in the direction of the rising sun, my screen got so dark that the whole team PUT ON THEIR NVGS.

On what planet does the sun make things dark?

Are you sure this is related to the tone mapping changes at all? Are you able to provide clear repro case and test it in both 1.60 and latest beta (generalisation does not really work so you need to be specific)?

[maturin 12]

Are you sure this is related to the tone mapping changes at all? Are you able to provide clear repro case and test it in both 1.60 and latest beta (generalisation does not really work so you need to be specific)?

The tone-mapping changes are what makes the game so much darker, right?

Everyone I know is complaining about this, as if the game's gamma has been turned down drastically. It makes moonlit nights as dark as moonless nights, evening shadows and trees pitch black...

And it only kicks in on certain dates, certain maps. Give me a minute and I'll try for a repro.

Edit: It's quite easy to reproduce. Place yourself on a field in Chernarus at the default date at midnight. Then compare it to the default date at midnight in the year 1991. Although neither dates have a visible moon, the latter is pitch dark and the former is very bright. You barely need NVGs in 2008, whereas in 1991 you can't see your gun in front of your face. That ain't light pollution. Latest beta, default gamma and brigthness settings.

I can get you a PBO of too-dark shadows on trees at dusk, and drastic brightness changes based on direction of view.

Edit: But you may need to disregard this, because 1.60 looks the same way for me. This is incredibly puzzling, because I have been playing this game for three years, and in the past weeks my game's colors have become drastically richer and darker, without any change of video settings. These changes coincided with tone-mapping and gamma tweaks, but now appear independent of them. I don't know what the hell is going on.

Edited July 8, 2012 by maturin

[jumpinghubert 49]

@Maruk

tonemapping might be a good idea for a less dynamic lighting than in arma2. On the first pages of the screenshot thread from 2009 it was possible to let look chernarus photorealistic.

Look here http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?73572-ArmA-II-amp-OA-Photography-I-No-images-over-100kb-Pictures-only-NO-comments&p=1296991&viewfull=1#post1296991

and here http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?73572-ArmA-II-amp-OA-Photography-I-No-images-over-100kb-Pictures-only-NO-comments&p=1301111&viewfull=1#post1301111

with the new tonemapping its impossible to make this kind of screenies.

Would be nice to make it optional.

edit: tested on chernarus last beta944444 default summerday in fir trees and vehicles. In the past i get a similar but softer (=better) effect by lowering gamma (only a little bit!)

Edited July 9, 2012 by JumpingHubert
Senilität

[twirly 11]

Are you sure this is related to the tone mapping changes at all? Are you able to provide clear repro case and test it in both 1.60 and latest beta (generalisation does not really work so you need to be specific)?

I agree with maturin and cannot understand how some people cannot see this!.... seeing black or dark in any type of sunshine is not on!

[Dwarden 1125]

The tone-mapping changes are what makes the game so much darker, right?

Everyone I know is complaining about this, as if the game's gamma has been turned down drastically. It makes moonlit nights as dark as moonless nights, evening shadows and trees pitch black...

And it only kicks in on certain dates, certain maps. Give me a minute and I'll try for a repro.

Edit: It's quite easy to reproduce. Place yourself on a field in Chernarus at the default date at midnight. Then compare it to the default date at midnight in the year 1991. Although neither dates have a visible moon, the latter is pitch dark and the former is very bright. You barely need NVGs in 2008, whereas in 1991 you can't see your gun in front of your face. That ain't light pollution. Latest beta, default gamma and brigthness settings.

I can get you a PBO of too-dark shadows on trees at dusk, and drastic brightness changes based on direction of view.

