What is the top photorealistic PC game available? I own GTA V with amazing graphics modifications.
What is the top photorealistic PC game available? I own GTA V with amazing graphics modifications.
Photorealism is present now. Many games display screenshots that appear very realistic—such as Forza Horizon 4, Cyberpunk (with suitable hardware), ETS 2, and even GTA 4 with mods. As ray tracing becomes more common, more titles will achieve a truly photo-realistic look because lighting plays a crucial role in adding depth to any visual—whether it's generated through computer graphics or photography. However, immersion breaks down when motion is introduced or when texture details are emphasized. Many believe resolution alone defines realism, but the truth is far more intricate than just pixel count or frame rate. We must find the ideal combination of DPI and refresh rate for the display, along with sufficient GPU performance to deliver smooth visuals.
Humans typically see around 338 dpi per inch, with peak performance reaching up to 2190 dpi per inch in full macro mode (based on a minimum focus distance of about 6.5 cm). We can perceive roughly 40 million pixels, which translates to approximately 8433x4743 at a 16:9 aspect ratio. The fastest data our eyes can process is about 13 milliseconds, corresponding to around 130 frames per second. When these factors are combined, it becomes clear why distinguishing between CGI and real footage remains challenging.
A colleague from the local technical university shared an experiment involving students learning about frame rates, pixels, and related concepts. They covered a 4K 120Hz TV as a window in a room and had participants enter to test it. A live feed from a Canon EOS R5 at 4K 120FPS was also used. Even though the subjects were several meters away and not exposed to high-contrast images, they still detected inconsistencies. In theory, none should have noticed the difference, but it became evident that our brains are surprisingly adept at spotting fakes. Thus, photorealism is attainable, yet genuine life-like realism remains a significant challenge.
Last year at the end, I was watching this race
For about five minutes my dad thought I was really watching a real race
Until one of the drivers hit the barrier hard and the car didn’t show any damage
I could see in his face that something strange had just happened.
It's also crucial to separate what we consciously handle from what we process unconsciously or catch without realizing. We can spot details at a significantly faster rate—much like the FPS analogy, though we don't experience it directly. For instance, tests with fighter pilots show that even in certain situations, we can detect objects as small as 1/220th of a second. Fascinating experiment. Two factors that come to mind are:
1) 120 Hz feels overly smooth compared to actual life; our phone camera runs at 60 FPS, which already breaks realism.
2) We quickly register the unnatural quality of outside light filtering through a window.
In fact, their findings from the experiment were the contrary. It turned out that 120Hz is slightly slower than our natural refresh rate, yet it's still sufficient for our brain to detect it. Regarding the light, before the test began, my friend suggested using a photometer to verify the TV emitted consistent brightness and compared it with an inner hallway, which wasn't exposed to bright daylight. There were no other windows available for comparison. The camera position was selected after thorough testing to prevent any artifacts or specific effects that could obscure the result. As far as I understand, scientists are still debating whether it's accurate to claim we can register information at a rate of 4ms (one-twentieth of a second). Linus created an excellent video comparing 120Hz, 240Hz, and 60Hz, which largely confirmed that the increase from 60 to 120 is significant, while the jump from 120 to 240 is more subjective. However, what I'm most curious about is testing between 120 and 144 Hz, since after playing at 144Hz for some time, returning to 120 makes it invisible, though I can sense it, which seems logical.
I believe the second jump feels more challenging or harder to detect, especially for someone who knows fighter pilots well. This could apply similarly to gaming at different refresh rates—casual players might not notice the extra millisecond, but competitive players who train to react faster would appreciate it.
I was more inclined to consider how light behaves when passing through windows. We’re familiar with natural lighting and think a TV struggles to accurately mimic its path. You can see light from a side source landing in the middle of the screen, but it won’t follow its true route into your room. The refresher rate is intriguing.