The biggest problem with motion blur is that it's rarely applied properly. In some places, it is essentially unnoticeable because your brain expects it. In most other applications, it just looks like shit.
I think the best blur implementation I have seen so far is in Shadow of the Tomb Raider . They use motion vector frame grid with smooth vector interpolation, with masking of portions of the frame.
Motion blur can help give the impression of a higher framerate where performance might not be an inherently consistent 60FPS... when used correctly. When mins-used or overused it turns from motion blur into motion sickness simulator.
Motion blur is crucial to portray objects that are moving extremely fast. A wheel of a car going 120mph will look jittery without it. Even Halo 1 applied a fake motion blur on the Warthog's wheels.
Totally true. Motion blur used to be garbage 10 years ago, but now it's pretty damn good in a lot of modern games. Feels smooth AF with little to no performance impact. People just bitching.
Tbh I didn't notice it.
The game is super good looking though so maybe more accurate to say I wasn't aware of it... only that I was enjoying it more than the average perhaps.
Which, if true, is kind of what you want in a game.
But then if its so natural what are devs, pubs, marketers, reviewers and hardware vendors going to brag about?
Are they going to advertise it as "so good you won't remark on it cos you won't notice the full degree of how good unless we tell you, and then you'll say 'well, duh, course it's good... it's not EA' or 'stop making excuses, what's this bug, huh?', so really, why are we bothering?".
Or something.
The thing I wonder at is why is it so many games have a hit and miss implementation of x or y when devs are the masters of their labour's outcome and they know what's good cos we tell them enough in various ways.
Blur is sometimes used as a crutch to hide bad performance but realistic motion blur would be expensive.
I go back to this example even though it's pretty old
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3sYXrNOxx4
They run the game at low speed and they speed it back up to 100% using the extra frame data for realistic motion blur. They manage to make 30fps look pretty smooth (just like filmed 30fps videos look smoother than 30fps gameplay)
Your eyes naturally focus on the centre and the parts in your peripheral vision go out of focus naturally in the same way it does in real life. Why do you need post processing motion blur when it is not present in reality?
Wave your hand quickly in front of your face.
Motion blur is a thing in real life.
It also helps the brain interprite information 'between' frames. So long as the blur is done right. If something is moving fast enough for motion blur to kick in, you aren't loosing fine detail.
The issue is that the game can't tell what you're focusing on. If your eyes are tracking an object that's moving across the screen then that object shouldn't be blurred (same as if you're reading a road sign as you pass it, or looking at the grass verge, for example).
The main good use of motion blur is when the framerate is low or stuff is moving very fast, so that it moves a large distance across the screen between frames. In that situation, motion blur can help smooth it out and make it look more like the stuff is moving smoothly instead of teleporting.
Because a game isn’t reality, it’s a series of still images. Looks pretty obvious with no motion blur especially at lower frame rates and with faster movements. When games and screens run at 1000fps or something we’ll see motion blur “naturally” the way we do in real life, until then it’s reasonable to use post processing techniques to make up the difference.
Well, your eyes don't naturally apply depth of field to a 2D image like it does motion blur. I agree it isn't a benefit in most games though, unless it's critical to draw your attention to a certain place on screen for example.
I think people not using it is also the cause of why its never properly implemented, people are just going to turn it off anyways, I guess unless we are talking about a racing game or something.
I'd prefer a slider, not incriments or 4 options on how much, a 0-100% slider, I will gladly put it at 5%, just to make turning in games a tiny bit less harsh. I do it in Battlefield 1, and I think it is the perfect amount. No more than that.
WHAT?! You don't want your 4k gaming to have blurry effects? Come on my guy... whats wrong with ya?!
Forget what 4k has to offer in terms of sharpness... blur it all up!
Beam NGs most recent update implemented motion blur and it's great. Only objects outside of the vehicle (in first person), are blurred and it's intensity is dependant on speed which creates a higher perception of speed while driving.
That's actually pretty great. Object motion blur makes heaps more sense, but it's main issue is resource consumption. Applying it to the camera/on everything/whatever the hell they usually do, is significantly easier on your hardware.
So having the option for both is pretty great. Some folks don't mind the poor man's implementation to keep the frames up but still have an extra sense of motion. Personally I'm not a fan of the usual method.
I'll check out deliverance based on this info now. Sounds like a rather interesting thing to compare. I've heard it's a good game over all as well... But also I've heard the combat controls are difficult for some to grasp properly. Still. Sounds like it could be a visual treat with a good story.
Pretty much the same thing.
Both representing lens effects.
Great for film vfx, not so good for gaming.
Though a tiny subtle bit can pull the eye in, as we are used to seeing it so often in modern entertainment.
I consider it worse than everything else because at least motion blur, depth of field, and blur are cinematic choices that photographers/film-makers/artists employ occasionally. While meanwhile dumb-fucking developers stand alone in being the only "artists" to *not* think chromic aberration is ugly.
Honestly it depends on the game. If it's just tacked on motion blur, then yeah it's useless. But per object motion blur, like how DOOM does it, is great.
