You’re the voice of reason I’m trying to find here!
Yeah I’m a little surprised at these comments, why reject an idea that you’ve specified wouldn’t be implemented poorly AND it’s optional? Like if you don’t want it fine, but some people do???
1 Like
Because the vast majority of people who hate motion blur doesn’t understand exactly what it is and how it can be implemented. We do have a LOT of poor implementation in a lot of games. This started on PS2 era with the horrible “frame buffer accumulation motion blur”. And a LOT of then just read everywhere “motion blur sucks”, and start to spreading the word like zombies.
But even nowadays with GOOD implementation on games like Doom 2016, we STILL don’t have the option for toggle camera motion blur off. So part of the problem are on the developers side.
Gamers (generally) are not good examples of critical thinking. Most people play games but have ZERO idea how to fine tune then, it’s more a “geek” thing. And I don’t blame then, not every pilot must or should understand how a car works to be a good pilot, but it does help to extract the best of it.
The amount of configurations and fine tunning we have in gaming is overwhelming. You can’t have good gsync/freesync without capping the frame rate (because it can raise input lag), external FPS limiters raise the input lag compared to ingame FPS limiters. Most people don’t now that getting GPU bound on a game without applying something like “Nvidia Reflex” or LIMITING the FPS can actually RAISE the input lag instead of lowering it… Etc.
I can say the same thing about gyro aiming in games. A LOT of people hate it without even trying it. Most people says it’s a “gimmick” without even trying to see how much better it actually is for shooter in joypads. Go to Gyro Gaming or SteamController player channel and see how incredible it can be. You can even use it competitively AGAINST keyboard plus mouse with enough training and good configurations. That’s how good it is.
And most people just “hate it” because “reasons”.
If they want to spend the time to add it, then I have no issue with it.
But I completely disagree with the assertion and conclusion from the Digital Foundry video. The result goes completely against what I want, which is explicitly not smoothed objects/images. I want clear distinct frames with detail. The disconnection between frames is not a personal concern of mine.
I also think calling a bunch of people ignorant is not something that’s going to help your cause. What you think is an obvious benefit is absolutely not. It’s not even remotely as cut and dry as “if they did it correctly people would like it”
I do understand why you’d like discrete images since I play games since the CRT era. If you REALLY like discrete clear images, you should look to ULMB solutions with lagless VSYNC, you’ll be impressed.
However, the lack of an option doesn’t help those who get annoyed with the discrete nature of frames in games. Hence why the OPTION to turn it on or off.
I only call people ignorant if they actually show ignorance regarding this topic. And, unfortunately, most people shows.
You can say that is “debatable” if it can lead to an advantage in gaming and I agree with you, not every human is made equal. You can arguee that very discrete images (1ms persistence images) are a better solution for competitive gaming and I agree with you.
But this type of setup create the problem about strobing effect, which IS extremely distracting for some people.
You can say that tearing is not a big deal and I can say that it is. Different people, different eyes. The difference is that we do have a lot of ways to fix tearing out there.
But the ONLY way to get rid of strobing effects in games WITHOUT motion blur is having a VERY BIG amount of frames and display frequency (the holy grail). And I’m sure this is not happening anytime soon.
That’s no “better” solution for everyone here. I’m asking for the graphical option (a good per-object one). I’m not advocating to everyone using it, but I am advocating to people at least understand what I’m trying to explain before judging if motion blur is “bad” or not. Because most people just hate it without proper configurations and setups.
However, MOST PEOPLE don’t even know what I’m talking about. They read “motion blur”, they started to freak out. If this is not ignorance, what exactly is? In this world, we have general facts and we have subjective tastes. Games do have stroboscopic effect (this is a fact), you can get annoyed and get motion sickness with it (this is subjective).
The same can be said about tearing, frame pacing, aliasing, visual clutter, etc.
