9 réponses à ce sujet

[Rubbish Hero]

I think this is a pretty cool effect but not many games seem to use it, they tend to either use no motion blur or full screen-motion blur, why is this?

[Chained_Creator]

Harder to animate, takes more time.

[Rubbish Hero]

I don't think it's animated by anyone, it works on dynamic unscripted physics.

Modifié par Rubbish Hero, 22 février 2010 - 02:03 .

[Chained_Creator]

Animate as in "to bring or give life to", to make objects move in a realistic manner. Physics engines are actually a great example of this. Not a person animating an object, but the physics engine "moving" the object in game. Sorry if I'm not being very clear, but this isn't my area of expertise. I'm just giving an idea as they come to mind as to why a developer might choose to use a different way of blurring objects. 

[Baracuda6977]

crysis is a BAD example to use here as it is the most graphics heavy game i know of

[xODD7BALLx]

Chained_Creator wrote...

Harder to animate, takes more time.

not really, more like a physics engine, but effects like blur/motion blur/bloom etc are done by the engine. so not really an animators workload, so long as a physics engine is in place.

[Chained_Creator]

Operative84 wrote...

Chained_Creator wrote...

Harder to animate, takes more time.

not really, more like a physics engine, but effects like blur/motion blur/bloom etc are done by the engine. so not really an animators workload, so long as a physics engine is in place.

See my second post, please.

[Jae Onasi]

Low return on investment for high amount of work is the most likely reason. People aren't going to get as excited over part-screen blur as they are about textures and such.

And then there are people like me who generally turn off anything with full-screen blur since it gives me a nasty migraine.

[squidyj]

Quality motion blur, as well as quality Depth of Field gets me VERY excited... okay not like that but what I mean is motion blur and and depth of field are both quite often done very badly in modern games. Crysis has some great looking motion blur and if you've taken look at some of the stuff from Metro 2033 they're using sophisticated depth of field. none of that halo crap around objects that are supposed to be in focus.

this is a tech demo from a while back of the 4a engine which Metro 2033 is on. A lot of the features are still in the engine, and they've added and improved some stuff with DX11. But what makes me sad is I haven't seen hide nor hair of is the approximated GI. Which is sad because it seems to do an even better job in that video than Cryengine 3 does.

[Andarthiel_Demigod]

Chained_Creator wrote...

Harder to animate, takes more time.

This.
Individual motion blur is a bit more complicated and tedious since each inidvidual object would have their own layer/group and it would kill render and post processing time.
And I know what I'm talking about since I'm an animation student.