Motion Blur in DNF [Archive] - 3D Realms Forums

infowars

09-19-2006, 07:11 PM

I know george has said 'field of depth' or blurring effects are easy to do and HAS been implemented into DNF! yah! :D

I think that these visual effects add MORE realism and appeal to the Look of games , and are just as important if not MORE important as higher and higher polys, resolutions, and whatnot...

I'd like to see amazing realism 'visually' in DNF. After this long wait, I'd like this kind of treat. Alot of next gen games are mainly implementing these effects along with INSANELY high poly counts, as the harware technology in the market gets better and better, duo core CPUs , and even quad cores...SLI video cards, totallying 1GB video RAM, 2 GBs of system ram, etc...

These next gen gaming rigs can handle these insane graphics [ultra high poly counts on models & environments, but rather ....just adding these visual effects makes the games look WAY more REAL and more appealing.

Think about how YOUR vision looks in real life, compared to a video game...Do you have super clear , ultra high quality vision?? Sure... for about 20 feet, being your 'field of vision' if you have 20/20 vision...past this distance, its MORE blurred..the further away the object is.

I wanna see REAL looking 'MOTION BLUR' effects:insomnia: Looking close to what is in real life photography/film...(see pic)

http://mnvideo.com/blur.jpg

Thoughts?

JobivanHiob

09-19-2006, 08:03 PM

infowars

09-19-2006, 11:06 PM

this pic looks cool, its a photo?!
motion blur in crysis looks nice, if DNF has it as good as crysis this would be fine.
Iam just imaginate the Vegas-overview of the DNF 01 trailer, all the cars speeding the street along, this would look very nice with motion blur...

exactly what i pictured when i saw this...the 2001 trailer, duke running towards traffic on the road...and how it must look now! I seriously cant wait for this game. btw...its a REAL photograph of tanks on the streets of thialand. [i know, looks like a game]

btw, off topic, but i had a dream last night, that 8 new screens [thumbs] were posted on the mainpage of 3drealms of dnf. I only remember looking at 1 screenshot...it looked worse graphics then the 2001 trailer and it was of duke using his might boot. glad it was a dream. heheh.

alexgk

09-19-2006, 11:32 PM

btw, off topic, but i had a dream last night, that 8 new screens [thumbs] were posted on the mainpage of 3drealms of dnf. I only remember looking at 1 screenshot...it looked worse graphics then the 2001 trailer and it was of duke using his might boot. glad it was a dream. heheh.
:o OMG, that wasn't a dream, it was a nightmare.

On-topic: Motion blur adds realism to any game, and everyone wants DNF to look realistic, and I'm sure 3DR will deliver.

General Failure

09-20-2006, 02:33 AM

Assuming Duke won't be running around with a camera where his head should be, I'd say these kind of effects doesn't contribute to the realism at all.

ReadOnly

09-20-2006, 02:45 AM

I know george has said 'field of depth' or blurring effects are easy to do and HAS been implemented into DNF! yah!

When did he say that they have implemented it?

Kristian Joensen

09-20-2006, 03:42 AM

Don't worry. When I say tech complete, I mean we could ship if all the content were done. It's fairly easy to add and update shaders and we do so all the time. The graphics guys area ahead and always have time to add in bells and whistles. Many things like per pixel blur, depth of field etc, have zero impact on game content and drop in, in a few days. - George Broussard, March 30th, 2006(source (http://forums.3drealms.com/vb/showpost.php?p=271053&postcount=84)).

That post was followed by me asking if they where in to which he answered: (http://forums.3drealms.com/vb/showpost.php?p=271091&postcount=93)

Yeah, those things are in and have been for a while. And yes, we've been fundamentally tech complete for longer than a year. But this is a case where you just say things without thinking and then people pick the details apart in print later. - George Broussard, March 30th, 2006(Source (http://forums.3drealms.com/vb/showpost.php?p=271105&postcount=95)).

Edward Brock

09-20-2006, 06:49 AM

Assuming Duke won't be running around with a camera where his head should be, I'd say these kind of effects doesn't contribute to the realism at all.
Yeah, that kinda puzzles me too.
But I also think it's not that important really. It certainly won't spoil the game for me, no way.

