What's with Linus' hate for Motion Blur?

[Tristerin]

Also me: Turns off motion blur in all games

 

btw I read your entire post including your edit, motion blur still sucks

[JZStudios]

10 hours ago, Vitamanic said:

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

No, games emulate cameras which have shutters that are open for a period of time where they receive light onto film, burning an image. Or onto a digital sensor, effectively doing the same. It's a byproduct of shutter speed, not simulating human eyes. Even then there's plenty of instances where I watch a movie in a theater and the motion blur is so intense it's hard to look at and hurts my eyes. In effect, it's not "realistic," it's a byproduct of camera limitations and framerate. You can get a more natural looking film by filming at a higher framerate with thus less motion blur, like The Hobbit filmed at 48 fps, then people complain it looks too realistic and not cinematic. Human eyes don't smear.

 

You can take completely solid stills with no blur at 24 fps, but then playback looks choppy. The only reason for motion blur to realistically exist in games or cinema is make up for low frame rate.

11 hours ago, Vitamanic said:

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.

Not what I meant. Digital cameras have adjustable ISO and are more capable of low light/high speed recording than film, meaning you could film with less motion blur since the shutter speed can be reduced.

There's 3 main methods of changing light values in cameras, the f-stop, which altering changes depth of field and all sorts of other wacky shit so it's typically set where you want it and left, the ISO, which is basically sensitivity and on film the common was 800 on the high end. There was rare stuff at 3200, but most digital cameras now can go to 6400 or higher. The Sony A7S III was designed for low light and can go to an incredible 102,400 native or extended to 409,600. The last option is shutter speed, the longer the shutter is open, the more light allowed to enter, but also the blurrier the image.

 

With film you were pretty limited to low iso and therefore needed the shutter open longer, hence the blur. Newer digital cameras don't have that limitation.

11 hours ago, Vitamanic said:

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.

It's the same thing, it's not moving goal posts. If it's tied to camera movement, that by definition means it's also tied to the camera not moving. Now you're just trying to argue.

 

Then you say what I just stated. Amazing.

 

2 hours ago, Demonic Donut said:

tries to relate it to the camera.

 

Shhh! Don't talk about it being relative to camera movement, because then you're wrong and he'll tell you why you're right!

[Joseph K]

19 hours ago, Whiskers said:

Halo: Reach tried to do it. But its implementation wasn't very good, and they were using a super early form of TAA which when combined with the motion blur just led to a really unpleasantly blurry image in motion. Thankfully it's gone in the Master Chief Collection, both for the Xbox and PC.

 

Doom 2016 and Doom Eternal have what I'd say is a perfect example of how to use it right. They have a fantastic implementation of per-object motion blur, and use it for example to give weapon animations a better appearance of motion. 

 

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.

I will admit, Doom 2016 was definitely a title where the game felt smoother and faster with motion blur on low rather than off.

[TetraSky]

Motion blur literally makes me dizzy and is irritating on my eyes.

I don't care that developers put any sort of work into a filter layer, if I see motion blur option in a game, I disable it right away.

 

(And yes, I've read your post OP, including the edit, still don't like it)

[jollander]

The only time I ever even think about motion blur is when I've just started playing a new game and it looks and feels weird. 100% of the time it's motion blur. Feels very artificial for me, kind of like in cheap action flicks where they insert motion blur in post to make body movements or cars look faster. Looks effed up.

 

 

[TetraSky]

Linus sharing his thoughts on Motion blur again

 

Spoiler

 

[divito]

Given most of the games I used to play were competitive, motion blur, whether a game feature, hardware limitation or what have you, it causes sharpness, clarity and performance issues that aren't helpful to game play. Even in the case of games that "implement it well," it means something isn't being rendered as well as it could be, and detracts from what my eyes need to see to perform better.

[solarflare]

When your trying to see enemy's who might not be easily noticeable i find most of those blur of bloom effects cause me to be basically blind while moving around. 