Edit: But you may need to disregard this, because 1.60 looks the same way for me. This is incredibly puzzling, because I have been playing this game for three years, and in the past weeks my game's colors have become drastically richer and darker, without any change of video settings. These changes coincided with tone-mapping and gamma tweaks, but now appear independent of them. I don't know what the hell is going on.

again , which Image Tone Mapping setting, in anyway way test with

"filmic" setToneMappingParams [0.153, 0.357, 0.231, 0.1573, 0.011, 3.750, 6, 4]; setToneMapping "Filmic";

can You provide clear repro case (exact date, time with minute precision, repro mission with position) or screenshots to compare

the new filmic allows me clearly see unless in pitch black period (which existed even with normal arma2 setting prior 93xxx betas btw)

[Tonci87 163]

again , which Image Tone Mapping setting, in anyway way test with

"filmic" setToneMappingParams [0.153, 0.357, 0.231, 0.1573, 0.011, 3.750, 6, 4]; setToneMapping "Filmic";

can You provide clear repro case (exact date, time with minute precision, repro mission with position) or screenshots to compare

the new filmic allows me clearly see unless in pitch black period (which existed even with normal arma2 setting prior 93xxx betas btw)

Sometimes I have experienced this as well. It generally happens when the sun is quite low (afternoon, before dusk). If you look in the direction of the sun (even if the sun itself is masked by a hill) the game turns darker. I´m not sure it is related to tone mapping.

[Dwarden 1125]

that's HDR adaptation and eye adaptation, in moment there is any light on screen it darkens the view and vice versa ...

it's not optimal (let's say overdone due to even small spot can put the screen to overbright) ... in ARMA 3 this is heavily improved / fixed

[metalcraze 290]

Why can't we get this sort of fix in ArmA2?

[ceeeb 147]

It's quite easy to reproduce. Place yourself on a field in Chernarus at the default date at midnight. Then compare it to the default date at midnight in the year 1991. Although neither dates have a visible moon, the latter is pitch dark and the former is very bright. You barely need NVGs in 2008, whereas in 1991 you can't see your gun in front of your face. That ain't light pollution. Latest beta, default gamma and brigthness settings.

When I test this, the moon is near full about halfway across the sky in 2008, and below the horizon in 1991 (October 11th, 0:00 hrs, Arma2CO), explaining the different light levels...

setToneMapping "Reinhard"; "Reinhard" setToneMappingParams [0.9, 0];

"filmic" setToneMappingParams [0.153, 0.357, 0.231, 0.1573, 0.011, 3.750, 6, 4]; setToneMapping "Filmic";

Here are some comparison histograms of an identical daylight scene prepared with the proposed tone maps:

"Arma"

"Reinhard" [0.9, -0.003] (current default)

"Reinhard" [0.9, 0] (Maruk)

"Filmic" [0.153, 0.357, 0.231, 0.1573, 0.011, 3.750, 6, 4] (Dwarden)

Firstly, I have no graphical design training, or photographic experience. I am using an IPS monitor.

Between the two new proposed tone maps, my preference is with Maruk's new Reinhard, as it increases the contrast slightly.

Dwarden's Filmic shifts the bulk of the non highlights towards black while narrowing the range of the highlights. An increase in brightness/gamma would be required to achieve the same image tone and night visuals as we had in 1.60.

Edited July 9, 2012 by ceeeb

[-=seany=- 5]

that's HDR adaptation and eye adaptation, in moment there is any light on screen it darkens the view and vice versa ...

it's not optimal (let's say overdone due to even small spot can put the screen to overbright) ... in ARMA 3 this is heavily improved / fixed

I think part of the overly dark problem with the Tone map changes is that it makes the "HDR Adaptation and eye adaptation" seem worse. Although, I haven't tested those recent settings mentioned in the last few posts. But that is what is causing people concern. My best analogy for it, is that it is like wearing sun glasses. That is based on the most recent beta 94444.

[maruk 80]

I think part of the overly dark problem with the Tone map changes is that it makes the "HDR Adaptation and eye adaptation" seem worse. Although, I haven't tested those recent settings mentioned in the last few posts. But that is what is causing people concern. My best analogy for it, is that it is like wearing sun glasses. That is based on the most recent beta 94444.