RedDogUK

09-20-2006, 07:03 AM

The reason why we require such high frame rates (and resolutions too) is because games produce razor sharp images. The frame rates and resolution of a film are usually much lower (except HD stuff :p) but can appear better precisely because the images blur in a realistic way. Bizare as it may sound I kind of think that blurey images are the future of gaming!

I kind of don't get the above comments. I'm not criticising or anything but most first person games (including FPS, racing games and loads of others) are worked as if they were viewed from a camera at eye level. I don't really get what the difference would be. Things viewed from the first person in a film don't look wierd because they're through a camera. Or am I misunderstanding something?

The picture fo the tank at the top of this thread may look strange but if it was moving (even at a very leisurely 30 fps) then it would look incredible. Well that's my opinion anyway.

ReadOnly

09-20-2006, 07:27 AM

2Kristian: Damn, I could myself find those... :)
Didn't remember about "they're in" though.

Kristian Joensen

09-20-2006, 07:32 AM

Nope problem gald to be of service.

big fat lazy

09-20-2006, 08:02 AM

Assuming Duke won't be running around with a camera where his head should be, I'd say these kind of effects doesn't contribute to the realism at all.

There's motion blur and depth of field in real life, not just on camera, so it would contribute to realism.

bokaj

09-20-2006, 10:02 AM

"Originally Posted by General Failure
Assuming Duke won't be running around with a camera where his head should be, I'd say these kind of effects doesn't contribute to the realism at all."

Maybe reffering to the picture. This kind of blur you will get on camera but not in real life.
But I agree .. blur is a good thing adding to the sense of speed and action in generel. It can be realistic or exaggerated in a clever way to give a more intense experience. Also agree that razor sharp long distance view isn't contributing to the realism at all .. still cool looking in some games however..

Damn .. we should be designing games instead of wasting our time in this "frozen in time" forum.

It will be fun if the game comes out. All the discussions depending of the quality of the game. "So .. the worst game ever produced in the univers .. how do you guys feel about spending all these years discussing chainguns and pigcops."

Denz

09-20-2006, 11:11 AM

THe thing is that it only take 5 minutes to answer so it's not a waste of time.

Guere

09-20-2006, 11:47 AM

Assuming Duke won't be running around with a camera where his head should be, I'd say these kind of effects doesn't contribute to the realism at all.

Couldn't agree more; said this before in other topics about this stuff.

FireFly

09-20-2006, 12:03 PM

If motion blur is done correctly, you shouldn't consciously notice it.

Guere

09-20-2006, 02:13 PM

Maybe, but *all* the examples i've seen in current or upcoming games are so overdone it's (for me!) really irritating. If I stand outside and watch the cars go by, there is no way I get that movie-like motion blur effect. I have to admit I don't know that much about the subject, but I can clearly see that most of these effects are way overdone (and for me personally, overrated).

FireFly

09-20-2006, 04:22 PM

Well, the effects you talk about aren't true motion blur; they're just called that for lack of a better term. Motion blur exists to reduce the visible differences between frames, not magnify them.

It's effectively temporal anti-aliasing - when you only sample one point in time, animations become unrealistically jerky, but by averaging over several frames you can smooth out the movement.

To see this in action, check out the Project Offset SneakPeek 2 trailer:

http://www.projectoffset.com/downloads.html

avatar_58

09-20-2006, 04:23 PM

I prefer more effects like this over AA/AF and resolutions.....so I say bring it on ;)

NutWrench

09-20-2006, 08:20 PM

It's more useful in games where the camera is moving at high speed. (Like a racing game)
http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/6193/blur1jg7.th.jpg (http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/6193/blur1jg7.jpg)

Micki!

09-21-2006, 01:13 AM

i could see it happeneing (motionblur) when Duke was riding the motorcycle... but i wouldn't want it to be so exessive, that i can't "recognize" the environments... would be a shame if the suroundings looked cool, but i can't see them because of this effect bluring it to much...

IHerman

09-21-2006, 02:48 AM

I hope any blurring can be turned off.

