Motion Blur, Good, or Bad? Now [56K]

Motion blur is great when USED RIGHT...its realistic, vision blurs when there is fast movement. Killzone 2 does it great, IMO. Eyezonmii

[QUOTE="Eyezonmii"]Motion blur is great when USED RIGHT...its realistic, vision blurs when there is fast movement. Killzone 2 does it great, IMO. Steppy_76

[QUOTE="st1ka"] the thing is motion blur actually helps taking a load off the processing power, in other words the more blur the better a game runshorrowhip

KZ2 does it a bit too much, but they manner it does is it technically not reducing the load on the processor, infact it does the opposite(only it helps achieve their cinematic vision of the game).

You are confusing it with just a blurring effect that results from the processor doing crude and general rendering as fast as possible without a huge worry about the overall quality(ala GTA4 on the 360 and Mass Effect).

Full Screen Cinematic Motion Blur is actually a complicated and very high end technology with blurring based upon movement, distance and other factors. It basically does per-pixel calculation for the blurring effect to result in a high quality and highly cinematic image.

No ****. I have to cut down motion blur in Crysis so I can bump up the other effects. Motion blur in Killzone 2 is not a gimmick, fanboys should get that through their heads already.

[QUOTE="Eyezonmii"]Motion blur is great when USED RIGHT...its realistic, vision blurs when there is fast movement. Killzone 2 does it great, IMO. Juggernaut140

Move your hand in front of your face, what do you see? That's right, motion blur. Even the slightest movement has some MB. Killzone 2 is a great looking game and I don't even have a PS3 :P

I always hear people say how they hate motion blur and say how its a cheap trick, but to be honest i think motion blur looks great. Yes it is true motion blur can be used to cover up textures, example: killzone 2 (though the later builds the textures are pretty good for a console game).

but when i play crysis i find the motion blur adds to the immersion into the game, makes the game appear smooth, and even if it is to cover up bad textures, (not in crysis of course), i still find it looks great.

so up to you to decide

Yes to motion Blur? Why?

No to motion Blur? Why?

(id post screenshots of Crysis/Killzone 2/Project Offset but i cant....id also put poll a but again i cant)

gamer7890

[QUOTE="Juggernaut140"][QUOTE="Eyezonmii"]Motion blur is great when USED RIGHT...its realistic, vision blurs when there is fast movement. Killzone 2 does it great, IMO. Epak_

Move your hand in front of your face, what do you see? That's right, motion blur. Even the slightest movement has some MB. Killzone 2 is a great looking game and I don't even have a PS3 :P

[QUOTE="Epak_"]

[QUOTE="Juggernaut140"] No. Every slight movement in Killzone 2 has blur which is just stupid.Steppy_76

Move your hand in front of your face, what do you see? That's right, motion blur. Even the slightest movement has some MB. Killzone 2 is a great looking game and I don't even have a PS3 :P

You're living in a lie! :P

I personally like motion blur. It makes it feel more realistic or 'immersive.'

But "pretty good for a console game"[when referring to textures]? They're great for a console game if you compare it to GeoW2 or Halo. On a more sarcastic note, it's motion blur doesn't cover up textures becausethere aren't any lacking textures to be had. :P

Dark_Torment

You're living in a lie! Epak_

[QUOTE="Epak_"]You're living in a lie! delta3074

Try focusing on something else than the hand and then do it, there will be blur, you should see the trail of the hand. You'll be focusing on the enemy and not your hands in a battlefield

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="Epak_"]You're living in a lie! Epak_

Try focusing on something else than the hand and then do it, there will be blur, you should see the trail of the hand. You'll be focusing on the enemy and not your hands in a battlefield

I've mostly only noticed motion blur in fps console games. Granted I've played only a few fps games on consoles, but it did seem a bit meh compared to a pc fps of similar generation. I've tried halo 3, timwarp, resistance, etc..

I did however like ut3 on ps3 which allowed keyboard/mouse which was awesome.

[QUOTE="Epak_"]

[QUOTE="delta3074"]no, i think he's right, i just moved my hand in front of my face and it didn't blur at all, it sounds to me that you may need glasses (i'm not being rude, just trying to be helpful)delta3074

Try focusing on something else than the hand and then do it, there will be blur, you should see the trail of the hand. You'll be focusing on the enemy and not your hands in a battlefield

Well I've been in the army (you could say it's almost mandatory here in Finland) and no I'm not talking about depth of field or your whole field of vision blurring. Are you really telling me that your hand doesn't leave any trails when you sweep it over your eyes while focusing on your tv for example? I can't believe I'm even debating about something so natural. You think it's just some cool effect game developers invented WTH?

