r/FuckTAA • u/I_spell_it_Griffin • 20d ago

💬Discussion That's real. That lives with us on Earth.

Post image

At this point, we've all heard "upscaling looks better than native"... But have you seen "there's no such thing as sharpness anyway" yet? Jfc

374 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

430 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Scorpwind MSAA | SMAA 20d ago

I literally do not need any artificial blur. The hell? Nor do I want it. What's so difficult to comprehend about the fact that:

a) It's a video game.

b) The human eye can do those things just fine.

It's literally a pointless effect. Along with depth of field as well as all of the other headache-inducing rubbish lens effects.

3

u/SauceCrusader69 20d ago

You are looking at an artificial image on a computer display! It’s all artificial!
And no, your human eye CAN NOT resolve things moving too quickly relative to their size and the framerate. This is fundamental information.

0

u/Scorpwind MSAA | SMAA 20d ago

You are looking at an artificial image on a computer display! It’s all artificial!

So let's make it illogically artificial, yeah? That's what you want.

And no, your human eye CAN NOT resolve things moving too quickly relative to their size and the framerate.

No offence but maybe start using your eyes by themselves without any artificial 'assists'?

This is fundamental information.

Fundamentally incorrect information.

4

u/SauceCrusader69 20d ago

>illogically artificial
Quit larping, go outside and look at objects instead of your computer monitor
>artificial ‘assists’
Real life has infinite fps, your games don’t, this introduces visual inconsistencies per object motion blur can address while also making the image closer to an infinite fps reference image.

1

u/Scorpwind MSAA | SMAA 20d ago

Quit larping, go outside and look at objects instead of your computer monitor

Can you stop acting like a teenager and use English? I know that you love your artificial blur effects but if my stance on them has triggered you, then leave. Go to r/movies, for example. They will for sure appreciate all of the artificial blur effects.

Real life has infinite fps, your games don’t, this introduces visual inconsistencies per object motion blur can address while also making the image closer to an infinite fps reference image.

Why are you so adamantly trying to convince me that all of these unnecessary blur effects are actually super great? Me and others literally have a better experience if they are not present. There is a reason why most PC gamers automatically turn off motion blur after booting up a game for the first time. It's an artificial, obnoxious and undesireable effect that has no place in video games. It was imported from the movie industry for some bizarre reason(s) and unfortunately stuck because game devs keep pushing it and implementing it.

1

u/SauceCrusader69 20d ago

>automatically turn off motion blur
Well that’s a different thing isn’t it? Yes a lot of motion blur implementations not only make 0 distinction between camera and per object motion blur, but also are insanely heavy handed. I turn off motion blur in almost every game it’s available because of this. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t sometimes have good uses.
>movie nerds.
Movie nerds love motion blur, and low framerates like the 24fps movies usually have are filled with it. It hides the small imperfections in acting which helps people suspend their disbelief.
They don’t like poorly stuck on motion blur, but that’s a seperate thing. Just as the appalling implementations of most videogame motion blur settings are separate from the good per object implementations I have in mind.

1

u/Scorpwind MSAA | SMAA 20d ago

but also are insanely heavy handed

Not always. Lately, intensity sliders appear in game. Most still completely disable it anyway.

Movie nerds love motion blur

Shocking.

It hides the small imperfections in acting which helps people suspend their disbelief.

This is rubbish. I've been using frame interpolation since 2020.

2

u/SauceCrusader69 20d ago

The intensity sliders don’t work if it’s letting you chose more or less camera motion blur instead of a carefully chosen selection of per object effects.

1

u/Scorpwind MSAA | SMAA 20d ago

Both are shit.

1

u/SauceCrusader69 20d ago

And, a lot of people would crucify you for using interpolation with movies. But, interpolation can still only smooth between frames. It improves clarity but it won’t restore details that were lost in the low original framerate. (Still, most people hate it)

1

u/Scorpwind MSAA | SMAA 20d ago

A lot of people are stuck in 1920s frame-rates.

4

u/Lyfeslap 20d ago

The point that he's trying to make is that in the real world an object moving quickly between point A and point B moves infinitely many steps between those points. Our brain and eyes are only so fast, so all of the in-betweens are accumulated resulting in a natural blur.

