Tech Focus - Motion Blur: Is It Good For Gaming Graphics?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- Opinion is divided on this one for sure! Is motion blur good for gaming? Why do developers include it? Alex reckons that it all depends on which type of motion blur...
Subscribe for more Digital Foundry: bit.ly/DFSubscribe
Join the DF Patreon, support the team, and get great quality video downloads for your efforts: www.digitalfou...
![[4K] Tech Focus: Volumetric Lighting - God Rays, Atmospheric/ Fog Rendering, & More Explained!](/img/n.gif)
Per object motion blur is fine. But blurring the whole screen? Yeah, I always disable that.
MrMichaelXX Yeah, Particularly Last-Gen Games Have overdone Motion-blur and Bloom.
Too bad you can only adjust which type you want in 1% of games
Yup, I would love the option to select *only* per-object motion blur. Then I wouldn't have to disable it entirely.
The right answer right here.
In A Hat in Time, you have the option to turn on or off Camera and Per Object Motion Blur separately which I hope more games in the future can give us that option.
Jesus, that was motion blur in GTA Vice City?! I always wondered what was causing that horrid ghosting effect.
Well, it is a BAD motion blur. Not all the motion blur is like that.
I had vice city on pc, it looked clear. My neighbor held a party and I played vice city on his xbox, I thought his tv had like 1 second response times or something lmao.
It is technically the correct type of motion blur in order to reflect how the human eye sees, it's just that, as mentioned in this video, in order to look right you need hundreds if not thousands of frames per second. The effect probably looks far better if you ran Vice City with 300+´fps
@@BIadelores No. To look correct, your eye needs to blur it.
This option was called TRAILS in the game menus. It's pretty accurate description of what's happening, but it didn't just do the frame work, it also changed the color palette making the game look more retro vibe-y. I think it was a pretty decent effect for old school CRT televisions.
My problem with motion blur is that in FPS games it adds to how long it takes to identify and prioritize targets in hectic situations and can make small hit boxes seem larger than they actually are. In short, it makes lining up enemy heads in fire fights slower.
Motion Blur makes most sense on projectiles or enemies who leap at you, however it's still usually overdone in terms of the actual amount of motion blur
Raindrops on the screen really pisses me off! You don't see raindrops on your eyeballs so don't put it in game unless it's ACTUALLY on glass. Also faux lens flare from the sun is stoopid in games too, for the same reason!
Depends on the game. A lot of characters where helmets, ballistic glasses etc. Also your eyes do see flares, and have a circular aperture bokeh depth of field. They aren't different from camera lenses.
Flares can be super over done though. Especially in mods.
I actually have abnormally dry eyes, including the inside. I do see lense flares, though it isn't well defined circles. You can also temporarily blind me by shining a light at me from the side.
So, for those of you who are ignorant, turn off your highbeams when you come up to an intersection. The moment of 100% blindness is easy to avoid if you make an honest attempt to think about others
@@sand0decker I have kinda the same problem, but not because of dryness. We are a 0.01%, so, doesn't count.
Somebody clearly doesn't wear glasses
I love the effect because it looks good. It's not visually accurate, but your brain immediately associates the effect to being wet, which is something you can't experience otherwise. It adds a lot to the sensation of the game, if you ignore them as literal objects. Same as the blood/red effect which simulates pain in any side, or in general.
"Gta San Andreas" *shows footage of Vice City*
i ja sam primjetio xD
My vision is blurry I put on glasses.
My game is blurry I disable the blur.
If I am watching someone else play fine. I don't necessarily mind (like a cinematic Doom game play for example.)
Best option is when you have an option.
Well.. if you can switch off or on anytime, there's no problem with it...
Ahem console owner's can't
aussieknuckles From what i remember they actually can, in the games that have it. In options in the menu.
I dont remember what game was in my x360 that had it, but i instantly turned it off. There's been a long time since i played my xbox games.
But usuallt console games come without that, as this kinda maked the game heavier
@@theholypopechodeii4367 not every game has an option to turn off motion blur.
The problem with accepting it is that, turning it off is not always an option.
@@belldrop7365 Yes, which is why he said "IF you can switch it off at anytime."
Isn't motion blur also used to hide poor performance / low framerates? And it's very powerful at that, too. I think it's a point that's missing in the video.
Since my budget pc can only get around 4x fps with new games on high setting, i always leave motion blur on in games that my pc can't get a solid 60 fps :D i notice a strong motion blur effect when playing games on my ps4 too
Giang Meow Motion blur won't actually increase your fps it will just look like it does.
sometimes motion blur makes your framerate worse
PugLifeJM Correct, however, it may also decrease your frame rate if your computer is weak, so it’s a trade off then.
actually motion blur makes lower FPS more pronounced
Jokes on you. I have my hand showed up as discrete pictures in front of my crt monitor.