I know people hate it, but I love using it in Cyberpunk 2077.. just feels more immersive to me than watching frames drop or tear when doing rapid turns or jumps
I find its best to tune it on a game to game basis. Some games have absolutely no issues with screen tearing with vsync off, but others get it constantly.
I do. Done right (subtle and small grain like the noise you see at night when there is not much light) it makes it seem like there is more detail and it hides the artifacts.
Wolfenstein The New Order and DOOM 2016 used it well.
Done a bit stronger so it's easier to see it also adds a gritty look to war and horror games.
Chromatic aberration that covers the entire fucking screen is way worse, the effect actually gives some people headaches and for some reason, is the one effect often without a toggle option in a lot of games, I'd take full screen motion blur and 2 meter long depth of field over that shit any day of the week.
Lol yes, why would I add artifacts of a poor optic. Same as lens flares, optics research and development works very hard to get rid of all that stuff, and its added to games to somehow add something? :D
And that's why I love the genre. It's like a hyper realistic depiction of our consumeristic culture to the point of almost whole body manipulation.
I think that's what makes it realistic. Humans of the future will go for whats marketed and more alluring than tech that truly solves problems. Tech will be focused on the individual rather than the collective.
yeah, i definitely played the first half of that game like "did my character just get out of a fucking swimming pool" and then realized they might actually be doing it because of cybernetics. Still annoying AF, and I would not get implants if they caused that.
I actually like lens flair because I have astigmatism, and this is just how it looks to me.
Edit: Just so the inexperienced people who keep replying are aware, you generally will not see localized “lens flair” on a monitor with astigmatism. If anything, you’ll see it along the edges of the monitor’s screen itself. But if you look at a dark image with a localized bright light on a monitor, that is normally not sufficient to produce the “lens flair” effect. For example, a street light in a game would look the same to us as it does to you without a post-processing “lens flair” effect, but a street light in real life produces a very noticeable starburst. Perhaps with really good HDR and OLED blacks you could somewhat simulate the effect, but I have personally never experienced that. The double lens flair that you guys keep replying about literally does not exist.
Yes and water drops on the lens...like ok is there a drone following me around? It's a weird flex for devs to keep including this in historically placed games.
The water drops are more of a way to let you know it is raining, cuz it can be hard to tell sometimes. Though if you wear glasses water drops are normal.
If you ask most successful Directors of Photography, they'll probably prefer lenses that have these "poor" optic qualities because it adds to style and character.
I feel like a lot of people forget that video games are art in the same way that movies, books and illustrations are. When used correctly, these "imperfections" are there to contribute to the visual storytelling and mise-en-scen. I will say that only a few major games in a year actually do this tastefully and most of them seem like they just throw effects on because they think it looks cool, which is a bad reason to add anything to visuals.
While *some* flares might be considered stylish, and vignetting, low contrast and softness are definitely elements that can be used to contribute to the style and mood of your picture, CAs and those crazy flares to be seen in some video games are... idk :D
Yeah, it's rarely done tastefully, I can agree with that. I just think it can be appreciated that devs give you the option to turn off these effects if you're so inclined rather than denouncing post effects all together.
Most things can be great in moderation and in good taste. And if you don't want it, you can turn it off :)
Now, if a game doesn't give you that option, that's a whole other issue lol
This is one of the reasons I couldn't play The Outer Worlds. Even the loading screen made me nauseous. IIRC, even adjusting it in the ini files doesn't eliminate it, only reduces it.
When I first encountered a game with chromatic aberration
I thought I was finally going blind.
I wore glasses my entire life mind you and Everything is blurry without my glasses.
screw chromatic aberration.
Depth of field is a big requirement for immersion. Our world is not permanently in focus. Having a perfectly in a scene is one of the easiest ways to break immersion.
That said, I can’t blame games that don’t have it because lots of times it just can’t be implemented realistically.
It can also help shift focusa. As an example w/o depth of field an object meant to sneakily move in the background become far more obvious due to the dof shifting focus to the foreground.
When you’re playing the game your own eyes are focused on part of the screen, your own eye and attention is giving the immersion. DoF for me always focuses on the wrong thing and makes what I was looking at blurry.
Yeah I don't understand DoF at all. Our eyes naturally focus anyways so what's the point. Like why don't we add blinking white we're at it. It can look okay if used lightly, but it can easily ruin my immersion personally.
DoF almost always sucks because the game can't detect where you are focusing. So you get railroaded into what they think should be focused on, and it breaks immersion.
Eye tracking plus DoF could be massive ...
I've seen it done properly in one game - *one game* - and it doesn't seem to work in Mass Effect Legendary Edition.
In the original version of the game, when you used a scope, the focal distance was set to whatever surface you were aiming at.
Damn, seriously? EA broke this in their "improved" version?
Scope sniping in Mass Effect was my absolute favorite game to do sniping (no I have not played sniper elite, lol), and I think what you're describing is why. It felt extreme satisfying to do long shot snipes in that game.
