Convince me that Source Filmmaker can produce VERY good looking artwork. As in realistic artwork to completely challenge Unreal 4.

[The Custy (ON GAMING HIATUS)]

Why do i ask of that? Because i have been using Unreal 4 for a little over a year now. Yes! I am WELL aware that it is INCREDIBLY unfair to compare SFM to Unreal 4.. 2 different engines on a MASSIVELY different scale in terms of rendering quality, production quality and the final render.

But, hear me out. ( And, this is only on the "artwork" aspect. I am not referring to animation, only creating artwork.)

(I have over 2,000 hours in Source Filmmaker which gives me MORE than enough experience to give my 2 cents. So please hear me out.)

Firstly; i have been able to do things in MINUTES in Unreal 4 what would take me maybe even half an hour in Source Filmmaker, which is creating forests. The painting tool in Unreal 4 is simply FAR superior to the tedious constant drag-and-drop of Source Filmmaker. Once again, i know they are two ENTIRELY different engines. This is only on the artwork aspect of the two.

Let us take a look also at scenebuilding. The easy drag-and-drop features of Unreal 4 are vastly superior to the cluttered model browser of Source Filmmaker. Not to mention, i can simply duplicate objects by holding alt and moving the manipulator or the rotate tool in Unreal 4, whereas i have to manually copy and paste the model in Animationset Editor in Source Filmmaker. Not a huge deal, but a massive time saver.

And to continue on with the Scenebuilding; Unreal 4 has the transformations and rotations easily accessable and in a visually appealing way. This makes rotation and prop placement very easy and user friendly. Not to mention vertice snapping is also very useful in Unreal 4; which can be accomplished by holding "D" and "V" then moving the center pivot over the point you want on the mesh.
Now, arguably Source Filmmaker DOES have its own version of this... in a way. By holding shift, you can snap a model to the world objects, other props or characters. But, due to the smoothness and ease of Unreal 4... scenebuilding is far superior in it.

Lighting. Unreal 4 absolutely destroys Source Filmmaker on this aspect. Pointlight, spotlight, skylight and directional lights all make lighting a breeze in Unreal 4. It just blows the lighting in Source Filmmaker out of the water. (YES i am aware hammer uses the same thing. But i am referring to Unreal 4 versus Source Filmmaker. NOT hammer. This is to see who is superior when it comes to Scenebuilding production, rendering and overal quality.)

Rendering. Do we even have to argue this one? Unreal 4 tops the charts with no effort needed. The renders i have produced have NEVER required touchups in Photoshop. Mostly because they always look great! En comparison to the dull, offputting render quality of the Source Engine. I have NEVER seen ONE vanilla Source Filmmaker poster that did not need SOME form of Post Processing.

Hardware support. Must i go any further? This is something Unreal 4 once again triumphs over VASTLY, compared to the 32 bit-locked Source Filmmaker.


Listen, i know they are two ENTIRELY different engines. If ya paid attention you would see that i said that already at the top. So, do not get offended too much. I still love Source Filmmaker.

And i have ported a few models into Source Filmmaker and in literally 10-15 minutes i made a better poster than what would take someone maybe 35-40+ minutes to do in Source Filmmaker and with FAR better quality.

Once again, do not get overly offended or angered. This is just to see what exactly Source Filmmaker can offer me in terms of quality over Unreal 4.

[marty]

it doesn't, unreal wins.

[The Custy (ON GAMING HIATUS)]

Originally posted by fis:

it doesn't, unreal wins.

That is my end point.

Its free, has a lot of free content you can use to make stuff

Easy to make your own content and port it in

Large marketplace with props that can be purchased for cheap

And personally; i can just port any model from this workshop that i want to Unreal 4 in minutes.

I just cannot see quality in Source Filmmaker artwork anymore.

[EmperorFaiz.wav]

It's like comparing a Ferrari to a Toyota sedan.

[Capt Fuzzy]

Good quality artwork can be achieved in SFM, but it takes a lot more planning and execution in SFM than in U4, from what I understand about it (I've never actually used it, but have seen some artwork done with it, and it IS awesome!).
The definition of 'quality' with regards to artwork is really kind of subjective.
One person's criteria for 'quality' may differ greatly from another's, and with that comes differences in what is aesthetically pleasing from one viewer to another, among other things...

In overall rendering 'quality' I'd have to give it to Unreal 4, it definitely does a much better job handling FOV, DoF, AO, light and shadow processing, than SFM, IMHO...

[The Custy (ON GAMING HIATUS)]

Originally posted by EmperorFaiz.ppt:

It's like comparing a Ferrari to a Toyota sedan.

But the Ferrari is as free as the Toyota..

[The Custy (ON GAMING HIATUS)]

Originally posted by Capt Fuzzy:

Good quality artwork can be achieved in SFM, but it takes a lot more planning and execution in SFM than in U4, from what I understand about it (I've never actually used it, but have seen some artwork done with it, and it IS awesome!).
The definition of 'quality' with regards to artwork is really kind of subjective.
One person's criteria for 'quality' may differ greatly from another's, and with that comes differences in what is aesthetically pleasing from one viewer to another, among other things...

In overall rendering 'quality' I'd have to give it to Unreal 4, it definitely does a much better job handling FOV, DoF, AO, light and shadow processing, than SFM, IMHO...

It can be good. Your stuff looks good! But once again. As stated; it is heavily post processed.

Pick up Unreal 4. Learn the engine and you can make some amazing ♥♥♥♥ that SFM would NEVER ever be able to.

[EmperorFaiz.wav]

Do you know that Unreal 3 is used in Lazy Town show?
https://www.unrealengine.com/showcase/lazytown

Eat that, SFM!

