The Great Simulated Optics Debate *spawn

[Globalisateur]

One analogy, sorry if this is awkard:

- Some would prefer the air freshener's perfumes disguising the natural restroom strong smells. But what about for those who are strongly allergic to perfume or suffer from ashma induced by those and can't stand at all cost those pristine perfumes?

For me motion blur is aesthetically a minus. For others motion blur is aesthetically a plus. I don't want to deprive people for those pristine and next gen effects, I merely want to show that those artistic effects can really have a negative impact (deal breaker even) on some people, and just ask for a (easy to implement) cinematic effects on/off option.

Did the lack of heavy motion blur in previous COD, Halo (compared to Destiny now) and MGS's games during gameplay really have such a negative impact on the commercial success of those games?

Did the majority of people playing those games create countless threads and petitions asking for the inclusion of "pristine" motion blur in their games?

 

[Billy Idol]

Such as this thread here makes me sometimes scratch my head...and in this situations, I do wonder how you guys look like and how you are in real life

Mysterious B3D!

 

[Cjail]

Reminds me of lens flares and bloom filter abuse not so long ago...
An industry without veteran is doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over...

Lens flares IMO are mostly used artistically and this makes harder to "question" their implementation.
Shadow Fall for instance uses anamorphic lens flares in abundance but I can't say they are "physically wrong" since they are still simulating a camera not human eyes.
Volumetric lights as well can be used/abused artistically but, contrary to lens flares, I can tell that they are objectively/physically wrong when they appear in any atmospheric condition.

It's not like the visuals in games have ever been that realistic anyway, such as everything turning grey and blurry when you get shot a bit. I'm against such near-death clues myself as they make recovery that much harder, but I wouldn't try to argue that the industry is wrong for having different values to myself.

I would say that's the point.
Blurring/darkening the screen it's pretty much the "penalty" for being hit in HP-regen games so it still makes sense form a gameply point of view.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

For me motion blur is aesthetically a minus. For others motion blur is aesthetically a plus. I don't want to deprive people for those pristine and next gen effects, I merely want to show that those artistic effects can really have a negative impact (deal breaker even) on some people, and just ask for a (easy to implement) cinematic effects on/off option.

I agree completely. The question then is one of how entrenched the post effects are to the render pipeline and how easy it would be to disable them.

I would say that's the point.
Blurring/darkening the screen it's pretty much the "penalty" for being hit in HP-regen games so it still makes sense form a gameply point of view.

Yep. But it still annoys me!

 

[Cjail]

Yep. But it still annoys me!

Well, if you ask me, better that than an HP bar
Actually better nothing

 

[Globalisateur]

Another love letter to motion blur used in a 60fps game found in the Digital foundry analysis of the 30mn high quality MGS5 TPP video:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...-new-with-metal-gear-solid-5-the-phantom-pain

Motion blur is now appropriately applied to animations and camera movement, further enhancing fluidity of the experience...It's a nice effect, but there are some artifacts visible at points, for example around the wheels on the jeep as Big Boss drives away from the scene. At 60fps, motion blur is less noticeable than at lower frame-rates but it definitely adds an extra layer of polish to the experience.

We could almost do a reverse psychological analysis applied on why cinematics effects are wrongly used in any videogame from this short excerpt...

"Appropriately" is only accurate if the writer think all videogames should reproduce some nostalgic cinematic technical defects.

"Further enhancing the fluidity of the experience" Only because the writer's brain is used to associate motion blur with a fast and fluid animation due to too much 24fps movie watching. See Pavlov's dogs experiment.

"but there are some artifacts visible at points" Confusion. Those are not artefacts at all, it's just...very visible motion blur. It's just the motion blur is so heavy that even a seasoned movie watcher is bewildered to see such fuzzy stuff instead of detailed assets.

"but it definitely adds an extra layer of polish to the experience" Inevitable conclusion of this love letter: The collective emotionnal memories of great movies we have watched in the past (often in our childhood) are associated with the technical defects of those old movies. Hence for our brain to reproduce one of those great resoundingly young emotionnal "experiences" the images watched should also reproduce most of the technical defects inprinted in our young brain: here motion blur.

One could perfectly say: I love motion blur.

 

[SlimJim]

Even people in Africa who live in the jungle and that have never in their life seen a film, see motion blur every single time they move or move their eyes.

It is the "motion blur hating crowd" that have been accustomed to, and seem to love, jittery, disconnected artificially produced images. You probably only look at screenshots before you make your observations.

Reality is not a collection of f/22 aperture pictures shot at 1/8000 second shutter time.
What you fail to understand is that MGS5 running at 120fps, would have motion blur as well.

 

[Cjail]

"Further enhancing the fluidity of the experience" Only because the writer's brain is used to associate motion blur with a fast and fluid animation due to too much 24fps movie watching. See Pavlov's dogs experiment.

I too don't see how MB actually enhances the fluidity of MGS5.
To me MB enhances the "accuracy" of the simulation IF its' applied in respect of the laws of physics.

 

[tuna]

Even people in Africa who live in the jungle and that have never in their life seen a film, see motion blur every single time they move or move their eyes.