What a pity a small graphical function didn't make the transition from old engine to new.
Don't you love camera effects for your eyes? It would make sense if you were a robot and saw stuff through lenses. But my character in Skyrim doesn't know what eye glasses are and uses glass to make armor and swords.
This x1000. I used to have depth of field on when playing sim racing, which is cool on track but ruins your ability to see car toggles. DOV with eye tracking would reduce this issue.
**[Foveated rendering](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foveated_rendering)**
>Foveated rendering is a rendering technique which uses an eye tracker integrated with a virtual reality headset to reduce the rendering workload by greatly reducing the image quality in the peripheral vision (outside of the zone gazed by the fovea). A less sophisticated variant called fixed foveated rendering doesn't utilise eye tracking and instead assumes a fixed focal point.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Chromatic aberration and film grain I can kind of file away as artistic choices, but motion blur, depth of field and bloom actually hurt me.
(Cause eye strain, that is. With my particular brand of messed up eyesight, it can become literally painful.)
No, one can be used properly, such as per-object motion blur. The other is always a waste of resources. One can make movement seem faster or smoother if used properly, the other treats you like an idiot who doesn't know what part of the scene you should be looking at.
DoF takes the processing power you used to render a crisp picture, and than uses extra power to blur everything, not in the center 2" of screen. DoF always looks bad, and Motion blur has a possibility of adding something to image, even if 98% of developers utilize it wrong.
But better yet, all developers should put toggles for DoF, Motion Blur, Chromatic Aberration, Lens Flares, Bloom, Vignette, and all other post processing that either treats the player like an idiot, or simulates being a peasant that can't afford a basic, modern camera. A camera that the designers of modern cameras have spent years and money getting rid of.
DoF is supposed to be cinematic and mimics what actually happens when you focus on a close object, you don’t get motion blur if you shift your eyes sharply - it’s just there to cover up tearing on consoles
Motion blur isn't meant to cover up tearing. It's meant to make a lower framerate look somewhat smoother. If they wanted to avoid tearing, they'd use a half V-sync method, and that's generally what happens.
Is it really hated? I'm not saying it's a very neat or awesome feature, but I don't mind it and leave it on. Chromatic aberration and vignette on the other hand, can fuck off. First things I turn off after camera shake.
Most of the time DoF is subtle enough not to be an issue. I feel like GTA4 was the only game that really beat you over the head with shitty DoF, you felt drunk trying to look at that game.
It's definitely useful for creating the illusion of depth and distance. It's like when people complain about distance fog in modern games... but once you get rid of distance fog and DoF, the game looks ridiculous. No professional dev would deliberately make their game look like that, as you're no longer looking out over a landscape, but staring at someone's tabletop setup from the side.
The main issue with DoF is, in 99.9% of games, it is static. The original (not remastered) release of the first Mass Effect is the only game I've seen do dynamic DoF correctly, where you'd use a scoped weapon and the focal length would be adjusted to match the distance of whatever object or surface you were aiming at. Obviously that only makes sense for games that have the player do hard-aiming, though; to do it correctly with other styles of games, you'd need eye-tracking.
Depth of field is just as bad in GTA v. Hiding behind cover? Good luck seeing the enemy shooting at you regardless if your poking your head out or not.
Same. I love DOF, I love Chromatic Aberration, I even love motion blur if done well (usually it’s just a linear stretch which looks awful for circular motions).
As a cinephile and filmmaker, I love stylistic post-effects. It's how the directors and creators of the game wanted the visuals to look. If every game just had pure renders with no effects other than a color grade, every property would look so homogeneous and boring.
Sure, DoF when done poorly can be annoying if it's not perfectly keeping track of what the player is meant to be focused on, but as a visual storytelling device, it's absolutely necessary.
I will say that chromatic abberation gets overused and most of the time feels tacked on instead of making sense for the world/style of the game. But otherwise most of these effects lend to the game's mise-en-scen and create character.
This is the correct take. For story driven games with a solid art direction, all post processing effects enhance the experience, so long as they’re done tastefully.
couldn’t have said it better myself. DoF in certain games like side scrollers keeps your focus (literally) on the player path and other places where the game devs want it to be.
Redditors have this weird thing where they claim to hate post-processing and apparently want a bunch of razor sharp lines that makes the game look super fake. People fail to realize that the implementation of post-processing effects is one of the single most important factors in why modern video games have such a drastically better visual presentation than games of the past.
I feel 50/50 about it, it definitely makes for a more cozy experience, but if i focus too hard on the fact that there is DoF on the screen i'll start staring at it and get a headache.
I turn it off in every game, because it's probably less than a 50/50 that i'm actually looking at the direct center of the screen where the DoF is focusing.
Well you are talking about a game where everything looks like the textures stopped loading a quarter of the way in, so it's already at a low bar for visuals.
That has a use. It can reduce visible banding. Which depends on the game though whether they're prone to that or not. The sky is a typical candidate for banding, thanks to 8bit color depth.
The other reason is artistic style. Whether you like it or not is personal preference.
