For a lot of console games, applying motion blur is very common as the standard frame rate for the previous 2 generations was typically 30 FPS, and motion blur remedies the low frame rate through its application to smooth gameplay out.
Sicheng-Pan
Motion blur should be relevant at high frame rates as well, and scenes without motion blur may look sharper than they should be even at high frame rates.
jacklishufan
The motion blur in particular is caused by averaging over the "exposure time" of the censor and fast moving objects have significant position shift because the pixel value is averaged over the time point where there is an object and where there is not. In that sense the strength of such blur should ideally matches the refresh rate of the screen to have a realistic experiments.
jacklishufan
For animation movies, the frame rate is 24fps, so it seems integrating over 1/24s would makes the most sense. Some studies of human eye suggest the shutter speed of human eye is between 1/50s to 1/75s (numbers varies from different sources), so in theory a screen refresh rate higher then this threshold would not yield observable difference.
kkkhanl
I found this video that shows the effect of motion blur in video games: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs_i7zBGS9A . You can clearly see that some games seem laggy without motion blur but a lot more smooth with motion blur.
ess3ncez
However, motion blur has some disadvantages when applied in games. First, motion blur can reduce the clarity of the image and make it harder to see details, especially when moving quickly. This can be particularly problematic in fast-paced games where quick reactions are essential. Motion blur is also computationally expensive and can reduce the performance of the game, especially on older hardware or lower-end systems. What's more, motion blur can cause eye strain and headaches for players who are sensitive to motion sickness.
starptr
This always confused me since motion blur seems like an effect that would decrease the visual quality of an animation, yet is a popular post effect. If not for strobing & aliasing (i.e. with high enough sampling rate and display rate), would animations opt-in to use motion blur?
Staffmcallisterdavid
@starptr Animators use motion blur because it appears more pleasing to the eye. The same is true with recorded video, as videographers will choose to use longer shutter speeds to introduce motion blur. Intuitively, your eye likes it better since it reduces temporal aliasing!
orenazad
Cool video from Corridor digital here in which they discuss Motion Blur in the final fight from the first Black Panther movie, and different ways of rendering out the effect.
https://youtu.be/HWnRuPZ1Exg?t=288
It seems that since they were unfortunately squeezed for time (no surprise there knowing the CGI industry) they had to cheat a bit on the motion blur which makes the scene look a bit off.
akshitdewan
I'm missing why the "with motion blur" looks more realistic. I was originally thinking that our eyes see a blur in the real world because of the low shutter speed, so why wouldn't we just naturally blur the animation we see on the screen as well? I understand that blurring makes it easier on the eyes, but why does the artificial blur make things more realistic?
justin-shao
Motion blur plays a big role in why we perceive films (typically 24 fps) as fluent rather than choppy. If we observe each individual frame in an action-dense scene, we will find that these scenes all have some motion blur in them. Another side of this is how many video games require higher framerate to not appear choppy/laggy even when they render at higher fps compared to films.
sZwX74
@akshitdewan Without motion blur, due to the relatively low framerate of films and movies, the cut between each motion point would be noticeable. The motion blur helps the eye better recognize the motion going on in the scene, and so it will be less displeased with any choppy motion.
For a lot of console games, applying motion blur is very common as the standard frame rate for the previous 2 generations was typically 30 FPS, and motion blur remedies the low frame rate through its application to smooth gameplay out.
Motion blur should be relevant at high frame rates as well, and scenes without motion blur may look sharper than they should be even at high frame rates.
The motion blur in particular is caused by averaging over the "exposure time" of the censor and fast moving objects have significant position shift because the pixel value is averaged over the time point where there is an object and where there is not. In that sense the strength of such blur should ideally matches the refresh rate of the screen to have a realistic experiments.
For animation movies, the frame rate is 24fps, so it seems integrating over 1/24s would makes the most sense. Some studies of human eye suggest the shutter speed of human eye is between 1/50s to 1/75s (numbers varies from different sources), so in theory a screen refresh rate higher then this threshold would not yield observable difference.
I found this video that shows the effect of motion blur in video games: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs_i7zBGS9A . You can clearly see that some games seem laggy without motion blur but a lot more smooth with motion blur.
However, motion blur has some disadvantages when applied in games. First, motion blur can reduce the clarity of the image and make it harder to see details, especially when moving quickly. This can be particularly problematic in fast-paced games where quick reactions are essential. Motion blur is also computationally expensive and can reduce the performance of the game, especially on older hardware or lower-end systems. What's more, motion blur can cause eye strain and headaches for players who are sensitive to motion sickness.
This always confused me since motion blur seems like an effect that would decrease the visual quality of an animation, yet is a popular post effect. If not for strobing & aliasing (i.e. with high enough sampling rate and display rate), would animations opt-in to use motion blur?
@starptr Animators use motion blur because it appears more pleasing to the eye. The same is true with recorded video, as videographers will choose to use longer shutter speeds to introduce motion blur. Intuitively, your eye likes it better since it reduces temporal aliasing!
Cool video from Corridor digital here in which they discuss Motion Blur in the final fight from the first Black Panther movie, and different ways of rendering out the effect.
https://youtu.be/HWnRuPZ1Exg?t=288
It seems that since they were unfortunately squeezed for time (no surprise there knowing the CGI industry) they had to cheat a bit on the motion blur which makes the scene look a bit off.
I'm missing why the "with motion blur" looks more realistic. I was originally thinking that our eyes see a blur in the real world because of the low shutter speed, so why wouldn't we just naturally blur the animation we see on the screen as well? I understand that blurring makes it easier on the eyes, but why does the artificial blur make things more realistic?
Motion blur plays a big role in why we perceive films (typically 24 fps) as fluent rather than choppy. If we observe each individual frame in an action-dense scene, we will find that these scenes all have some motion blur in them. Another side of this is how many video games require higher framerate to not appear choppy/laggy even when they render at higher fps compared to films.
@akshitdewan Without motion blur, due to the relatively low framerate of films and movies, the cut between each motion point would be noticeable. The motion blur helps the eye better recognize the motion going on in the scene, and so it will be less displeased with any choppy motion.