That is not motion blur, that is lack of focus.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

"Appropriately" is only accurate if the writer think all videogames should reproduce some nostalgic cinematic technical defects.

There's more than one interpretation. "Appropriately" can also mean in this context...

Looking beyond image quality we found a few other things worth mentioning. The most noticeable change in this most recent demo is the inclusion of a robust motion blur implementation. Motion blur is now applied at the correct times and localised to fast animations and camera movement instead of being overused, further enhancing fluidity of the experience.

"Further enhancing the fluidity of the experience" Only because the writer's brain is used to associate motion blur with a fast and fluid animation due to too much 24fps movie watching. See Pavlov's dogs experiment.

Hogswash! With a fast, clearly visible moving object travelling 100 discrete pixels per frame, it'll appear as discrete movement without motion blur but as a continuous movement with motion blur. Neither solution correctly matches the gazillion fps of true vision tracking a moving object, but it's categorically true that motion blur adds to motion 'fluidity'/continuity compared to discrete samples. And when movements are small enough that 60 fps appears completely smooth, motion blur can have less impact. It depends mostly on how high they dial up the blur. MGS5 may have overdone it a bit, but inclusion of moblur is warranted by the limitations of display refresh.

"but there are some artifacts visible at points" Confusion. Those are not artefacts at all, it's just...very visible motion blur. It's just the motion blur is so heavy that even a seasoned movie watcher is bewildered to see such fuzzy stuff instead of detailed assets.

I'm not sure what specific point your referring, but in some cases you are no doubt wrong. eg. In the comments someone has highlighted artefacts around the horse's hooves. This is badly applied motion blur - it's an artefact. Motion blur should be present though, unless you have the ability to perfectly track a horse's hooves while it's in fast motion. I doubt you can do that unless you have inhuman abilities - to most normal folk, a fast moving horse (or running man, or whatever) is visible and sharp except the fast moving limbs.

"but it definitely adds an extra layer of polish to the experience" Inevitable conclusion of this love letter: The collective emotionnal memories of great movies we have watched in the past (often in our childhood) are associated with the technical defects of those old movies. Hence for our brain to reproduce one of those great resoundingly young emotionnal "experiences" the images watched should also reproduce most of the technical defects inprinted in our young brain: here motion blur.

Subjective. As mentioned repeatedly in this thread, motion blur is a natural, ever-present phenomenon. It's degree is different between RL and TV, and could be set to TV levels inappropriately for a RL-based game, but that's subjective. Your argument that moblur in MGS5 is wrong and DF and wrong to applaud it is flat out wrong.

Reality is not a collection of f/22 aperture pictures shot at 1/8000 second shutter time.

If high enough framerate on the display, that'd be just fine and give a natural response.

What you fail to understand is that MGS5 running at 120fps, would have motion blur as well.

Globalisateur understands the framerate situation just fine.

That is not motion blur, that is lack of focus.

It's not a clear cut answer. Those Africans don't see motion blur much on the objects they are tracking, but they will see motion blur on the objects they're not tracking, and will see motion blur on objects too fast to track like a cheetah's running legs. Motion blur is certainly present in this African's vision just as it's present in everyone else's vision - it's an aspect of the human visual system.

 

[Globalisateur]

Subjective. As mentioned repeatedly in this thread, motion blur is a natural, ever-present phenomenon.

Yes, you are right. Motion blur does exist but only as an illusion created in our brain.

Artificial motion blur reproduced on a physical screen only exists since cameras were invented as a byproduct of technical defects of those devices. This motion blur is not natural at all.

Artificial motion blur used in videogames is used to break the currently flawed (but still rather good IMO) rapid movements in games (flawed because of only 30fps or 60fps + ghosting from non CRT screens) and to wrongly replace it with a "static disguise", not any more animated like before, you can't actively follow the stuff anymore with you eyes, symbolizing for many movie watchers "rapid movement". For many others this symbol created by collective past memories of movies is a badly blurry and unfocusable mess.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Yes, you are right. Motion blur does exist but only as an illusion created in our brain.

Doesn't matter. If our brains see a blur of limbs instead of discrete limbs in RL, that's what they expect to see on a reproduction of that on a display, whether from 2000 fps refreshes of optical effects that produce the same result.

Artificial motion blur reproduced on a physical screen only exists since cameras were invented as a byproduct of technical defects of those devices. This motion blur is not natural at all.

Photographic motion blur is and isn't natural. It is factually correct that when the eye is focussed on a subject, other things in motion on a different motion vector exhibit motion blur. Whether that's due to eyeball limitations or brain limitations is besides the point. Hold your hand in front of your face and focus on a finger, and cars whizzing past in the background will be blurred. Therefore, the recreation of this blurring effect in games makes sense.

Artificial motion blur used in videogames is used to break the currently flawed (but still rather good IMO) rapid movements in games

At times it's used to create what the devs see watching TV/movies. At other times it's applied to try to recreate how we perceive the world and to form a cohesion between discrete positions. In the real world, objects don't teleport from one point to another in 1/60th of a second. As that's how objects behave in a game, clearly trying to accommodate that broken broken translation and cover it somehow makes legitimate sense. As the solutions come with negative consequences, we're back to a matter of preference.