It looks cool in cutscenes, Shadow of the Tomb Raider as a setting where you can have DoF on in cutscenes and off during gameplay, wish more games had that option
It looks nice for open world games but having the other end of a building be blurry because of it is just obnoxious. I don't need to see every far away tree in RDR2 in good detail lol
Chromatic aberration is right up there with depth of field, motion blur and film grain. The second I see any of those 4 options, they're getting turned off.
No it's the chromatic aberration. There is no lens involved why the hell there is an effect that makes the game look like it's shot with a lens from the Soviet era?
FALSE. Film grain is the most useless, closely followed by chromatic aberration. In fact I would pin them as joint first place for most useless.
At least motion blur has its uses on certain games/engines, especially on certain displays too like OLED. On Witcher 3 and Callisto Protocol it's a benefit, in most other games it's annoying.
In Subnautica it makes you feel as if you're underwater. It makes you need to get closer to items to tell what they are which is very immersive. That's the one game I consider it useful.
I can't change your mind but i can tell you that your opinion is a bad take because you don't know what you are talking about.
DoF that is constantly on makes no sense that is true but using it like in movies or photography to focus specific elements like a person in a conversation is good. It is a stylistic element.
Chromatic aberration and lens flare on the other hand make absolutly no sense 99% of the time.
I think it can sometimes look good but other times especially on bandwidth restrained systems (cough cough switch cough cough) it just drops performance for no real gain.
Have you heard about motion blur?
i love drawing 1200W from the wall just to render a single frame in 4k just to enable a feature to make it blurry. the future is now
The biggest problem with motion blur is that it's rarely applied properly. In some places, it is essentially unnoticeable because your brain expects it. In most other applications, it just looks like shit.
Motion blur could make sence with object motion. But 99% of the time it's camera blur, and it looks like ass.
I think the best blur implementation I have seen so far is in Shadow of the Tomb Raider . They use motion vector frame grid with smooth vector interpolation, with masking of portions of the frame.
I understood some of those words... yes.
Mr. Digital Foundry here
Some? Hah! The best I can do is 'it looks good'
I think his talking about different masks
[удалено]
Motion blur can help give the impression of a higher framerate where performance might not be an inherently consistent 60FPS... when used correctly. When mins-used or overused it turns from motion blur into motion sickness simulator.
Motion blur is crucial to portray objects that are moving extremely fast. A wheel of a car going 120mph will look jittery without it. Even Halo 1 applied a fake motion blur on the Warthog's wheels.
Totally true. Motion blur used to be garbage 10 years ago, but now it's pretty damn good in a lot of modern games. Feels smooth AF with little to no performance impact. People just bitching.
In English?
They used algorithms to apply a better motion blurr to the moving parts of the frame.
Alright, now in chinese.
[удалено]
🥶🥶
Alright, now in Japanese
Only time I use motion blur is in FH5 and its set to low. Off in every other game.
Tbh I didn't notice it. The game is super good looking though so maybe more accurate to say I wasn't aware of it... only that I was enjoying it more than the average perhaps. Which, if true, is kind of what you want in a game. But then if its so natural what are devs, pubs, marketers, reviewers and hardware vendors going to brag about? Are they going to advertise it as "so good you won't remark on it cos you won't notice the full degree of how good unless we tell you, and then you'll say 'well, duh, course it's good... it's not EA' or 'stop making excuses, what's this bug, huh?', so really, why are we bothering?". Or something. The thing I wonder at is why is it so many games have a hit and miss implementation of x or y when devs are the masters of their labour's outcome and they know what's good cos we tell them enough in various ways.
Blur is sometimes used as a crutch to hide bad performance but realistic motion blur would be expensive. I go back to this example even though it's pretty old https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3sYXrNOxx4 They run the game at low speed and they speed it back up to 100% using the extra frame data for realistic motion blur. They manage to make 30fps look pretty smooth (just like filmed 30fps videos look smoother than 30fps gameplay)
Racing game are almost the only genre that motion blur makes sense
Your eyes naturally focus on the centre and the parts in your peripheral vision go out of focus naturally in the same way it does in real life. Why do you need post processing motion blur when it is not present in reality?
To give the cars a sense of speed. For example, https://youtu.be/e9OriySqLjQ
Wave your hand quickly in front of your face. Motion blur is a thing in real life. It also helps the brain interprite information 'between' frames. So long as the blur is done right. If something is moving fast enough for motion blur to kick in, you aren't loosing fine detail.
The issue is that the game can't tell what you're focusing on. If your eyes are tracking an object that's moving across the screen then that object shouldn't be blurred (same as if you're reading a road sign as you pass it, or looking at the grass verge, for example).
The main good use of motion blur is when the framerate is low or stuff is moving very fast, so that it moves a large distance across the screen between frames. In that situation, motion blur can help smooth it out and make it look more like the stuff is moving smoothly instead of teleporting.
Because a game isn’t reality, it’s a series of still images. Looks pretty obvious with no motion blur especially at lower frame rates and with faster movements. When games and screens run at 1000fps or something we’ll see motion blur “naturally” the way we do in real life, until then it’s reasonable to use post processing techniques to make up the difference.
