Originally Posted by Lfctony
Erm, I think the top picture has been touched up "a little". I think it's quite obvious. I don't think Crysis comes even close to looking like that, it never will, even if it had all the lighting/gamma/contrast adjusting of the world...
The top picture was taken from the alpha/promotional videos of Crysis or the CryEngine2 tech video (video compression added some blur) plus you can see the motion blur from the engine itself.
I say again, adjust the lighting sliders in the demo, make sure you are moving (so it triggers the motion blur and hides some inperfections with it) and it will look VERY much like the picture on top.
The ingame screenshot function doesn't capture changes to the lighting sliders, if I had Photoshop installed, I'd make a proper screenshot with adjusted lighting values (contrast, brightness and gamma only) and it would look very much like screenshot on top.
The idea by the comparision is trying to illustrate that Crytek that has lowered the visuals on the retail product vs. the video that the capture was taken form. Do I know if that happened or not? No I don't, there was at least 1.5 years development between the video and anything is possible but lets not forget that if the video was really showcasing whats possible with CryEngine2, it doesn't automatically mean that Crysis has to have it, right? Knowing that, I still stand by what I said by saying the comparision is flawed for several other reasons:
1. Location of the demo (bottom) screenshot (not enough direct light),
2. no motion blur,
3. the lighting values (brightness/contrast/gamma) have not been adjusted and thats why its not dark enough in the shadow area
4. no video compression blur (the original video was divx one, this step adds some general blur too)
My point: If all these flaws would be accounted for, the comparison would be fair but also a lot more even.