Most people get motion sickness about stroboscopic effect it but don’t know what it is (see the posts I linked here). Because generally speaking, people are ignorant regarding this topic. And I blame the developers who don’t properly explain graphical options in games. Only people curious enough will get the information needed to fine tune their games.
But you can’t just stand here and say to me “motion blur sucks because I hate it” without making an argument. I don’t have other word for this type of people, it’s just plain and simple ignorance. This closed mind people will hate motion blur regardless. I’m talking to the people who can actually read and understand things here with an open mind. Specially for the developers of the game.
For sure. I totally understand your request. Hence why I said:
2 Likes
Motion blur is the fastest and most effective way to not only make the game look worse, but also make it less understandable.
Between Tracer, Pharah, Echo, Lucio, Ball… etc…
I have absolutely no idea how motion blur would make it easier for someone to understand whats happening, but hey, more options more power to the player.
Why not? More options never hurt nobody.
If something is moving fast enough without a proper blur and with limited framerate, you can’t know the direction of the object. Go to [UFO Test: Moving Photo www.testufo.c om/photo#photo=alien-invasion.png&pps=7680&pursuit=0&height=0&stutterfreq=0&stuttersize=0
And raise the pixels/sec. You’ll get to a point that you can’t tell the direction that the objects is moving, like the wagon wheel effect which creates the illusion that a rotating object is moving backwards.
This is generally not a problem with linear movements in a single direction. However, in cases like A + D + crouch spamming like it happens a LOT on this game, the gaps between frames can be extremely distracting, because the acceleration on the characters is extremely high.
Per object motion blur would “ideally” have the same effect to raise the FPS to infinite amounts on characters and projectiles movement. How this is bad for motion clarity? Of course it isn’t perfect like ACTUALLY raising the FPS and display frequency to infinite amounts, but it does help with enough samples.
And please, tell me that you know the difference about camera and per-object motion blur, because I’m tired to explain here.
1 Like
But characters in the game cannot A-D strafe even remotely fast enough for the above effect to occur. Certainly not at 240hz.
It improves the clarity of the motion at the cost of detail to the object itself. Also the infinite FPS analogy is incorrect, since our eyes still have the same issue. I imagine you have at some point watched a rotating object like tires on a car where it creates the illusion that it spins backwards once it reaches a high enough rotational velocity. You can’t get any higher framerate than real life
Per object motion blur solves the issue you’re getting at by effectively rendering velocity trails on the object via a form of interpolation, equivalent to long exposure effects in film. Such an effect could even allow you to determine velocity from an arbitrary still frame, and is distinctly different than an infinite framerate. I guess it depends on how you want to implement it though. Not all forms of motion blur would do that.
2 Likes
Good quality motion blur will drop framerate back to 60.
Motion blur is stupid. It’s right up there with the lens flare as an artifact of old film technology that have no place in the modern world, but which some people still can’t let go of because it’s what they’re used to. We aren’t filming with ancient mechanical shutters.
I won’t bemoan people that want it, but I’m not terribly bothered by the fact that the devs are choosing to spend their time on literally anything else.
1 Like
Have fun downloading 1000FPS 8K videos to enjoy perfect realism.
I’ll settle for developers not literally going out of their way to make it worse.
Lens flares, bokeh, motion blur, film grain, and all those other things to try to make games look more like film are a waste of time when you’re not making something that’s supposed to look like film.
1 Like
Object motion blur looks good in games. Whole screen smearing when you turn the camera is not what I’m talking about.
1 Like
Of course it can. As soon as you play close enough the gaps will be higher and higher. Of course if you’re static aiming at a small target without a scope you’ll barely notice any strobing effect, but as soon as you get close or use your scope, there it is. Do you need video examples?
Also, there’s not only A + D spamming, we have a lot of fast acceleration movements, like Doomfist entire kit, Phara’s Shift, a booped player, etc.