CRT best framerate
Mine appears like that too. It's actually on a decent LCD monitor, I guess it's the refresh rate of the back light causing the effect.
@Micah Lall-Trail it can happen but it'll take a lot of juice
then your CRT has a too low refresh rate, 100Hz CRT = smooth handwaving, 60Hz CRT = "descrete hand pictures" and also a headache after a few hours.
I always thought the motion blur in Crysis 1 looked fantastic and the game was less visually complete without it. That's about the only implementation I can think of that actually adds to the visual fidelity of the game.
You forgot one entire type of motion blur, which almost all games since 2010 have implemented due to low resource requirements and I think might be the source of the hate. This is linear blur post-filter (framebuffer) motion blur-where a game takes the current frame and applies a simple Photoshop style linear blur having the angle and intensity determined by the position of the right stick (or the acceleration values of the mouse, even is not using acceleration for gameplay). The entire Crisis series is notorious for introducing this technique, which is easily seen in the tritium sights of guns trailing behind *and yet also proceeding forward* the actual frame. This was particularly bad in Crysis 2, due to the game having a bad framerate on console and needing blur to hide it. Turn with a stick and laugh as apparently the motion blur can predict the future! As bad as it sounds though, the most annoying part is that the blur shifts as you change the motion angle without leaving previous blur in place, so you can spin the stick and make your own blurred helicopter blade out of your gun.
This effect is barebones but also has been optimized to use close to no resources-making it very attractive to console developers that can barely push 30 FPS. The general rule is that if stage demos show careful, deliberate, and slow camera motion on a console controller, that game likely uses post-filter motion blur. The point is to hide the ugly steps in angular rotation of the camera, which looks great externally but feels horrible to the player.
For those wondering, this motion blur method works on the same principle as FXAA, which also developed at the same time. You can render the frame, then apply a blanket filter to it afterward in the framebuffer prior to display. FXAA essentially performs a gaussian blur to the image, where newer implementations have used a mask generated from the depth buffer to control the amount of blur in different areas (and ideally only blurring jaggies on silhouette edges). Linear post-filter motion blur has seen a few improvements as well, but at the cost of more performance and as such it usually isn't implemented using newer iterations. As such, it looks jarring and can lead to motion sickness since it inserts additional, non-existent motion (the leading blur). The first complaint I hear when people turn it off is it makes them sick.
Motion blur is good, but you can't cut corners. Per-object motion blur is great in general, but usually the most costly. Full frame / per pixel motion blur can also be good, but to look natural it needs to sample previous frames further back than most hardware and engines comfortably allow. Linear post-frame motion blur however is just cheap with close to no benefit, only designed to smooth camera rotation at the destruction of realistic motion.
Do you know where I can find a list of games that use per-object motion blur?
@@colemanlikes3947 Good question, actually. I'd love to stumble across a catalog of games sorted by implemented features. You've got me curious now.
On the top of my head, I know the Just Cause series started using per-object motion blur in the second game and was one of the first published games to do so. I'm off, to search for a listing now. :)
Always GREAT videos from you Alex, keep up the good work! :)
Matthew Shezmen anche te un connoisseur di digital foundry vedo. adoro il canale
Thank you matt! I am really happy you enjoyed it.
Best,
Alex
Dictator93 😂😂
You inspired me to give it a shot on Far Cry 5. It's better than it was on older consoles and games for sure, but my primary issue still persists. To try to see things, I tend to stop more, or keep my mouse more still.
I think this is why the PS2 style blur didn't bother me as much, as if something was coming towards me, I still saw it easily in the distance. Yes, I saw four of it, but I saw it. With modern motion blur it's so smudgy that I might miss something entirely.
It feels like I'm missing out on detail for it too. The option I really want besides on or off is "on for cutscenes only" as I feel it helps the more cinematic parts of the game.
"On for cutscenes only" is an awesome idea.
One takeaway from this: didnt know I could center weapons in DOOM 2016, subscribing.
I do love motion blur if is in the right moment, it makes the image looks better, more realistic and even could hide some framedrops so i think is very good, but only if it is used in the right spots!
What are examples of good motion blur other than the new Doom. I detest camera motion blur. I don't have a problem with per object motion blur.
There's is this game where you move around with the wasd keys, and look with the mouse.
I forgot the name of the game, but there is a setting that makes it look gorgeous.
I wonder what OFF stands for.
Crysis 2's DX11 motion blur was decent. Crysis 1s was alright too.
