42 replies to this topic

[Adreni]

I somewhat agree with the OP. If its practicality lies solely in pretty film effects and not actual immersion (example: depth of field, which is iffy and will result in migranes upon migranes for Oculus Rift, be they physical or psychological), then the devs should NOT recommend them, given that such behavior only encourages other devs to do the same, and also encourages players to max everything out "for the best experience," not knowing that some of those options will only DECREASE immersion.

As for motion blur... if that's a physiological phenomenon, then shouldn't it happen naturally when you're playing a game_ That would mean adding it /is/ unrealistic. But then, I don't fully understand HOW motion blur works, so I'm limited to if/then statements.

[DarkPulse]

Adreni, on December 09 2012 - 09:10 AM, said:

I somewhat agree with the OP. If its practicality lies solely in pretty film effects and not actual immersion (example: depth of field, which is iffy and will result in migranes upon migranes for Oculus Rift, be they physical or psychological), then the devs should NOT recommend them, given that such behavior only encourages other devs to do the same, and also encourages players to max everything out "for the best experience," not knowing that some of those options will only DECREASE immersion.

As for motion blur... if that's a physiological phenomenon, then shouldn't it happen naturally when you're playing a game_ That would mean adding it /is/ unrealistic. But then, I don't fully understand HOW motion blur works, so I'm limited to if/then statements.

Motion blur cannot happen naturally on computer monitors due to how computer monitors work - they only send a limited number of frames per second, while your eyes technically have no such limitation; however, the brain obviously takes time to get its input, decode it into what we call vision, and then allow you to understand it. Thus, motion blur simulates that because the monitor has no way of reproducing it "naturally."

In other words, if we assume 60 FPS on a monitor, the monitor will, normally, deliver 60 crisp, perfectly clear frames per second, regardless of how fast something is moving, which obviously differs from real human vision in which stuff that is too fast for our brains to process in time blurs accordingly and increasingly with how fast it is moving. A car going at 55 miles per hour will blur less than one going 150 because the brain has more time to understand the nuances and intricacies of the shape and get its details.

Edited by DarkPulse, December 09 2012 - 11:27 AM.

[Elix]

At the end of the day, this is what it comes down to:

OP is complaining about graphical features that can be disabled. The intelligent thing to do is disable the features you don't like. Everything else is bunny.

[Adreni]

And the OP's idea should always be refined by the rest of the community. That's what forums are for: Collective thought and networked information, not a vast number of individual, inflexible ideas.

So, MY take on the idea is to default-off/not recommend the features that harm immersion.

And it seems I'm going to have to do some studying on the eye thing...

[Decoy101x]

marshalade, on December 01 2012 - 01:19 PM, said:

These ugly bells and whistles help to create the games atmosphere and immersion. They don't bother me at all. I'm tempted to tell you to go play another game.

Ill do it for you.

Go play another game.

All I see here is qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq

Is this thread necessary_ Lock this pos thread plox.

[EMEUTIER]

As long as I have been gaming from the days of the old 286, games have been default set to the MAXIMUM graphic settings the users PC can handle.

Why O why would you want to change what aint broken________

[D20Face]

Obviously the solution to the motion blur issue is to develop an analog monitor that chemically shifts colors to achieve continuous motion instead of fps.

Adhesive. Get on that.

Actually a better solution would be to reduce the refresh rate of everybody's monitors to movie standard (24 frames) and make motion blur get calculated at movie standards(they take 120 fps footage and merge frames). So anybody with 120 game fps would have movie quality games.

Adhesive, why did you not think of these things while making Hawken_ Obviously proper monitor support is the first step to making a quality game experience. I am filled with disappointment.

[DDwarrior]

D20Face, on December 10 2012 - 07:52 AM, said:

Obviously the solution to the motion blur issue is to develop an analog monitor that chemically shifts colors to achieve continuous motion instead of fps.

Adhesive. Get on that.

