[shortrounddev2]

Pre-rendered CGI has the benefit of time. You can spend more processing power rendering light and effects via ray tracing or more computationally expensive rendering methods. It can take several seconds to render each frame because you only have to do it once. Real time rendering requires trade-offs, and only recently did real time ray tracing for light, shadows, and reflections become possible. Compare a game using traditional rendering (using PBR techniques and a light function called the BRDF) to a game using full ray tracing, and you'll find the ray traced game to be more realistic. With PBR and the BRDF, all code is a kind of approximation for what the scene would look like based on our understanding of science. With Ray tracing, it's closer to a physical simulation of light.

Additionally, movies are usually recorded in 24-30fps, while games are rendered at 60-120-240 FPS. People who are not used to 60FPS can find the smoothness jarring (I certainly don't like watching 60fps scenes in movies, but regularly play games rendered at 60hz)

[fluffyspork]

Increasing pixel count increases processing in all image gen im aware of.

I guess my question is more about why the tradeoff to higher resolutions is taken when resolution is clearly not a limiting factor for displaying something that looks real.

Aside from stylistic choices on look.

I think increasing fps does make something look more real. I wasn't really talking about "film look" related to 24 fps

There's a scale and on one end is the real world and the other is pong or something. I would put 640x480 camera captured images closer to real life than any game I've seen.

At a minimum, more processing sells more hardware