FONismo, you and ISI are right from my point of view. Indeed motion blur is imperative for a nice replay as its a characteristic/peculiarity of video cameras in real life. In other hand, when playing the game we shall see what we would see if really driving a car so there is not motion blur. Or maybe very little when it comes to very fast moving objects as the spinning tires, that ISI already did. So ISI, help FONismo's great videos with the implementation of motion blur in replays!
rfactor 1 has more of that "im actually there" feeling in the replay mode instead of the "im watching on television" feeling. The cars seem more raw, they seem faster, you see the car moving around gripwise more, just like being at a track in real life. Where as if it had a more televised look style of replays, the cars look much slower than they are actually going, the cars look more stable and "move around" (gripwise) less (compare tv broadcast video to raw home video, youll see what I mean) I hope rfactor 2 when its gold can keep the more rawness look of the rfactor 1 replay but with a bit of motion blur/depth of field to give it that televised look, but dont over do the post processing or the image gets too soft and almost looks too filtered and you loose the "im actually there look" and it becomes too much "im watching on tv" look". I think they should have a middle ground. You guys are right for a proper television style feeling DOF and FOV are important, but the other thing that makes a BIG difference, is camera movement, if I had to choose 1, I would choose good camera movement, over DOF and FOV any day. The way the car is locked, or almost always locked to the centre of the screen just destroys the replays for me. It needs to have more movement, a bit of shaking here and there, loosing track of the car for the first split second because the car flies into view so quickly the camera was almost not ready for it, and just overall random movement. I mean what looks better when watching youtube vids, home ametuer video or televised broadcasts. The televised ones all the cars look planted to the ground, they all look like they are taking the same lines, everything feels so slow and boring and almost easy. I always have to tell people "actually they are doing almost 300kph there not 150ish", or "they are actually going 80kp/h there in the pits not 20", but on home video recordings everything is much more raw, you see more, driver differences, different lines into corners, different entry points, they look wayyyyy faster, etc etc etc. That to me is wayyy better than the pure televised broadcasted almost "filtered/simplified" look.
I think a big deal in all that, Spinelli, is how far the camera is zoomed in. On television, especially on straights, they tend to zoom in extremely which takes all the movement out of the shot, whereas 'home video's' are not nearly as zoomed in, which results in more movement.. Hope you get my point..
Good point, zooming in too much I think also ruins replays, gives it to much of a faked movie look, Out of curiousity, if you were to compare a far away video camera zoomed in, to a closer camera that's zoomed in less, and they both have the exact same picture, would one or the other look or feel different? Both are zoomed in or out to compensate for the difference of the camera distance so that the video shot on both cameras are identical....
They've to look different. When you use the zoom (tele lens) you're using a short angle of view that change the perspective and relative (apparent) sizes between subjects. If you're near the main focused subject, to obtain a similar shot you'll get a completely different perspective (normal and/or wide lens)..so all the stuff around the subject will look different in size, relative distances and perspective. You can easily understand this effect looking at the "vertigo" effect achieved by the use of a zooming during a camera backward movement. The subject still remains similar but all the background changes with a very dramatic effect;
Yeh I`ve got to agree too... Motion blur is essential to have imo, both motion blur on the car(s) surroundings (track/background etc) and motion blur on the tyres/wheels. Both of these were sadly missing in rf1 and are a must in rf2.
No they weren't. The wheels had motion blur if the modders added it (most didn't, but you can't blame the engine on that), off the top of my head I can name at least the JSC mod that 100% certainly had wheel blur. Background motion blur was missing though, but could be added with the ENB plug-in.
Yeh I know the engine was capable of it and I should have made that clearer in my first post. As you say most modders didn`t use/implement it so that`s why it wasn`t seen much in rf1. Both background and wheels motion blur could be done to a very high standard in rf2 though so I hope it is.
I'm fairly certain there still won't be a general purpose motion blur for the wheels, and that it'll still have to be done by the modders. The reason I'm saying this is that even SMS is doing the blurred wheels like that in pCARS.
SMS have motion blur for the backgrounds and wheels and if they have it in game now I don`t think they`re going to remove it. It`s been there form the earliest build I had of it which was b91 Anyway I`d like to see it in rf2 so lets hope it`s there.
What? I never got it working in ENB. Didn't hear of anyone else either, in youtube videos I think it was all added after recording.
They have motion blur for wheels but it's not a general purpose effect, it's done by the artists on a tyre by tyre basis, look at the art threads. That's essentially how it was done in rF1 as well. Funny, I got to work, in some early version. It didn't look particularly good though and was a real performance hog, so I didn't bother with it since. I remember needing to hack the values a lot though.
You can find same effect in a lot of movies. Also iR has simmilar implementation of FOV: you are changing fov but subjective distance between you and driving wheel don't change. Some time ago I asked for this feature. Why not? It depends on threshold of enabling motion blur. Of course it should affect most of view through windscreen. But why not while watching a wall placed 1 meter from a car, through side windows? Basically everything which cannot be displayed smoothly due to speed differences, should be blurred. Otherwise we can see jumped objects across a monitor. For example when you stay in pit-box, watching main straight from inside a car, cars racing with pace speed will be shown on you monitor maybe in 2 frames, main just blink in single frame. Such things should be blurred appearing a bit more time.
I don't like motion blur in game. There is too many blur in every game. It is like, you can't look everywhere you want, because game blur it. Maybe like option. Blur looks good on pictures.
Motion Blur for replay or screenshot: I agree too Motion Blur in game/while driving: that depends the way it’s implemented Systematically I remove blur when I found this setting in a game (by setting screen or tricking config file), due to the way it’s implemented, and because it’s costly in fps. For example, in third person shooter, or arcade racing game, all the screen is blurred, because developer use a specific technic which involve the whole screen, and not individual speedy parts (road, wall, etc.). They stack several frames, like x previous ones, or computed specifically for the effect, with a strong shade effect for older one (transparency nearly at maximum), to the most crispy frame (the last one), and when all is ready they display the result. It means all the screen is blurry but the central object (your avatar, like the character in Assassin Creed, or your car in Dirt series, etc.). This central avatar still more crispy because sometimes it is rendered in a separate process, or just because it's the only thing which don't really move (central position, the axe). E.g. turning on itself your character in Assassin Creed. And also, this blurry effect let me think too much of a console game
I've to agree. Talking on the "realistic" side, DOF blur is very limited (near to zero/infinite) in standard broadcast Tv cameras (too small CCDs/CMOS) and those kind of blurs you see in other titles are more DSLR/Reflex style (bigger sensor and fast lens). So I would like to have just a little DOF blur option for a DSLR screenshots style.
@Pascal there are 2 different blurs: motion blur and DOF blur (Deep of field) DOF from 1st person perspective indeed makes no sense, because it is you who decide where to look at the moment. But motion blur should be designed to help displaying fast/close moving objects relative to camera/eyes. And in that case it is good thing. Without it you will notice jumping objects instead of fast movement. I can see that arcade game developers makes people believe that blurs, HDRs, blooms are terms for unrealistic effects, which not appear in real live. All because that those effects are usually overdone in arcade productions.
Correct. The DOF is just for reflex style shot. The human eye have his own DOF but is extremely difficult to simulate, as it depends on a lot of subjective variables..and of course is not suitable for single monitors setups and is useless because our fovea (the eye area who get the focus) is free to move...and you've to get focus where your fovea looks around the screen.. Our eyes are creating the most realistic human DOF... Those Forza replays are totally unreal unless you're using 35mm cams/lens instead videos....so actually rF is more realistic without all those postFX you see on other titles.
