• JakJak98@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      I feel like bloom depends on how intense it is, and if it makes sense to reasonably play the game.

      Like, if it’s the sun, yeah, bloom is OK.

      If it’s anything else? Pass.

  • Yaarmehearty@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    The preference against DOF is fine. However, I’m looking at my f/0.95 and f/1.4 lenses and wondering why it’s kind of prized in photography for some genres and hated in games?

    • ne0phyte@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      It is unnatural. The focus follows where you are looking at. Having that fixed based on the mouse/center of the screen instead of what my eyes are doing feels so wrong to me.

      I bet with good eye tracking it would feel different.

      • Yaarmehearty@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 days ago

        That makes sense, if you can’t dynamically control what is in focus then it’s taking a lot of control away from the player.

        I can also see why a dev would want to use it for a fixed angle cutscene to create subject separation and pull attention in the scene though.

  • Psythik@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    Hating on hair quality is a new one for me. I can understand turning off Ray Tracing if you can have a low-end GPU, but hair quality? It’s been at least a decade since I’ve last heard people complaining that their GPU couldn’t handle Hairworks. Does any game even still use it?

  • ShortFuse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    Bad effects are bad.

    I used to hate film grain and then did the research for implementing myself, digging up old research papers on how It works at a scientific level. I ended up implementing a custom film grain in Starfield Luma and RenoDX. I actually like it and it has a level of “je ne sais quoi” that clicks in my brain that feels like film.

    The gist is that everyone just does additive random noise which raises black floor and dirties the image. Film grain is perceptual which acts like cracks in the “dots” that compose an image. It’s not something to be “scanned” or overlayed (which gives a dirty screen effect).

    Related, motion blur is how we see things in real life. Our eyes have a certain level of blur/shutter speed and games can have a soap opera effect. I’ve only seen per-object motion blur look decent, but fullscreen is just weird, IMO.

    • dustyData@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      On Motion blur, our eye’s motion blur, and camera’s shutter speed motion blur are not the same. Eyes don’t have a shutter speed. Whatever smearing we see is the result of relaxed processing on the brain side. Under adrenaline with heavy focus, our motion blur disappears as our brain goes full power trying to keep us alive. If you are sleep deprived and physically tired, then everything is blurred, even with little motion from head or eyes.

      Over 99% of eye movement (e.g. saccadic eye movement) is ignored by the brain and won’t produce a blurred impression. It’s more common to notice vehicular fast movement, like when sitting in a car, as having some blur. But it can be easily overcome by focused attention and compensatory eye tracking or ocular stabilization. In the end, most of these graphical effects emulate camera behavior rather than natural experience, and thus are perceived as more artificial than the same games without the effects. When our brain sees motion blur it thinks movie theater, not natural everyday vision.

      • Aux@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 days ago

        Eyes do have a “shutter speed”, but the effect is usually filtered out by the brain and you need very specific circumstances to notice motion blur induced by this.

        • dustyData@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 days ago

          No, they don’t. As there is no shutter in a continuous parallel neural stream. But, if you have any research paper that says so, go ahead and share.

          • Aux@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            5 days ago

            It has nothing to do with a neural stream, it’s basic physics.

            • dustyData@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 days ago

              Explain, don’t just antagonize. I bet you don’t understand the basic physics either. I’m open to learn new things. What is the eye’s shutter speed? sustain your claim with sources.

              • Aux@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 days ago

                I put “shutter speed” in quotes for a reason. To gather the required amount of light, the sensor must be exposed to it for a specific amount of time. When it’s dark, the time increases. It doesn’t matter if it’s a camera or your eye.

                • dustyData@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 days ago

                  That’s sensitivity, not shutter speed. Eye’s do not require time for exposure, but a quanta or intensity of light. This sensitivity is variable, but not in a time dilated way. Notice that you don’t see blurrier in darker conditions, unlike a camera. You do see in duller colors, as a result of higher engagement of rods instead of cones. The first are more sensitive but less dense in the fovea, and not sensitive to color. While a camera remains as colorful but more prone to motion blur. This is because the brain does not take individual frames of time to process a single still and particular image. The brain analyses the signals from the eye continuously, dynamically and in parallel from each individual sensor, cone or rod.