All of Metro series have a decent Motion Blur. Specially the Metro Redux Bundle.
Fast RMX. Perfect motion blur implementation.
Overonator warframe
One of the games that implemented motion blur very early was Trackmania Sunrise (2005), a racing game, they managed to introduce a Per object motion blur (Not camera motion blur) in a fantastic way, although a bit rough because of the low number of samples... but for the year it was, it was really good.
Also, the game has a replay editor where you can add camera motion blur to make cinematic shots.
When it's used in games that require fast movement, (Sonic Generations, DOOM, Wolfenstein II), it can look cinematic and exhilerating. But it can become tiresome if overused.
I personally like how Panic Button has used Motion Blur to their advantage when porting DOOM and Wolfenstein II, to make the games look smoother than how it actually runs.
When I leave motion blur on sometimes I have a problem with it.
When I turn motion blur off I never have a problem with that.
Problem solved.
When I drive, I might get into a car accident.
When I walk in the woods, I'll never get into a car accident.
I only travel by foot in woods, problem solved.
That's how you sound. If you only consider negatives, and not positives, then you're actively making things worse for yourself.
@@realmarsastro This is one of the worst possible comparisons I've ever seen. Comparing a visual quality with methods of travel is nonsense. Motion blur doesnt impact performance like walking would versus driving. Motion blur provides so little benefit(if there is any) that simply turning it off is both easier and likely to provide a more consistent experience.
Anyone else feeling kinda sick after watching this video? lol (Great video though)
RedVIII I'm feeling sick just by watching for 10s.
Yeah, big time! I'm going to go lay down for a second.
What gets to me is that Gears of War footage... that horrible shaky cam. God damn, couldn't play God of War because of that, too.
Yeah old full screen Blur makes me feel sick. Per object and newer implementations don't bother me as much, though. I actually leave it on in Doom, Forza Horizon 3, and some other games.
All 'obvious' camera based motion blur makes me ill. Old or new.
The first thing I always disable is film grain, it makes the game look so horrible...
Kevin Besnier film grain is awful!
exactly what I'm saying.
what is film grain ?
Kevin Besnier Film grain helps hide color banding issues. Of course, proper driver-level dithering would be better, but film grain as a post-processing effect is seemingly all we get for now.
I turned it on once. It made up for the shitty textures of mass effect. But then I found the 4k texture mod that put andromeda to shame
As someone who has experience in stop motion photography I can tell you the reason stop motion got replaced by loathed cgi is since there's no motion blur, it has that trademark strobing effect of any stop motion film. Right before cgi blew up, Hollywood was implementing several ways to add motion blur to stop motion. This is why I've never even considered turning it off in a game.
When i play games to win i turn it off but when i play for fun it´s on to enjoy the beautiful vistas!
The first thing people think about when they hear "Motion Blur", they think about Camera Motion blur.
And that kind of motion blur is trash.
Only Per-Object Motion blur is acceptable.
Devs should give us more options to choose what kind of motion blur we want active in the game, instead of turning it off all together.
ofc, you can dive into the config files and do it yourself.... but why should we have to do that.
If a game is running at 30, camera motion blur is the best solution to prevent juddering. With 48-60fps we don't see juddering, so we can turn off camera mb.
Per object motion blur is unacceptable. The motion of the ingame camera is not the motion of your eyes. The relative motion between your eyes and the object is what should determine the amount of blur to apply, but it doesn’t, so it looks like ass.
I think per object motion blur is even nessary in some cases. Like the wings of an helicopter look just weird without motioblur. You expect to see a blurry disc when looking at those wings but all you see is spokes.
Or for example an arrow flying across the screen without motionblur you might not even see it since the arrow flies to fast for the fps to catch it on screen.
Or a sword swing where the animation takes only 2 frames (video games have often snappy attack animations) often this is faked by giving a sword swing a smear VFX effect. But this makes it more fantasy
soylentgreenb yes but you miss the point that the screen refresh rate is an extra filter.
Your eyes IRL take an exposure of time, so when an arrow flies across your vision. You see a streak, even though the arrow might go to fast to be seen individualy.
But if an arrow flies across the screen fast, then it might happen that it's not visible at all, let's say in the case that the first render point is right of the camera and the second is left of it. Hence the arrow didn't appear on you screen at all. And your eyes can't see what is not there.....
soylentgreenb also you seem to mix up per object motion blur with Camera motrion blur. Per object motion blur does not blur the movement of the camera. It only blurs objects that it's applied on (devs actually have a setting for saying which objects should be blurred) so they can say that a car should not be blurred, while a flying rocket should. Or for example just the wheels of the car but not it's movement.
