What's with Linus' hate for Motion Blur?

[Roswell]

19 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

Not necessarily. A bunch of games specifically try to emulate cameras. And most games have a slider for motion blur value, whether it's shown to you or not.

 

Motion blur in film is more just a byproduct of shutter speed and required amount of light capture. Although yes, it also helps blend together frames. It isn't strictly necessary now with digital cameras.

 

Mmm... yes, but if the framerate is high enough there's a natural motion blur and adding motion blur on top of that might make it more "cinematic" but not "realistic."

So you’re saying that games are emulating cameras which themselves work because they emulate human vision via blur...

 

Cut the middle out, you’re just repeating what I said. Also, motion blur absolutely is still a thing for digital cameras, it’s not like it’s something that can be disabled in the camera’s settings.

[Roswell]

23 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

Per object motion blur is still in relation to the camera. If the camera is static, a moving object blurs. If it tracks the object the environment is blurred. It's an improvement over the old method which only blurred based on camera movement, but it's still relative to camera motion.

 

I think it was the TAA then. There was some spooky ghosty trees n stuff.

Now you’re trying to move goalposts for no apparent reason. You said motion blur in games was “entirely tied to camera movement”. I said it’s not and now you’re talking about cameras that don’t move. Which is it?

 

Per object motion blur’s concept is right in its name. It’s based on individual objects. They will blur if the camera is static, they will alter depending on movement or not blur at all if they’re tracking with the camera. The camera itself is a variable, not the source of the blur.

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

54 minutes ago, Whiskers said:

Halo: Reach tried to do it. But its implementation wasn't very good

Would you say Bungie has improved since?

For me personally, since my computer is already out of its league trying to run Destiny 2, motion blur just makes my already horrible low textures (rendered at 80%) vomit inducing. 

[Lord Vile]

Makes everything look muddy and especially on MP FPS games you can't see what you're looking at while turning.

[dilpickle]

2 hours ago, Maury Sells Wigs said:

Can't stand the motion blur effect, so I always turn it off...that, and any film grain option. 

Oh yeah forgot about film grain. These are all defects of a 100 year old technology. Adding these to a game to degrade the experience is idiotic.

 

Hollywood has gone digital so we've finally got rid of grain. Now they need to get with the program and adopt HFR too.

[Morrie Sells Wigs]

5 minutes ago, dilpickle said:

Oh yeah forgot about film grain. These are all defects of a 100 year old technology. Adding these to a game to degrade the experience is idiotic.

 

Hollywood has gone digital so we've finally got rid of grain. Now they need to get with the program and adopt HFR too.

I just find film grain makes everything look dirty and rough.

 

Honestly, it has no positive aspects for me.

[Spindel]

Motion blur is the current day form of lens glare in games from late 90s early 00s. 

 

Yeah lets add an effekt that is an artifact of camera/lens technology into our games that strive for "realistic" graphics. 

[Sakkura]

2 hours ago, Vitamanic said:

It’s designed to emulate your eyeballs, not film.

 

24 FPS film worked because the motion blur played with your brain, emulating how moving objects were perceived in real life.

 

Motion blur in games exists for the same reason. Since our brains can perceive differences well beyond even 144 FPS, adding GOOD motion blur should reduce the uncanny valley effect of a game if it’s aiming for realism.

That's not true.

 

Motion blur in games is designed to emulate film, rather than the human visual system.

 

Check the Digital Foundry video OP linked. He goes on about how the virtual shutter speed has to be high for it to look good, for example. Well, shutter speed is something cameras have and our eyes do not.

[Roswell]

23 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

That's not true.

 

Motion blur in games is designed to emulate film, rather than the human visual system.

 

Check the Digital Foundry video OP linked. He goes on about how the virtual shutter speed has to be high for it to look good, for example. Well, shutter speed is something cameras have and our eyes do not.

Wave your hand in front of your face. 
 

Just because film achieves the same result in your brain that motion blur in games does doesn’t mean that the end result magically becomes mutually exclusive.

 

[Sakkura]

39 minutes ago, Vitamanic said:

Wave your hand in front of your face. 
 

Just because film achieves the same result in your brain that motion blur in games does doesn’t mean that the end result magically becomes mutually exclusive.

 

Motion blur in film and games is different from the motion blur you sometimes see with your eyes. Fake motion blur does not make a game look more like what you'd see with your eyes, just like film grain or lens flare or depth of field. These are all fake effects meant to look like film.

 

Bear in mind no game has ever even implemented saccadic masking.

[Arika]

motion blur is a 100% personal preference thing.

 

I use it in some games.

I don't use it in others.

[Mooshi]

idgaf if a dev missed holidays with their family working on motion blur, it just looks bad in my opinion. It doesn't add to any immersion. It's on par with the cheap Nitrous effect from the early Fast & Furious movies.

[minibois]

Personally I don't like how motion blur looks, never.

I don't think people should need a technical justification for a personal preference.

 

Maybe it helps with low fps situations; but I would assume someone like Linus doesn't often find himself in these situations, making his stance towards motion blur negative.

[Sampajama]

7 hours ago, Whiskers said:

I feel that motion blur gets a bad rep just because a lot of people (incorrectly) assume that it's the same as it used to be, where it would just blur the entire screen and make everything in motion look terrible. But it's much more advanced than that these days, and most good devs and games use it in beneficial and even subtle ways.

this is exactly what I'm trying to say.

[Morrie Sells Wigs]

6 hours ago, BlueChinchillaEatingDorito said:

Would you say Bungie has improved since?

For me personally, since my computer is already out of its league trying to run Destiny 2, motion blur just makes my already horrible low textures (rendered at 80%) vomit inducing. 

It's very pronounced in that video.