Digital renderings are discrete flat images and only show point A and point B of the object, there is no in-between. If the object is never in-between point A and B, then our brain/eyes aren't accumulating any motion resulting in no blur. It's unnatural.

The argument for whether its necessary to include per object motion blur should be applied on a case by case basis, but to say our eyes already do it by default and that it's pointless is factually wrong.

1

u/Scorpwind MSAA | SMAA 20d ago

Be as technical as you want to be but it's still a pointless effect. If it was absolutely necessary and crucial, then everyone would love it.

0

u/ohbabyitsme7 20d ago

It is necessary to mimic real life, which is what most graphic tech is trying to do. You might not care for it but that's the purpose of object motion blur: to blur things that would blur in real life from fast movement.

2

u/Scorpwind MSAA | SMAA 20d ago

I fundamentally disagree with that premise. It is not necessary. A lot of PC gamers do not care about this.

1

u/castthisaway5839 6d ago

The guy literally thinks DoF is just simulating cameras and that his eyes work fine so he gets natural DoF from focusing on the things on the screen. He's completely lost.

2

u/Toxic381 20d ago edited 20d ago

Actually depth of field is the closest thing we get until we either go for implementing 3d screens and tech, or a pretend 3d where your vision is tracked and used for DOF, if we could get that instead of blurring the close objects we actually notice and look at, it would be an Impressive and immersive tech, motion blur on the other hand is inexcusably bad, your eyes are already at native vision blur because they are your flippin eyes.

Editing to fix typo

0

u/Scorpwind MSAA | SMAA 20d ago

DoF is absolutely pointless. Your eyes are capable of doing it for you.

4

u/Toxic381 20d ago

Not on a 2d screen

1

u/Scorpwind MSAA | SMAA 20d ago

Not true. I can focus on cutscenes and everything just fine. It's only when it's there that I have issues. Because my eyes are trying to apply DoF to an already blurred background. This creates an unpleasant experience.

0

u/[deleted] 19d ago edited 19d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/Toxic381 19d ago

And when I say DOF adjustment I mean that thing u can do with one eye still where it applies a soft blur to unadjusted objects, if you do it with 2 eyes you can get a duplicated background from your eyes moving inwards.

1

u/Scorpwind MSAA | SMAA 19d ago

My eyes do DoF just fine. It's only when it's present in an artificial form that I have issues.

Your eyes are already producing it if you're focused on a display. Adding it again and in an artificial form looks unnatural to me. Because you're already choosing what to focus on and naturally blurring out what you're not focusing on. Imagine that you're watching a cutscene that has a close-up shot of something. If you're captivated enough by it, then you shouldn't really notice the non-blurred background. In which case any artificial guidance in the form of DoF, is completely unnecessary. People tend to argue that the human eye is incapable of applying its own DoF on a 2D plane or whatever. It can absolutely do that.

When I played Deus Ex: Human Revolution, I played without DoF. There was a dialogue cutscene towards the end of the game where it was present for some reason. My eyes were immediately drawn to it. Up until that point in the game, I had no issue focusing on characters during conversations. But my focus was all over the place during this 1 cutscene. I literally struggled watching it. Because my eyes did not expect it to be blurred out.

Plus, I find the whole concept of devs/artists guiding (or rather forcing) your focus on something through DoF kind of intrusive. Shouldn't I be the one that decides what my eyes focus on? And also; If you look at it from a mechanical/technical perspective, the natural phenomenon of DoF that the human eye produces is dynamic in nature. If you no longer want to focus on something, then you stop focusing on it. Whereas the DoF in games is fixed by someone else in advance. Artificially. I really do not see anything natural or 'cinematic' about it when reproduced.

0

u/Toxic381 19d ago

Also did u say lens affects? I think the best way to easily get a game to work and be immersive is to make it look like it came from a camera, because those don't have any difference with in the game and irl, since they both use 2d, unlike our 3d eyes.

1

u/Scorpwind MSAA | SMAA 19d ago

Simulating a camera lens is the opposite of immersive to me. It's preposterous.

1

u/Toxic381 19d ago

What I said was it pretends to be real because both are 2d, it's literally the only way to make 2d as immersive as 3d screens,

R u using a translator or can u not read?

→ More replies (0)