Velocity buffer motion blur?

New releases and general discussions.

Post » Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:16 pm

[quote="Mipey":7zo2ah53]But is it worth killing the FPS?[/quote:7zo2ah53]
[quote="Arima":7zo2ah53]

Theoretically, it seems like this technique would be both faster and provide better image quality, though I'm certainly no expert on it. Would this be a possibility in construct 2?[/quote:7zo2ah53]
Spriter Dev
B
88
S
21
G
12
Posts: 3,240
Reputation: 16,486

Post » Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:26 pm

[quote="Davioware":2w4rdqda]Motion Blur is nice, but it's really just a gimmick. It's not going to make the game any more fun if it's turned on, and it's way too intensive to be played by casual players. Most people get into indie games because they just want the core game play and originality witch was present in earlier eras. IMO most games these days care mostly about graphics and looking as hot as possible.. Just gimme a new n64 Zelda or Snes Mario and i'll probably be playing them a lot longer than Gears of War.. I'm not saying that I loathe all new games, just trying to get the point across that indie games are part of a completely separate universe in which I care nothing for high end graphics. Pixel art, 8 bit sounds and chiptunes ftw.[/quote:2w4rdqda]

Dude, it'd be nice if you'd let everyone decide on their own what styles and effects they're relying on to make their project come to life.

I think your way of seeing things is really limited. I don't want to re-do the old games over and over again, I want to see '2d games' going through a revolution in terms of gameplay and visual styles.

If you'd give me the N64 Zelda or the SNES Mario I'd gladly hand them back to you, cause I've played those games 10-20 years ago. That part of gaming is already history and we see too many remakes being done right now already anyway.

I don't think that most gamers get into indie games because of the core gameplay that was presented to them 20 years ago, I think they're in for the innovation and because the chances that we see something completely new are rather high when we're talking about productions that cost under 200k to produce.

Ash already summed it up nicely - MoBlur is a really important effect and is way more than just eye candy.
B
6
S
2
G
3
Posts: 520
Reputation: 2,690

Post » Tue Jun 16, 2009 5:31 pm

if i had to choose between moblur at 20 fps or no blur at 60, i would gladly choose 60. when moblur is simply an effect that wont destroy fps, its of course a good thing, any effect that can be added to make a game look better is usually a good thing, but adding that effect at the cost of lots of framerate when it has minimal effect isnt.

Claymation looked bad, not because of a lack of motion blur, but a lack of frames and quality tweens. the tweens werent proper so it gave a jittery effect. disneys animation doesnt have moblur, but its extreme framerate makes the animation incredible. if the animation was done with 30 frames and blur info, it wouldn't look as good
B
52
S
7
G
6
Posts: 1,945
Reputation: 7,610

Post » Tue Jun 16, 2009 6:43 pm

feature films are 24 frames per second, including disney movies

watch a dreamworks 2d animation like Prince of Egypt or Road to El Dorado, and look at how the motion blur adds to the fluidity
or watch Gladiator or 28 Weeks Later, and notice how the blurless highspeed camera used in action sequences gives reality itself an unnatural feel.

Little Big Planet is a perfect example, if I'm correct that game is locked at 24 frames, or maybe 30.
It has motion blur. It completes the realistic look. I would rather it be locked at the lower frame rate with the motion blur, than be at 128 frames per second without it.

it's a subtle effect, but it makes all the difference in the world when it's the effect you need

besides. the whole point of this thread is to discuss the possibility of a less costly motion blur technique
Spriter Dev
B
88
S
21
G
12
Posts: 3,240
Reputation: 16,486

Post » Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:42 pm

flamewar begin.

kidding.

[quote="lucid":1xvnl3ys]the pixel art, chiptunes thing you like is a matter of personal taste[/quote:1xvnl3ys]
Exactly, they're just a little part of golden age gaming I enjoy, that's all. I'm not saying all games should be like this. I enjoy new indie games with better graphics.

As long as motion blur doesn't impact performance too much (right now it's too much :mrgreen: ), i'm all for it. I'm only saying that people tend to focus a lot on graphics and effects more than anything else. I agree that new gen indie games (ie. braid and world of goo) have come a long way from low res graphics and such, but remember, these games emphasize gameplay more than anything else. Their success comes not from their graphics, but from their originality and gameplay.