I love the per-object motion blur in Doom 2016, it makes both the game and animations seem like they are rendered in much higher frame rates even on a 60Hz display. I share and love motion blur when it is done right. :) I can see that there's still alot of negativity regarding motion blur in the comments, but I definitely think everybody should give it a shot, at least in Doom 2016 where it is superbly executed (start at "low" setting). For those experiencing motion sickness, perhaps it's a side-effect of the motion becomming more realistic. The basis of motion sickness is the difference between percieved motion in your brain and your body. It's likely that the gap between frames actually help the brain to isolate the image to something superficial instead of "real motion". While people that don't get motionsick generally experience a more fluid natural motion with well implemented motion blur.
I've been playing Doom for the past few weeks, and no, motion blur is not done right. It is not needed in such a fast-paced game, plus it makes my eyes hurt. I don't suffer from motion sickness, so it's not the realism that puts me off - it's the lack of it. My eyes already blur things nicely when they're moving on the screen, so it makes no sense to turn on motion blur.
I've actually heard the same and tried motion blur in Doom. Activated it, went into combat. Tried to focus on an enemy while strafing, but the level, including the enemy, got blurred over while doing so.
And if something becomes blurry while you concentrate on it, then that is NOT realistic. Nothing about bluring things in your focus is natural.
Amen, and DOOM is so much less exciting without it.
I always appreciate well implemented motion blur.
That "PS2 motion blur" i´ve seen it before in N64 Perfect Dark when they punch you or hit you with narcotic gun.
I still turn it off 99% of the time. Most games even today do not do it correctly and it hinders performance. I'll always take visual clarity over an obtrusive screen effect. Especially if I'm playing a shooter.
My eyes have natural motion blur
My screen wile being a good one still have a very small amount of ghosting
Why would i want another ghosting ("motion blur") effect over the 2 above?
Why not just put a max frame rate on and going below the new computer people obsession with 60fps. You could also use the program that reduces the resolution when doing demanding things like turning or swinging. I actually find it to be a great way to play some games on my older laptop (not American, can't just go out and build a desktop) and has by far the best motion blur effect for slower games.
In real life, don't fully rely on my eyes and that is pretty much what happens when I do demanding movements
Did you even watch the whole video?
Also you're looking at a static screen, not a moving object.
@@RockSolitude Yes i watched and the screen is static but the picture isn't.
I like Motion Blur in my games, it helps to convey the illusion of fast movement and fluidity. Makes it more immersive and realistic. To me at least.
I kinda had a soft spot for that early 2000 PS2 effect, since all GTA games of that era have it, and I play them constantly. I don't know, maybe I'm kinda inmune to motion sickness.
Yeah, like for real tho majority of gamers hate motion blur, but I'd still prefer to have them on for some reason. Maybe there's something wrong with me, idk.
@@SendirianAja there is absolutely nothing worng with you, why would you think that?
I really like motion when it's subtle, yet makes the movements so smooth. You can run the game at 40fps and it doesn't hurt your eyes so bad. Otherwise you would have to run the game at solid 100+ frames per second.
I’ve never understood the overwhelming hate for motion blur, all of a sudden every second person has motion sickness tendencies
I get motion sickness from some games, mostly FPS games, normally it's tolerable. I get motion sickness far worse from VR, this is normally tolerable (although much worse than flat games) as long as I don't play too long, or try to stand in a game with full movement. I don't remember getting motion sick from a game until after the PS2 era. Perhaps as graphics have become more realistic our brains are more likely to be tricked into thinking we are actually moving, and since we're not we get that motion sick feeling.
I still remember how I played Lost Planet for the first time and was blown away with how cool object motion blur looks. It felt like I'm watching awesome action movie. That was 12 years ago...
Motion blur is a great effect when implemented right. Sadly, not a lot of games do that.
I always get shit on when i say i like motion blur, everyone immediately thinks that it blurs your screen entirely, only older games did that, i'm glad i found this video to know I'm not alone.
I always turn motion blur on and i like it for 3 reasons.
1. It makes the game look more cinematic.
2. It hides frame drops making it look smoother.
3. Without motion blur PC/Console game loses it's charm and for me it feels more like a mobile game without it.
When i move my head super fast, i dont see anything even resembling what motion blur is supposed to simulate. So basically, i turn it off and my eyes do the work and i get natural motion blur. Idk if that makes any sense at all
It doesn't make sense because your explanation is wrong.
Our eyes are very good at tracking and focusing on particular objects. When you move your hand in front of your view rapidly, if you focus on your hand, it never really blurs, only the extremities of the fingers that move just a little bit faster than what your eyes compensate for - and even then, it's hard to recognize the effect because our brain is also good at filling the gaps in our imagery.
