I didn't even notice it at first, but after comparing it to previous videos, I think it sounds better, also, I personally don't use an fps counter, unless it's Minecraft
I have a different opinion. A lot of games that feature Motion Blur have a "motion blur quality" selection, but almost none of them come with a "motion blur intensity" selection. I've come to love low intensity motion blur, but it's not really available on the vast majority of games, so rather than having a high intensity one, I prefer having none.
Interesting... not sure what the exact differences are. This reminds me of VRS (variable rate shading) where they were discussing using LOWER QUALITY shading to simulate motion blur. So rather than ADD blur at a higher processing cost you CREATED blur at a lower processing cost. I think they abandoned this idea because it conflicted with UPSCALING. If you lower the render resolution low AND also reduce the shader quality you get really bad blur, or at least it's varying so much it's a headache to work with. No idea what the approach is now.
@@photonboy999lowering the intensity of motion blur just means reducing how much the pixel streches and blurs when moving the frames. A little motion blur or low intensity is fine but high intensity motion blur is very "smeary"
Yeah when I was playing God of War 2018 I noticed that there is an option for the intensity of motion blur so I didn't turn it off but put it on low amount and it actually improved my experience quite a bit, made it a lot more smooth and cinematic
That could be especially helpful since, at higher frame-rates, you can end up with motion blur that emulates a shutter speed that is longer than would be physically achievable on a physical camera. Shutter speed should go up as your target frame-rate goes up. Some games do take it into account, but many games don't.
My problem with motion blur is that the vast majority of the time It is implemented horribly. On the opposite side of the equation when it's implemented well(like in cyberpunk)it's a fantastic technology. But a good implementation of motion blur is really quite rare. With that being said if every game had a quality of motion blur as good as cyberpunks it would virtually always be on if the game was running below 70 frames per second.
Absolutely correct. I default to no motion blur, because of how bad it still is (most of the time). Also TAA doesn't help, because it's just more motion blur. Example - red dead 2. You need taa, otherwise game is very shimmery, but taa adds so much moron blur that I'm not sure why does it even have additional motion blur that can be toggled
Gta 5 is the game where I first turned off by motion blur and as a kid wondered how turning off a graphic setting made the game look better for me lol but yeah sometimes it's ok
I've honestly never seen good motion blur and I also want my games to look sharp when I play them too. I already have irl motion blur with my eyes like everyone else so I prefer to not have it in my games .
I don't think I've ever seen motion blur that didn't either bother my eyes or just make the image look dreadful. If we want "realistic blur" you should've got a 3D TV when they were big. That's the only way to experience true motion blur as real life motion blur isn't from speed, it's from not focusing on something.
I have never had a history of motion sickness. I have gone on roller-coasters, played intense vr games, and have even gone on those gforce things that spin you really fast. Something about motion blur makes my insides become outsides within like a couple seconds of viewing.
Exactly, and it's weird that no one's mentioning this. I turn it off not because I want to see every image as clear as possible, no. I just don't want to get dizzy playing games
I want games to include *TWO* motion blur settings 1. object-based motion blur 2. camera-based motion blur that way the camera smear issue could be eliminated without losing - fluid animation - ground going fast af boi (when running/driving)
This type of motion blur is actually a real thing, and is implemented in a select few AAA games that run on the developers' in-house engine. The reason we don't see it as often is because it is *extremely* complicated and pricey to implement. Unless the way the game's engine reads motion vectors is specifically tailored around it, It's pretty much impossible to implement. That's why you don't see it in games built on opensource engines like Unity and Unreal Engine - because implementing such a feature would require massive chunks of the engine to be completely rewritten just to support it, a task that would cost the engine's company way too much money and time, and risk causing compatibility and stability issues for users and features. It's a real bummer.
I'm glad I'm not the only one. I mostly always keep motion blur on based on the factors you've said in the video. Though motion blur varies from game to game and I wouldn't put motion blur on in competitive games, games personally look more cinematic and immersive
How is it more immersive? Motion blur literally isn't realistic? Seriously, hold your hand in front of your face and try to make it blur without moving it. Camera-based motion blur (virtually all motion blur in games) doesn't exist IRL and you can't replicate it unless you need to go consult a professional. To make that hand blur you will need to shake it rapidly that is to say you would need object-based motion blur, which is not used in most games and even in the ones it is still has issues. Cinematic I'm willing to submit, oftentimes things can be unrealistic for the purpose of being cinematic (much of FighterZ's special moves come to mind) but immersive inherently entails realism when games aim to be realistic.
@@sadscientisthououinkyouma1867 I believe you’re mistaking my comment to compare in-game motion blur to reality. I’m referring to immersion as you would be “immersed” in the media such as a movie, almost meaning you feel very engaged with the media. In terms of realism then of course I agree with you but it wasn’t what I meant
@@sadscientisthououinkyouma1867 You are correct that _excessive_ motion blur more akin to what is seen in cameras used to film a movie is unrealistic, (when in context of human eyesight,) and like you said, it is more suited to cinematic context. However, Your generalising statement that motion blur being unrealistic as a whole, isn't correct. By your logic, you're stating that removing motion blur entirely would make games more realistic. This couldn't be more incorrect: Human's can't focus on everything they can see simultaneously, much less objects that are moving either through space or across our field of vision, so having no motion blur would be even more unrealistic than with it. It's why movement in most cheap 3D animated TV shows looks so harsh, stuttery and stiff - *they have no motion blur.* As I stated in a reply to a previous comment, the only way we could achieve motion blur similar to what human's see is if the game could track _exactly_ where the player is focused on, not apply motion blur to that specific object or point while its being focused on, and do so without impacting performance or looking unnatural and stuttery. It's just not possible with the technology we have today, and even if we did have adequate technology, what would be the point? To correct a slight little peeve that can easily be fixed right now in the present by developers adding a motion blur intensity slider?
I love motion blur but its needs to be implemented properly, so not like 99% of the games currently. There needs to be a slider from 0-100% so you can add how much you want. A simple on/off toggle isn’t enough. Per object motion blur is amazing too, i actually even prefer this over camera motion blur. And i did also notice that frame generation really doesn’t like motion blur. Its actually pretty bad , to me there is ghosting that is added and looks awful. I tested on cyberpunk and dying light 2.
One demo called TitanicHG Demo 401 1.4.2 has this, I used to lock it to 30fps cause of the horrible frame drops on a hdd and the percieved smoothness was quite tolerable when applying a small amount of blur vs none
Yes more games need to be able to differentiate between camera motion blur and moving object motion blur. I don't find the first one realistic, eyes don't have a shutter speed, when turning your head around you can still keep objects in focus, and I find it nauseating for long durations. But object motion blur adds to the realism of a game, and it "fills" the gaps between discrete frames.
Your eyes don't pan around like cameras do. You move your eyeballs quick and lock onto whatever you want to look at, and track it with your eyes and neck when it's in motion. So motion blur can look like camera panning but thats not how humans see.
Motion blur and head bobing have the same issue you can't forget Irl your eyes have stabilisation, so if you want, you focus on sth and it doesn't look blurred at all, so actrually the more realistic option is without motion blur, depends when you look while moving
He mentioned in the video that turning my head in real life would have motion blur, but I've tested it tons of times where maybe I'm a passenger in a car or something and I can clearly read a road sign while going highway speeds without any trouble, and I can see the grass fields just fine without significant blurring as they pass by. Sure there has to be at least some small amount of blur probably, but I don't notice it at all unless I squint or something gets in my eye. As long as I can specifically focus on any one thing in view, there is no blur on what's in focus. There is obviously depth of field, but a game has no way of accurately knowing what I'm looking at so any attempt to replicate that just looks inaccurate.
Yes and no. Yes in the sense that so long as you are completely focusing on an object IRL it will not have motion blur when moving. No to your idea that having no motion blur at all would be more realistic. You're forgetting the fact that humans _do_ see motion blur on moving objects we are not focusing on, or cannot focus properly on due to the speed at which the object is moving. As such, unless the game has a way of precisely, efficiently, and consistently tracking your eyes and somehow telling the game to not apply motion blur on said object, we can never properly replicate this effect, so it's better just to apply motion blur to everything in order to maintain realism. As pointed out by one of the other replies, the same goes for Depth of Field.
I have to say i normally HATE motion blur because of how bad it oversmears details, but Starfield really surprised me and I'm glad I'm not the only person who switched it back on!
I have to tell you that you have been coming up in my algorithm and its incredible that you and i share the same perspectives on pc gaming and graphical tech. I appreciate your work and how you honor the way DF displays games and comments on developer intentions and goals. You sir have my sub.
For those who absolutely hate motion blur, a plasma TV would be recommended, cause it have the best motion clarity of all panels. Or an OLED tv, that has some technology to improve motion clarity.
It doesn't really matter if motion blur looks good or bad. When it's turned on I just perform worse at games so it's not worth it. And I also know people who even get headaches and motion sickness from it. It generally seems like something that saps energy from the brain that could also be used for clicking on heads. I wonder if there really are people who are 100% immune to that. Aesthetically I just like the crispness of both motion blur and dlss turned off. Games just look so blurry these days. I guess people like that, they put those dumb filters on 2D retro games too.
It looks good in low framerate, that's it. And there is motion blur in camera but not in real life. So it doesn't make game look realistic especially in first person game.
I find it funny that I remember seeing this on older consoles when I was a kid. After playing on PC for a long time, I decided to buy a PS4 a few years back. I was looking for that particular effect that would make playing on a console feel like home. It turns out that the effect I was looking for was motion blur all along!
The problem is we don't move our eyes the way we do in games. - Our eyes actively avoid motion blur by constantly locking onto things and move only when necessary, instead of smoothly moving. - Head movement does not equal to visual movement. - Our neck acts as a gimbal to our eyes. So no, motion blur is not the natural way we see things in real life. Want to test this? This will get very tiring and nauseating. - Our eyes can lock onto single objects smoothly. Try locking onto something like a metronome without moving your head. - Our eyes fixate on center when there's nothing to lock onto. Try spinning yourself on your chair while looking straight. It's not fun (although spinning itself may be, heh). After everything else, we don't need most of the post processing effects, because we already look at the screen with our own eyes! Like bloom, for example. I'm already astigmatic, everyhing is bloomy to me. I don't need another effect.
