Would having a separate lifetime for development and marketing of a patented item make it more reasonable?
For instance, 10 years time during development, but once development is complete you only have 2 years time to market (or the remainder of the 10 year development period, whichever is shorter). The given time periods are only for example--I don't know what would be reasonable, as far as that is concerned.
Explaining it doesn't make me hate it any less. Just because it can produce nice screen shots on 1 frame out a milion rendered doesn't mean it's not obnoxious.
Originally Posted by RealNC
To each his own. In my (and the majority's) opinion, games without HDR look more artificial. With HDR, they look like they actually resemble reality more closely.
Originally Posted by Hephasteus
So no, it's not obnoxious. It's just you.
YMMV. Most HDR-rendered pics look worse to my eyes too (and this is on a IPS screen).
We simply need displays and color depths that can show at least 32 bits and a dynamic range of infinity:1
Originally Posted by curaga
Many things now ask for a lot of time to develop the product from the idea/prototype that works.
Originally Posted by justsumdood
But maybe different terms for different kinds of patents would be appropriate.
Lol at people confusing high-dynamic range with bloom.
Things are simple: 8bpp do not offer enough range to represent the contrast between sunlit and shadowed geometry. HDR involve using more bpp (usually 16 or 32) to improve the dynamic range and a tonemapping step to reduce the extra bits to the 8bpp that monitors can display.
Of course, many games add fluff such as bloom effects that have little to do with HDR itself, which is what people seem to dislike. HDR by itself is 100% necessary for any modern-looking 3d game.
He meant 8bit per color component.
Originally Posted by NomadDemon
More colors are useless because not a single consimer panel supports correct colors (like the Adobe standard). The cheapest true color panel is sold by Dell for 800 euro's and is LCD...
Now software patents; they are not useless because hardware must be involved. We live in an age where embedded systems are everywhere and large part of the magic happens in software. However being able to patent obvious shit like floating point on a piece of PC hardware is far from an invention that gets us anywhere near a better product offering that we wouldn't have got without the patent, anyway...