If you quickly wave your hand in front of you, but try to focus on another static object behind it, like, say, some furniture, then your hand *will* be blurred, because your focus is on the background, and your eyes are not tracking your hand's motion.
One problem seldom mentioned about videogame motion blur is how there's no eye tracking simulation in games at all, so everything is treated at video camera level or worse. A modern 60fps camcorder turning after a car driving fast by its side will see the rest of the scene blur, while the car remains mostly sharp save for the wheels. The opposite happens when the camera is pointing at static scenery in the same situation: the car gets blurred entirely by various amounts, depending on its speed of travel and its shutter speed. Note that our eyes don't have a "shutter speed" per se, and we don't see things in 60, 120, 144, 240 etc. frames per second; we see in real time.
Motion blur is a natural product of depth, object tracking and velocities. We have this in real life and never pay mind to it, because we rarely ever look specifically for it, and when we do, we're just as likely to draw the wrong conclusions. In image sequences like films, blur is captured from the same elements again. In raster graphics, they have to be somehow added in, because computer imagery is "perfect", and no amount of high refresh rate and fast motion will ever truly create motion blur in your eyes; at best, your brain momentarily holds the previous defined image in memory.
I think games can only benefit from a smart implementation of motion blur, but we're far from an accepted delivery of it. Many titles that use even the more favourable "per object blur" still are either too sensitive (starting to blur just from a slow pan of the camera) or too strong (when it does kick in, it makes the screen a smeary mess).
that's because your eye almost instantly locks onto the next area you want to look at.
motion blur ever only occurs naturally for out of focus objects.
so say you shake your hand in front of your face.
If you focus on something behind your hand, your eye doesn't move, so you see motion blur on your hand.
If you focused on the hand instead, the whole background would blur, but the hand would be fairly sharp.
On a screen you don't really get natural motion blur because the movement happening on the screen isn't continuous, it's a certain number of sharp images. Yes, our brain is capable of stringing images together as if it were a continuous movement, but fast movement can create discontinuities.
For a good example, look at something like 2D cartoons, that, for budget reasons, have a low amount of frames (generally 12 per sec, each one doubled to fit the standard 24) the solution is to draw "smear frames", which is a handdrawn equivalent to per object motion blur., that help our brain ease up when stringing together this staggered motion that it creates inbetween frames.
the same applies to video games. If say, a bullet has no motion blur, you 'll see several several images of the bullet at once, whereas motion blur can make you se a fluidly moving streak instead.
Motion blur was first experimented with some PS1 games which manipulated the framebuffer to blend frames and create the "accumulation blur" effect. Metal Gear Solid and Rollcage Stage 2 are a perfect example.
Dude, that explosions in 7:47 looks better than new games, like 3D or something.
This video is absolutely brilliant! And in my opinion it's one of the most important things to address in 3D gaming. It's such a shame that it's way to easy to do a bad implementation and there's way to many variables going on with the LCD technology itself.
Even playing in full 240Hz / 240 FPS can be a mess (with or without MBR) because of the lack of properly implemented blur, the "emptiness" between fast moving objects is extremely distracting for me, it is obviously better then 60Hz but unless we have crazy FPS values (like 1000 FPS and continuous lightning), we'll probably need better solutions to improve this experience.
It's such an divisive topic that there's a lot of games who lacks any implementation after all. My favorite competitive fast paced game is OW, and even at 240Hz it is extremely distracting to play sometimes because of that.
It's a shame it's an underrated and misunderstood topic. A good analogy for me is just the way it feels to see a low FPS movie recorded with a fast shutter speed. It is extremely distracting and feels completely unnatural.
3D gaming in general feels always like this and you nailed the reason in the very first part of the video why.
Came here for advice
Got a history lesson
Soon as I learned to tune for frametime motion blur became good for me. It makes sense for standard refresh rate panels. It feels so smooth!
I like good motion blur. Engines like CryEngine or Unreal have a really good motion blur and it add very natural visual feeling.
My friend really loved motion blur, like he's genuinely baffled that i always turn off motion blur in any game.
He always play any game with FOV cranked to the max and Motion blur on
That sick bastard
Akram Safirul ur friend is just like me
max fov is good but motion blur with it thats fucking aids
I agree with all of it. I used to hate motion blur and AA in games because it looked bad, was blurry and unclear in the games I played.
Since I got a new PC I tried using more advanced graphics options in games since the new PC was alot more powerful than my old one.
I realized that most games I tried then with motion blur and AA looked amazing and now I allways try it and I'm dissapointed if it's not good.