Exactly. Our eyes aren't cameras that create a film/video effect of motion blur. When playing games like FPS, it's to mimic our perspective of viewing from our eyes. Actually the second most hated effect: film grain effect, which is also something I immediately turn off.
camera motion blur might not be realistic but objects movement is definitely realistic. just move your hand a lot and you can never lock on to it without looking blurry.
Motion blur is for cinematic effect. So it's good for gamers that want that look. But for pure gameplay aspect it's a huge downside. In my case it's a per game basis. In single player titles I turn it on. If it's a game that needs millesecond responses and has twitch gameplay, motion blur needs to be off.
Basically this. Problem with effects like this is that its trying the chase the filmic look with camera effects and such. Things like chromatic aberration, depth of field, film grain and to a lesser degree lens flare. That may add some artistic flair but is also fairly unrealistic. Motion blur especially. And doesn't make much sense to turn that on with HFR as you're just adding blur to it, destroying motion resolution in the process and clarity. Maybe for cinematics its fine, but for controling and panning, in-game its horrendous (imo), and should only be used for low frame rate; 30 or below. I find it quite nausiating after a while for a games that require a lot of fast camera movement and/or panning.
Our eyes don’t have motion blur though unless we are looking at something like a propeller. Just walking around or turning around don’t blue everything. So it’s completely unnatural how it’s utilized. Moreover if the game looks bad in motion, I don’t see making it look even worse is a gain while the feature reduces the performance even more.
I quite enjoy the presence of motionblur in some select games like Doom 2016 or Minecraft with the Sildurs Vibrant Shader But i also turn it off in a bunch of other games for visual clarity. I definitely try it out before turning it off because it may just be a decent implementation and worth using after all Looks like ID Tech is really on the top their game when it comes to motionblur
the main thing i would like for more games to implement is giving the user the ability to control how much motion blur they want, be taht as a slider or atleast by giving different levels of motion blur. The fact taht i can use low amounts of motion blur is the main reason why i use it at all in cyberpunk
If I was stuck at 30fps then sure maybe.. but there is no scenario where you can convince me that giving myself a blurrier experience while in motion is a good thing. If its required to be a bandaid solution to hide other technologies flaws then those compensation technologies (dlss/fsr) wont be used by me.
Can give you an easy one. Racing games, where the thrill of going fast is essential you need motion blur to convey the illusion, otherwise it looks incredibly lame
30 FPS without motion blur turned on is so choppy and terrible. If it's a 30 FPS game, 100% turn on motion blur. If it's a 60 FPS game, motion blur should be turned off
We really need to test it first as in my experience it creates ghosting in games like GTA. For low frame rates, I would say it's a must as it helps frame pacing appear smoother and less choppy. Btw nice video man, I've subbed.
Modern Warfare 2019 started the most innovative motion blur implementation; It allows you to toggle camera motion blur and character view model motion blur separately. That way, you get the smoothness and impact of the fantastic weapon animations along with the clarity of vision to pwn noobs. Motion blur adds a lot of impact to motion, allowing moving objects to appear as if they are moving faster. This especially helps in low fps situations when you don't have enough frames to properly see that quick motion. It also helps to improve the cinematic look of cutscenes. A lot of camera tricks are used in video games these days, like depth of field, field of view changes, and film grain. Motion blur is just another one of the tools that developers can use to give that cinematic look. By disabling motion blur, you are undoing the creative intent of the developers.
I think there are good motion blur effects, but most of them don't abide by the rule that motion blur on film uses. I wish more games let you adjust how long the motion blur trails are to fit your frame rate range. Forza Horizon 3/4/5 did this pretty well with only two modes. Higher frame rates don't need as much motion blur compared to lower frame rates. Having a one size fits all approach is not good.
Thank you for talking about the things that others aren't. We need to talk more about the things that everyone else takes for granted or don't think about. About Motion Blur: I have learned more from your video and might give it another shot. Will depend on the game tho of course.
I'm one of the few that absolutely LOVE motion blur. It just gives games a more professional, polished look while also giving the 3D assets more density, realism as well as bringing cohesiveness to the motion. Not to mention, depending on the framerate, it helps solidify the cinematic look/vibe. For me immersion is a must. I'm not -- and will never be -- into competitive gaming, so couldn't care less about sharp detail (especially given that everything is going to get sharper by definition as 4K and 8K become the new standard). I personally hate seeing a rapid succession of individual screenshots just flashing in your face making things feel more twitchy and arcade-y, and making assets look like what they really are -- 3D objects. If the framerate is over 200-300 then I wouldn't mind turning motion blur off because it's not necessary since all those frames are now naturally blending, but at lower framerates (especially under 50) I NEED it on, lol.
@@mvstermlnd Depends on the motion blur. Some engines do it well, others, not so much. You can vomit all you like, I get that because low framerates with no motion blur make me vomit too, so have at it, lol
i think they should make an option to select wish lvl of motion blur you want, not just on and off but like in % if you want 20% use 20 if you want 70% use 70 etc
I'm 36 years old, PC gaming in the early teen years, Main game I can think of right now that had motion blur with Half-Life 2. For years it was something I never really even noticed or bothered me, and I agree it makes it look more normal. I've never tried any of the VR headsets before but I would think it would be a whole lot more natural to have motion blur on with those than not. I do think though that motion blur would be better off for a third-person view game than a first-person. Ninety-eight percent of the games I've played over my lifetime would be single player or local Co-op, so that Competitive Edge for motion blur off is definitely something that wouldn't cross my mind. I don't know if it matters but I've also never spoiled and played l games above 60 hertz, so I don't know how that would affect my decision for having it on or off for higher refresh rates.
For me, I prefer having a low amount of motion-blur on mostly RPG games, where details aren't necessary to see constantly and slow-paced gameplay is the most engaging, for other games where it's faced paced and you need to see details (e.g. esports) then I prefer it off fully. For me I much prefer the way that motion blur forces me to be able to appreciate the slower aspects of RPG games etc, where if I was darting around fast as heck then I lose the ability to enjoy just the stunning scenery that the developers purposefully built up for the players, it makes me just feel a lot more thankful for the moments outside of combat and such where I can just immerse myself and build up proper memories/experiences within the media that the artists put so much care into. Honestly, in the end I think that life is about experiencing all different forms of media and sharing your own experiences, stories, etc (your own media) to others as well.
2:10 Your eyes fix to a point when turning to avoid this, but when unable to control your own turning this is true. I also say that we are flawed creatures and including our flaws is probably a bad practice in some ways. Model blur however is a better look, where things like people, vehicles, and your own viewmodel arms blur because they're smaller objects in our vision that even while our eyes are still actually blur when fast enough.
One thing I hate the most about motion blur is not about blurring the image, is not about how I want to see every image as clear as possible, no. It's solely because the option alone are making me very dizzy, that's it, that's the problem. And I'm glad it's an option for most games instead of a must feature.
In real life if your eyes are following a moving object it is not blurry. Objects are only blurry if your eyes are not following the moving object. Example, if someone is waving their hand in front of you it will look blurry. But if your eyes can follow the moving hand it is not blurry. Likewise in a game, and in movies, if your eyes follow what the developer wants your eyes to follow it is not blurry. But everything else might be. However!!!! My eyes rarely follow what the developer wants me to follow because once I've seen it I look around for situational awareness. That is why I turn off motion blur. It is more real to me because I look around.
In racing games it is a must. Also flare and bloom makes cyberpunk look amazing with motion blur even at minimum settings. Motion blur shouldn't be a binary setting. The art director should be deciding the shutter speed or amount of motion blur and tune it for each gameplay/cinematic scenario just like they do in real life.
Ehh for the most part cinematographers aren’t playing around with shutter speed (technically shutter angle). It’s 24 fps and 1/48th of a second for 99% of films
@@chidorirasenganz terrible take you couldn't be more incorrect, Fstops'/Aperture in conjunction with shutter speed all the time along with maybe changing frame rates to eliminate flicker in refreshing elements (ones that generally appear flicker free to a person with a resting heart rate) eg. displays can vary between 25, 24, 30, 48?, 50 and 60Hz upwards, Common Utility frequency can vary from nominal frequency a 50Hz to 60HZ or oscillations of alternating current (AC) in a wide area synchronous grid transmitted from a power station. In large parts of the world this is 50 Hz, 50 Hz frequency tend to use 220-240 V, Americas and parts of Asia it is typically 60 Hz, those that now use 60 Hz tend to use 100-127 V. Since lighting and such things will run at different rates, mismatches with what the camera is set for will cause flicker and some things may flicker anyway do to poor or no voltage control, or age or wear or faulty design. Do you know how distracting these things would be in films and tv in the cases it's clearly not intentional to be recorded like that, like things a simple as street lights could ruin how the shot's supposed to look from the perspective of your screenplay or how it looks naturally to you being there. Plus playing with frame rate, fstop and shutter speed is used other for many sparse effects, Like the flashback used in the opening of Batwoman or maybe parts in SAW where the choppy, stuttery overexposed, saturated look is supposed to give of the feeling of nostalgia/history, truama and inevitable danger, that everything is happening so fast in the moment there's no time to react, like there's no time to do anything other than watch your self be beaten as you try and fail.