Actually a better solution would be to reduce the refresh rate of everybody's monitors to movie standard (24 frames) and make motion blur get calculated at movie standards(they take 120 fps footage and merge frames). So anybody with 120 game fps would have movie quality games.

Adhesive, why did you not think of these things while making Hawken_ Obviously proper monitor support is the first step to making a quality game experience. I am filled with disappointment.

I'm completely ignorant of the working of monitor technology.  Are you serious or being sarcastic_  I can't tell.

[Elix]

Considering D20Face is suggesting that a small indie software developer get to work on pioneering new monitor technology, I think he's at least mostly sarcastic.

[DDwarrior]

Elix, on December 11 2012 - 10:49 AM, said:

Considering D20Face is suggesting that a small indie software developer get to work on pioneering new monitor technology, I think he's at least mostly sarcastic.

I actually realized that later.  Lack of sleep kills the mind man

[Roundlay]

DarkPulse, on December 09 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

Motion blur cannot happen naturally on computer monitors due to how computer monitors work - they only send a limited number of frames per second, while your eyes technically have no such limitation; however, the brain obviously takes time to get its input, decode it into what we call vision, and then allow you to understand it. Thus, motion blur simulates that because the monitor has no way of reproducing it "naturally." In other words, if we assume 60 FPS on a monitor, the monitor will, normally, deliver 60 crisp, perfectly clear frames per second, regardless of how fast something is moving, which obviously differs from real human vision in which stuff that is too fast for our brains to process in time blurs accordingly and increasingly with how fast it is moving. A car going at 55 miles per hour will blur less than one going 150 because the brain has more time to understand the nuances and intricacies of the shape and get its details.

Can you give some sources_

[DarkPulse]

Roundlay, on December 11 2012 - 04:43 PM, said:

Can you give some sources_

Take it away, Wikipedia:

Quote

In computer animation (2D or 3D) it is computer simulation in time and/or on each frame that the 3D rendering/animation is being made with real video camera during its fast motion or fast motion of "cinematized" objects or to make it look more natural or smoother.

Without this simulated effect each frame shows a perfect instant in time (analogous to a camera with an infinitely fast shutter), with zero motion blur. This is why a video game with a frame rate of 25-30 frames per second will seem staggered, while natural motion filmed at the same frame rate appears rather more continuous. Many modern video games feature motion blur, especially vehicle simulation games.

Some of the more known games that utilise this are the recent Need for Speed titles, Unreal Tournament III, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask and many others. When used in videogames, there are generally two methods used to achieve motion blur: cheaper full-screen effects, which typically only take camera movement (and sometimes how fast the camera is moving in 3-D Space to create a radial blur) into mind, and more "selective" or "per-object" motion blur, which typically uses a shader to create a velocity buffer to mark motion intensity for a motion blurring effect to be applied to or uses a shader to perform geometry extrusion.

[Roundlay]

DarkPulse, on December 11 2012 - 09:54 PM, said:

Take it away, Wikipedia

Interesting, butt the paragraphs you quote aren't sourced ):

I was under the impression that, at least currently, LCDs have a certain inherent level of motion blurring due to their hold-type rendering method.

[DarkPulse]

Roundlay, on December 11 2012 - 11:05 PM, said:

Interesting, butt the paragraphs you quote aren't sourced ):

I was under the impression that, at least currently, LCDs have a certain inherent level of motion blurring due to their hold-type rendering method.

No, what you're confusing motion blur with is "ghosting." That's due to the LCD's response time not being fast enough to display two separate, distinct frames - the crystals don't revert quickly enough before the second frame appears, so it displays some elements of the first frame as well. This causes image retention of the previous image to some extent until the crystals have time to realign themselves for the new scene. However, this can make playing a fast-paced game like Hawken difficult, if not impossible, depending on how long the refresh time is (ideally, for things like FPS games, you want monitors whose refresh rate is no higher than 12ms, ideally 10ms or less).