Awesome video! :)
People are about as openminded as I've come to expect from this comment section.
Anyway, my take is this: Per object motion blur yay, camera motion blur nay.
More tech focus videos please
I usually leave it on cause I can see gaps between the frames with fast camera movement, even in 60fps.
I really value your takes on technology. Since i saw your video 2 years ago, i try out motion blur in every game. Have changed to OLED screen meanwhile. But i'm still in "motion blur is the devil"-club.
Guess motion blur at 144FPS is better than regular 24FPS
*Long Story Short:* motion blur in video games was use back in the ps2 days to make low frame rate look good & not choppy since many ps2 games are capped at 30fps, it's best to use motion blur on single player experiences rather than competitive multiplayer shooters.
the first Lost Planet was awesome
Motion blur makes games look more realistic, and I love it
It does not! Motion blur is NOT realistic.
Per object motion blur is definitely something I wish all games could have or that something like reshade could do.
DOOM does Motion Blur right
Nice shadow warrior 2 music in the background while listening to good arguments and technical explanations about motion blur in games ❤🔥, that's passion
"More realistic" isn't always better. All your technical jargon doesn't change the fact that games look aesthetically better without motion blur (or depth of field, for that matter).
@Rolling Macarolli or maybe its cause the switch is a fucking hand held its not the size of a small pc and sounds like a jet yet it still use is over 10 year old harware from when it came out
My friends always thought I was crazy for liking motion blur. I'm really happy that this video was made. Thank you so much
You ARE crazy for liking motion blur. Please seek help.
Motion Blur Off make me play lot of titles without ANY sense of motion and a terrible feeling that I was playing at 15FPS. Sadly I'm not enterily stupid and at some point I give motion blur a try. I'm glad to have done it. I just can't play anything without motion blur now.
Same here bro 😊
NO!
One way to create motion blur without affecting performance in any way is to render the frame from the center of the panel in a circular pattern until it reaches the edges of the screen/window. I am not sure if this is possible, but it would work without compromising anything really.
I hate it because it blurs everything when I move the camera, making it very difficult to see enemies while doing it.
more frame rates > motion blur
I don't like motion blur because it's an effect just like I hate lense flare in FPP game or this idiotic "dirt" on "eyes" in some games. It's annoying in those type of games because we suppose to look thru eyes of character not camera.
I'm assuming you've never worn glasses or a motorbike helmet. Flares exist irl.
Even naked eyes can flare and have a circular bokeh whilst focusing in a shallow depth of field.
At the end of the day, eyes are very complicated and don't even work how you would think they work (a lot of what we see is just reconstructed brain interpretation of the world). Cameras and filmic effects are relatable and achievable.
But yeah, mblur isn't a substitute for framerate.
Get both. Mblur works better with more frames anyway.
Motion blur is the first thing I switch off in a game because it's pointless, and turning it off also usually has the benefit of improving framerate.
I did not expect to make it to the end of a 20 minute video about motion blur. Nice.
Ask people who played Just Cause 3 on console if motion blur is good or not.
Correct. JC3 looked awesome on my base PS4. Sharp, vibrant colors, and great draw distance.
Looked awesome that is when there was no camera movement to cause motion blur.
@@fg6971 And the best part is: *You can't turn it off!*
It only looks bad on that game because it's exaggerated and the framerate is really low
The whole point of having more frames per second is perfect clarity and smoothness, so there is no point in wasting it with motion blur. I guess it might have it's place in cutscenes, maybe, but in actual gameplay it's better to leave it off. It's the opposite of movies, people grew watching 24fps movies with motion blur and now they think it looks better (at least a lot of people do, not all, I don't care personally). We grew up playing using static frames, our eyes are used to that, it's not necessary to change.
Love or hate motion blur beIng educated on what it really is and how it works is important to anyone with a passion for computer graphics. Thanks for clarifying how these things work as there is an ocean of misinformation out there.
I've seen a couple of demos where the pixels were randomly sampled rather than as a single frame at a time. Basically hosing the screen like a spray.
If it's done fast enough, the temporal randomness of each pixel makes a very smooth animation.
I rarely ever turn off Motion Blur, I love it in modern games ! though the motion Blur in ps2 sure was obnoxious !
13:48 I'm pretty sure my eyes will never recover from this
The only thing worse than bad motion blur is bad depth of field. Let's just abandon both of these "ideas."
Motion blur is not an effect that you notice in reality on a regular basis, unless there's something wrong with your nervous system. The brain should be filtering it out. There's no need to reproduce it.
Yea. Like what's the deal with dof in video games? What exactly is the purpose of it.
Have some game makers just lost their minds?