@@vitalsignscritical everything you just said is irrelevant to the topic. Monitor refresh rate has nothing to do with the fps of a video. Aperture is not related to motion blur. Occasionally a higher or lower shutter speed is used but those aren’t the norm. Exposure is set with ISO and an ND filter
@@chidorirasenganz No it is relevant. I you understood AC power you can know it can vary from 50Hz 220-240 V, to 60Hz 100-127 V, this is the osculating frequency of Alternating Current or (AC) mains power. Like I said the aperture/fstops is relevant, frame rate, and shutter speed are al relevant when shooting on location as different places with be operating on different electric frequencies places on 50Hz power will mean light bulbs will also have to operate/refresh 50Hz or times a second in accordance with the requirements of the electrical system. Get a camera set up to shoot based 60Hz being the power frequency for the location, like most US and take it to shoot somewhere using 50Hz and your footage with have unusable constant flicker, cause by the lighting etc. ua-cam.com/video/0kAuDuV9K9U/v-deo.html
In every game I play I enable motion blur, even on high fps scenarios, I think that this just makes the game smother, immersive and more realistic, and I love it.
I find the "low" setting or a 2-3 on the 10-point scale is usually great. Enough to hide artifacting but not so much that it detracts from gameplay. Some might want to push it up to "Medium" or a 5-6, but that's usually too much in my exp.
It's also cool when games let you choose between motion blur levels, a slight motion blur may be cool while a extreme motion blur can be super annoying and some games just have extreme motion blur
I don't find it realistic at all. If it was realistic then I would not get distracted by it because it would feel natural - the same as real life. Yet it feels completely different to me. But if you insist that it is realistic, then my brain/eyes will already add natural blur to a moving object/scene regardless of weather the object is on a computer monitor or in the real world, so no need to add extra blur, as real life has only one layer of blur not two. Another way to think about this is if this blur of a moving object is realistic to real life, then why can my eyes see a clearer picture if I disable it?
Motion blur triggers my vertigo. In real life, even when turning your head, you have the ability to make your eyes keep focus on an object. Motion blur prevents that.
It's kind of incredibile, but right about two days ago I started playing cp2077 with motion blur on, after a reset of graphical settings put it on automatically. I don't like it at high, but low MB looks fine, and smooths out some of the imperfections you mentioned. Nice vid!!
Fair point from a visual perspective, but I switch it off so I can aim faster and track the motion of the enemy. Try playing Mass Effect on Insanity with MB, or any eSports title. In real-life, your eyes can absolutely see things above 60fps in the Visual Cone on Focal mode, when you turn your head, your eyes still remain locked to the previous object, so it is not a good representation of what's happening in game on a static display. VR is a different story (turning on MB reduces nausea at 90fps.) Marksmen have learnt to take advantage of our eyes high refresh rates to aim AND shoot faster. In gaming on a display, we can skip the head turning and eye swiveling to achieve even faster aim/shoot and MB gets in the way because it's actually not natural. Oh and my frame counter is only on when I'm tweaking performance. Otherwise it's annoying.
Yes, dude, yes! Finally a smart take. As someone who works with cameras and is obsessed with motion rendition, I have to say, you're one of the only ones to get it right. Often people automatically think the word blur must = bad (who wants blur?), but actually, its essentially free fps if you're rocking 60 fps or lower. The game devs just have to be smart about it and implement 180 degree blur, not 360 (i.e. just like cinema).
@@Seacat17 Then it really comes down to a matter of semantics - i.e. what do we mean by "cinematic"? Cinema in the context here is the time tested language of the film camera, going back a century. Certain things worked (like 180 degree shutter), and persisted over time. We don't want to play a game at 24fps - but why did 24fps work as the minimum acceptable framerate in the first place? The key is 180 degree shutter. Using a lot less film, they were able to convey adequate motion data in each frame thanks to this blur side effect (resulting from leaving the shutter open). More frames in games is always better - but what if one can't get enough frames (pathtracing etc.)?
@@alexmack7610 then don't use path tracing, lol. There are lots of techniques to create a stunning-looking game with real-time lightning but without path tracing.
@@Seacat17 In that case, it comes down to preference. But I really like path tracing myself, and I want to try it early in playable form (while others may prefer to wait until its more practical).
The reason I like motion blur is fluidity and like you mentioned, in some cases it can hide flaws. I generally keep motion blur on because most of the time, I dont play competitively.
Well implemented motion blur is amazing, but most games don't implement it well. Naughty Dog and Insomniac have some of the best implementations of motion blur. I played Ratchet and Clank 2018 at 30fps with minimal annoyance because the motion blur was so well implemented, but I uninstalled starfield because the motion blur wasn't that good imo which made the 30fps not standable.
My first instance of turning off motion blur was crysis 2007, that was my ticket to ultra settings (1280x1024) on a 9800GT and tbf that was a good motion blur setting but man that tanked performance big time, like 20 frames difference back then. (I think the implementation was bad as it was a buggy game anyway, loads of memory leaks) Other than that, I honestly think motion blur only benifits racing games even then its over done, i would probably say it works best in non first person games, When its used in a sports game its to give you that "cinematic experience" and platformers can work for the same reason, just too many negatives on FPS as you need the clarity for the game. As for shimmering issues, Where in the world is my supersampling and oldschool 16x AA the one that deteriorates performance and not this TAA bs that whilst sometimes done well, too many times i see the ghosting effect, Blur is different to ghosting, and ideally an intensity slider would be nice instead of "quality" but no matter the setting if i see ghosting imagery ill play on the settings that get rid of it, My brain does not get on well knowing false information was there for sub 1 second, and it just generally gives you the feeling of latency even though its only visual and these days rarely performance related.
I just wanna say this video really changed my perspective on a good gaming experience. I tried motion blur on with a few games after watching this, and after a few minutes of experimentation, it just felt so good I don't know why. I kept motion blur off all the time because people would quite often advise against it but man I've been missing out on something. It's worth to note that fake motion blur from reshade is better than many games default MB though, at least from what I've seen.
I had a similar revelation at one time, and Digital Foundry did help me with that too to see *why* I liked it. But Red Dead Redemption 2 is my favorite example of Per Object Motion Blur. The camera motion blur is subtle enough, but the Per Object Motion Blur makes it look (cringe alert for buzzwords) ✨cinematic✨. I mean... RDR2 plays like a western movie, so of course I love seeing it like that. But I also love POMB for one reason specifically: when you stretch your hand out in front of you and you wave your hand... is it smooth and sharp and clear? No, it's blurred. POMB simulates real life Camera motion blur says it on the tin. It simulates a camera. It's why I wish there was a toggle separation for either option.
Bad motion blur is such a stigma. I remember watching DF video when they talked about old motion blur (PS2 era) and how awesome they were because they were literally mimicking real world blur and that amazed me. The thing is, not gonna lie, some games (exploration, story mode, I am not talking about competitive games) have the need of clarity, like in Genshin Impact that is almost impossible to see a chest, mission hide spot or something small when motion blur is on. And that's because their motion blur is soooooooo strong, like... When you slightly move the camera, the blur is like you are moving your head with max strong and velocity, which actually annoys and freaks up the experience.
#1 is actually why I don't like motion blur. It feels unrealistic. I prefer if I move like I would irl and I don't have some random blur when I do that. There are a few games where motion blur is OK but generally, I keep it off.
Personnaly, i think every game that include motion blur should have separate settings for camera or object motion blur and let you adjust the strengh of the effect Like in Borderlands 3 it really enhance the animation work to put object motion blur on BUT you can use it without the camera aspect of it and play without putting insane blur on the camera which is awesome for keyboard and mouse player ^^ And the strengh is sometimes too strong, specially on Cyberpunk 2077 where the effect is extremely aggressive at lower frame but pleasing and subtle at higher frame rate
I love motion blur... At high framerates though. At lower framerates, it goes from a smoothing effect to a smearing effect pretty quickly. I learned to love it after I bought a 165Hz monitor and could finally see some more frames with my new PC. Some games just terribly implement motion blur though, no matter what you do it's a smeary mess, at any framerate.
I usually turn it off or put on low. The thing is that many LCD screens already have a minor form of motion blur in the form of slow pixel response times in the 10s of milliseconds. I don't feel the need exacerbate the effect even more.
I'm surprised you didn't mention DOOM's high quality motion blur in this video. id Tech does a really good job implementing motion blur in their games.
my problem with motion blur was that every time my character would turn in a game, and the motion blur would trigger - my frame rate would be chopped and obliterated to 3-5FPS during the transition, where the whole transition was .7 second long. Since then, motion blur is immediately disabled first time I log in into a game.
Oh my god 😂 when you asked the question at the beginning I was thinking in my head “ because motion blur is fake” then I was like “wait dlss fsr and xess are also fake” 😂😂. Holy
Well said. For me, motion blur is only bad on competitive games because it loses so much information about something that I should care about. If I play a casual game or the FPS is below 60, it's completely fine to use it. Not only it can smooth the gameplay but it can also hide the graphical issues I had
I like the look of good motion blur, I think the issue is the same with some depth of field effects in first person games though. By treating the game view as a camera you're assuming that the person is looking where the character is looking, which isn't always the case. This works better in movies where focus and motion are used to direct a person's eye to a particular character of area of the screen, but where you're in an open world game where there is less direction as to what the player should be looking at to enable greater freedom, there can be a difference in terms of what is kept in focus or unblurred and where the player is looking. Motion blur works really well in third person racing games to remove choppiness at the edge of the screen where relative motion in screen space is higher which could cause the visuals to look less smooth and could distract you from looking where you're driving. I like the look of motion blur and film grain in Cyberpunk, but yeah for a twitch shooter like CSGO you want the image to maintain coherence in motion. I tend to play with motion blur on in non-competitive games and only turn it off if I think it looks bad, rather than just disabling it straight away.