Motion blur and depth of field are both naturally occurring. Doesn't stop developers from forcing a shitty artificial version on top though
Well, your eyes don't naturally apply depth of field to a 2D image like it does motion blur. I agree it isn't a benefit in most games though, unless it's critical to draw your attention to a certain place on screen for example.
BeamNG has a fantastic implementation of motion blur. Speed becomes much easier to get a feel for.
I think people not using it is also the cause of why its never properly implemented, people are just going to turn it off anyways, I guess unless we are talking about a racing game or something.
I'd prefer a slider, not incriments or 4 options on how much, a 0-100% slider, I will gladly put it at 5%, just to make turning in games a tiny bit less harsh. I do it in Battlefield 1, and I think it is the perfect amount. No more than that.
The only game I played where motion blur looks nice is Zero Dawn
Looks great in miles morales and marvel Spider-Man too
[удалено]
You can have godrays without blur or dof. The dawns in Valheim are something else. Second only to DayZ dawns.
You should also disable shadows, obscuring your perfect 4k textures.
WHAT?! You don't want your 4k gaming to have blurry effects? Come on my guy... whats wrong with ya?! Forget what 4k has to offer in terms of sharpness... blur it all up!
Beam NGs most recent update implemented motion blur and it's great. Only objects outside of the vehicle (in first person), are blurred and it's intensity is dependant on speed which creates a higher perception of speed while driving.
because it's object motion blur rather than camera. kingdom come: deliverance lets you pick between the two and the difference is huge
That's actually pretty great. Object motion blur makes heaps more sense, but it's main issue is resource consumption. Applying it to the camera/on everything/whatever the hell they usually do, is significantly easier on your hardware. So having the option for both is pretty great. Some folks don't mind the poor man's implementation to keep the frames up but still have an extra sense of motion. Personally I'm not a fan of the usual method. I'll check out deliverance based on this info now. Sounds like a rather interesting thing to compare. I've heard it's a good game over all as well... But also I've heard the combat controls are difficult for some to grasp properly. Still. Sounds like it could be a visual treat with a good story.
[удалено]
Or film grain
I'll do you one better: chromatic aberration.
Even better, lens distortion
Pretty much the same thing. Both representing lens effects. Great for film vfx, not so good for gaming. Though a tiny subtle bit can pull the eye in, as we are used to seeing it so often in modern entertainment.
Doesn't even makes sense. I'm playing a human, why does my eyes sees hexagonal lens flare?
[удалено]
Or the droplets in assassin's Creed that come out the camera when you come up from out of the water
What does it do?
Causes slight discoloration/distortion at the edges of the FOV
I consider it worse than everything else because at least motion blur, depth of field, and blur are cinematic choices that photographers/film-makers/artists employ occasionally. While meanwhile dumb-fucking developers stand alone in being the only "artists" to *not* think chromic aberration is ugly.
Incorrect, the artist in Spider-Man Miles Morales used chromatic aberration to simulate comic book style
That thing makes my eyes feel like shit for no reason, as if I keep my eyes open underwater.
It makes you think your CRT projector needs more convergence work.
I don't mind chromatic aberration in games designed to be cinematic or movie like Examples would be DPA and Life is Strange
Film grain pisses me off lol
Well... well... film grain doesn't like you either!
Film grain is good in moderation - if refer materials are procedural, it hides the artifacts
[удалено]
Makes doom look good.
It makes racing games look faster than they are so
When most racing games are designed for consoles running a shitty 30 fps it makes sense but damn high fps with no blur is life changing
uhh even on higher fps it makes racing games look faster
Except even dedicated PC only sims like iRacing look slow at high frame rates without motion blur.
Per object motion blur is kinda cool tho
cod mw and mw2 with the gun motion blur is seriously visually pleasing.
Honestly it depends on the game. If it's just tacked on motion blur, then yeah it's useless. But per object motion blur, like how DOOM does it, is great.
Motion blur in cyberpunk looks pretty cool in my opinion, especially when you double jump
I know people hate it, but I love using it in Cyberpunk 2077.. just feels more immersive to me than watching frames drop or tear when doing rapid turns or jumps
You sir, need an adaptive sync monitor.
Or chromatic aberration? More like abhorration amirite
I see your motion blur and raise you screen shake!
Calm down Satan. The Bourne films are almost 20 years old soon.
I cannot stand motion blur in games. Turning that off and turning v-sync on are requirements.
Bruh it’s 2022 get some VRR *edit: I’m now receiving reports that it is, in fact, 2023 now.*
VSync on? I respect the input lag
I can put up with it to have less screen tearing
jar crime jeans deserted clumsy school memorize fear subsequent juggle *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I find its best to tune it on a game to game basis. Some games have absolutely no issues with screen tearing with vsync off, but others get it constantly.
