DiamanteGeeza said:
Somebloke said:
Motion blur and depth of field, both. *shudder*
(EDIT: No idea whether QC does the latter - just a general comment.)
DoF and motion blur can be fine when used properly, and by 'properly' I mean subtly. VERY subtly. DoF in particular can add tremendous depth to a scene, but it has to be really, really gently done.
The current favored use of both are cranked up so high it's like smearing Vaseline on your screen, and it's very annoying. Remember when lens flare was the 'in thing', ten or so years ago? Where you could barely see what was going on because of the horrible flare-ring sprites covering the entire screen? Ugh! Same deal: "Ooohhh, look at our sparkly effect we've spent weeks implementing and, just to make sure you don't miss it and can truly appreciate how amazing we are, we've cranked it up to full. Enjoy!"
Over-done motion blur was bad enough when it was simple full screen, but this horrible new pixel-based motion blur, as seen in all Unreal games and titles like The Club is just eye-poppingly bad. It looks terrible and very artificial, IMO.
I see what you are saying and there is truth to it - especially when you see wierd effects, where objects are smeared individually, prior to compositing, and display sharp edges (keeping their regular outline) between blurred background and blurred foreground.
I'd say, however, that it's a matter of application: Depth of field is great for cutscenes, the shallower the better, even. It is not so much about getting a sense of depth, as it is making the object in focus pop, literally as well as figuratively.
In gameplay, though,
I would like to decide what I am looking at, even if I don't have whatever that may be within my crosshairs.
Who knows; Maybe one day we'll see the effect successfully coupled with precision eye-tracking - that might work - they might even be able to work the LOD systems into that...
As for Motion blur; That is something that exists to compensate for a low frame rate - 24fps for film, traditionally -- in that case produced by choosing film with a suitably long exposure time.
We have come to subconsiously expect the look that that combination of aspects produces (along with aforemented shallow focal range), from professional movies, so the effect certainly does have its place, where the designer makes an artistic choice to emulate a cinematic experience. I could recommend the game "Stacking", which employs both beautifully, to convey both a sense of old-timey cinema and the miniature scale of the scenery.
Cinematography itself, incidently, is moving to 48fps.
Films will look the smoother for it, but there may well be some initial complaints about them looking home-video-ish, if not handled properly.
For general gameplay; If producing the motion blur uses as much processing as just rendering and displaying that extra intermediate full frame, in its crisp glory (and the effect is often produced exactly by rendering extra frames and blending them, sometimes resulting in "ghost images", rather than a "streak"), I think I'd rather have the real frame.
Sorry about the verbosity, but I thought your post deserved the attention.