Of course the IDEAL solution would be infinite amounts of frames and refresh rate because if you can track fast enough with your eyes, you’d never lose any detail (like real life). Think you’re trying to track a fly with your eyes, if your eyes is fast enough, you can track her without losing details on her because the movement of your eyes will be moving at the same rate of the movement of the fly, so, no blur will be created on here, but will be created in everything that is not moving at the rate of your eyes, like the background.
Move your hand to left and right on your screen right now and focus your eye on your index finger. Now see how much natural blur it would happen on the screen itself. You’ll be seeing the details from your hand but you’ll not see the details of what you’re not focusing.
If you’re in a high speed train, and you can focus in a single rock on the ground, for a brief movement, you’d see that rock without any blur applied. This doesn’t happen in movies or artificial motion blur because they have finite framerate. The shutter speed creates an illusion that barely resembles how we see but the frame rate is so low that it could be a mess in fast moving objects. Feels “cinematic” in an artistic way, but not even close how we see things.
Our eyes don’t see in “frames”, we see in an continuous flow of light and our brain constructs the natural motion blur that happens with this continuous flow of information, so that we can interpretate movement in “real time”. No one knows for sure if infinite frames and infinite refresh rate would looks just like the real thing, like how we perceive movement outside of screens, there’s the fact that the screen itself isn’t in real 3D so even the Z axis on it is an illusion. But, in theory, it would get rid of the strobbing effect at least.
However, “infinite framerate and display rate” is not something we can just “do”. Hence why motion blur was created, and hence why I don’t think CAMERA motion blur is good (because the game would not know where your eyes are focusing. We don’t capture games like cameras with adjustable framerate and shutter speed. So the only way to solve this is artificially implementing it. In a movie, that are an artistic choice where your eyes will be focusing.
Fast shutter speeds can be an artistic choice for some scenes but most of time it just looks “framee” and wrong.
But if things move it fast enough, you don’t care anymore about the details, but the direction and velocity of the movement. When you’re playing some sport like soccer for example, you don’t focus on the fine detail of the object you’re trying to hit, but the information that it’s movement is carrying with it.
Of course, any implementation will create drawbacks. Drawbacks that will be mitigated by high enough frame rate and display rate. But it’s way better to solve the strobing effect then to wait to have something like Frame Rate Amplification Technology (FRAT).
Yes, it’s called wagon wheel effect, and I talked about it in this thread already. It even happens in real life (not just videography) and there are theories going on why. It’s quite rare to see in real life though, and I’m pretty sure it only happens in rotating objects. So it’s not a good indicator of why we don’t “need” higher frame rates/display frequency.
I guess, again, someone didn’t read my post.
I was raised in the CRT era, without ANY motion blur. I didn’t even had the PS2 console. I was raised with more motion clarity that some people here never experienced. But I’m not ignorant by the facts of what a good motion blur implementation is, where it should exist and when.
Please, read my post before posting.
We already have enough room to a good implementation without sacrificing 240 FPS for most setups. High FPS is NEEDED to create a good implementation of motion blur to less the artifacts created by low sample rate.
It doesn’t matter how high your FPS is because we’re still handicapped by the refresh rate on the displays, hence the reason why motion blur exists to mitigate the strobing effect. We would need both at absurd high amounts to mitigate the strobing effect on a fast turn or a fast moving object.
This is the entire point of this topic and if baffles me how many people just don’t get it.
I’m not advocating for ANY of this. The point of motion blur is not to make it look “cinematic”, but to solve the stroboscopic artifact caused by the nature of discrete images trying to be “movement”.
The fact that films have motion blur doesn’t have nothing to do about what I’m saying. You see that distorted face of Mcree on his highlight? It’s called “squash and stretch” , and it is some form of attempt to solve the strobing effect caused by fast movements in animation. This is GOOD animation going on. Remove that and see how you lost all the fluidity of the movement. A proper blur would have something that resembles this.
Simple, wasted dev time/resources for smth a insanely small amount of ppl care about/will use.
