Motion Blur
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /v/ - Video Games
You are currently reading a thread in /v/ - Video Games
Discuss?
>>337179571
Cryengine and Witcher games are the only ones to use it well.
An option that should be turned off always.
>>337179775
Witcher 3 doesn't even have per object motion blur which is embarrassing since Crysis 1 had it
Uncharted 4 motion blur is so smooth even though the game is running at 30FPS.
>>337179571
MGSV was one of worst contenders, it gave me headaches
>>337179571
The blur around his arms should literally be made a criminal offence
>>337179571
cancer
if you are playing games at 60fps or higher turn that shit off
>>337179571
its trash and the firs tthing I take off in games. along with DOF.
sucks for console plebs. enjoy that forced blur faggots
Most times it's just used to try to cover up framerate drops. However when used right I love it. Not that I don't like 60+fps, but when it's done without a hint of blur it begins to look unrealistic. Saccadic eye movements are what makes things appear to us as they do during movement, it's tough to replicate
>>337179571
VERY fast snake running at incredible hihg speed
>>337179984
And? per object motion blur is fucking worthless. The argument that it's better than camera blur makes sense but it's something you literally won't notice 99% of the time, unless it is Crysis because it was done well.
Camera blur is good though and both games I mentioned use it to good effect because you can actually see what it's doing in screenshots which is what it should be for. Action and artsy screenshots.
Unless it's Crysis, because Crysis(or Cryengine in general) has filmic quality motion blur that completely shits on every other implementation of the effect. And it's customizable. Really though Cryengine has good blur. It's physics based and they put a lot of effort into it.
>>337180531
>physics based
I'm going to sound dumb. What's physics based blur?
>>337180531
>per object motion blur is fucking worthless.
No, it's fucking realistic. You sound like you're making excuses for CDPR.
>>337180971
It incorporates physics into the shader equation. It measures the velocity, weight, distance, etc of the object into the effect. And the blur of both effects just looks cool in motion.
Crysis even did chromatic aberration and depth of field properly unlike every other game ever.
>>337181145
It's not realistic, your eyes already blur objects in motion.
Then 60fps blurs it even more.
Then aliasing blurs it even more.
Per-object blur is worthless outside of maybe racing game screenshots and that image perfectly illustrates how stupid an effect it is.
>hey guys motion blur ruined this screenshot by making it appear as if that character is walking a hundred miles per hour!
>>337181481
Oh my god you're retarded, an object doesn't need to move hundred miles per hour for moving things to blur. Ever tried moving your fucking hand in front of your eyes?
And what's more retarded is that you think your eyes will blur moving things displayed on a stationary 2D monitor. You're like those idiots who think your eyes create natural depth of field as well when looking at fucking depthless pictures on a monitor.
>>337181481
>woooooow this guy is walking at the speed of light, what an unrealistic picture
>>337181861
>Ever tried moving your fucking hand in front of your eyes?
Nigger you can't even read, you ignored most of my post. I addressed how much motion blur already exists in games and that went over your head.
>ou're like those idiots who think your eyes create natural depth of field as well when looking at fucking depthless pictures on a monitor.
Your eyes do have a narrow field of view but that doesn't add blur to games, no. Do you know what a field of view is?
>>337182416
You actually think your eyes naturally blur objects in motion on a flat 2D monitor. Do you even realize how stupid that is?
>>337179571
I legit didn't notice this blur, and I love blur.
I lock Crysis at 30fps with motion blur, that's how I prefer to play it.
I've played hundreds of hours of both MGSV and Crysis.
As long as it isn't screen space blur i think its fine. Individual item blur like how crysis does it (even tho that game has screen space blur also) looks good like when things are moving fast
>>337180038
Really? Seemed fine to me.
>/v/ has revealed their plebeian status regarding motion blur
I'm not surprised by anything any more.
>>337179571
It honestly doesn't bother me and can actually look pretty damn good if done correctly.
>>337179571
I really like it. Terrible when done poorly, but really helps animations look tangible.
Might be in the minority on this, but I think the SFV motion blur looks great.
it's a crutch to try and make sub-60fps console games look better
>>337184427
If anything, it looks better at higher FPS. More movement information in each frame is better regardless of FPS.