                  In other words, eye’s still don’t have, even a figurative, shutter speed. Because eyes don’t work exactly like a camera.

      • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 days ago

        Yeah, if you see motion blur in real life, that usually means something bad, yet game devs are not using it for those purposes.

    • ShortFuse@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      Most “film grain” is just additive noise akin to digital camera noise. I’ve modded a bunch of games for HDR (RenoDX creator) and I strip it from almost every game because it’s unbearable. I have a custom film grain that mimic real film and at low levels it’s imperceptible and acts as a dithering tool to improve gradients (remove banding). For some games that emulate a film look sometimes the (proper) film grain lends to the the look.

      • kautau@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 days ago

        Agreed. It fits very well in very specific places, but when not there, it’s just noise

  • Baguette@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    Depth of field and chromatic aberration are pretty cool if done right.

    Depth of field is a really important framing tool for photography and film. The same applies to games in that sense. If you have cinematics/cutscenes in your games, they prob utilize depth of field in some sense. Action and dialogue scenes usually emphasize the characters, in which a narrow depth of field can be used to put focus towards just the characters. Meanwhile things like discovering a new region puts emphasis on the landscape, meaning they can use a large depth of field (no background blur essentially)

    Chromatic aberration is cool if done right. It makes a little bit of an out of place feel to things, which makes sense in certain games and not so much in others. Signalis and dredge are a few games which chromatic aberration adds to the artstyle imo. Though obviously if it hurts your eyes then it still plays just as fine without it on.

    • justastranger@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      Chromatic aberration is also one of the few effects that actually happens with our eyes instead of being an effect designed to replicate a camera sensor.

    • ysjet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      I feel like depth of field and motion blur have their place, yeah. I worked on a horror game one time, and we used a dynamic depth of field- anything you were looking at was in focus, but things nearer/farther than that were slightly blurred out, and when you moved where you were looking, it would take a moment (less than half a second) to ‘refocus’ if it was a different distance from the previous thing. Combined with light motion blur, it created a very subtle effect that ratcheted up anxiety when poking around. When combined with objects in the game being capable of casting non-euclidean shadows for things you aren’t looking at, it created a very pervasive unsettling feeling.

  • samus12345@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    I always turn that shit off. Especially bad when it’s a first-person game, as if your eyes were a camera.

  • EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    Add DLSS to the list. I’ve never had an experience where DLSS didn’t make my game run better. It always makes the textures worse and the game run worse than just setting it to native resolution and a specific texture quality.

    • bokherif@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      Wym? I love DLSS. If I can’t get a solid framerate at native resolution, DLSS really brings a lot to the table with a minor loss of quality imo.

    • HereIAm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      Edit: I reread your message, and I missed the double negative in your sentence. Did you mean games never run better with DLSS?

      That is odd. DLSS should definitely net you a handful of frames. Games often run better with ray tracing on and DLSS on quality vs native without ray tracing, sometimes doubling it. Some newer titles I find are only playable (at the very least 60 fps) because of DLSS (which is a whole problem in and of itself). I absolutely prefer running without any sort of temporal AA because of smudges and ghosting.

      • EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 days ago

        Rereading my comment, I think I left out the double negative, so you were right to be confused.

        If I had to try and diagnose the issue, I think it comes down to the fact that I have an early 2060, which means not just an old card, but an old card with less VRAM. Consistently, I find that DLSS drops textures down to the lowest possible setting or constantly cycles between texture resolutions every few seconds when I can get a consistent 60 fps on medium settings in most games at native 1080p. It may net me a few extra fps, but the hit to quality simply isn’t worth it if I can’t make out what’s what with the texture popping.

        Another possible culprit would be shader caching since games are more and more demanding that you use an SSD to stream directly from the hardrive, but I’m not knowledgeable enough to get that deep into it.

  • Soapbox1858@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    I don’t mind a bit of lens flare, and I like depth of field in dialog interactions. But motion blur and chromatic aberration can fuck right off.

      • Olmai@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 days ago

        Sometimes it does look better, but I would argue it’s on the developer to pick the right moments to use them, just like a photographer would. Handing it to the players is the wrong way to go about it, their control on it isnt nearly as good, even without considering their knowledge about it.