I think I know why people tend to not like motion blur in games, despite the undeniable fact that it can majorly improve the smoothness of movement and heighten cinematic quality in gameplay: I think it's because the default for motion blur in most game engines like Unreal and Unity tends to try to mimic cine-camera levels of intensity, a thing which only looks normal and good at low framerates like 24/30 fps which are in console games. In contrast, the motion blur we see in videos shot in higher framerates like 60 or 120, or the motion blur we naturally see in our eyes caused by the physical movement of objects being too fast for our brain and eyes to properly focus on and process clear detail, is less pronounced and only noticeable when we are intent on searching for it. As an aspiring game dev, I would implement these two following options into my future project's graphic settings: 1: Instead of giving the player a on/off togglr for motion blur, Give the player a motion blur intensity slider, scaling from high to nearly non-existant. Providing the player with proper control over the level of length of the trails caused by motion blur can help alleviate any potential motion sickness/visibility issues whilst still keeping the game's movement feeling smooth and natural. or 2: Don't add a motion blur intensity slider, but instead program something like a "Dynamic Motion Blur Intensity Factor" that scales either up or down with the target fps; the higher the target fps rate, the lower the motion blur intensity, and the lower the target fps rate, the higher the motion blur intensity. I personally think that a blend of both would be best. Like for example, the player sets their target framerate to 30. Automatically, the game adjusts the intensity value on the slider to the most ideal level for the framerate, but it can then be adjusted by the user if they feel it is either too little or too much. By default, I think the intensity should be set at a factor that noticeably smoothens gameplay, but isn't so noticeable that it obstructs the players view to a drastic degree. If this became the standard practice for both indie and AAA game projects, I think that the hatred for motion blur amongst gamers would become pretty much non-existent.
Motion blur does not look good in any scenario, however it greatly improves motion perception - so called smoothness. When the game is locked to 30 or 60 fps, motion blur is a must to get the illusion of smooth motion. With motion blur on, when playing at 60 fps, the smoothness feels the same like when you play at 144 fps without motion blur. There is also radial motion blur which is different from motion blur, and this can enhance visual quality if implemented properly in game.
I always liked properly implemented motion blur, which entails rendering out velocity buffers during the original base bases for the G-buffer. The Source engine didn't do this, it just had camera-movement based motion blur, but objects flying around or characters running by, those didn't have velocity vectors computed that could then be used to apply a blur across the whole screen. I think what some people might like, who don't enjoy motion blur, is just velocity buffer motion blur while not having camera motion blur. I am not sure exactly how this would work when the camera is turning past a fast-moving object, it might be kinda funky. I feel like low framerate is more distracting without motion blur. Ideally we'd have infinitely smooth FPS, and motion blur wouldn't be necessary, but we don't have that. If you're
I think its great that you personally prefer motion blur, but theres just nothing you can say to get me to prefer motion blur. Its a decision that every game will each have to make, but personally I don't wsnt to feel like I'm looking through a camera I wanna feel like I'm looking with my eyes and motion blur gets in the way of that.
Yeah that's my problem. If we want realistic motion blur, that can only be created with actual depth. We'd need 3D displays to do that. Of course the industry decided over a decade ago that was a bad idea and never went back. Today it looks like the only way that'll change is with VR and VR looks to be perpetually niche.
Look through your eyes and turn around quickly, or wave your hand in front of your eyes. You're seeing motion blur all the time. Cameras can change their shutter speed to eliminate motion blur. So you pretty much got it all backwards.
Spider-Man ps4’s motion blur always stood out in particular to me on how good it looked it 30fps. Doom eternal at 144hz+ with motion blur on only makes it feel smoother than without it imo
About fps smothnes with motionblur - lie. It wont help. It makes it worse at 30 fps. Because amound of motion blured frames rises significantly at lower framerate. Otherwise said: you sees blured frames often at low fps than on high fps.
For me I find some games just the way it is implemented is over the top. And some games only give you the option of it on or off. I like that some games allow you to adjust the intensity of the effect and tone it down a bit instead of requiring that you set it either on all the way or off.
motion blur, dof, chromatic aberration, lens flare, vignetting, they are actually good features. what caused them having bad reputation is because of how they were implemented. types, layers, intensity etc rarely put into consideration. like motion blur i would love them to dynamically change based on environment eg; completely turned off during combat, medium when there are important/lootable objects highlighted around(when you pan your view your surrounding gets blurry so these glowing highlights looks clearer in contrast), minimum or medium during exploration and during interaction with non-combative npc, and normal if your fps drop below monitor refresh rate to mask the jitter and stutterings. similar to fov changes during exploration, combat, npc interactions, vehicle/mount. we need more dynamic control or option for these settings. even the holy grail of RTX cards which is ray tracing sometimes look worse than rasterized. certain spots are too dark, and some too bright. while shadow/lighting via rasterization were being checked by devs if they conflicted(like accidentally hide something important or interesting) with surroundings and objects. would love to see if it can co-exist with only shading from ray tracing. the point is, it's video games, not movies. they don't have to be 100% realistic tho realism is good to have, it's not mandatory to make the game looks beautiful and fun.
When i was a kid i always liked motion blur. Then i went on the internet and all my friends used to tell me to turn off motion blur so i started using it lesser. But I always appreciated that motion blur looked good in a lot of games. especially at lower frames. Im glad someone brought it up because no one is brave enough to go against what the masses think
Depends on the type of game really, motion blur in FPS, competitive and action games can be distracting, but in a RPG it's acceptable. It's mostly an heritage from the console version that runs at 30fps to mask the low fps judder during camera travels, but those who use PC versions at high fps and close to their monitor disable it because it can be very distracting, like camera shake, oversaturated HDR, low FOV for instance: not all "natural" or camera rendering effects are comfortable to see in a game.
Ive had the same experience, turned motion blur on while playing starfield and now i've done it with cyberpunk. It looks so much smoother, now i cant imagine going back!
Motion blur beeing realistic? .. just as chromatic aberration is. I don't walk around with a screen in front of my face showing me through a camera what is in front of me, I use my eyes directly, hilarious I know. Oldschool but less input lag and all :P Motion blur is to make the game more cinematic and less realistic! it emulates that shitty 24fps look that we have in cinema. if you'd use a 1000fps cam for your movie, it would reduce that blur dramatically. if you want realism you turn motion blur off.
I always wondered why consoles didn't feel so bad when they were playing at 30 fps, and it didn't felt the same in pc, I started to use it a few days ago and it truly works, whenever I have to play at 45 or less fps I use it and it helps, feels smoother.
Tip: If you're on a 60hz screen use half vsync while capping the fps with RTSS to 29.95, that way you can avoid vsync lag and keep the frame pacing smoother avoiding judder.
The reason i dont like motion blur is what you're talking about here, i dont like things to be realistic or natural in every single area. For me, my immersion isn't based on realism, i can be immersed in a bethesda game running old ass creation engine, it need not be a ground breaking game. So when I'm like driving or something irl, I'm not interested in noticing every single detail everywhere, and i cant do that either, and its not necessary or make anything better everytime. In a game though, where the environment is catered to, where you're put in a specific environment, where the devs have put effort into designing the world etc, i kinda want to see things around, even if its not particularly improving or making everything better. My focus is on the game, my vision is limited to the display, not my character's eyes or something so i feel its fine. Now i haven't really played any modern games to speak, but from my time with gaming, i like to turn it off because of what I've been saying, even if it makes things worse. I also saw one comment about how not every motion blur is not nicely done and that is true, some games are much worse in that regard, but either way i prefer it turned off. You provided a new perspective to me about motion blur, thanks for that. Idk if I'll appreciate it more moving on, if i play games again, maybe i will, maybe i won't, but this video was pretty good man, thanks for that.
Not all motion blur is the same, some games use full screen motion blur meaning it adds blur whenever you move your mouse so it looks bad like smearing, while other games have per pixel blur which only blurs certain objects in motion regardless of mouse movement this can add the sense of speed or fluidity
I agree. Full screen motion blur is awful, but per pixel is ok (depending on taa implementation) Because if taa has a lot of blur it doesn't matter how you made the motion blur
u prolly have the fps counter on the top right of the screen, don't u?
btw, what do u think of the new mic? it allows me to be more flexible when I record, but I'm curious what y'all think
wrong (its in the top right)
left
I didn't even notice it at first, but after comparing it to previous videos, I think it sounds better, also, I personally don't use an fps counter, unless it's Minecraft
all my homies have it on the bottom left
I have a different opinion. A lot of games that feature Motion Blur have a "motion blur quality" selection, but almost none of them come with a "motion blur intensity" selection. I've come to love low intensity motion blur, but it's not really available on the vast majority of games, so rather than having a high intensity one, I prefer having none.
Interesting... not sure what the exact differences are. This reminds me of VRS (variable rate shading) where they were discussing using LOWER QUALITY shading to simulate motion blur. So rather than ADD blur at a higher processing cost you CREATED blur at a lower processing cost. I think they abandoned this idea because it conflicted with UPSCALING. If you lower the render resolution low AND also reduce the shader quality you get really bad blur, or at least it's varying so much it's a headache to work with. No idea what the approach is now.
@@photonboy999lowering the intensity of motion blur just means reducing how much the pixel streches and blurs when moving the frames. A little motion blur or low intensity is fine but high intensity motion blur is very "smeary"
Yeah when I was playing God of War 2018 I noticed that there is an option for the intensity of motion blur so I didn't turn it off but put it on low amount and it actually improved my experience quite a bit, made it a lot more smooth and cinematic
That could be especially helpful since, at higher frame-rates, you can end up with motion blur that emulates a shutter speed that is longer than would be physically achievable on a physical camera. Shutter speed should go up as your target frame-rate goes up. Some games do take it into account, but many games don't.
This. Motion blur is a really nice feature, but I can't stand it in most of the games as it looks like You're on drugs :D
My problem with motion blur is that the vast majority of the time It is implemented horribly.
On the opposite side of the equation when it's implemented well(like in cyberpunk)it's a fantastic technology. But a good implementation of motion blur is really quite rare.
With that being said if every game had a quality of motion blur as good as cyberpunks it would virtually always be on if the game was running below 70 frames per second.
My problem with motion blur is that my display already has slow response time, I don't need more blur lol.
Cyberpunk 2077 still has the 'drunk vision' implementation of motion blur and it also seems to be exaggerated compared to what happens in real life.
@@vitordelima Motion blur on low is doesn't feel exaggerated unless the frames drop quite a bit.
CONTROL has a great implementation. Per-pixel (or per-object?) motion blur.
