Oh, but DLSS5 was supposed to increase FPS by removing the need to run full RT/PT. And possibly still will. But, only 5k series have fast FP4 tensor cores that this model likely needs to run fast enough, then more tensor cores might be needed to run it really fast, and a lot of vRAM too (as all the image generators use a ton of it).
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
DLSS 5 preview
- Thread starter WiGgLr
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 2,647
- Location
- Scotland
I almost guarantee no one will be talking about this in a week or two's time. It is just group think outrage and completely irrational.
I think the worry over artistic direction is valid.
I think a lot of it looks like it has a lot of potential to improve photorealism though.
Jensen Huang says gamers are 'completely wrong' about DLSS 5 — Nvidia CEO responds to DLSS 5 backlash
The CEO says artistic control remains with developers.
"Instagram-style heavily post-processed photos are realism!" - did you really go there? Amazing indeed.
Except that's completely and utterly untrue isn't it?
You can repeatedly scream "Instagram slop" at the top of your lungs as much as you want, but it doesn't make it even remotely close to reality.
We all have eyes.
The after shots, particularly in motion, are more photo-realistic in every conceivable way.
"If you don't agree with my opinion, you should stfu!" - it reads to me. Maybe next time read something few times before posting?
What on Earth are you talking about? You seem a bit confused?
Again, none of those things are even close to being true.
Every single frame in every single game you've ever played is fake. You just don’t like that this particular illusion is being produced by a neural model instead of a block of handwritten shader code.
And besides, this reads like the attention grabbing, algorithm manipulating, YouTube clickbait headline slop that's been plastered all over the internet over the last 24 hours.
In fact, I strongly suspect that this is what's going on here.
We have a creator ecosystem that is directly monetised by outrage, hot takes and bold thumbnails like "AI destroys graphics." "Fake frames." "Hallucinated lighting." Those phrases generate clicks.
When a large enough channel frames something as "AI filter fakery,", people mindlessly regurgitate it and that framing spreads fast.
It is easy, it's emotionally charged, and it's algorithm friendly. But not at all true.
making things worse is also progress. Just not the one anyone wanted.
Except it's not worse though is it?
I asked earlier for an example of it being worse and the best someone was able to do was point to a clip that still looks phenomenally improved in terms of realism.
Unless I've misunderstood the example that they were talking about it, it's here:
So i'll ask you also, can you point to a specific side-by-side screenshot, or preferably a clip in motion, where you genuinely think the DLSS 5 version looks worse than the original?
Not just "different", but actually worse in terms of lighting response, facial detail, or material definition.
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 May 2022
- Posts
- 2,713
- Location
- London
I don't get the hate, every example in the preview video looks like a gargantuan-sized improvement in terms of visual fidelity and realism. I am really impressed and don't understand the complaints of AI slop, it's not slop if it looks better than what we currently have, which imo it clearly does and by a huge margin.
Whether it actually works well is another thing altogether, all the examples are static shots, what's it going to look like in fast paced action scenes etc ?
Whether it actually works well is another thing altogether, all the examples are static shots, what's it going to look like in fast paced action scenes etc ?
Last edited:
Except that's completely and utterly untrue isn't it?
You can repeatedly scream "Instagram slop" at the top of your lungs as much as you want, but it doesn't make it even remotely close to reality.
We all have eyes.
The after shots, particularly in motion, are more photo-realistic in every conceivable way.
What on Earth are you talking about? You seem a bit confused?
Again, none of those things are even close to being true.
Every single frame in every single game you've ever played is fake. You just don’t like that this particular illusion is being produced by a neural model instead of a block of handwritten shader code.
And besides, this reads like the attention grabbing, algorithm manipulating, YouTube clickbait headline slop that's been plastered all over the internet over the last 24 hours.
In fact, I strongly suspect that this is what's going on here.
We have a creator ecosystem that is directly monetised by outrage, hot takes and bold thumbnails like "AI destroys graphics." "Fake frames." "Hallucinated lighting." Those phrases generate clicks.