Guere

09-21-2006, 04:41 AM

FireFly: Thanks for the link. It does look quite good in that trailer; totally not disturbing and hardly noticeable when playing, only when paused. I guess it's just stupid to try and show off motion blur in screenshots cause it'll just look way overdone or just not how it's supposed to be..

alpha400

09-21-2006, 06:19 AM

I hope any blurring can be turned off.

I think thats the best solution, and it shouldn't be to much work to implement a switch.

the motion blur effect is incredible:cool: , like in lostplanet or deadrising, so its a must-have for dnf.

btw, i know penumbra has motionblur, but are there any other released fps/3ps pc-games who got motionblur?

Tim. Just Tim.

09-21-2006, 09:59 AM

Motion blur is a good thing.
Motion blur is most likely in.
What more is there to say?

I dont know why you would want to turn motion blur off, IHerman.
Actually I dont know how it affects performance, but that would be the only reason, to boost framerate. Personally Id turn off HDR before motion blur.

Kristian Joensen

09-21-2006, 10:00 AM

Most likely in ? It IS in. George said it was in.

Tim. Just Tim.

09-21-2006, 10:17 AM

Most likely in ? It IS in. George said it was in.

Ok, extremely likely in then.
;)

IHerman

09-22-2006, 03:38 AM

I dont know why you would want to turn motion blur off, IHerman.I find it annoying. In Doom 3 it was used properly, only when you were hurt, but full motion blurring during the game would be horrible.

I was also referring to depth of field, which in my opinion is the most useless feature in a FPS. Whatever I'm looking at should be sharp, and my PC doesn't know which point of the screen I'm looking at. It would be stupid if only things in the middle of the screen would be sharp. Perhaps I would leave it on if only object within a 20cm distance from Duke would be blurred if I was looking at something else.

I doubt it will not annoy me. And I suspect it will be a resource hog, both effects. However DX10 cards might have hardware accelerated features that support these effects.

It's not like bump-mapping, which doesn't affect the way you experience the game. That's why I hope it can be turned off.

Micki!

09-22-2006, 05:52 AM

Sayantan

09-22-2006, 02:26 PM

Many things like per pixel blur, depth of field ETC, have zero impact on game content and drop in, in a few days.

That etc will hopefully include motion blur to my assumption. It has become a common feature these days.

..... Long Live Post-Process effects :D

FireFly

09-22-2006, 02:35 PM

I find it annoying. In Doom 3 it was used properly, only when you were hurt, but full motion blurring during the game would be horrible.

But that was just a generic blur effect; it wasn't motion blur. As I said, motion blur is designed to smooth out the differences between frames, not magnify them, so the amount of blurring has to depend on the speed of the objects involved.

Doom 3 used an over-exagerrated effect which was designed to simulate the physical consequences of being hit - dizziness, confusion, temporary impairment of vision.

Jiminator

09-22-2006, 04:29 PM

motion blur is designed to more closely simulate what the eye sees. it happens automatically on film/video with moving objects. each frame is open for a period of time, and moving things are somewhat blurred. When we watch them later the brain is able to smoothly transition the objects. Now this is at 30 fps. If you play a video game at 30 fps it just seems jerky. That is because you are seeing a bunch of snapshots of objects in one place or another. the brain has no blur so it has a hard time relating them together. if done properly I think motion blur should tremendously improve the playability of games.

Sayantan

09-22-2006, 09:11 PM

Doom 3 used an over-exagerrated effect which was designed to simulate the physical consequences of being hit - dizziness, confusion, temporary impairment of vision.

Yeah, as I believe Doom3 uses a generic post-process blur during that time which also uses a mask which makes the blur more at the corner of the screen and less at the centre of the screen.

infowars

09-23-2006, 12:31 AM

Malgon

09-25-2006, 05:05 AM

That etc will hopefully include motion blur to my assumption. It has become a common feature these days.

..... Long Live Post-Process effects :D

I assumed Per-pixel blur is motion blur. Can someone correct me on this? :)

Drewcifer

09-25-2006, 10:10 AM

Motion blur is an application of per-pixel blur.

Sayantan

09-25-2006, 12:55 PM

The term "per-pixel" means some real-time graphical changes(or maybe something for collision) that occur at pixel-level ..... during the days of old graphic cards everything used to be at vertex level and hence looked a bit corner-ish.