People have been tainted by bad motion blur. Now the problem is they assume all motion blur is the same and don't even look at it anymore
Absolutely correct. I default to no motion blur, because of how bad it still is (most of the time). Also TAA doesn't help, because it's just more motion blur. Example - red dead 2. You need taa, otherwise game is very shimmery, but taa adds so much moron blur that I'm not sure why does it even have additional motion blur that can be toggled
Hell, 'bad' would be a complement to some of the implementations of motion blur we've gotten in video games.
Gta 5 is the game where I first turned off by motion blur and as a kid wondered how turning off a graphic setting made the game look better for me lol but yeah sometimes it's ok
I've honestly never seen good motion blur and I also want my games to look sharp when I play them too. I already have irl motion blur with my eyes like everyone else so I prefer to not have it in my games .
I don't think I've ever seen motion blur that didn't either bother my eyes or just make the image look dreadful. If we want "realistic blur" you should've got a 3D TV when they were big. That's the only way to experience true motion blur as real life motion blur isn't from speed, it's from not focusing on something.
I have never had a history of motion sickness. I have gone on roller-coasters, played intense vr games, and have even gone on those gforce things that spin you really fast. Something about motion blur makes my insides become outsides within like a couple seconds of viewing.
Exactly, and it's weird that no one's mentioning this. I turn it off not because I want to see every image as clear as possible, no. I just don't want to get dizzy playing games
I want games to include *TWO* motion blur settings
1. object-based motion blur
2. camera-based motion blur
that way the camera smear issue could be eliminated without losing
- fluid animation
- ground going fast af boi (when running/driving)
This type of motion blur is actually a real thing, and is implemented in a select few AAA games that run on the developers' in-house engine. The reason we don't see it as often is because it is *extremely* complicated and pricey to implement.
Unless the way the game's engine reads motion vectors is specifically tailored around it, It's pretty much impossible to implement.
That's why you don't see it in games built on opensource engines like Unity and Unreal Engine - because implementing such a feature would require massive chunks of the engine to be completely rewritten just to support it, a task that would cost the engine's company way too much money and time, and risk causing compatibility and stability issues for users and features. It's a real bummer.
As someone who rarely gets more than 40 FPS, motion blur done right is a god send
I'm glad I'm not the only one. I mostly always keep motion blur on based on the factors you've said in the video. Though motion blur varies from game to game and I wouldn't put motion blur on in competitive games, games personally look more cinematic and immersive
Any game that I've tried to leave it enabled, it always gets me dizzy, can't stand that shit.
How is it more immersive? Motion blur literally isn't realistic?
Seriously, hold your hand in front of your face and try to make it blur without moving it. Camera-based motion blur (virtually all motion blur in games) doesn't exist IRL and you can't replicate it unless you need to go consult a professional. To make that hand blur you will need to shake it rapidly that is to say you would need object-based motion blur, which is not used in most games and even in the ones it is still has issues.
Cinematic I'm willing to submit, oftentimes things can be unrealistic for the purpose of being cinematic (much of FighterZ's special moves come to mind) but immersive inherently entails realism when games aim to be realistic.
@@sadscientisthououinkyouma1867 I believe you’re mistaking my comment to compare in-game motion blur to reality. I’m referring to immersion as you would be “immersed” in the media such as a movie, almost meaning you feel very engaged with the media. In terms of realism then of course I agree with you but it wasn’t what I meant
@@sadscientisthououinkyouma1867 You are correct that _excessive_ motion blur more akin to what is seen in cameras used to film a movie is unrealistic, (when in context of human eyesight,) and like you said, it is more suited to cinematic context. However, Your generalising statement that motion blur being unrealistic as a whole, isn't correct.
By your logic, you're stating that removing motion blur entirely would make games more realistic. This couldn't be more incorrect: Human's can't focus on everything they can see simultaneously, much less objects that are moving either through space or across our field of vision, so having no motion blur would be even more unrealistic than with it. It's why movement in most cheap 3D animated TV shows looks so harsh, stuttery and stiff - *they have no motion blur.*
As I stated in a reply to a previous comment, the only way we could achieve motion blur similar to what human's see is if the game could track _exactly_ where the player is focused on, not apply motion blur to that specific object or point while its being focused on, and do so without impacting performance or looking unnatural and stuttery. It's just not possible with the technology we have today, and even if we did have adequate technology, what would be the point? To correct a slight little peeve that can easily be fixed right now in the present by developers adding a motion blur intensity slider?
I love motion blur but its needs to be implemented properly, so not like 99% of the games currently. There needs to be a slider from 0-100% so you can add how much you want. A simple on/off toggle isn’t enough.
Per object motion blur is amazing too, i actually even prefer this over camera motion blur.
And i did also notice that frame generation really doesn’t like motion blur. Its actually pretty bad , to me there is ghosting that is added and looks awful. I tested on cyberpunk and dying light 2.
One demo called TitanicHG Demo 401 1.4.2 has this, I used to lock it to 30fps cause of the horrible frame drops on a hdd and the percieved smoothness was quite tolerable when applying a small amount of blur vs none
Yes more games need to be able to differentiate between camera motion blur and moving object motion blur. I don't find the first one realistic, eyes don't have a shutter speed, when turning your head around you can still keep objects in focus, and I find it nauseating for long durations. But object motion blur adds to the realism of a game, and it "fills" the gaps between discrete frames.
"i love motion blur but it needs to be implemented properly, unlike 99% of the games currently"
_fake laughs_
i most games u can tweak it using game console
Gta 5 ps5 and pc
Your eyes don't pan around like cameras do. You move your eyeballs quick and lock onto whatever you want to look at, and track it with your eyes and neck when it's in motion.
So motion blur can look like camera panning but thats not how humans see.
Motion blur and head bobing have the same issue you can't forget
Irl your eyes have stabilisation, so if you want, you focus on sth and it doesn't look blurred at all, so actrually the more realistic option is without motion blur, depends when you look while moving
He mentioned in the video that turning my head in real life would have motion blur, but I've tested it tons of times where maybe I'm a passenger in a car or something and I can clearly read a road sign while going highway speeds without any trouble, and I can see the grass fields just fine without significant blurring as they pass by. Sure there has to be at least some small amount of blur probably, but I don't notice it at all unless I squint or something gets in my eye. As long as I can specifically focus on any one thing in view, there is no blur on what's in focus. There is obviously depth of field, but a game has no way of accurately knowing what I'm looking at so any attempt to replicate that just looks inaccurate.
Yeah, things aren't really blurry IRL, you're just not focusing on it because it'd be inefficient to focus on everything you see at once
Yes and no.
Yes in the sense that so long as you are completely focusing on an object IRL it will not have motion blur when moving.
No to your idea that having no motion blur at all would be more realistic.
You're forgetting the fact that humans _do_ see motion blur on moving objects we are not focusing on, or cannot focus properly on due to the speed at which the object is moving. As such, unless the game has a way of precisely, efficiently, and consistently tracking your eyes and somehow telling the game to not apply motion blur on said object, we can never properly replicate this effect, so it's better just to apply motion blur to everything in order to maintain realism. As pointed out by one of the other replies, the same goes for Depth of Field.
I have to say i normally HATE motion blur because of how bad it oversmears details, but Starfield really surprised me and I'm glad I'm not the only person who switched it back on!
Motion blur hides performance issues, which starfield has a ton of.
well of course you like it on starfield, without it you can see all the problem it have...
I have to tell you that you have been coming up in my algorithm and its incredible that you and i share the same perspectives on pc gaming and graphical tech. I appreciate your work and how you honor the way DF displays games and comments on developer intentions and goals. You sir have my sub.
Dude I literally get mad when motion blur is on, I can’t stand it
All LCD screens have motion blur regardless, you should experience a CRT monitor someday :s
BRO.... are you haunting me? Lol
For those who absolutely hate motion blur, a plasma TV would be recommended, cause it have the best motion clarity of all panels. Or an OLED tv, that has some technology to improve motion clarity.
@@ryon1256 OLED is God tier
why?
It doesn't really matter if motion blur looks good or bad. When it's turned on I just perform worse at games so it's not worth it. And I also know people who even get headaches and motion sickness from it. It generally seems like something that saps energy from the brain that could also be used for clicking on heads. I wonder if there really are people who are 100% immune to that. Aesthetically I just like the crispness of both motion blur and dlss turned off. Games just look so blurry these days. I guess people like that, they put those dumb filters on 2D retro games too.
It looks good in low framerate, that's it.
And there is motion blur in camera but not in real life.
So it doesn't make game look realistic especially in first person game.
I find it funny that I remember seeing this on older consoles when I was a kid. After playing on PC for a long time, I decided to buy a PS4 a few years back. I was looking for that particular effect that would make playing on a console feel like home. It turns out that the effect I was looking for was motion blur all along!
Same for me as a kid. i reallly used to like looking at motion blur in the next gen games but my pc wasnt sstrong enough at the time to run it
The problem is we don't move our eyes the way we do in games.
- Our eyes actively avoid motion blur by constantly locking onto things and move only when necessary, instead of smoothly moving.
- Head movement does not equal to visual movement.
- Our neck acts as a gimbal to our eyes.
So no, motion blur is not the natural way we see things in real life.
Want to test this? This will get very tiring and nauseating.
- Our eyes can lock onto single objects smoothly. Try locking onto something like a metronome without moving your head.
- Our eyes fixate on center when there's nothing to lock onto. Try spinning yourself on your chair while looking straight. It's not fun (although spinning itself may be, heh).
After everything else, we don't need most of the post processing effects, because we already look at the screen with our own eyes!
Like bloom, for example. I'm already astigmatic, everyhing is bloomy to me. I don't need another effect.
Exactly. Our eyes aren't cameras that create a film/video effect of motion blur. When playing games like FPS, it's to mimic our perspective of viewing from our eyes. Actually the second most hated effect: film grain effect, which is also something I immediately turn off.
camera motion blur might not be realistic but objects movement is definitely realistic. just move your hand a lot and you can never lock on to it without looking blurry.