You have repeatedly seen one interpretation and explanation for motion blur where there isn't one straight answer. Blaming it on recreating TV is wrong. If we recognise our displays are flawed and motion blurring exists, then it's quite apparent that addressing discrete motion in games makes sense. Which comes back to subjective preference which above you had already recognised. The only change now is you citing two DF articles as if the gaming world doesn't understand how broken and wrong motion blur is, applying your own prejudiced interpretation to their contents. Hopefully you can see the bigger picture and the real choices devs make, and not generalise their application of motion blur as ill considered and artificially affected by TV technology. You can continue hating on moblur as your preference, but you can't really claim devs are crazy/stupid/naive/confused/misled to want to include it in their games, nor that gamers that like moblur are similarly crazy/stupid/naive/confused/misled in liking it. Motion blur, correctly applied, gains object motion smoothness at the cost of object clarity and is a subjective compromise like so many rendering techniques.

 

[Cjail]

Maybe Globalisateur dislikes when MB it's applied artistically rather then when it's applied realistically/correctly.

 

[sebbbi]

Maybe Globalisateur dislikes when MB it's applied artistically rather then when it's applied realistically/correctly.

Infortunatuly applying motion blur correctly requires eye tracking, since motion blur isn't a screen space phenomenon, it's an eye space phenomenon.

If an object moves quickly across the screen and you follow the object with your eyes, you should see zero motion blur (fully sharp object), as the object stays stationary relative to your eye coordinate space. No game does this yet.

 

[Globalisateur]

Infortunatuly applying motion blur correctly requires eye tracking, since motion blur isn't a screen space phenomenon, it's an eye space phenomenon.

If an object moves quickly across the screen and you follow the object with your eyes, you should see zero motion blur (fully sharp object), as the object stays stationary relative to your eye coordinate space. No game does this yet.

Thank you Sebbbi for this unexpected post!

/thread

Maybe Globalisateur dislikes when MB it's applied artistically rather then when it's applied realistically/correctly.

I don't really dislike moblur when it is applied artistically, at least it is applied in an honest way: to replicate cinematic effects in order to make a true cinematic experience.

But as Sebbbi just wrote, it you are asserting to use motion blur in a realistic way in order to have a smooth (as in realistic) animation, you are wrong on all aspects of the problem. Until the advent of eye tracking devices in videogames the only possible truly realistic (as in correct) motion blur is the one created by our eye/brain.

 

[dobwal]

Infortunatuly applying motion blur correctly requires eye tracking, since motion blur isn't a screen space phenomenon, it's an eye space phenomenon.

If an object moves quickly across the screen and you follow the object with your eyes, you should see zero motion blur (fully sharp object), as the object stays stationary relative to your eye coordinate space. No game does this yet.

You only need to take a sharpie and quickly move it back and forth to realize how easy it is to induce blurring. There is a limit on how fast your eyes can only track an object and maintain focus.

When I am doing a bit of involved reading on my PC monitor I have a tendency to swirl my mouse in a circular pattern. Even at 60 Hz, it looks more like 10-15 mouse pointers circling on my screen at any one time.

 

[idsn6]

If an object moves quickly across the screen and you follow the object with your eyes, you should see zero motion blur (fully sharp object), as the object stays stationary relative to your eye coordinate space. No game does this yet.

You should also see smoothly continuous motion as you track. Even at 60Hz, fast-moving onscreen elements strobe and jump between frames. This stop-motion effect is a more distracting artifact to me than motion blur: with interpolation, at least my eye will find an approximation of the time-integrated image instead of blank space between discrete positions.

 

[RudeCurve]

It's easy to simulate realistic motion blur for 99.9% of the population. The majority of peoples' eyes follow moving objects at the same speed so you don't "need" eye tracking...since it won't change much from one person to the next...

 

[L. Scofield]

"but it definitely adds an extra layer of polish to the experience" Inevitable conclusion of this love letter: The collective emotionnal memories of great movies we have watched in the past (often in our childhood) are associated with the technical defects of those old movies. Hence for our brain to reproduce one of those great resoundingly young emotionnal "experiences" the images watched should also reproduce most of the technical defects inprinted in our young brain: here motion blur.

One could perfectly say: I love motion blur.

Or maybe he, like pretty much the rest of the planet, experiences motion blur in real life with his very own eyes and is glad to see it being included in a game that goes for a photorealistic style of rendering.

It's easy to simulate realistic motion blur for 99.9% of the population. The majority of peoples' eyes follow moving objects at the same speed so you don't "need" eye tracking...since it won't change much from one person to the next...

The area where motion blur is applied depends on where the player is looking at so yeah, you need eye tracking.

 

[zed]

If an object moves quickly across the screen and you follow the object with your eyes, you should see zero motion blur (fully sharp object), as the object stays stationary relative to your eye coordinate space. No game does this yet.

The eyes dont work like this
they dont move in a smooth motion but as a series of jumps

Im sure a google will find some info if you really want to read up about it