2 Likes
I’m talking about what you said prior to that:
“You’ll get to a point that you can’t tell the direction that the objects is moving, like the wagon wheel effect which creates the illusion that a rotating object is moving backwards.”
The movement speed of the players in the game does not even come close to be capable of reaching an oscillation speed from A-D strafing that can produce a wagon wheel effect.
1 Like
I’m still trying to wrap my head around that above setup, considering its looks like its a console play… What console is using two Titan X’s in SLI? Or is this some sort of emulator, or using a controller attached to a PC? I only say this, because of the control key commands that pop up when D.Va flies.
Nowhere near as smooth as my PC play is. I get that its high resolution and obviously from a few years ago, considering D.Va in that video has like 500 armor… lol
But look at the FPS. (if you can even see it).
I think the highest I saw was maybe 75?
I don’t have an uber system but with 144 hz gsync monitor and turning 100-144 FPS on this 1660 its STILL a lot smoother.
Granted, that has all the effects, shadows, etc turned to max, but most players are going to turn all that crap off and run the game at minimums of its visual prettiness in favor of sheer FPS speed for a lower latency…
I mean, other than a visual quality aspect, there is no advantage to running that sort of setup…
My older i7 system with a 980 would run a solid unwavering 144 FPS with graphic pretties turned down or off, and the render set to 150%… Something not even this 1660 can do.
It’s for sure just a PC with a controller plugged in. Not sure who’s dumb enough to have a PC with 2x Titan X’s and then choose to play with a controller, though. What a waste.
You don’t need a LOT of speed to get stroboscopic effect. A movement of 500 pixels of motion in a sec in an 240Hz will cause noticeable gaps. I’m not saying that targets on this game suddenly will appear to move backwards. I’m saying that agile targets creates gaps who give you an artifact who looks like double or multiple stationary screens overlaping each other.
The “PS2 motion blur” is just an exaggeration of this stroboscopic artifacts.
Also, if you stare to a close moving target, it will appear to move faster and faster as you get closer, I said this already. It’s the same illusion that we get when we move the FOV slider to a lower value. You’ll be bigger but faster targets, and the environment on center of the screen will seem to be closer. Seeing an target with an scope can easily bring the stroboscopic effect. Or even trying to track an target when you’re also moving your camera.
Which brings to another thing we could have in this game. Higher FOV.
I’ll quote the Chief Blur himself, as he can explain a lot better then me:
The Stroboscopic Effect Of Finite Frame Rate Displays
The Familiar Mouse Arrow Stepping Effect
Many of us has done it: Swirling the mouse cursor in circles while waiting for a slow computer. And noticed the mouse arrow stroboscopic effect (“phantom array”, “mouse droppings” etc). Those with high-Hz gaming monitors also notice that it improves at higher refresh rates.
This is a very close cousin of the Wagon-Wheel Effect. See for yourself using TestUFO Mouse Arrow Demo. What many don’t know is that this effect often is also very common in video game motion too as well.
This Effect Happens In Video Games Too!
Not everybody is sensitive to in-game stroboscopic stepping artifacts… Different people have different priorities when it comes to displays. Different people are sensitive to different display limitations. Perhaps you are more sensitive to flicker than tearing. Or more sensitive to color than brightness. Tearing versus stutter. Latency versus motion blur.
…However some of us are extremely sensitive to this artifact! A graphics artist or home theater enthusiast may have a strong preference to excellent color quality. However, other of those of us have a strong preference to superior motion quality with less display motion blur and stroboscopic effects.
I can say the same about colorblind options. Should we get rid of it?
No one asked for high precision input. Maybe they shouldn’t care about implementing it?
It’s not “wasted resources” for me or anyone who’re sensitive about this effect.
I could say we have a LOT of wasteful resources in OW League since I don’t even have an Twitch account, or the r&d resources used to please the weird fandom off this game.
People are different.
1 Like