Motion blur is for cinematic effect. So it's good for gamers that want that look. But for pure gameplay aspect it's a huge downside. In my case it's a per game basis. In single player titles I turn it on. If it's a game that needs millesecond responses and has twitch gameplay, motion blur needs to be off.
Basically this. Problem with effects like this is that its trying the chase the filmic look with camera effects and such. Things like chromatic aberration, depth of field, film grain and to a lesser degree lens flare. That may add some artistic flair but is also fairly unrealistic. Motion blur especially. And doesn't make much sense to turn that on with HFR as you're just adding blur to it, destroying motion resolution in the process and clarity.
Maybe for cinematics its fine, but for controling and panning, in-game its horrendous (imo), and should only be used for low frame rate; 30 or below. I find it quite nausiating after a while for a games that require a lot of fast camera movement and/or panning.
Very well said! Bro, your take on the things in your videos is spot on
Our eyes don’t have motion blur though unless we are looking at something like a propeller. Just walking around or turning around don’t blue everything. So it’s completely unnatural how it’s utilized. Moreover if the game looks bad in motion, I don’t see making it look even worse is a gain while the feature reduces the performance even more.
I quite enjoy the presence of motionblur in some select games
like Doom 2016
or Minecraft with the Sildurs Vibrant Shader
But i also turn it off in a bunch of other games for visual clarity.
I definitely try it out before turning it off because it may just be a decent implementation and worth using after all
Looks like ID Tech is really on the top their game when it comes to motionblur
Sildur's is a no for me. Too much halos from the viewmodel to be worth it.
If you have a VA panel monitor for gaming, you get Motion blur that's FPS free in any game
the main thing i would like for more games to implement is giving the user the ability to control how much motion blur they want, be taht as a slider or atleast by giving different levels of motion blur. The fact taht i can use low amounts of motion blur is the main reason why i use it at all in cyberpunk
Motion Blur for those with motion sickness, it can trigger them. It is one of those settings that should be off by default due to that.
me with ultrawide va monitor 😎 no need motion blur, its always blur🔥🔥🔥
If I was stuck at 30fps then sure maybe.. but there is no scenario where you can convince me that giving myself a blurrier experience while in motion is a good thing. If its required to be a bandaid solution to hide other technologies flaws then those compensation technologies (dlss/fsr) wont be used by me.
Yeah I'll definitely be using it when I'm under 30 fps (which hasn't happened yet), but when I'm on atleast 60? Yeah fuck that shit, im turning it off
Can give you an easy one. Racing games, where the thrill of going fast is essential you need motion blur to convey the illusion, otherwise it looks incredibly lame
Good point. @@plexyglass429
30 FPS without motion blur turned on is so choppy and terrible. If it's a 30 FPS game, 100% turn on motion blur. If it's a 60 FPS game, motion blur should be turned off
Nah, it really sucks.
A camera might work kind of like that, but our eyes don't work in that way.
We really need to test it first as in my experience it creates ghosting in games like GTA. For low frame rates, I would say it's a must as it helps frame pacing appear smoother and less choppy. Btw nice video man, I've subbed.
Despite everything, I am not turning on the motion blur.
Modern Warfare 2019 started the most innovative motion blur implementation; It allows you to toggle camera motion blur and character view model motion blur separately. That way, you get the smoothness and impact of the fantastic weapon animations along with the clarity of vision to pwn noobs. Motion blur adds a lot of impact to motion, allowing moving objects to appear as if they are moving faster. This especially helps in low fps situations when you don't have enough frames to properly see that quick motion. It also helps to improve the cinematic look of cutscenes. A lot of camera tricks are used in video games these days, like depth of field, field of view changes, and film grain. Motion blur is just another one of the tools that developers can use to give that cinematic look. By disabling motion blur, you are undoing the creative intent of the developers.
I think there are good motion blur effects, but most of them don't abide by the rule that motion blur on film uses. I wish more games let you adjust how long the motion blur trails are to fit your frame rate range. Forza Horizon 3/4/5 did this pretty well with only two modes. Higher frame rates don't need as much motion blur compared to lower frame rates. Having a one size fits all approach is not good.
If I wanted to play with motion blur, I’d just take my glasses off
Thank you for talking about the things that others aren't. We need to talk more about the things that everyone else takes for granted or don't think about.
About Motion Blur: I have learned more from your video and might give it another shot. Will depend on the game tho of course.
I'm one of the few that absolutely LOVE motion blur. It just gives games a more professional, polished look while also giving the 3D assets more density, realism as well as bringing cohesiveness to the motion. Not to mention, depending on the framerate, it helps solidify the cinematic look/vibe. For me immersion is a must. I'm not -- and will never be -- into competitive gaming, so couldn't care less about sharp detail (especially given that everything is going to get sharper by definition as 4K and 8K become the new standard). I personally hate seeing a rapid succession of individual screenshots just flashing in your face making things feel more twitchy and arcade-y, and making assets look like what they really are -- 3D objects. If the framerate is over 200-300 then I wouldn't mind turning motion blur off because it's not necessary since all those frames are now naturally blending, but at lower framerates (especially under 50) I NEED it on, lol.
@@mvstermlnd Depends on the motion blur. Some engines do it well, others, not so much. You can vomit all you like, I get that because low framerates with no motion blur make me vomit too, so have at it, lol
I agree. I think it looks much nicer, more natural, generally speaking.
i think they should make an option to select wish lvl of motion blur you want, not just on and off but like in % if you want 20% use 20 if you want 70% use 70 etc
Absolutly this, i prefer minimum 20% of motion blur, im on ps5 so if there is a slider ill be happy , but on/off is just a bummer 😢
I'm 36 years old, PC gaming in the early teen years, Main game I can think of right now that had motion blur with Half-Life 2. For years it was something I never really even noticed or bothered me, and I agree it makes it look more normal.
I've never tried any of the VR headsets before but I would think it would be a whole lot more natural to have motion blur on with those than not. I do think though that motion blur would be better off for a third-person view game than a first-person.
Ninety-eight percent of the games I've played over my lifetime would be single player or local Co-op, so that Competitive Edge for motion blur off is definitely something that wouldn't cross my mind. I don't know if it matters but I've also never spoiled and played l games above 60 hertz, so I don't know how that would affect my decision for having it on or off for higher refresh rates.
For me, I prefer having a low amount of motion-blur on mostly RPG games, where details aren't necessary to see constantly and slow-paced gameplay is the most engaging, for other games where it's faced paced and you need to see details (e.g. esports) then I prefer it off fully. For me I much prefer the way that motion blur forces me to be able to appreciate the slower aspects of RPG games etc, where if I was darting around fast as heck then I lose the ability to enjoy just the stunning scenery that the developers purposefully built up for the players, it makes me just feel a lot more thankful for the moments outside of combat and such where I can just immerse myself and build up proper memories/experiences within the media that the artists put so much care into. Honestly, in the end I think that life is about experiencing all different forms of media and sharing your own experiences, stories, etc (your own media) to others as well.
I’ve left motion blur on ever since CoD Advanced Warfare way back when. The blur in that looked really nice and made me realise it’s over-hated.
2:10 Your eyes fix to a point when turning to avoid this, but when unable to control your own turning this is true. I also say that we are flawed creatures and including our flaws is probably a bad practice in some ways.
Model blur however is a better look, where things like people, vehicles, and your own viewmodel arms blur because they're smaller objects in our vision that even while our eyes are still actually blur when fast enough.
One thing I hate the most about motion blur is not about blurring the image, is not about how I want to see every image as clear as possible, no. It's solely because the option alone are making me very dizzy, that's it, that's the problem. And I'm glad it's an option for most games instead of a must feature.
In real life if your eyes are following a moving object it is not blurry. Objects are only blurry if your eyes are not following the moving object. Example, if someone is waving their hand in front of you it will look blurry. But if your eyes can follow the moving hand it is not blurry. Likewise in a game, and in movies, if your eyes follow what the developer wants your eyes to follow it is not blurry. But everything else might be. However!!!! My eyes rarely follow what the developer wants me to follow because once I've seen it I look around for situational awareness. That is why I turn off motion blur. It is more real to me because I look around.
personally I love motion blur, I think it looks nice and makes the game feel smoother
In racing games it is a must. Also flare and bloom makes cyberpunk look amazing with motion blur even at minimum settings.
Motion blur shouldn't be a binary setting. The art director should be deciding the shutter speed or amount of motion blur and tune it for each gameplay/cinematic scenario just like they do in real life.
Ehh for the most part cinematographers aren’t playing around with shutter speed (technically shutter angle). It’s 24 fps and 1/48th of a second for 99% of films
@@chidorirasenganz terrible take you couldn't be more incorrect, Fstops'/Aperture in conjunction with shutter speed all the time along with maybe changing frame rates to eliminate flicker in refreshing elements (ones that generally appear flicker free to a person with a resting heart rate) eg. displays can vary between 25, 24, 30, 48?, 50 and 60Hz upwards, Common Utility frequency can vary from nominal frequency a 50Hz to 60HZ or oscillations of alternating current (AC) in a wide area synchronous grid transmitted from a power station. In large parts of the world this is 50 Hz, 50 Hz frequency tend to use 220-240 V, Americas and parts of Asia it is typically 60 Hz, those that now use 60 Hz tend to use 100-127 V. Since lighting and such things will run at different rates, mismatches with what the camera is set for will cause flicker and some things may flicker anyway do to poor or no voltage control, or age or wear or faulty design. Do you know how distracting these things would be in films and tv in the cases it's clearly not intentional to be recorded like that, like things a simple as street lights could ruin how the shot's supposed to look from the perspective of your screenplay or how it looks naturally to you being there. Plus playing with frame rate, fstop and shutter speed is used other for many sparse effects, Like the flashback used in the opening of Batwoman or maybe parts in SAW where the choppy, stuttery overexposed, saturated look is supposed to give of the feeling of nostalgia/history, truama and inevitable danger, that everything is happening so fast in the moment there's no time to react, like there's no time to do anything other than watch your self be beaten as you try and fail.