Yeah, Drewcifer is absolutely right.

Kristian Joensen

09-25-2006, 01:04 PM

Well George has specifically mentiond motion blur before. Here is a quote from Shacknews:

Actually per pixel motion blur makes a huge difference playing a game, making things look more real and generally smoothing things out. Depth of Field and other little effects can be used all over in different effects ways. These all enhance visual immersion. - George Broussard, December 10th, 2005.

infowars

09-25-2006, 06:23 PM

god your good ^:D

Ivan

09-25-2006, 08:14 PM

god your good ^:D

Yeah, Kristian and Firefly are the shit. :D

infowars

09-25-2006, 09:42 PM

Yeah, Kristian and Firefly are the shit. :D
nice avatar ivan...
How we miss cobain...sigh.:( courtney is a bitch.

Since these features are confirmed...i wonder how they will tie in together with the great graphics

Sayantan

09-26-2006, 12:57 AM

Yeah, Kristian and Firefly are the shit. :D

"The Living WikiDNF" actually. :D

...... and Kaiser is the unofficial PR executive of DNF :p

Kalki

09-26-2006, 03:24 AM

Well George has specifically mentiond motion blur before. Here is a quote from Shacknews:

- George Broussard, December 10th, 2005.
Don't you think that should go in the you-know-what? :confused:

Kristian Joensen

09-26-2006, 05:02 AM

Well the quote was about Motion Blur not DNF as such. When he said that I assumed tht motion blur was in but I couldn't be sure because the discussion wasn't about that.

But I just figured that it had to be in DNF, because how else could George know.

FireFly

09-26-2006, 05:49 AM

It's possible that by "per-pixel blur" he was referring to a general blurring effect, because if they're using deferred rendering then they won't be able to get conventional AA.

Kalki

09-26-2006, 05:51 AM

Well the section I'm referring to could use a description and even a general opinion on the effect, especially if it comes from George. :cool:

And George's later confirmation proves you right, albeit retroactively.

Malgon

09-26-2006, 06:14 AM

Thanks Drewcifer and Sayantan, it helped to clear it up. :)

Sayantan

09-26-2006, 08:59 AM

Anytime mate. :)

KaiserSoze

09-26-2006, 10:35 AM

"The Living WikiDNF" actually. :D

...... and Kaiser is the unofficial PR executive of DNF :p

DNF doesn't need any pr.

The viral marketing of the game via it's development process is priceless. :p

Micki!

09-26-2006, 12:37 PM

DNF doesn't need any pr.

The viral marketing of the game via it's development process is priceless. :p

Thne we don't need you :p

Nahh, stay anyway

Sayantan

09-26-2006, 02:53 PM

DNF doesn't need any pr.

The viral marketing of the game via it's development process is priceless. :p

All your threads are a PR trap. The more a person starts reading those, the more he wants DNF ..... when it's done. ;) ...... :dopefish: ........ :insomnia:

ishak540m

09-27-2006, 01:19 PM

I think Crysis has just the right amount of motion blur. Like when trees fall or you seem something out of the corner of your eye/screen.

The Fearful

09-27-2006, 05:16 PM

Just think that they might have somthing real special in store for us.

Needle

09-28-2006, 07:34 AM

I find it annoying. In Doom 3 it was used properly, only when you were hurt, but full motion blurring during the game would be horrible.

I was also referring to depth of field, which in my opinion is the most useless feature in a FPS. Whatever I'm looking at should be sharp, and my PC doesn't know which point of the screen I'm looking at. It would be stupid if only things in the middle of the screen would be sharp. Perhaps I would leave it on if only object within a 20cm distance from Duke would be blurred if I was looking at something else.

I doubt it will not annoy me. And I suspect it will be a resource hog, both effects. However DX10 cards might have hardware accelerated features that support these effects.

It's not like bump-mapping, which doesn't affect the way you experience the game. That's why I hope it can be turned off.
You should try this:
http://frictionalgames.com/?q=penumbra
It has motion blur. I think it's quite nice and not annoying at all.

god your good ^:D
Yeah. Good. And a little bit creepy. ;)