Motion blur is every bit as dependent on where/how you look as DOF. You can "eliminate" motion blur by locking your eyes onto a point and tracking with it. If you have motion blur in-game while driving, then no matter what, if you lock your eyes onto a trackside object and track with it, it will always be blurred. To ISI: Obviously, I don't know how far you've gotten with MB implementation on your end yet. But, here's a paper published by some guys I work with: http://graphics.cs.williams.edu/papers/MotionBlurI3D12/ They said if you have any questions, feel free to email them. They've given the timing on a couple of different hardware at different quality levels in the paper. I see it every day, it's quite impressive.
It is true in real life where objects are moving continuously. In quantized image flow (a movie in cinema/TV or game displayed onto monitor) movement is split to single frames. it is not real movement any more. You cannot track object which appear on your monitor for single frame or two. In such case motion blur should help makes fast moving objects more eye-friendly. But I'm sure you know what I'm talking about, because video on site you point on, demonstrates it very well
True, it's very much a subjective thing. Someone who has a true 120Hz monitor and can run the game just as smoothly will probably prefer no MB, whereas someone who's just barely squeaking out 30fps will most likely benefit from generous amounts. (just two instances, not the only possible combinations).
not sure if there was motion blur but to me richard burns rally had the best replay cameras ive come across. i spent more time watching replays than racing. the slight movement and perfect positioning really felt like you were standing there watching. i think i might reinstall it now that ive mentioned it. cheers
About the difficulty of simulating human DOF: Not to mention that a huge part of the human DOF perception has to do with the fact that we are using two eyes to look at a single spot which moves around, so anything in front or behind where we're focusing is doubled (most noticeable at short distances, though is a factor at longer distances as well).
Someone was asking about the differences in video if shot from a small lens close to a subject versus a long lens shot from a distance and zoomed in. The biggest difference is going to be in the FOV vs distance to object. With a normal lens you might be 20 feet from the subject of your video where with a long lens you might be 1000 feet from it. In order to get the same amount of background in the image to frame the shot the same, the perception of angles will be different. Think of the longer telephoto lens as having 2 almost parallel lines from the lens to the subject where as the shorter lens will be more like a cone from the lens to the subject. The longer lens is going to see more around the sides of the subject as the subject won't be blocking out so much. This changes the perspective of the shot. Another thing to think about. The smaller close lens will basically deform shapes compared to what the longer lens sees. An example of this is a cube. When seen from the smaller lens, it will look like the back side is quite a bit smaller than the front side. When viewed from the longer lens zoomed in, the back side is much nearer in appearance in size to the front side. As far as the shaking goes, the reason there is less shake on the longer lens is due to the professional shots being taken from either a tripod or a hard mounted motion tracking base which eliminates the shake as everything is nice and smooth. Try being nice and smooth with any motion shot with a handheld device
I´d love to have a motion blue option in the graphics menu, I think if done correctly it would improve the feel of the actual speed you are moving in and help the gameplay. And the people who don´t like motion blue could just turn it off, so everyone is happy
EXACTLY!!! Motion blur is a ****in joke, its called "graphical effects for the mainstream moron little kid video game players" out there that think these effects mean "Better Graphics". Its all marketing bull**** since 90% of gamers out there are casual guys playing call of duty on their xboxs who dont know **** for ****. If something is moving fast it WILL blur because its moving fast, but if you lock you view point on it and can keep it locked during the entire movement than it will be much less blurry or even not blurry at all. But the general public who are half retarded when it comes to technical things, think that "the more effects" the better the graphics are. Its the same story with people who think tons of bloom is real just because it looks pretty in the game doesnt mean it looks real or that the game has better graphics because of it. When I go out in the world things dont glow like im in heavens garden of eden amongst God himself.
+1 I also think it's safe to say that whenever motionblur gets implemented it will be configurable, so if you don't want it --> deactivate it. Simple as that. There's really no need to make a fuss about it
try to lock your eyes on objects moving 200kmph 2 metres behind your door window. it is impossible irl. In game it will appear for single frame if you have a luck. For such fast moving objects motion blur adds smoothness. And I this is a reason why should be added, not just to be another fx. So.. you have problem with this effect itself or with amount applied? You say "tons" is bad, but denied this effect at all.
Bloody hell... get it off your chest eh? Everything you`ve said above is in your opinion and you should state that and don`t call others morons or retards because they would like something that you wouldn`t. Anyway, as has been said, I`m sure it`ll be an option in game if it`s going to be there at all.