@@vitalsignscritical everything you just said is irrelevant to the topic. Monitor refresh rate has nothing to do with the fps of a video. Aperture is not related to motion blur. Occasionally a higher or lower shutter speed is used but those aren’t the norm. Exposure is set with ISO and an ND filter
@@chidorirasenganz No it is relevant. I you understood AC power you can know it can vary from 50Hz 220-240 V, to 60Hz 100-127 V, this is the osculating frequency of Alternating Current or (AC) mains power. Like I said the aperture/fstops is relevant, frame rate, and shutter speed are al relevant when shooting on location as different places with be operating on different electric frequencies places on 50Hz power will mean light bulbs will also have to operate/refresh 50Hz or times a second in accordance with the requirements of the electrical system. Get a camera set up to shoot based 60Hz being the power frequency for the location, like most US and take it to shoot somewhere using 50Hz and your footage with have unusable constant flicker, cause by the lighting etc.
ua-cam.com/video/0kAuDuV9K9U/v-deo.html
In every game I play I enable motion blur, even on high fps scenarios, I think that this just makes the game smother, immersive and more realistic, and I love it.
I find the "low" setting or a 2-3 on the 10-point scale is usually great. Enough to hide artifacting but not so much that it detracts from gameplay.
Some might want to push it up to "Medium" or a 5-6, but that's usually too much in my exp.
I looove motion blur. It really is that finishing touch that sells the illusion
It's also cool when games let you choose between motion blur levels, a slight motion blur may be cool while a extreme motion blur can be super annoying and some games just have extreme motion blur
I don't find it realistic at all. If it was realistic then I would not get distracted by it because it would feel natural - the same as real life. Yet it feels completely different to me. But if you insist that it is realistic, then my brain/eyes will already add natural blur to a moving object/scene regardless of weather the object is on a computer monitor or in the real world, so no need to add extra blur, as real life has only one layer of blur not two. Another way to think about this is if this blur of a moving object is realistic to real life, then why can my eyes see a clearer picture if I disable it?
Motion blur triggers my vertigo. In real life, even when turning your head, you have the ability to make your eyes keep focus on an object. Motion blur prevents that.
It's kind of incredibile, but right about two days ago I started playing cp2077 with motion blur on, after a reset of graphical settings put it on automatically. I don't like it at high, but low MB looks fine, and smooths out some of the imperfections you mentioned. Nice vid!!
Fair point from a visual perspective, but I switch it off so I can aim faster and track the motion of the enemy. Try playing Mass Effect on Insanity with MB, or any eSports title.
In real-life, your eyes can absolutely see things above 60fps in the Visual Cone on Focal mode, when you turn your head, your eyes still remain locked to the previous object, so it is not a good representation of what's happening in game on a static display. VR is a different story (turning on MB reduces nausea at 90fps.)
Marksmen have learnt to take advantage of our eyes high refresh rates to aim AND shoot faster. In gaming on a display, we can skip the head turning and eye swiveling to achieve even faster aim/shoot and MB gets in the way because it's actually not natural.
Oh and my frame counter is only on when I'm tweaking performance. Otherwise it's annoying.
Yes, dude, yes! Finally a smart take. As someone who works with cameras and is obsessed with motion rendition, I have to say, you're one of the only ones to get it right. Often people automatically think the word blur must = bad (who wants blur?), but actually, its essentially free fps if you're rocking 60 fps or lower. The game devs just have to be smart about it and implement 180 degree blur, not 360 (i.e. just like cinema).
Games shouldn't be cinematic.
@@Seacat17 Then it really comes down to a matter of semantics - i.e. what do we mean by "cinematic"? Cinema in the context here is the time tested language of the film camera, going back a century. Certain things worked (like 180 degree shutter), and persisted over time. We don't want to play a game at 24fps - but why did 24fps work as the minimum acceptable framerate in the first place? The key is 180 degree shutter. Using a lot less film, they were able to convey adequate motion data in each frame thanks to this blur side effect (resulting from leaving the shutter open). More frames in games is always better - but what if one can't get enough frames (pathtracing etc.)?
@@alexmack7610 then don't use path tracing, lol. There are lots of techniques to create a stunning-looking game with real-time lightning but without path tracing.
@@Seacat17 In that case, it comes down to preference. But I really like path tracing myself, and I want to try it early in playable form (while others may prefer to wait until its more practical).
@@alexmack7610 Then we have to wait until everyhone on this planet will have something like RTX 4090.
If your frame timing is rock solid motion blur is much more enjoyable.
The reason I like motion blur is fluidity and like you mentioned, in some cases it can hide flaws. I generally keep motion blur on because most of the time, I dont play competitively.
Well implemented motion blur is amazing, but most games don't implement it well. Naughty Dog and Insomniac have some of the best implementations of motion blur. I played Ratchet and Clank 2018 at 30fps with minimal annoyance because the motion blur was so well implemented, but I uninstalled starfield because the motion blur wasn't that good imo which made the 30fps not standable.
Rachet and Clank is the smoothest 30fps experience I've ever had. That might seem like faint praise but the low framerate genuenly didn't bother me.
I personally love motion blur because it makes the game feel more smooth, but obviously wouldn't use it in games with guns.
My first instance of turning off motion blur was crysis 2007, that was my ticket to ultra settings (1280x1024) on a 9800GT and tbf that was a good motion blur setting but man that tanked performance big time, like 20 frames difference back then. (I think the implementation was bad as it was a buggy game anyway, loads of memory leaks)
Other than that, I honestly think motion blur only benifits racing games even then its over done, i would probably say it works best in non first person games, When its used in a sports game its to give you that "cinematic experience" and platformers can work for the same reason, just too many negatives on FPS as you need the clarity for the game.
As for shimmering issues, Where in the world is my supersampling and oldschool 16x AA the one that deteriorates performance and not this TAA bs that whilst sometimes done well, too many times i see the ghosting effect, Blur is different to ghosting, and ideally an intensity slider would be nice instead of "quality" but no matter the setting if i see ghosting imagery ill play on the settings that get rid of it, My brain does not get on well knowing false information was there for sub 1 second, and it just generally gives you the feeling of latency even though its only visual and these days rarely performance related.
vex is climbing the youtube ladder by recommending his other videos at the end, smart man😊
I just wanna say this video really changed my perspective on a good gaming experience. I tried motion blur on with a few games after watching this, and after a few minutes of experimentation, it just felt so good I don't know why. I kept motion blur off all the time because people would quite often advise against it but man I've been missing out on something. It's worth to note
that fake motion blur from reshade is better than many games default MB though, at least from what I've seen.
thank god I found your channel I've watched two videos and I can say you will be the next Linus tech tips all the best man
You already can't see and make out details because persistence blur that's inherent to all modern displays is so bad. I would never try to add to it.
I had a similar revelation at one time, and Digital Foundry did help me with that too to see *why* I liked it. But Red Dead Redemption 2 is my favorite example of Per Object Motion Blur. The camera motion blur is subtle enough, but the Per Object Motion Blur makes it look (cringe alert for buzzwords) ✨cinematic✨.
I mean... RDR2 plays like a western movie, so of course I love seeing it like that.
But I also love POMB for one reason specifically: when you stretch your hand out in front of you and you wave your hand... is it smooth and sharp and clear? No, it's blurred.
POMB simulates real life
Camera motion blur says it on the tin. It simulates a camera.
It's why I wish there was a toggle separation for either option.
Bad motion blur is such a stigma. I remember watching DF video when they talked about old motion blur (PS2 era) and how awesome they were because they were literally mimicking real world blur and that amazed me.
The thing is, not gonna lie, some games (exploration, story mode, I am not talking about competitive games) have the need of clarity, like in Genshin Impact that is almost impossible to see a chest, mission hide spot or something small when motion blur is on. And that's because their motion blur is soooooooo strong, like... When you slightly move the camera, the blur is like you are moving your head with max strong and velocity, which actually annoys and freaks up the experience.
#1 is actually why I don't like motion blur. It feels unrealistic. I prefer if I move like I would irl and I don't have some random blur when I do that. There are a few games where motion blur is OK but generally, I keep it off.
Motion blur off
👇
Motion blur in new doom games is good
Personnaly, i think every game that include motion blur should have separate settings for camera or object motion blur and let you adjust the strengh of the effect
Like in Borderlands 3 it really enhance the animation work to put object motion blur on BUT you can use it without the camera aspect of it and play without putting insane blur on the camera which is awesome for keyboard and mouse player ^^
And the strengh is sometimes too strong, specially on Cyberpunk 2077 where the effect is extremely aggressive at lower frame but pleasing and subtle at higher frame rate
I love motion blur... At high framerates though. At lower framerates, it goes from a smoothing effect to a smearing effect pretty quickly. I learned to love it after I bought a 165Hz monitor and could finally see some more frames with my new PC. Some games just terribly implement motion blur though, no matter what you do it's a smeary mess, at any framerate.
I usually turn it off or put on low. The thing is that many LCD screens already have a minor form of motion blur in the form of slow pixel response times in the 10s of milliseconds. I don't feel the need exacerbate the effect even more.
I'm surprised you didn't mention DOOM's high quality motion blur in this video. id Tech does a really good job implementing motion blur in their games.
In Crysis we needed motion blur to make those 30 fps looks more smooth back in the 2000s
my problem with motion blur was that every time my character would turn in a game, and the motion blur would trigger - my frame rate would be chopped and obliterated to 3-5FPS during the transition, where the whole transition was .7 second long. Since then, motion blur is immediately disabled first time I log in into a game.
Thank you for the in depth insight on motion blur. I personally love it and it adds more cinematic feel to it.
Oh my god 😂 when you asked the question at the beginning I was thinking in my head “ because motion blur is fake” then I was like “wait dlss fsr and xess are also fake” 😂😂. Holy
Thanks for explaining why everyones opinion is wrong. Makes totally sense!...