 

I will literally look right past enemy's when its on and seems like as soon as i disable them i start noticing everything properly. 

[Praesi]

Most Game dont get it right. I disable it 99% of the Time. Like Depth of Field.

[mo44]

How would you feel if movies were edited to include motion blur (not just relying on it naturally occurring)?

I find a lot of the time motion blur in games is over exaggerated, Crysis is particularly bad for me.

 

I put it in the category of unnecessary effects to add-in along with lens flares, film grain, and shaky cam.

[Dem1se]

It's somethings to keep on in third person single player games like tomb raider maybe, but anyone that plays competitive games like csgo is going to turn it off since it makes tracking your shots on a moving target that much harder, and flicks are almost impossible with motion blur.

I used to play with motion blur on when I was playing on a old laptop but ultimately, I realized that I was losing out on a ton of details if I had it on once I built a PC. So I turn it off if I see it most of the time now. Regardless, I get it why someone would want to use it, it is very cinematic afterall.

[Entropy.]

On 10/1/2020 at 7:39 PM, Sampajama said:

 

You're famous! 7:05. Lienus Disapproves. 

 

[Karones]

On 10/2/2020 at 4:51 PM, Vitamanic said:

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.

if I do it quickly right in front of my face, yeah, it's blurry, but that's not all motion blur does in games. Stretch your arm in front of you and move it side to side while looking at it, you can see all the details, your eyes follow the moving object, but in games, it blurs every single moving thing, even if you're looking at it. Same thing if someone is running on the other side of the street, you should have no problem focusing on said person while artificial motion blur would make it look terrible.

[Roswell]

39 minutes ago, Karones said:

if I do it quickly right in front of my face, yeah, it's blurry, but that's not all motion blur does in games. Stretch your arm in front of you and move it side to side while looking at it, you can see all the details, your eyes follow the moving object, but in games, it blurs every single moving thing, even if you're looking at it. Same thing if someone is running on the other side of the street, you should have no problem focusing on said person while artificial motion blur would make it look terrible.

That’s not how per object motion blur works at all. If you’re tracking an object in the game it isn’t blurred.
 

As in real life, if something is moving across your field of view (while your focal point is elsewhere) and is close/fast enough, it will blur. If the character itself is moving fast enough over terrain (like a in a speeding car) outside of your focal point will blur, again like real life. If you’re stationary and a character is at a distance walking... it’s not going to blur because the game logic calculates speed, field of view, perspective, distance and so on.

 

You may have had a point in the year 2002, but we’re no longer playing PS2 games. Things haven’t worked that way (frame based blur) for almost 20 years.

[Bad5ector]

It usually tanks performance and for me doesn't really add much to the experience.

[spartaman64]

i like looking at a detailed image/video. motion blur removes detail so i dont like motion blur

[Johanness]

1 hour ago, Vitamanic said:

That’s not how per object motion blur works at all. If you’re tracking an object in the game it isn’t blurred.

I think you haven't understood what @Karones is trying to say. The problem is that the game dosn't know if I'm tracking the object with my eyes. Note that I may track any object on the screen. If the game wants to ensure that it doesn't blur anything that I'm tracking, the only option is to not blur anything on the screen, effectively disabling motion blur.

 

In my experiance, I have problems with motion blur when I haven't been exposed to it for a while. When I watch any movie or series (after not watching something for some weeks), it often "hurts" my eyes because I try to track moving objects on the screen. I usually have to close my eyes multiple times for that reason. After about 30 minutes, I'm used to the motion plur and stop tracking moving objects. The same happens to me when I enable motion blur in games.

[JerseyXS97]

Just going to throw my humble opinion out there: It's very game dependent, and I usually turn it off in games. Though, a great implementation example would be Forza Horizon 3 & 4. A very poorly done example of the same genre is Need for Speed: Heat, where a ton of artifacting is introduced. So, usually I will say no but it's definitely situational.