It's very distracting for gaming, and as time has gone on, LCDs have improved response times to the point where ghosting is essentially nonexistent. For things like Plasma TVs, ghosting is naturally nonexisten; ditto for CRTs, but of course, neither are used as monitor technologies (CRTs having been displaced by LCDs, and plasmas not being economically feasible under 40" sizes.)

Edited by DarkPulse, December 11 2012 - 11:23 PM.

[Roundlay]

DarkPulse, on December 11 2012 - 11:18 PM, said:

No, what you're confusing motion blur with is "ghosting." That's due to the LCD's response time not being fast enough to display two separate, distinct frames - the crystals don't revert quickly enough before the second frame appears, so it displays some elements of the first frame as well.

Semantics issue. The [byproducts of the] hold and release nature of LCDs are also referred to as motion blurring (:

http://alexandria.tu...tenberg2009.pdf

Edited by Roundlay, December 11 2012 - 11:23 PM.

[DarkPulse]

Roundlay, on December 11 2012 - 11:22 PM, said:

Semantics issue. The [byproducts of the] hold and release nature of LCDs are also referred to as motion blurring (:

http://alexandria.tu...tenberg2009.pdf

Well, that's because it's what it technically is, after all.

However, it's very distracting, especially for games, so manufacturers have worked on reducing ghosting, as with sub-par refresh rates, it affected everything and not only the things that "should" have motion blur. As a result, due to the faster response times, images then became "too" perfect and clear; ergo, why we have motion blur put back in (optionally) by some games.

Edited by DarkPulse, December 11 2012 - 11:27 PM.

[Roundlay]

DarkPulse, on December 11 2012 - 11:26 PM, said:

However, it's very distracting, especially for games, so manufacturers have worked on reducing ghosting, as with sub-par refresh rates, it affected everything and not only the things that "should" have motion blur. As a result, due to the faster response times, images then became "too" perfect and clear; ergo, why we have motion blur put back in (optionally) by some games.

Nice summary.

It also looks kinda rad!

[DarkPulse]

It does look rad, but with it being "inherent to the monitor" you also have zero choice to turn it off.

It's obviously for the best that monitor refresh times improved, but as I said, that leads to the problem of it being too crisp and clear. So here we are now with either camera-based, or shader-based motion blurring, which is probably realistically the best way to go, since higher refresh rates are basically always going to stick around.

Things like motion blur depend on the relative speed of the object compared to your vision. If you move at the same speed the object moves, it appears stationary (and crisp), but the world outside of it looks like a blur. Our natural vision does this blurring because it cannot pick up the "moving" objects (whether it's the actual object, or things in the background) in time to give us a clear picture, but since a movie or a video game is, essentially, a series of single frames played in such rapid succession that our own eyes are tricked into believing it's motion, they are inherently imperfect reproductions based on that. Thus, motion blur being put into games, and things like motion blur-reducing features being built into TVs (very important for things like sports).

Edited by DarkPulse, December 12 2012 - 12:18 AM.

[Roundlay]

DarkPulse, on December 12 2012 - 12:17 AM, said:

It's obviously for the best that monitor refresh times improved, but as I said, that leads to the problem of it being too crisp and clear. So here we are now with either camera-based, or shader-based motion blurring, which is probably realistically the best way to go, since higher refresh rates are basically always going to stick around.

Images being "too crisp and clear" is a matter of personal taste. I use a 120Hz monitor and have never been inclined to think (game) images were too crisp or too clear. Motion blur is certainly far diminished at high frequencies though, that's for sure.

[DarkPulse]

Roundlay, on December 12 2012 - 03:30 AM, said:

Images being "too crisp and clear" is a matter of personal taste. I use a 120Hz monitor and have never been inclined to think (game) images were too crisp or too clear. Motion blur is certainly far diminished at high frequencies though, that's for sure.

I meant "too crisp and clear" in the sense that it's nowhere near what your actual eye would "see" if you were really sitting in a huge mech turning at high speed.

But that's why it's better to have motion blur as an option, as opposed to dealing with ghosting.