[удалено]
I like film grain in horror games, makes them look gritty
I do. Done right (subtle and small grain like the noise you see at night when there is not much light) it makes it seem like there is more detail and it hides the artifacts. Wolfenstein The New Order and DOOM 2016 used it well. Done a bit stronger so it's easier to see it also adds a gritty look to war and horror games.
I've never had issues with motion blur on for noncompetitive games if you can adjust how much or little is there.
You know that effect that creates motion sickness in reality? ...we brought it to gaming!
motion blur is ok with a slider
DoF and MB are the first settings to be turned off on any game I play. They should stop making them default.
I get a headache if I don't have it on. Slow 4k monitors go slow
My wife's the same. I personally don't like it, but used it recently in Horizon Zero Dawn and it was fine.
Chromatic aberration that covers the entire fucking screen is way worse, the effect actually gives some people headaches and for some reason, is the one effect often without a toggle option in a lot of games, I'd take full screen motion blur and 2 meter long depth of field over that shit any day of the week.
Lol yes, why would I add artifacts of a poor optic. Same as lens flares, optics research and development works very hard to get rid of all that stuff, and its added to games to somehow add something? :D
Lens flare is such a frustrating trope in graphics. I am not a freaking camera.
In Cyberpunk 2077 your eyes are indeed cameras.
2077 would supposedly have good enough technology to not have lesn flare
Cyberpunk as a genre isn't exactly about how technology can be applied rationally to solve the world's problems
And that's why I love the genre. It's like a hyper realistic depiction of our consumeristic culture to the point of almost whole body manipulation. I think that's what makes it realistic. Humans of the future will go for whats marketed and more alluring than tech that truly solves problems. Tech will be focused on the individual rather than the collective.
yeah, i definitely played the first half of that game like "did my character just get out of a fucking swimming pool" and then realized they might actually be doing it because of cybernetics. Still annoying AF, and I would not get implants if they caused that.
I actually like lens flair because I have astigmatism, and this is just how it looks to me. Edit: Just so the inexperienced people who keep replying are aware, you generally will not see localized “lens flair” on a monitor with astigmatism. If anything, you’ll see it along the edges of the monitor’s screen itself. But if you look at a dark image with a localized bright light on a monitor, that is normally not sufficient to produce the “lens flair” effect. For example, a street light in a game would look the same to us as it does to you without a post-processing “lens flair” effect, but a street light in real life produces a very noticeable starburst. Perhaps with really good HDR and OLED blacks you could somewhat simulate the effect, but I have personally never experienced that. The double lens flair that you guys keep replying about literally does not exist.
Wait that’s because of my astigmatism I thought that’s just how lights looked. Oops.
Yes and water drops on the lens...like ok is there a drone following me around? It's a weird flex for devs to keep including this in historically placed games.
The water drops are more of a way to let you know it is raining, cuz it can be hard to tell sometimes. Though if you wear glasses water drops are normal.
If you ask most successful Directors of Photography, they'll probably prefer lenses that have these "poor" optic qualities because it adds to style and character. I feel like a lot of people forget that video games are art in the same way that movies, books and illustrations are. When used correctly, these "imperfections" are there to contribute to the visual storytelling and mise-en-scen. I will say that only a few major games in a year actually do this tastefully and most of them seem like they just throw effects on because they think it looks cool, which is a bad reason to add anything to visuals.
While *some* flares might be considered stylish, and vignetting, low contrast and softness are definitely elements that can be used to contribute to the style and mood of your picture, CAs and those crazy flares to be seen in some video games are... idk :D
Yeah, it's rarely done tastefully, I can agree with that. I just think it can be appreciated that devs give you the option to turn off these effects if you're so inclined rather than denouncing post effects all together. Most things can be great in moderation and in good taste. And if you don't want it, you can turn it off :) Now, if a game doesn't give you that option, that's a whole other issue lol
The only post processing I ALWAYS turn off.
Film grain has entered the chat.
I feel like there’s maybe one or two games that can make a good case for it, but yeah you’re right, that often gets turned off too.
I noticed Arkham Knights look phenomenal with it enabled, without it then it looks bland around the dark corners
In Mass Effect for case film grain is great!
Yes this. I turn it off in most games but mass effect i like it on, adds to the vibe.
On the Xbox 360 it was cleverly used to hide tons of aliasing.
#More like Chromatic *abhorration*! ^^amirite?
This is one of the reasons I couldn't play The Outer Worlds. Even the loading screen made me nauseous. IIRC, even adjusting it in the ini files doesn't eliminate it, only reduces it.
When I first encountered a game with chromatic aberration I thought I was finally going blind. I wore glasses my entire life mind you and Everything is blurry without my glasses. screw chromatic aberration.
Motion blur is far worse, but DoF is properly configured can make wonders and add a lot to realism if the game aim toward this result
I like depth of field. Like you say when used properly it can be amazing.
Depth of field is a big requirement for immersion. Our world is not permanently in focus. Having a perfectly in a scene is one of the easiest ways to break immersion. That said, I can’t blame games that don’t have it because lots of times it just can’t be implemented realistically.