[Alendo]

I did watch DF's video, and I must say I'm willing to try it out in some games going forward. However, I don't necessarily agree with everything stated there. Yes, camera motion blur is a no go, as they explained in the video. They (and you) give the example of waving your hand in front of your face, and how it becomes blurred. I realise this is a realistic thing, but it doesn't mean that I want it to be like that, if I could turn off that motion blur in real life, I would, so why would I have it on in a game? Realistic doesn't necesarrily mean good. I want the stuff on my monitor to look as clear as possible. I also want the experience to be smooth. I'll test out how motion blur works against these criterias in the future, but I'm not sold on the DF video alone.

 

As for depth of field, has this ever been implemented in a good way, and not just blurring everything that isn't in the middle of the screen? I mean, it's not like I'm only looking near the crosshair.

[TrialMacameau]

To be really honest with you all, I don't care if I turn Motion blur on or off. I just leave it default and enjoy the game as is. Plus ecstatically speaking, it looks good.

[jubuttib]

I won't say that many games implement motion blur well enough to actually be good, but there's nothing inherently wrong with motion blur

 

 Our eyes and visual system weren't designed to look at series of totally sharp images (no matter how high the FPS), some blurring of moving objects is inherent to how we see things in the real world. Replicating this without adding anything extra is IMO where motion blur has its place, when done well. When done well it can even make 60 fps games look like they're running smoother, similarly to how the motion blur in movies helps mitigate the fps being merely 24. Take Saving Private Ryan as an example, the "stuttery" portions of the Normandy landing were filmed at the same framerate as the rest of the film, they just halved the exposure time per frame for those shots, cutting down the amount of motion blur and creating that stuttery effect.

[PaulHughes95]

3 hours ago, Alendo said:

I did watch DF's video, and I must say I'm willing to try it out in some games going forward. However, I don't necessarily agree with everything stated there. Yes, camera motion blur is a no go, as they explained in the video. They (and you) give the example of waving your hand in front of your face, and how it becomes blurred. I realise this is a realistic thing, but it doesn't mean that I want it to be like that, if I could turn off that motion blur in real life, I would, so why would I have it on in a game? Realistic doesn't necesarrily mean good. I want the stuff on my monitor to look as clear as possible. I also want the experience to be smooth. I'll test out how motion blur works against these criterias in the future, but I'm not sold on the DF video alone.

 

As for depth of field, has this ever been implemented in a good way, and not just blurring everything that isn't in the middle of the screen? I mean, it's not like I'm only looking near the crosshair.

Maybe it's cause I mostly play flight sims with head tracking but I always bring my focus to the center of the screen...

[Gurrra]

Yeah I don't get the hate at all. To me motion blur _always_ looks good and natural. If a game supports it I will have it on, the same way that I want all my movies to have motion blur. I really hate all these Youtubers filming stuff with their phone, gopros or whatever with way to fast shutter speeds making the motion look SO bad and way to distracting.

But yeah, I can get that one wouldn't want camera blur in some fast paced games, but per object blur should always be mandatory ;)

The best example of really good looking motion blur is the new Ratchet & Clank game for PS5. The motion blur makes that 30 fps looks so so buttery smooth!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GffelVJeGws

 

And yeah, anyone who like's any kind of aliasing is bad, and motion blur is exactly what's needed to remove temporal aliasing ;)

 

[Mark Kaine]

7 hours ago, TrialMacameau said:

To be really honest with you all, I don't care if I turn Motion blur on or off. I just leave it default and enjoy the game as is. Plus ecstatically speaking, it looks good.

So there are actually people who like motion blur. 

 

(thought that's a myth lol) 

[Stahlmann]

Lol some of us spend so much money for high-end GPUs and monitors to get rid of motion blur however possible. I've never had a single game where i actually preferred it enabled. Why would i want to give up image clarity?