These settings can be good, but are often overdone. See bloom in the late 2000s/early 2010s.
this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2025
0 points (NaN% liked)
Greentext
7101 readers
589 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Has the person who invented the depth of field effect for a video game ever even PLAYED a game before?
I mean, it works in... hmmm... RPGs, maybe?
When I was a kid there was an effect in FF8 where the background blurred out in Balamb Garden and it made the place feel bigger. A 2D painted background blur, haha.
Then someone was like, let's do that in the twenty-first century and ruined everything. When you've got draw distance, why blur?
Yes, it makes sense in a game where the designer already knows where the important action is and controls the camera to focus on it. It however does not work in a game where the action could be anywhere and camera doesn't necessarily focus on it.
motion blur is essential for a proper feeling of speed.
most games don't need a proper feeling of speed.
... What?
I mean... the alternative is to get hardware (including a monitor) capable of just running the game at an fps/hz above roughly 120 (ymmv), such that your actual eyes and brain do real motion blur.
Motion blur is a crutch to be able to simulate that from back when hardware was much less powerful and max resolutions and frame rates were much lower.
At highet resolutions, most motion blur algorithms are quite inefficient and eat your overall fps... so it would make more sense to just remove it, have higher fps, and experience actual motion blur from your eyes+brain and higher fps.
my basis for the statement is beam.ng. at 100hz, the feeling of speed is markedly different depending on whether motion blur is on. 120 may make a difference.
You still see doubled images instead of a smooth blur in your peripheral vision I think when you're focused on the car for example in a racing game.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but isn't that screen tearing?
I mean just from persistence of vision you'll see multiple copies of a moving object if your eyes aren't moving. I have realized tho that in the main racing game I use motion blur in (beamng) I'm not actually reaching above 80fps very often.
here, I copied someone's shader to make a quick comparison:
with blur: https://www.shadertoy.com/view/wcjSzV
without blur: https://www.shadertoy.com/view/wf2XRV
Even at 144hz, one looks smooth while the other has sharp edges along the path.
Keep in mind that this technically only works if your eye doesn't follow any of the circles, as that would require a different motion blur computation. That's obviously not something that can be accounted for on a flatscreen, maybe in VR at some point though if we ever get to that level of sophistication. VR motion blur without taking eye movement into account is obviously terrible and makes everyone sick.
Someone else made a comparison for that, where you're supposed to follow the red dot with your eye. (keep in mind that this demo uses motion blur lengths longer than a frame, which you would not have if aiming for a human eye-like realistic look)
Out of all of these, motion blur is the worst, but second to that is Temporal Anti Aliasing. No, I don't need my game to look blurry with every trailing edge leaving a smear.
TAA is kind of the foundation that almost all real time EDIT: ~~raytracing~~ frame upscaling and frame generation are built on, and built off of.
This is why it is increasingly difficult to find a newer, high fidelity game that even allows you to actually turn it off.
If you could, all the subsequent ~~magic~~ bullshit stops working, all the hardware in your GPU designed to do that stuff is now basically useless.
EDIT: I goofed, but the conversation thus far seems to have proceeded assuming I meant what I actually meant.
Realtime raytracing is not per se foundationally reliant on TAA, DLSS and FSR frame upscaling and later framgen tech however basically are, they evolved out of TAA.
However, without the framegen frame rate gains enabled by modern frame upscaling... realtime raytracing would be too 'expensive' to implement on all but fairly high end cards / your average console, without serious frame rate drops.
Befor Realtime raytracing, the paradigm was that all scenes would have static light maps and light environments, baked into the map, with a fairly small number of dynamic light sources and shadows.
With Realtime raytracing... basically everything is now dynamic lights.
That tanks your frame rate, so Nvidia then barrelled ahead with frame upscaling and later frame generation to compensate for the framerate loss that they introduced with realtime raytracing, and because they're an effective monopoly, AMD followed along, as did basically all major game developers and many major game engines (UE5 to name a really big one).
But why did you buy a 1800€ video card then?
So you can use a more demanding form on anti-aliasing, that doesn't suck ass?
Unreal doesn't even have other forms of AA iirc. It's up to the devs to implement
I don't understand who decided that introducing the downfalls of film and camera made sense for mimicking the accuracy and realism of the human eye
I don’t think it’s to make it fee realistic, it’s more so to feel like it’s a film that is being shot.