The heisenberg uncertainty principle is great. The more you know about the position of an object, the less you can know about it's motion.
It's a weird one. As stated elsewhere in the comments if you were fallowing an object with your eyes you wouldn't have motion blur on the object, just on everything around the object as it moves. Which means we'd want something sitting on the monitor tracking our eyes to determine what should be blurred.
But, if we're going to talk about a true and perfect blurring system I think we should bring up that what it really needs is instead of a ghost sampling. The best solution would be to vectorize how motion blur is calculated. A simulation (game) could add an extra step to it's rendering cycle. Where right now it calculates the color of a pixel by finding the point in the texture map below it, rendering what pixels of that map influence it's color, then calculating the light sources in reference to the normal map sitting directly under that pixel. It can then calculate the vector of all the points that would have passed under that pixel between frames.
This would give the viewer true information about the content over time of the vectors in that pixel, and could help a gamer out with determining more about fast moving objects.
Thanks for explaining that. I really started to dislike the modern Motion blur vomit that came with and after Unreal Tournament 3. The Camera motion blur just messes it up and as you explained - it should be tweakable independently from the per object motion blur because I quite like that. But I only started to understand that after your video now.
I will give Motion blur a spin on various settings in my games instead of disabling it completely
You forget another HUGE problem with motion blur: Modern screens.
A CRT, back in the PS2's hey day, produced a very sharp, very crisp image that wasn't at all blurry unless you added your own.
Modern screens, LCDs specifically, are naturally quite blurry, unless you go out of your way to find one with a strobing backlight or pay a premium for one that runs at a high frequency like 144Hz.
The difference being that a CRT flickered very quickly with long dark gaps (comparatively), whereas the LCD's light is fully persistent and just changes colour over a super short period as needed. The former exploits how our eyes see light to produce a persistent image, whereas the later conflicts and produces a natural blurry image wherever there is motion.
So if you add more motion blur (especially of the camera or buffer accumulation variety) into the mix, it compounds to produce something really awful.
With that said, I'm of the opinion that effects like Motion Blur and Depth of Field should remain strictly within the domain of ingame cinematics, and stay out of gameplay.
I hate in-game cinematics, that are not rendered real time. It's disgusting to go from a smooth and pretty gameplay into a cutscene with butchered image and stuttering
on the other side of the coin, sometimes movies get RID of motion blur for artistic effect.
often in fight scenes or other moments where a movie is conveying intensity, the scene is shot on a camera with a high shutter speed to eliminate blur. if the movie is rendered in 24fps, as most are, the screen will look very choppy, like a video game's framerate tanking.
as i've described, real life films look choppy without motion blur. so do video games running at even higher framerates.
that's right, even 60fps can look choppy without motion blur! just switch from a 144hz screen to a 60hz one and you'll see what i mean.
i think we all need to cut motion blur a little slack and think of the potential.
*H E A D A C H E* Fuel...
I couldn't put my finger on why I hated "motion blur" when such a feature is supposed to make motion look more realistic. However, this video does a good job in explaining the different types of rendered motion blur. 18:48 is really the perfect example in a modern game...the version on the left adds flavor to the animation whereas the one on the right, though polished, is overbearing for a PC mouse gamer like myself. Great video!
Looking at the comments, it seems like a lost cause... People are so stubborn, it's pissing me off
Exactly.. I'm glad I found out DF and gave motion blur its chance, because otherwise I wouldn't even realize how awesome it is. For example in Cyberpunk 2077 or DOOM 2016/Eternal I always think to myself - "mmm yummy, this is some good stuff". 😍 It's gorgeous in those games. The visuals look complete with it. Same in Dead Space.
it's sad to see, it's obvious that most people commenting here didn't even watch the video. saying motion blur is just flat out bad is reductive and ignorant
it's sad to see, it's obvious that most people commenting here didn't even watch the video. saying motion blur is just flat out bad is reductive and ignorant
15:43 This example gave me the idea what the problem is, compared to a real world scenario. Your eyes would work against the motion blur by fixating on one point and do a quick move to the next point. That's the same reason pigeons and chicken move their head when walking. Well, doesn't help to fixate an already blurred image :D
Oh man, I love watching the part at 4:09 at 480p, which is 30 fps. The guy ball only stays on two (opposing) sides of the screen, with the sides randomly changing.
No it's not because we've been exposed to "ps2" (other platforms had this type of motion blur too for stylistic effect). It's because unlike movies where there's a single point of focus in games there are many potential points of focus and our eyes has the ability to follow them at any arbitrary point (eye motion is very fast). Because of that arbitrarily choosing to blur some parts of the screen according to an arbitrary motion vector (and motion on LCD is already blurry due to sample and hold) is counter productive unless it is done for stylistic effects.