[QUOTE="Epak_"]

[QUOTE="delta3074"] depth of field or something like that. [QUOTE="Epak_"]

[QUOTE="Juggernaut140"][QUOTE="Eyezonmii"]Motion blur is great when USED RIGHT...its realistic, vision blurs when there is fast movement. Killzone 2 does it great, IMO. delta3074

Move your hand in front of your face, what do you see? That's right, motion blur. Even the slightest movement has some MB. Killzone 2 is a great looking game and I don't even have a PS3 :P

i love motion blur, it's bloom i hate, god i wish consoles had the option to turn bloom off, i always do it on the PCst1ka

[QUOTE="Epak_"]

[QUOTE="delta3074"]no, i think he's right, i just moved my hand in front of my face and it didn't blur at all, it sounds to me that you may need glasses (i'm not being rude, just trying to be helpful)delta3074

Try focusing on something else than the hand and then do it, there will be blur, you should see the trail of the hand. You'll be focusing on the enemy and not your hands in a battlefield

Motion blur is a real life effect. Any game going for realistic visuals and doesn't use motion blur, is foolish. For some games is essential to look realistic while other games use it for style. Killzone 2 uses it in both ways. Cedmln

That's right, I can't believe some people are trying to have a debate about this. It's taking fanboyism to a whole new level: denying the facts of real life:roll:

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="Epak_"]

Try focusing on something else than the hand and then do it, there will be blur, you should see the trail of the hand. You'll be focusing on the enemy and not your hands in a battlefield

Epak_

Well I've been in the army (you could say it's almost mandatory here in Finland) and no I'm not talking about depth of field or your whole field of vision blurring. Are you really telling me that your hand doesn't leave any trails when you sweep it over your eyes while focusing on your tv for example? I can't believe I'm even debating about something so natural. You think it's just some cool effect game developers invented WTH?

You ever try this "test" in multiple lighting scenarios? Human eyes do not see frames we see light or not light. A frame is a lighted picture with some areas darker or lighter and overall they represent an image. So all this blurring, bloom, etc.. Is all light, not as light, lighter, lightest, darker, dark, darkest, etc...

So given that I bet an image fully lighted or fully darked will be better than an image crowded with a bunch of crap to hide the light source.

Though thats just my opinion so.

Well I've been in the army (you could say it's almost mandatory here in Finland) and no I'm not talking about depth of field or your whole field of vision blurring. Are you really telling me that your hand doesn't leave any trails when you sweep it over your eyes while focusing on your tv for example? I can't believe I'm even debating about something so natural. You think it's just some cool effect game developers invented WTH?Epak_

[QUOTE="Epak_"]Well I've been in the army (you could say it's almost mandatory here in Finland) and no I'm not talking about depth of field or your whole field of vision blurring. Are you really telling me that your hand doesn't leave any trails when you sweep it over your eyes while focusing on your tv for example? I can't believe I'm even debating about something so natural. You think it's just some cool effect game developers invented WTH?delta3074

Yeah whatever, there's no reason to continue this conversation.

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="Epak_"]You're living in a lie! Epak_

Try focusing on something else than the hand and then do it, there will be blur, you should see the trail of the hand. You'll be focusing on the enemy and not your hands in a battlefield

[QUOTE="Epak_"]

[QUOTE="delta3074"]no, i think he's right, i just moved my hand in front of my face and it didn't blur at all, it sounds to me that you may need glasses (i'm not being rude, just trying to be helpful)Steppy_76

Try focusing on something else than the hand and then do it, there will be blur, you should see the trail of the hand. You'll be focusing on the enemy and not your hands in a battlefield

Killzone2: that looks pretty natural to me.

that looks pretty natural to me. Epak_

[QUOTE="Epak_"] that looks pretty natural to me. delta3074

It is just MUCH, MUCH more difficult to notice because of the ways that our eyes focus. Naturally, our eyes focus on specific things and move with them. That prevents motion blur from being easily apparent to us. However, if you were to move your head without really focusing on anything, just use your general perception to view everything(it is extremely difficult to do) and there is a SLIGHT motion blur.

KZ2 takes it a bit over the top but it does it in a very good way.

Same thing with Depth of Field effects.

They ARE natural phenomenon.

[QUOTE="delta3074"][QUOTE="Epak_"] that looks pretty natural to me. horrowhip

It is just MUCH, MUCH more difficult to notice because of the ways that our eyes focus. Naturally, our eyes focus on specific things and move with them. That prevents motion blur from being easily apparent to us. However, if you were to move your head without really focusing on anything, just use your general perception to view everything(it is extremely difficult to do) and there is a SLIGHT motion blur.