H-he's fast! The Thread
>>337182280
using a long shutter time isn't a good comparison to the human eye
>>337180529
I get this meme :)
>>337185013
Yeah, the human eye is even worse at not blurring moving objects
Motion blur added after the fact is kind of pointless because the natural motion blur that occurs due to the latency of your optic nerves happens anyway.
So if you have your engine putting in motion blur, it stacks with your eyes' built in motion blur and makes fast moving scenes look like ass. This effect if greatly magnified the lower the framerate is when you move the camera around quickly with motion blur turned on in game.
tl;dr FUCK motion blur.
>>337185684
No. There is no natural motion blur when looking at a monitor. You are a mongoloid.
>>337185841
Then explain motion blur when looking out the window of a moving vehicle, same concept except the monitor is your window. Plus the minute ghosting present in all LCDs adds more blur ontop of that, but whatever I guess you sure proved me wrong.
>>337181145
>realism in VIDEO game
>>337186210
No point since you clearly haven't the slightest grasp on the basic concept of depth if you actually think that looking at the monitor and looking through a window is the same thing.
>games uses motion blur
>its tied to shitty low/medium/high presets instead of just an option you can toggle off
>>337186210
Except you can just look out a window of a car and look at a monitor to show how clearly wrong you are. Hell, you can just turn your head quickly. Your brain is (probably) smart enough to distinguish between moving objects and a single changing image. One obvious way this manifests is that your eyes blur stuff with respect to its velocity and your monitor clearly doesn't.
>>337185841
You are incredibly moronic or a decent troll. Which is it?
>>337188325
Image persistence is not motion blur. Your eyes are never going to blur frames together, it knows it's looking at discrete images.
Subtle motion blur is great, helps blend motion together and creates the illusion of seamless movement.
Some games go a little heavy with it, but otherwise I don't have much of an issue with it.
>>337188573
If motion blur is taking place on your monitor, whether it's an intended effect or not, it's still motion blur, dummy.
Good motion blur is when you don't even notice it in the first place. I still turn them off, though.
>>337188325
>>337189038
Do you know the meaning of the word "natural", retard?
>>337179571
I disable it whenever possible along with bloom and dof since it's pretty damn ugly cinematic effect which just can't look good on a computer screen.
>ITT faggots who have shitty pcs that can't handle motion blur in games
>>337189303
>do I fit in guys?
The posts in this thread are fresher bait than the old "the human eye can't see past 20 fps", I have to commend you on getting ready so quickly.
>>337189389
ITT: Losers with bad taste that somehow like motion blur or just lack the ability to disable itThat last part was me calling you a retard.
>>337190040
>liking effects that occur naturally in real life is bad taste
You must hate shadows and reflections too. Great taste faggot.
>>337189593
It just doesn't look natural, more often than not the screen goes into this mush that really looks nothing like throwing my head from side to side.
The only game I think that ever used it very well was Dead Rising 1.
That shit used it perfectly for all the quick little motions.
You don't really know motion blur until you play Type-0 HD.
>>337190362
>effects that occur naturally in real life
If they can't do it right, which is usually the case, they're better without it.
>>337179571
Motion blur serves one purpose: hide the ugly ass jaggies for console cucks and PCucks who have PC's that is too shitty to run real anti aliasing settings.
And don't get me started on how horribly games utilize DOF.
>>337190939
>mfw the only way to to get AA in MGSV is to enable DoF or force it in your GPU control panel
>>337190850
>>337179571
>>337183089
>and I love blur
How come? Every time I see blur I turn it off so I can see object details all the time, and I haven't met any people that actually prefer it.
>>337193868
When it's done right motion looks way more natural. Usually when it's combined with a high framerate it's great. Tekken 6/Tag 2 and Crysis are great examples. Even 30fps games with blur can look great such as Driveclub.
I didn't even notice that MGSV had blur while playing it.
>>337193458
kek nice
>>337179571
LCD monitors already have motion blur. You can't disable it.
>>337179571
My most hated fucking 'grafix' feature
>Let's invent a mechanically intensive graphical overlay that makes everything look like 8-bit shit in our 'muh grafix' game.
>not blurry enuff! It has to be 700 kph blurry!
>'but sir. This is for a walking speed'
>I DON'T CARE!!! MORE BLUR = MORE ACTIONY = MORE SALES