 

Your character looks really far away from the camera too.

 

Is there an option to do that or is just my eyes?

[Mark Kaine]

12 hours ago, Sampajama said:

*snip*

Edit: y'all clearly didn't read the first sentence and decided, you know what, let me ignore these points and just spam the classic "motion blur bad."

No, motion blurr is terrible, it's why we use a PC so we can turn this trash off.

 

 

you didn't make a compelling argument otherwise that's why people would respond like this.

[Demonic Donut]

6 hours ago, Vitamanic said:

Wave your hand in front of your face.

It's clear and in focus... Because I'm looking at it. THAT is the problem with motion blur. It doesn't know what I'm looking at, so it either blurs everything that moves or tries to relate it to the camera. Its an artistic, artificial effect that they (game developers) either like, or think others like.

 

If I'm focusing on something, I don't want it blurry. If I'm not focusing on something, it will naturally blur because of MY vision and not something being induced by the picture on the screen. Therefore, for me, motion blur is pointless because it adds stress to my system and looks terrible. It doesn't do anything productive or graphically superior.

 

[Tan3l6]

12 hours ago, Sampajama said:

IDK, whats your opinion.

It's like a free demo of myopia in motion in most games.

 

[Quinnell]

Just now, Demonic Donut said:

It's clear and in focus... Because I'm looking at it. THAT is the problem with motion blur. It doesn't know what I'm looking at, so it either blurs everything that moves or tries to relate it to the camera. Its an artistic, artificial effect that they (game developers) either like, or think others like.

 

If I'm focusing on something, I don't want it blurry. If I'm not focusing on something, it will naturally blur because of MY vision and not something being induced by the picture on the screen. Therefore, for me, motion blur is pointless because it adds stress to my system and looks terrible. It doesn't do anything productive or graphically superior.

 

I am not a fan of motion blur for the same reasons specified here.  It's just something that really isn't needed because your brain already does it.  I want things as clear as possible for me.  

 

I'll even turn off depth of field in certain types of games (like shooters) so background stuff doesn't go blurry based on focus.

[Whiskers]

9 hours ago, BlueChinchillaEatingDorito said:

Would you say Bungie has improved since?
 

For me personally, since my computer is already out of its league trying to run Destiny 2, motion blur just makes my already horrible low textures (rendered at 80%) vomit inducing. 

I’d say Destiny 2 is objectively speaking a huge improvement in its implementation of motion blur over Halo: Reach. But its use is so heavy-handed that I can totally see why people don’t like it. Heck I didn’t; I disabled it, even though in a lot of games these days I like motion blur.

[Roswell]

1 hour ago, Demonic Donut said:

It's clear and in focus... Because I'm looking at it. THAT is the problem with motion blur. It doesn't know what I'm looking at, so it either blurs everything that moves or tries to relate it to the camera. Its an artistic, artificial effect that they (game developers) either like, or think others like.

 

If I'm focusing on something, I don't want it blurry. If I'm not focusing on something, it will naturally blur because of MY vision and not something being induced by the picture on the screen. Therefore, for me, motion blur is pointless because it adds stress to my system and looks terrible. It doesn't do anything productive or graphically superior.

 

No, your hand blurs just like the rest of the human population. Also, per object motion blur has been a thing for some time now, the game is aware of your viewpoint and what objects are moving and applies blur accordingly.

 

The rest of your reply is irrelevant to me as that’s not related to anything I said in the thread.

[Zenith_X1]

I dont get mad at Shroud for using his super PC to play on the lowest possible settings because it's his computer.  I would be mad if he forcibly turned down details on my computer.

Let Linus be Linus and you be you.  In a time of random rage, there are absolutely things that aren't worth being angry at

[Sauron]

Artificial motion blur is a crutch to make low framerates seem smoother, typically employed on consoles. The idea comes from movies which typically look smoother than they should at 24fps because when you film real life the frames are a bit blurred. It doesn't matter how much effort you put in making it look better, it's still not a substitute for just having higher framerates - and on most games it just looks awful.

[Brennan Price]

14 hours ago, Sampajama said:

but I feel like the people who call it trash never really gave it a shot. I think if you turned on motion blur in a game that implemented it correctly, you wouldn't notice anything distracting.

I don't think the majority of people would turn it off if they didn't give it a shot. It's as simple as Why does my game look/feel so bad when I move my camera in game? Oh yeah because Motion Blur is on.

 

All the same, even if Devs did put a bunch of time into something such as motion blur, it doesn't mean that it should be used or universally liked, that argument simply does not hold up very well. It is exactly the same as a car company putting lots of time and work into a new car, it doesn't mean that everyone is going to like the car does it?

[Kisai]

15 hours ago, Sampajama said:

On multiple occasions Linus, when maxing out game settings, will go out of his way to turn off motion blur.

 

Motion Blur induces motion sickness in people who get motion sickness. Same reason I turn Anti-aliasing down or off. Also why I'm generally going to pooh-pooh low-end VR tech, because low-quality implementations will physically make you sick, but you never know if it will make YOU sick. That's the bodies response to a disconnect between the visual system and the vestibular system, so it invokes a response as though you had been poisoned.

 

I personally know I'm affected by "sitting still, but visual field moving" type of motion sickness, as I've experienced that at IMAX films, which is right where this kind of motion blur effect would do it. I've been extremely hesitant to even try VR kit. 

 

Anyways to that end, Motion Blur and Anti-aliasing, and some lens effects should probably be turned off, if you've ever experienced motion sickness, and only turned on gradually, because it's not something you're going to feel in 2 minutes, it's something you're going to feel in about 20 minutes.

 

Travelling in vehicles I largely close my eyes to minimize it, and that's just not something you can do with entertainment.