KZ2 takes it a bit over the top but it does it in a very good way.

Same thing with Depth of Field effects.

They ARE natural phenomenon.

[QUOTE="Juggernaut140"][QUOTE="Eyezonmii"]Motion blur is great when USED RIGHT...its realistic, vision blurs when there is fast movement. Killzone 2 does it great, IMO. Epak_

Move your hand in front of your face, what do you see? That's right, motion blur. Even the slightest movement has some MB. Killzone 2 is a great looking game and I don't even have a PS3 :P

Have a person walk in front of you about five feet away. No motion blur right? If you so much as turn ever so slightly or have someone walk infront of you fron side to side(from you left field of view to your right) in killzone 2 it creates a good amount of motion blur. Killzone and Mass Effect just have excessive motion blur that makes me turned off fromt he game a little bit.

[QUOTE="Epak_"][QUOTE="Steppy_76"]Oh I can see blur, but not at "the slightest movement". I don't question that it happens, but seriously if your seeing blur at the "slightest movement" see a doctor. Killzone has pretty good cinematic motion blur, but since it supposed to be through your eyes and not through a camera it's WAY overdone.Steppy_76

Killzone2: that looks pretty natural to me.

So you got bad eyesight?

Let's get one thing straight then

This is not motion blur

This is motion blur

I admit that Killzone 2 could do well with a little less MB, but they're on the right track imo.

[QUOTE="Steppy_76"][QUOTE="Epak_"]

Killzone2: that looks pretty natural to me.

Epak_

So you got bad eyesight?

Let's get one thing straight then

This is not motion blur

This is motion blur

I admit that Killzone 2 could do well with a little less MB, but they're on the right track imo.

And killzone 2 looks like the second picture under normal walking conditions which is what people are talking about. Also that second picture is camera motion blur not eyesight because the background is not moving yet in the picture it has motion blur. The problem with killzone is that the motion blur comes from objects not from the POV. I know that sounds confusing but it is the only thing I can think of how to explain it.

[QUOTE="Epak_"][QUOTE="Steppy_76"]Then you must have a brain tumor, because I'm near sighted and the blur I see isn't as exaggereated as it is in killzone.

spinecaton

So you got bad eyesight?

Let's get one thing straight then

This is not motion blur

This is motion blur

I admit that Killzone 2 could do well with a little less MB, but they're on the right track imo.

And killzone 2 looks like the second picture under normal walking conditions which is what people are talking about. Also that second picture is camera motion blur not eyesight because the background is not moving yet in the picture it has motion blur. The problem with killzone is that the motion blur comes from objects not from the POV. I know that sounds confusing but it is the only thing I can think of how to explain it.

Crytek uses object MB in Crysis too and it's completely right (trees falling down etc.) It's not a problem at all... and no, it doesn't look like the second picture :|

[QUOTE="spinecaton"][QUOTE="Epak_"]

So you got bad eyesight?

Let's get one thing straight then

This is not motion blur

This is motion blur

I admit that Killzone 2 could do well with a little less MB, but they're on the right track imo.

Epak_

And killzone 2 looks like the second picture under normal walking conditions which is what people are talking about. Also that second picture is camera motion blur not eyesight because the background is not moving yet in the picture it has motion blur. The problem with killzone is that the motion blur comes from objects not from the POV. I know that sounds confusing but it is the only thing I can think of how to explain it.

Crytek uses object MB in Crysis too and it's completely right (trees falling down etc.) It's not a problem at all... and no, it doesn't look like the second picture :|

I know I exaggerated, but so is the motion blur from killzone 2. Not like the second picture, but still more then need be.

And killzone 2 looks like the second picture under normal walking conditions which is what people are talking about. Also that second picture is camera motion blur not eyesight because the background is not moving yet in the picture it has motion blur. The problem with killzone is that the motion blur comes from objects not from the POV. I know that sounds confusing but it is the only thing I can think of how to explain it.

spinecaton

[QUOTE="spinecaton"]

And killzone 2 looks like the second picture under normal walking conditions which is what people are talking about. Also that second picture is camera motion blur not eyesight because the background is not moving yet in the picture it has motion blur. The problem with killzone is that the motion blur comes from objects not from the POV. I know that sounds confusing but it is the only thing I can think of how to explain it.

Teufelhuhn

What bothers me the most is the motion blur from someones body as they stafe infront of you. It is too excessive and it distracts me, I don't even know why.

PDZ motion blur annoyed me too but for different reasons, it seemed that the motion blur was on the wrong side of the gun... lol