When a large enough channel frames something as "AI filter fakery,", people mindlessly regurgitate it and that framing spreads fast.
It is easy, it's emotionally charged, and it's algorithm friendly. But not at all true.
Except it's not worse though is it?
I asked earlier for an example of it being worse and the best someone was able to do was point to a clip that still looks phenomenally improved in terms of realism.
Unless I've misunderstood the example that they were talking about it, it's here:
So i'll ask you also, can you point to a specific side-by-side screenshot, or preferably a clip in motion, where you genuinely think the DLSS 5 version looks worse than the original?
Not just "different", but actually worse in terms of lighting response, facial detail, or material definition.
Bit disingenuous there isn't it, to show a still comparison of Off vs On, totally misrepresenting what I originally expressed. (Are we speaking to DLSS 5 in person?
)Thats because you said:
To which you were provided an example of DLSS 5 doing something iffy. Namely taking the same character model and struggling to fully "anchor" as Nvidia puts it, to the source, following motion from point A to point B, altering the face.
DLSS5 On @ 12:59 to DLSS5 ON @ 13:01
Either she transformed into her sister, or had face surgery in the blink of an eye.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 26,362
- Location
- Lorville - Hurston
Not great time for your wallet though
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 3,617
vRAM isn't the limit, at least not in Stalker.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 3,617
Still, it doesn't make sense... We're already doing path tracing, high fidelity characters in real time if we want... we can always push further on this path. It's simple, predictable, makes no sense to steer it via LLMs.
PS: those are not AI lips, mind you!
Except that's completely and utterly untrue isn't it?
You can repeatedly scream "Instagram slop" at the top of your lungs as much as you want, but it doesn't make it even remotely close to reality.
We all have eyes.
The after shots, particularly in motion, are more photo-realistic in every conceivable way.
What on Earth are you talking about? You seem a bit confused?
Again, none of those things are even close to being true.
Every single frame in every single game you've ever played is fake. You just don’t like that this particular illusion is being produced by a neural model instead of a block of handwritten shader code.
And besides, this reads like the attention grabbing, algorithm manipulating, YouTube clickbait headline slop that's been plastered all over the internet over the last 24 hours.
In fact, I strongly suspect that this is what's going on here.
We have a creator ecosystem that is directly monetised by outrage, hot takes and bold thumbnails like "AI destroys graphics." "Fake frames." "Hallucinated lighting." Those phrases generate clicks.
When a large enough channel frames something as "AI filter fakery,", people mindlessly regurgitate it and that framing spreads fast.
It is easy, it's emotionally charged, and it's algorithm friendly. But not at all true.
Except it's not worse though is it?
I asked earlier for an example of it being worse and the best someone was able to do was point to a clip that still looks phenomenally improved in terms of realism.
Unless I've misunderstood the example that they were talking about it, it's here:
So i'll ask you also, can you point to a specific side-by-side screenshot, or preferably a clip in motion, where you genuinely think the DLSS 5 version looks worse than the original?
Not just "different", but actually worse in terms of lighting response, facial detail, or material definition.
The materials are nice, I'm assuming is the Neural Materials they've showed some way back and everything got put together under the DLSS umbrella.
Should be working nice for NPCs at least, since they tend to be an afterthought.
Last edited:
It is actually very hard with the way 3D is rendered to actually take that last step in photorealism on human and similar characters no matter how high detail your character model and textures, etc. are - it is one area where using reconstruction in post-processing working directly on screen makes sense if the final results are consistent.
That Cyberpunk screenshot is very high detail but it doesn't look real.
Last edited:
@GordyR
Here you go.
postimg.cc
Its all over the place over 7 screenshots, 7 similar looking but different people
Here you go.
My Gallery — Postimages
Its all over the place over 7 screenshots, 7 similar looking but different people
I can see two reasons to get a new GPU here.