Well said. For me, motion blur is only bad on competitive games because it loses so much information about something that I should care about.
If I play a casual game or the FPS is below 60, it's completely fine to use it. Not only it can smooth the gameplay but it can also hide the graphical issues I had
I like the look of good motion blur, I think the issue is the same with some depth of field effects in first person games though. By treating the game view as a camera you're assuming that the person is looking where the character is looking, which isn't always the case. This works better in movies where focus and motion are used to direct a person's eye to a particular character of area of the screen, but where you're in an open world game where there is less direction as to what the player should be looking at to enable greater freedom, there can be a difference in terms of what is kept in focus or unblurred and where the player is looking. Motion blur works really well in third person racing games to remove choppiness at the edge of the screen where relative motion in screen space is higher which could cause the visuals to look less smooth and could distract you from looking where you're driving. I like the look of motion blur and film grain in Cyberpunk, but yeah for a twitch shooter like CSGO you want the image to maintain coherence in motion. I tend to play with motion blur on in non-competitive games and only turn it off if I think it looks bad, rather than just disabling it straight away.
I think I know why people tend to not like motion blur in games, despite the undeniable fact that it can majorly improve the smoothness of movement and heighten cinematic quality in gameplay:
I think it's because the default for motion blur in most game engines like Unreal and Unity tends to try to mimic cine-camera levels of intensity, a thing which only looks normal and good at low framerates like 24/30 fps which are in console games. In contrast, the motion blur we see in videos shot in higher framerates like 60 or 120, or the motion blur we naturally see in our eyes caused by the physical movement of objects being too fast for our brain and eyes to properly focus on and process clear detail, is less pronounced and only noticeable when we are intent on searching for it.
As an aspiring game dev, I would implement these two following options into my future project's graphic settings:
1: Instead of giving the player a on/off togglr for motion blur, Give the player a motion blur intensity slider, scaling from high to nearly non-existant. Providing the player with proper control over the level of length of the trails caused by motion blur can help alleviate any potential motion sickness/visibility issues whilst still keeping the game's movement feeling smooth and natural.
or
2: Don't add a motion blur intensity slider, but instead program something like a "Dynamic Motion Blur Intensity Factor" that scales either up or down with the target fps;
the higher the target fps rate, the lower the motion blur intensity, and the lower the target fps rate, the higher the motion blur intensity.
I personally think that a blend of both would be best. Like for example, the player sets their target framerate to 30. Automatically, the game adjusts the intensity value on the slider to the most ideal level for the framerate, but it can then be adjusted by the user if they feel it is either too little or too much.
By default, I think the intensity should be set at a factor that noticeably smoothens gameplay, but isn't so noticeable that it obstructs the players view to a drastic degree.
If this became the standard practice for both indie and AAA game projects, I think that the hatred for motion blur amongst gamers would become pretty much non-existent.
F-ing finally somebody, thank you 🙂MB is a great feature how to setup a picture to be natural.
Motion blur does not look good in any scenario, however it greatly improves motion perception - so called smoothness. When the game is locked to 30 or 60 fps, motion blur is a must to get the illusion of smooth motion. With motion blur on, when playing at 60 fps, the smoothness feels the same like when you play at 144 fps without motion blur. There is also radial motion blur which is different from motion blur, and this can enhance visual quality if implemented properly in game.
I always liked properly implemented motion blur, which entails rendering out velocity buffers during the original base bases for the G-buffer. The Source engine didn't do this, it just had camera-movement based motion blur, but objects flying around or characters running by, those didn't have velocity vectors computed that could then be used to apply a blur across the whole screen. I think what some people might like, who don't enjoy motion blur, is just velocity buffer motion blur while not having camera motion blur. I am not sure exactly how this would work when the camera is turning past a fast-moving object, it might be kinda funky. I feel like low framerate is more distracting without motion blur. Ideally we'd have infinitely smooth FPS, and motion blur wouldn't be necessary, but we don't have that. If you're
I think its great that you personally prefer motion blur, but theres just nothing you can say to get me to prefer motion blur. Its a decision that every game will each have to make, but personally I don't wsnt to feel like I'm looking through a camera I wanna feel like I'm looking with my eyes and motion blur gets in the way of that.
Yeah that's my problem. If we want realistic motion blur, that can only be created with actual depth. We'd need 3D displays to do that. Of course the industry decided over a decade ago that was a bad idea and never went back. Today it looks like the only way that'll change is with VR and VR looks to be perpetually niche.
Look through your eyes and turn around quickly, or wave your hand in front of your eyes. You're seeing motion blur all the time. Cameras can change their shutter speed to eliminate motion blur. So you pretty much got it all backwards.
I agree with you, in most RPG games enabling motion blur always makes the visuals more natural.
I always liked motion blur.
Spider-Man ps4’s motion blur always stood out in particular to me on how good it looked it 30fps.
Doom eternal at 144hz+ with motion blur on only makes it feel smoother than without it imo
I always liked the effect, it’s just kind of nice and smooth.
About fps smothnes with motionblur - lie.
It wont help. It makes it worse at 30 fps.
Because amound of motion blured frames rises significantly at lower framerate.
Otherwise said: you sees blured frames often at low fps than on high fps.
For me I find some games just the way it is implemented is over the top. And some games only give you the option of it on or off. I like that some games allow you to adjust the intensity of the effect and tone it down a bit instead of requiring that you set it either on all the way or off.
motion blur, dof, chromatic aberration, lens flare, vignetting, they are actually good features. what caused them having bad reputation is because of how they were implemented. types, layers, intensity etc rarely put into consideration.
like motion blur i would love them to dynamically change based on environment eg; completely turned off during combat, medium when there are important/lootable objects highlighted around(when you pan your view your surrounding gets blurry so these glowing highlights looks clearer in contrast), minimum or medium during exploration and during interaction with non-combative npc, and normal if your fps drop below monitor refresh rate to mask the jitter and stutterings. similar to fov changes during exploration, combat, npc interactions, vehicle/mount.
we need more dynamic control or option for these settings. even the holy grail of RTX cards which is ray tracing sometimes look worse than rasterized. certain spots are too dark, and some too bright. while shadow/lighting via rasterization were being checked by devs if they conflicted(like accidentally hide something important or interesting) with surroundings and objects. would love to see if it can co-exist with only shading from ray tracing.
the point is, it's video games, not movies. they don't have to be 100% realistic tho realism is good to have, it's not mandatory to make the game looks beautiful and fun.
When i was a kid i always liked motion blur. Then i went on the internet and all my friends used to tell me to turn off motion blur so i started using it lesser. But I always appreciated that motion blur looked good in a lot of games. especially at lower frames. Im glad someone brought it up because no one is brave enough to go against what the masses think
Depends on the type of game really, motion blur in FPS, competitive and action games can be distracting, but in a RPG it's acceptable.
It's mostly an heritage from the console version that runs at 30fps to mask the low fps judder during camera travels, but those who use PC versions at high fps and close to their monitor disable it because it can be very distracting, like camera shake, oversaturated HDR, low FOV for instance: not all "natural" or camera rendering effects are comfortable to see in a game.
I always turn on motion blur on single player games, i never understood why people hate it so much, it makes it feel smoother and more cinematic to me
Ive had the same experience, turned motion blur on while playing starfield and now i've done it with cyberpunk. It looks so much smoother, now i cant imagine going back!
Because it's a poorly optimized game. It hides the bad frame rate in areas where there's a high polygon count, like in cities.
@@zdspider6778 true sadly, but the point still stands
Ah yes, the one setting I always turn off...
Along with film grain and chromatic aberration
@@sv3546 I fond film grain annoying
Motion blur beeing realistic? .. just as chromatic aberration is. I don't walk around with a screen in front of my face showing me through a camera what is in front of me, I use my eyes directly, hilarious I know. Oldschool but less input lag and all :P Motion blur is to make the game more cinematic and less realistic! it emulates that shitty 24fps look that we have in cinema. if you'd use a 1000fps cam for your movie, it would reduce that blur dramatically. if you want realism you turn motion blur off.
I love low motion blur in Monster Hunter rise, looks really cool when using wire bugs or drifting on your doggo.
I always wondered why consoles didn't feel so bad when they were playing at 30 fps, and it didn't felt the same in pc, I started to use it a few days ago and it truly works, whenever I have to play at 45 or less fps I use it and it helps, feels smoother.
Tip: If you're on a 60hz screen use half vsync while capping the fps with RTSS to 29.95, that way you can avoid vsync lag and keep the frame pacing smoother avoiding judder.
The reason i dont like motion blur is what you're talking about here, i dont like things to be realistic or natural in every single area. For me, my immersion isn't based on realism, i can be immersed in a bethesda game running old ass creation engine, it need not be a ground breaking game.
So when I'm like driving or something irl, I'm not interested in noticing every single detail everywhere, and i cant do that either, and its not necessary or make anything better everytime.
In a game though, where the environment is catered to, where you're put in a specific environment, where the devs have put effort into designing the world etc, i kinda want to see things around, even if its not particularly improving or making everything better. My focus is on the game, my vision is limited to the display, not my character's eyes or something so i feel its fine.
Now i haven't really played any modern games to speak, but from my time with gaming, i like to turn it off because of what I've been saying, even if it makes things worse. I also saw one comment about how not every motion blur is not nicely done and that is true, some games are much worse in that regard, but either way i prefer it turned off. You provided a new perspective to me about motion blur, thanks for that. Idk if I'll appreciate it more moving on, if i play games again, maybe i will, maybe i won't, but this video was pretty good man, thanks for that.
Not all motion blur is the same, some games use full screen motion blur meaning it adds blur whenever you move your mouse so it looks bad like smearing, while other games have per pixel blur which only blurs certain objects in motion regardless of mouse movement this can add the sense of speed or fluidity
I agree. Full screen motion blur is awful, but per pixel is ok (depending on taa implementation)
Because if taa has a lot of blur it doesn't matter how you made the motion blur