It's actually not film, but TV camera artifact from that era. It was very common for bright things to turn black like that.
Generally if you have high frame rate and good quality audio, you'll have broadcast had such artifacts.
I don't know the exact technical reason, but I've seen it many times in mid to late 60s period.

tldr: Actually, games do this all the time, but usually only for water surfaces!

The reason for this is that the way you render a proper reflection is to "flip" the camera to the other side of the reflective surface plane: looking down on a lake, you'd render the water reflection from the point of view of the camera looking up from under the water surface, flipped over. This is called "planar reflection". In order to do this, you render your entire scene again, so it's not cheap. Also, the reflection only works for that one plane: if you had two altitudes of water (or two differently angled mirrors) they'd be on different planes and so you'd have to render a reflection for each one.

You can't render curved surface reflections this way, though. For example it doesn't work on a car (what plane would you flip the camera over?). For that, the trick is called "cubic environment maps". I won't go into the details, but it only really works well for faking reflections on objects since it shows the correct view from a single point. You can create them dynamically for things like racing games, but they require 6 scene renders (one for each face of the cube) for each environment map.

Half Life offered both techniques for water reflections, so one could fire that up and compare them that way.

This demo seemed to use environment maps for the mirrors and I suspect all of the other shiny surfaces.

Note that these techniques are to get detailed reflections: specular lighting (where you don't reflect an image, but instead mathematically simulate simple light bouncing) is easier and cheaper, since it's just math to get a color and strength.

You could do planar reflections for every mirror, but it's a full scene re-render for each one so your frame rate would tank or you'd have to take out other features. Compromises!

Game graphics is all trade-offs and smoke and mirrors: it's our job to fake things and make you think the game is doing sophisticated simulation when actually it's doing as little as it can to get as much as possible.

EMPIRE maybe they can get some ridiculously high bandwidth link up and going wirelessly?

OK... well at least have it use a single dinky fiber optic cable to do it.

Hey, as long as the resolution and frame rate is there, I dont care if they pull their displays out of old Tempest arcade machines.

That was awesome how the rotation stabilized at an exact multiple of the frame rate.

People hear that the flicker fusion threshold is about 16hz, and that movies play at 24hz so they assume that there must be no benefit to higher framerates. Ofc, movies have a lot of motion blur to make the movement appear more smooth and quite often a TV will have sophisticated tech to make the lower framerates on TV shows appear smoother than they actually are. Computer monitors, for the most part, show sharp images and we sit closer to them so low frame rates are much more noticeable. The rods and cones in our eyes might have a "fresh rate" of 16hz (I think rods actually respond much faster, but w.e) but they aren't synchronised like a camera. Our eyes will detect light, or any changes in it pretty much instantaneously. You don't have to wait for the next refresh. At what point our brain, or the variance in latency of the optic nerve, become the limiting factors I don't know. I'd like to think we wouldn't have evolved such advanced optical receptors only to be bottle necked by our brains. In short: 120hz ftw.

My absolute greatest peeve with console ports is mouse settings though. The number of times I've had to delve into the .ini to disable mouse acceleration or set my sensitivity to something sensible. Sometimes even the .ini doesn't have the answer. I fucking hate it when you get a sensitivity slider with 10 arbitrary notches. "Don't worry gamers, I'm sure you'll find a setting you like. As long as your preference is for a mm of mouse movement to spin you between 360 and 720 degrees. Ps. you do have a gamepad rite?"

As you say, "Fuck you" indeed.

hang on, you're running BF4 2560x1600 ... on a 570?
What's the frame rate like?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

You know what bothers me more than the vertical aspect ratio? Videos that stutter with a slow frame rate. My brain has been trained to think there is some buffering going on with my poor broadband connection. Even when I'm at a cinema - I feel the same.

Needs some cheesy frame rate speedup and a Yakkity Sax music track.

i like how they increased the frame rate to give it that sitcom camera look.

I was kind of wondering that myself, and I'm surprised they didn't even give any even very rough performance estimates--just a lot of hand-waving and theory that doesn't apply to the device as a whole. The only engineering aspect of any real significance is in the interface to the heat source and they don't discuss that at all aside from saying "you wouldn't think it would work but it does." I

Also, it makes a really, really annoying sound. The fact that it doesn't make that sound when you shut it off, and that they went out of their way to demonstrate that for some reason, doesn't really help.

If it really is some kind of breakthrough, that would be pretty cool though. I always welcome higher frame rates for my video games.

Unfortunately due to frame rate issues they couldn't provide enough lifeboats for all the passengers.

frame rate is too fast.

I really like the concept and the modelling seems top notch. The animation - the actual character movement - seems less so. In some places good, but in other places very stilted and odd. It also seems like they've rendered with a relatively low frame rate, which makes it move weirdly.

I hope so. I'd guess they used a 60Hz cam to record a 24Hz or so hologram; otherwise, this video would be irrelevant.

>> ^elrondhubbard:

Cool! But the video flickers so much it's kinda hard to watch -- near seizure material. Hopefully that's just a frame rate mismatch between the 3D projector and the video camera, and the image would look much steadier in person.