That is the thing I was thinking too, when looking at the screen people aren't just looking at one spot, they look at many others, most time it is not necessary where you are aiming at. With motion blur on, it is blocking the view where your eyes looking at. I can think it may work on VR where your eyes are lock in place and tracked but this thing doesn't work with monitor screens. Motion blur is the first thing I turn off when I play video game on monitor or TV screen.
that argument ruined the video for me never have a ever played any of those ps2 games he listed i still turn off motion blur first time i saw it was on a ps3 game turned it off when i learned what it was
I don't think I need motion blur if my eyes already do it, but if you've convinced me of anything, maybe I'd accept some z-axis camera blur, 50/50 on per object as eyes can still create blur.
Motion blur makes my game smoother especially when I'm playing below 60 fps. When it is enabled it feels like 60fps to me
if possible I usually turn motion blur on but with a very very short exposure time - but if I cannot set the exposure time / shutter speed and it's too long it will be turned off and that's the case in most games using it
I just lost brain cells. All I can say is motion blur is ugly in older generation games but it seems better now. PS. I love you Alex, you are too smart that it hurts 🤓
It IS good if done right (per object) and especially on high frame rates (144Hz) as it completes the motion smoothness!
So you're saying motion blur is only bad in the niche cases where the user is playing a game with keyboard and mouse and not playing one of two games that use per-object motion blur?
Motion blur blurs what you see why TF would u want that anywhere
I'm one of those, who instantly disables Motion Blur in all games...
Alex, how about making "Part II - The Return Of Blur"?
Where you would go through games (on PC), that you think have the best implementations of Motion Blur and your preferred settings etc...
Ah, Lost Planet.
Never forget
masterpiece
I like aliens
Underated masterpiece. Played in PC when still online, great times.
Simte I’ve only played the second one and I loved it, should I play the rest?
You make good points regarding reasons for using motion blur, but I believe you miss addressing my issues with it: detail, or rather, lack of detail. When I'm tracking an object flying past or I'm watching an image move across the screen, the biggest barrier motion blur gives me is precisely what it is set to do. I can't track the position of an object as well when it's represented on an extra 30%+ of screen space. Motion blur is only effective in a stationary view of the screen. If the eye is tracking across different parts of the screen, then motion blur is doing the disservice of blurring the wrong objects.
If motion blur has spent more time than not being ineffective and distracting, then one can argue that motion blur is in fact "bad" and not necessary
For me, per object motion blur is almost always good/acceptable, but the value of whole-screen motion blur is a trade-off. On one hand, motion blur helps with immersion by hiding the gaps between frames. On the other hand, the blurring often obscures information and makes it harder to be precise (especially in fast-paced first-person shooters).
In general, I like enabling motion blur for 120fps or higher because it looks subtle/undistracting, but at 60fps or lower, the blurring between frames becomes too obvious and distracting.
I really like Doom's implementation of motion blur.
I don't notice the motion blur in real life xd but I always deactivate it in video games or I put it on very low since sometimes it bothers me and I don't feel a "real" feeling
For me, there are only 3 types of motion blur:
1. Irl when you turn without moving your eyes
2. Videogame motion blur
3. Picture-based motion blur
I always turn off motion blur and depth of field, I want total clarity in my games, even at the cost of continuity.
Lens flares, if implemented correctly, are ok with me though, i'm just watching them clearly and if me don't like, me turn off.
I think you're not considering that in per object motion blur everything is moving or staying in place relative to the camera.
So when you move camera around every stationary object is basically moving relative to it so they get blurred.
And this is the main advantage of per object motion blur, because you can track moving objects with the camera and they will stay sharp, but everything else will be blurred out.
It's pretty much like motion blur in real life.
How about film grain ?
Yeah! I would love to see a video about stuff like chromatic ab., film grain and vignetting in games.
Turn it off.
Flimix effects can be nice but sometimes it's just nice to have the game as a game and let your eyes process it instead of making it try to look like a camera. Chromatic aberition sucks and EVERYONE AND EVERY MOVIE REMOVES IT, unless it goes for a gritty art style or something like that. If you make a movie of photo graph with chromatic aberition without a reason for it, you are bad with cameras or use a shitty cheap camera lens
DoF, chromatic aberration, film grain, vintage has no place in gameplay, but it does in cinematics and cut scenes.
bicboi555 Trash, I turn it off when playing God of War
this held up well, like the recent pc port of god of war, hasnt gone as far as seperating camera and object blur, but has a slider of 1-10 for strength, compared to a few years ago when all we got was on/off or low/high