Top
320°

EA on the Future Of Graphics

More that 2,000 graphics industry professionals yesterday attended SIGGRAPH's first keynote, a talk from EA's Glenn Entis which looked at the challenges facing the game graphics industry.

It was the fist time in over ten years that a games industry exec has delivered the opening talk of the show - previous speakers have included the likes of George Lucas.

Entis set the scene in his talk, Thrill Seeking In Interactive Real Time Graphics, by demonstrating to the attendees, most of whom were dedicated to making CG elements for film and TV, the power and challenge games consoles represent. EA aims to make sure its games at 60 frames per second, he said, which meant 3600 frames a minute and 216,000 frames per hour - film rendering is much slower, making one frame in 20 minutes and three frames per hour, which meant a huge 72,000 times difference between the two medium with perceptibly few differences in graphics quality.

Read Full Story >>
developmag.com
The story is too old to be commented.
bootsielon3723d ago

That's why they couldn't get Madden to run at 60 fps.

freeza3723d ago

lol ea the Graphics in their games allways suck

nicodemus3723d ago

there's one thing I've never understood about the special effects in Hollywood.... It's been 15 or so years since Jurassic Park, and yet, I'm still waiting for something that's more convincing than those dinosaurs!

I actually watched Jurassic Park recently, and to me it remains the standard bearer of special effects. Nothing since has even come close. For example, take the first full-body shot of the T-Rex and compare it with the Mountain troll in LOTR: FOTR... The difference is blinding. The T-Rex actually looks real (at least, very close), and the troll looks embarassingly fake. I just don't understand what happened?!

So if anybody with knowledge reads this, please let me know: What's the deal? What's so different about Jurassic Park, that it puts to shame movies that came out over a decade later??