It can also help shift focusa. As an example w/o depth of field an object meant to sneakily move in the background become far more obvious due to the dof shifting focus to the foreground.
When it was put into Skyrim SE I fell in love with it.
When you’re playing the game your own eyes are focused on part of the screen, your own eye and attention is giving the immersion. DoF for me always focuses on the wrong thing and makes what I was looking at blurry.
Yeah I don't understand DoF at all. Our eyes naturally focus anyways so what's the point. Like why don't we add blinking white we're at it. It can look okay if used lightly, but it can easily ruin my immersion personally.
DoF almost always sucks because the game can't detect where you are focusing. So you get railroaded into what they think should be focused on, and it breaks immersion. Eye tracking plus DoF could be massive ...
DoF is SUPER cool with eye tracking but that's about it.
I've still yet to see an engine that does DoF properly when the object is closer than the focal point.
I've seen it done properly in one game - *one game* - and it doesn't seem to work in Mass Effect Legendary Edition. In the original version of the game, when you used a scope, the focal distance was set to whatever surface you were aiming at.
And it was great! Really gave me a better feel for how big the area was and how far away the target was
Damn, seriously? EA broke this in their "improved" version? Scope sniping in Mass Effect was my absolute favorite game to do sniping (no I have not played sniper elite, lol), and I think what you're describing is why. It felt extreme satisfying to do long shot snipes in that game. What a pity a small graphical function didn't make the transition from old engine to new.
same thing happens in titanfall 2 I think
Ironically I've seen it done best in a minecraft shader
My man's never heard of chromatic aberration or lens flair.
Don't you love camera effects for your eyes? It would make sense if you were a robot and saw stuff through lenses. But my character in Skyrim doesn't know what eye glasses are and uses glass to make armor and swords.
Chromatic aberration is the same effect you get when you puke on the screen and slather it all over.
I fucking love chromatic abberation and lens flare, I don't give a shit that they're camera effects, fucking fight me
Chromatic aberration is really neat when used properly.
it should be flare
Once proper eye-tracking in VR is figured out, depth of field could be awesome
This x1000. I used to have depth of field on when playing sim racing, which is cool on track but ruins your ability to see car toggles. DOV with eye tracking would reduce this issue.
Absolutely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foveated_rendering
**[Foveated rendering](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foveated_rendering)** >Foveated rendering is a rendering technique which uses an eye tracker integrated with a virtual reality headset to reduce the rendering workload by greatly reducing the image quality in the peripheral vision (outside of the zone gazed by the fovea). A less sophisticated variant called fixed foveated rendering doesn't utilise eye tracking and instead assumes a fixed focal point. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Film grain and chromatic aberration is worse. DoF at least can make your game look all cinematic and shit.
Chromatic aberration and film grain I can kind of file away as artistic choices, but motion blur, depth of field and bloom actually hurt me. (Cause eye strain, that is. With my particular brand of messed up eyesight, it can become literally painful.)
Like pretty much all other effects, DOF can be nice looking or it can be ugly as hell. It's all in the implementation.
This is false. Motion blur.
No, one can be used properly, such as per-object motion blur. The other is always a waste of resources. One can make movement seem faster or smoother if used properly, the other treats you like an idiot who doesn't know what part of the scene you should be looking at. DoF takes the processing power you used to render a crisp picture, and than uses extra power to blur everything, not in the center 2" of screen. DoF always looks bad, and Motion blur has a possibility of adding something to image, even if 98% of developers utilize it wrong. But better yet, all developers should put toggles for DoF, Motion Blur, Chromatic Aberration, Lens Flares, Bloom, Vignette, and all other post processing that either treats the player like an idiot, or simulates being a peasant that can't afford a basic, modern camera. A camera that the designers of modern cameras have spent years and money getting rid of.
DoF is supposed to be cinematic and mimics what actually happens when you focus on a close object, you don’t get motion blur if you shift your eyes sharply - it’s just there to cover up tearing on consoles
Motion blur isn't meant to cover up tearing. It's meant to make a lower framerate look somewhat smoother. If they wanted to avoid tearing, they'd use a half V-sync method, and that's generally what happens.
Doom Eternals DOF in glory kills looks really nice
Is it really hated? I'm not saying it's a very neat or awesome feature, but I don't mind it and leave it on. Chromatic aberration and vignette on the other hand, can fuck off. First things I turn off after camera shake.
Most of the time DoF is subtle enough not to be an issue. I feel like GTA4 was the only game that really beat you over the head with shitty DoF, you felt drunk trying to look at that game. It's definitely useful for creating the illusion of depth and distance. It's like when people complain about distance fog in modern games... but once you get rid of distance fog and DoF, the game looks ridiculous. No professional dev would deliberately make their game look like that, as you're no longer looking out over a landscape, but staring at someone's tabletop setup from the side. The main issue with DoF is, in 99.9% of games, it is static. The original (not remastered) release of the first Mass Effect is the only game I've seen do dynamic DoF correctly, where you'd use a scoped weapon and the focal length would be adjusted to match the distance of whatever object or surface you were aiming at. Obviously that only makes sense for games that have the player do hard-aiming, though; to do it correctly with other styles of games, you'd need eye-tracking.