Making your comments based on the settings from 94444 without actually testing the recent settings is really pointless (and as mentioned berfore eye accomodation is really the same as in 1.60 and simply is not part or related in technical or implementation aspects to this topic at all).

[MavericK96 0]

The HDR implementation is definitely a large part of the issue. As someone else mentioned in another thread, an ideal situation would be to adjust the HDR based on the focal point (center) of the view, not where a small bright bit in the corner of the screen will cause everything to go dark. Is this not possible in ArmA 2? (Glad to hear it's improved in ArmA 3, though)

EDIT: Re: above post, we know that the HDR implementation is the same as in 1.60 and that technically it's not related, but combined with the new tone mapping it just exacerbates the issue.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Hmm... just wanted to make a scenario with bad weather but somehow it looks all "too nice"/"too happy". Somehow this muddy / flat look + feeling isn't there anymore or I am missing something else? Tested also with CWR2 - its more like a holiday trip now than getting this "dark" Cold War feeling.... just don't overdo it with "perfect settting" - the natural look is not photoshop'd and HDR'd. :)

[Dwarden 1125]

When I test this, the moon is near full about halfway across the sky in 2008, and below the horizon in 1991 (October 11th, 0:00 hrs, Arma2CO), explaining the different light levels...

Here are some comparison histograms of an identical daylight scene prepared with the proposed tone maps:

"Arma"

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u36/aghiawie/th_41H-ARMA.png

"Reinhard" [0.9, -0.003] (current default)

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u36/aghiawie/th_43H-REINHARDDEFAULT.png

"Reinhard" [0.9, 0] (Maruk)

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u36/aghiawie/th_42H-REINHARDMARUK.png

"Filmic" [0.153, 0.357, 0.231, 0.1573, 0.011, 3.750, 6, 4] (Dwarden)

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u36/aghiawie/th_44H-FILMICDWARDEN.png

Firstly, I have no graphical design training, or photographic experience. I am using an IPS monitor.

Between the two new proposed tone maps, my preference is with Maruk's new Reinhard, as it increases the contrast slightly.

Dwarden's Filmic shifts the bulk of the non highlights towards black while narrowing the range of the highlights. An increase in brightness/gamma would be required to achieve the same image tone and night visuals as we had in 1.60.

actually my Filmic is like 10-15% darker, that was requested by Maruk .... my original one was slightly darker (5%) than ARMA2 / his Reinahard

check

"filmic" setToneMappingParams [0.153, 0.357, 0.231, 0.1371, 0.011, 3.750, 6, 4]; setToneMapping "Filmic";

Edited July 9, 2012 by Dwarden

[OMAC 254]

Excellent histograms, ceeb! :) Here are some more, these in RGB, produced form the two images I posted here:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?135667-Improved-tone-mapping-for-1-61-proposal&p=2185285&viewfull=1#post2185285

Dwarden's filmic ("filmic" setToneMappingParams [0.153, 0.357, 0.231, 0.1573, 0.011, 3.750, 6, 4]):

Maruk's Reinhard (0.9,0):

Overall, the Reinhard histogram is wider, showing slightly greater dynamic range and contrast, 10-15% greater brightness overall as Dwarden wrote, and much less dark cutoff at the low end for blue (so blue skies are bluer in the Reinhard). The red in the filmic has more contrast than the red in the Reinhard. Given the exaggerated nature of the current HDR implementation, and many users' concerns regarding introduced darkness, the Reinhard is probably the safe way to go here, as I wrote earlier. The "increased detail" in the darker colors and shades that Dwarden mentions in the filmic is not very obvious because of overall darker histogram.

[Tonci87 163]

that's HDR adaptation and eye adaptation, in moment there is any light on screen it darkens the view and vice versa ...

it's not optimal (let's say overdone due to even small spot can put the screen to overbright) ... in ARMA 3 this is heavily improved / fixed

Thats very good to hear. A big part of the problem is that even if you can´t see the sun because of buildings or even hills, the HDR adaption kicks in and makes everything darker. I´m very glad that this will be fixed in A ]|[