[The Custy (ON GAMING HIATUS)]

Originally posted by EmperorFaiz.ppt:

Do you know that Unreal 3 is used in Lazy Town show?
https://www.unrealengine.com/showcase/lazytown

Eat that, SFM!

Haha! Too bad it is Ue3 :P and not Ue4.

[Marco Skoll]

Originally posted by Commissar Custy ☭:

This is just to see what exactly Source Filmmaker can offer me in terms of quality over Unreal 4.

When comparing a game engine first released in 2004 to one first released in 2012, the latter is obviously going to have considerably more to offer in terms of graphical realism and optimisation.

In that respect, Source Filmmaker was, to be honest, kind of late, released on the tail-end of an already old engine, and many aspects of its interface and performance do show it up as being a largely improvised (and since forgotten) in-house tool rather than a constantly refined development environment.

So no, SFM doesn't compete graphically, and I rather suspect you knew that without making a thread about it.

However, I'm not actually certain that I much care, particularly when it comes to animation. For a long time, I've found that I don't really much "see" the graphics any more, but instead the aesthetics and motion.
When I'm drawn out of a scene watching an animated film, it's far more likely to be by a badly executed movement or an oddly proportioned character. (Ye gods, what is it with oversized eyes from some studios?).

That feeling comes at least in part from the main drawing style I've learnt, a line-art style (sometimes shaded, sometimes not) akin to Western comic-books, where photorealism is certainly secondary to aspects like pose and the psychology of how the viewer perceives the scene.

While the human brain is certainly wired in a way in which it immediately recognises and accepts a collection of black lines on a white background as looking a lot like a human, a collection of black lines on a white background actually looks nothing like a human.

In other words, I don't feel that photorealism is that key in capturing the viewer. There are lots of other ways of doing it, many of which are more damning if you get them wrong.
With that in mind, an argument based mostly on graphics isn't going to tempt me into the major commitment of switching over to an incompatible engine just yet.

[EmperorFaiz.wav]

Originally posted by Commissar Custy ☭:

Originally posted by EmperorFaiz.ppt:

Do you know that Unreal 3 is used in Lazy Town show?
https://www.unrealengine.com/showcase/lazytown

Eat that, SFM!

Haha! Too bad it is Ue3 :P and not Ue4.

It's an old show. UE4 doesn't exist back then.

[Capt Fuzzy]

Originally posted by EmperorFaiz.ppt:

Originally posted by Commissar Custy ☭:

Haha! Too bad it is Ue3 :P and not Ue4.

It's an old show. UE4 doesn't exist back then.

Yeah, it's old, but if what could be done on that show (with UE3) was able to be done in SFM, you'd see a big difference in what's put out, versus without it...

[Krinkov]

Originally posted by fis:

it doesn't, unreal wins.

[The Custy (ON GAMING HIATUS)]

Originally posted by Marco Skoll:

Originally posted by Commissar Custy ☭:

This is just to see what exactly Source Filmmaker can offer me in terms of quality over Unreal 4.

When comparing a game engine first released in 2004 to one first released in 2012, the latter is obviously going to have considerably more to offer in terms of graphical realism and optimisation.

In that respect, Source Filmmaker was, to be honest, kind of late, released on the tail-end of an already old engine, and many aspects of its interface and performance do show it up as being a largely improvised (and since forgotten) in-house tool rather than a constantly refined development environment.

So no, SFM doesn't compete graphically, and I rather suspect you knew that without making a thread about it.

However, I'm not actually certain that I much care, particularly when it comes to animation. For a long time, I've found that I don't really much "see" the graphics any more, but instead the aesthetics and motion.
When I'm drawn out of a scene watching an animated film, it's far more likely to be by a badly executed movement or an oddly proportioned character. (Ye gods, what is it with oversized eyes from some studios?).

That feeling comes at least in part from the main drawing style I've learnt, a line-art style (sometimes shaded, sometimes not) akin to Western comic-books, where photorealism is certainly secondary to aspects like pose and the psychology of how the viewer perceives the scene.

While the human brain is certainly wired in a way in which it immediately recognises and accepts a collection of black lines on a white background as looking a lot like a human, a collection of black lines on a white background actually looks nothing like a human.

In other words, I don't feel that photorealism is that key in capturing the viewer. There are lots of other ways of doing it, many of which are more damning if you get them wrong.
With that in mind, an argument based mostly on graphics isn't going to tempt me into the major commitment of switching over to an incompatible engine just yet.

I stated that I was aware that they are different on a very large scale. Infact, i mentioned it multiple times.

Secondly, Unreal 4 can do EVERYTHING Source Filmmaker can do (in terms of scene building, rendering, final output) but at a MUCH more efficient pace, and it can produce a final render with a much better outcome. So, while you do not have to, as you say "switch to an incompatible engine" you must realize Unreal 4's ability to produce content that CAN be realistic is FAR superior to anything that Source Filmmaker can make. Not everything has to be hyper realistic. You can make things stylized, toon-based, or just make it look good in general. Hyper realism is not the ENTIRE focus of the Unreal 4 engine.

One thing i will also say is that Unreal 4 does what SFM does (once again in terms of SceneBuilding, rendering, etc) but much better.

[The Custy (ON GAMING HIATUS)]

Originally posted by EmperorFaiz.ppt:

Originally posted by Commissar Custy ☭:

Haha! Too bad it is Ue3 :P and not Ue4.

It's an old show. UE4 doesn't exist back then.

I am aware.: :P

[The Custy (ON GAMING HIATUS)]

Originally posted by Krinkov:

Originally posted by fis:

it doesn't, unreal wins.

Yuup!