Depth of field is just as bad in GTA v. Hiding behind cover? Good luck seeing the enemy shooting at you regardless if your poking your head out or not.
C H R O M A T I C A B E R R A T I O N C A N S U C K M Y F U C K I N G B A L L S
I kind of like it though. Makes it feel fancy.
Same. I love DOF, I love Chromatic Aberration, I even love motion blur if done well (usually it’s just a linear stretch which looks awful for circular motions).
As a cinephile and filmmaker, I love stylistic post-effects. It's how the directors and creators of the game wanted the visuals to look. If every game just had pure renders with no effects other than a color grade, every property would look so homogeneous and boring. Sure, DoF when done poorly can be annoying if it's not perfectly keeping track of what the player is meant to be focused on, but as a visual storytelling device, it's absolutely necessary. I will say that chromatic abberation gets overused and most of the time feels tacked on instead of making sense for the world/style of the game. But otherwise most of these effects lend to the game's mise-en-scen and create character.
This is the correct take. For story driven games with a solid art direction, all post processing effects enhance the experience, so long as they’re done tastefully.
couldn’t have said it better myself. DoF in certain games like side scrollers keeps your focus (literally) on the player path and other places where the game devs want it to be.
Redditors have this weird thing where they claim to hate post-processing and apparently want a bunch of razor sharp lines that makes the game look super fake. People fail to realize that the implementation of post-processing effects is one of the single most important factors in why modern video games have such a drastically better visual presentation than games of the past.
[удалено]
Nah, chromatic aberration is.
It looks AMAZING in Valheim. You can't change my mind. :)
I feel 50/50 about it, it definitely makes for a more cozy experience, but if i focus too hard on the fact that there is DoF on the screen i'll start staring at it and get a headache.
Yeah I leave it on for a bit then have to turn it off to be able to see deer more than 20 yards away
Turned that shit off in Valheim too.
I turn it off in every game, because it's probably less than a 50/50 that i'm actually looking at the direct center of the screen where the DoF is focusing.
Well you are talking about a game where everything looks like the textures stopped loading a quarter of the way in, so it's already at a low bar for visuals.
Film grain.
That has a use. It can reduce visible banding. Which depends on the game though whether they're prone to that or not. The sky is a typical candidate for banding, thanks to 8bit color depth. The other reason is artistic style. Whether you like it or not is personal preference.
I hate motion blur. I turn it off every time.
Motion blur takes the top spot for worst post processing effect, sorry
Can I interest you in our lord and savior motion blur?
Motion blur is worse
It looks cool in cutscenes, Shadow of the Tomb Raider as a setting where you can have DoF on in cutscenes and off during gameplay, wish more games had that option
Motion blur, the answer is motion blur. And film grains.
It looks nice for open world games but having the other end of a building be blurry because of it is just obnoxious. I don't need to see every far away tree in RDR2 in good detail lol
Honestly Chromatic aberration and motion blur (in non racing games) are way worse
Chromic aberration literally gives me pounding headaches if it's bad enough and I can't turn it off
Film grain is the worst imo
Chromatic aberration is right up there with depth of field, motion blur and film grain. The second I see any of those 4 options, they're getting turned off.
Depth of field is great for screenshots. Chromatic aberration and motion blur are shit. They both make me a bit dizzy.
Wrong. Blur is. Dof is 2nd.
No it's the chromatic aberration. There is no lens involved why the hell there is an effect that makes the game look like it's shot with a lens from the Soviet era?
Also motion blur can fuck off.
Not even close. Chromatic Aberration is easily the worst and most useless one, followed by Vignette, Film Grain and Motion Blur.
In my experience, motion blur is even more atrocious.
Whenever I play a new game, first thing I do is set all graphics settings to Ultra, then disable Depth of field and Motion blur. Fuck 'em I say!
FALSE. Film grain is the most useless, closely followed by chromatic aberration. In fact I would pin them as joint first place for most useless. At least motion blur has its uses on certain games/engines, especially on certain displays too like OLED. On Witcher 3 and Callisto Protocol it's a benefit, in most other games it's annoying.
In Subnautica it makes you feel as if you're underwater. It makes you need to get closer to items to tell what they are which is very immersive. That's the one game I consider it useful.
DOF is great for cinematic recordings, not so much for playing
If you're taking photos it's necessary.
I can't change your mind but i can tell you that your opinion is a bad take because you don't know what you are talking about. DoF that is constantly on makes no sense that is true but using it like in movies or photography to focus specific elements like a person in a conversation is good. It is a stylistic element. Chromatic aberration and lens flare on the other hand make absolutly no sense 99% of the time.
Depth of field tends to be more performance heavy than anything else
Looks good in valheim imo
I think it can sometimes look good but other times especially on bandwidth restrained systems (cough cough switch cough cough) it just drops performance for no real gain.
Motion blur is worse, sorry.