[quote="thomasmahler":1xvnl3ys]I don't think that most gamers get into indie games because of the core gameplay that was presented to them 20 years ago[/quote:1xvnl3ys]
see Cave Story, but i see what your saying.

[quote="lucid":1xvnl3ys]the lack of it has been an obvious visual flaw in animation since the original king kong and godzilla claymation scenes[/quote:1xvnl3ys]
It would not look better with motion blur, It needs more frames, and overall better animation. :mrgreen:

Anyways, if someone can make motion blur look nice without killing the game, then bring it on. The velocity buffer idea sounds cool.
B
25
S
3
G
6
Posts: 1,197
Reputation: 5,620

Post » Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:01 pm

[quote="Davioware":26dmf097]

[quote="lucid":26dmf097]the lack of it has been an obvious visual flaw in animation since the original king kong and godzilla claymation scenes[/quote:26dmf097]
It would not look better with motion blur, It needs more frames, and overall better animation. :mrgreen:

.[/quote:26dmf097]

While the animation may suck and it may need more frames, Godzilla would look better with motion blur. Motion blur is what makes it okay to watch a film in 24 frames a second. Since most games cannot do this easily (well...you know...) they must rely on 30 to 60 fps to do the blurring. With 60 frames going in a second the brain adds its own motion blur. Or so I have heard... :D
B
2
S
1
G
4
Posts: 156
Reputation: 1,612

Post » Tue Jun 23, 2009 1:39 pm

[size=200:3kp7ihv1]I like station wagons[/size:3kp7ihv1]

~Sol
Tired of crappy file hosts that are crappy? Get DROPBOX - https://db.tt/uwjysXJF
Moderator
B
45
S
17
G
37
Posts: 2,853
Reputation: 25,966

Post » Mon Jun 29, 2009 11:32 pm

[quote="thomasmahler":23xrizyx][quote="Madster":23xrizyx]I suggest using my motion blur effect :P[/quote:23xrizyx]

Where can I get your motion blur effect?[/quote:23xrizyx]

Sorry, I spent like a month hard at work.
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3719&st=0&sk=t&sd=a#p29542
I still have some work to do on those effects, though motion blur is mostly finished.


Edit: oh and "gimmicky".... yeah, videogames themselves are gimmicks. This is a nonsense word. Motion blur is what makes 24fps video (commercial movies) look realistic. Pixar has been using it since the very beginning in their rendering.

Maybe... maybe I can think of a way of doing fullscreen velocity-buffer motion blur. I'll think it over, something clicked while typing this.
B
3
S
2
G
4
Posts: 1,445
Reputation: 4,665

Post » Tue Jun 30, 2009 2:20 pm

i have a technique for making motion blur that uses very little power and is simple to implement. the blur is generated using the "broken" subtract 0.0 shader. that shader seems to capture frames and slowly fade them away, so when u move an object under it, it captures all of its movement, and adjusting the opacity of the filter (is effectively adjusts its strength). it works much like the blur in a real camera. the only problem it really has is with extremely fast moving object, since it doesnt take an average of frames, rather it captures frames as they go by. making it sorta like the castlevania blur, but alot smoother and more realistic

the upside is that its an incredibly lightweight effect compared to other full screen blurs in fact it barely even touches the fps no matter what strength u make it, since it simply captures a frames already rendered data, and its simple as pie to implement. broken shaders always have their uses.
B
52
S
7
G
6
Posts: 1,945
Reputation: 7,610

Post » Tue Jun 30, 2009 4:27 pm

[quote="QuaziGNRLnose":9nxn7en7]i have a technique for making motion blur that uses very little power and is simple to implement. the blur is generated using the "broken" subtract 0.0 shader. that shader seems to capture frames and slowly fade them away, so when u move an object under it, it captures all of its movement, and adjusting the opacity of the filter[/quote:9nxn7en7]
That effect is called frame-feedback (previous frames fade out). You can do it properly with a canvas with grab layout and less than 100% opacity - using a "broken" shader relies on undefined graphics card behavior and might look borked for other people. Personally I find it quite an irritating effect, and it's definitely not a true motion blur, more of a stepped trail effect, like spawning fading-out sprites behind a moving object.
Scirra Founder
B
359
S
214
G
72
Posts: 22,952
Reputation: 178,610

PreviousNext

Return to Construct Classic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests