Jump to content
rllmuk
djbhammer

Xbox Series X - Games Showcase 23 July 5pm BST

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Phil said:

 

No, because the CPU's ripped from a toaster. If it had a decent CPU, sure, because the GPU would be rendering just one quarter of the pixels it does at 4K, and only twice as often.

 

So with that in mind does it sound feasible that games on the XSX could have 1440p/60 and 2160p/30 options? Like, is it a balanced trade-off?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Escaped said:

On a PS2 you could pause a game and it looked the same. The Uncharteds have fairly egregious motion blur to compensate for flatscreen flaws, but most people don't seem to notice.

 

I mean, you're not wrong in that LCD's and OLED's have reduced temporal resolution (although not plasmas, they were as good as CRT's in that dept) but this notion that PS2 games look the same as the UE5 demo when paused is a little unhinged and the idea that motion blur is added to try compensate for LCD screens is complete nonsense I'm afraid. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Pob said:

So with that in mind does it sound feasible that games on the XSX could have 1440p/60 and 2160p/30 options? Like, is it a balanced trade-off?

 

It would depend on how processor-heavy the CPU-based elements are (including geometry, simulations, physics, AI etc.) as to whether running some or all of those at a faster rate is viable.

 

If a game is maxing your CPU at 30fps, then you've no overhead to support a faster frame rate. This is why comparatively old PC's can significantly outstrip an Xbox One X in terms of frame rate - the PC has something like an i5 quad-core and the Xbox One X has a Jaguar mobile CPU that was bad in 2013. The GPU in the One X could presumably do RDR2 at 1080/60 but the CPU cannot manage its workload at 60fps. See also, Sekiro which renders at 1800p but runs at 40fps; dropping the res to 1080p wouldn't get the game to 60fps.

 

Next gen games probably won't max out the PS5 and Series X CPUs because the jump in capability compared to the Jaguar is massive. So in theory the restricting factor becomes the GPU frame rate and shinies. The new problem then is that shinies sell games, not frame rate...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's also why I'm still using a CPU from 2010 in my PC and not doing TOO badly.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Dudley said:

Are you pausing the demo or are you pausing a youtube video?

 

Taken from the highest quality vid I could find, but why would you release an encode that badly misrepresents your motion? You can pause it almost anywhere before the final jump and it's horrendous, but then it eases off at the end...

 

So if it all looked like it does at the end, sure, but it doesn't.

  

13 hours ago, petrolgirls said:

this notion that PS2 games look the same as the UE5 demo when paused is a little unhinged and this idea that motion blur is added to try compensate for LCD screens is complete nonsense I'm afraid. 

 

I didn't mean that PS2 games looked like this demo when paused: I meant their paused states were usually as clear as in motion. I played Uncharted 2's multiplayer enough to be good at it, and that meant using staccato turns to spot other players, taking snapshots when its motion blur wasn't in play.

 

It's fair to say it was hardware-driven, in that induced motion blur helped its framerate from tanking, but we'd have experienced a similar effect from our TVs had they removed it anyway. So I take back what I said about motion blur being designed for current flatscreens, because on reflection I think it's more a case of taking advantage of a weakness to hide a performance-saving feature.

 

We all disabled trails in Vice City and yet here we are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, petrolgirls said:

 

I mean, you're not wrong in that LCD's and OLED's have reduced temporal resolution (although not plasmas, they were as good as CRT's in that dept) but this notion that PS2 games look the same as the UE5 demo when paused is a little unhinged and the idea that motion blur is added to try compensate for LCD screens is complete nonsense I'm afraid. 

 

Beat me to it.

 

Also @Escaped I'm not sure where you've got this idea that motion blur is there to hide poor performance? Maybe those weird 'trails' in the PS2 days but modern day motion blur (you keep mentioning Uncharted, for example) is actually quite heavy on the processing power and the framerate would improve without it. It's often one of the first things devs turn off to get a performance boost on weaker machines, loads of early Xbox One ports were lacking it.

 

It's there for aesthetic reasons, one of those effects designed to simulate how we expect footage to look from films. Technically it's simulating a cameras shutter speed, although I'm not sure many devs actually think about it in those terms, rather than just enjoying the filmic softness it offers.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm at a loss to explain it as a stylistic choice when it handicaps players. The map below was notorious for getting you killed for one of two reasons: you kept panning and the motion blur hid someone in plain view; or you stopped momentarily to let the camera focus, and that delay cost you being able to target someone in time (it had turn acceleration, so you'd lose your momentum).

 

Besides that and its terrible netcode it was my favourite team game.

 

LostCity.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Escaped said:

I'm at a loss to explain it as a stylistic choice when it handicaps players.


Have you not played any games set in a dark environment either?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair I think some devs do also use it to hide individual things being rendered at lower framerates sometimes, such as objects blown around by physics engines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Motion blur is just a more realistic way of rendering the image. Your eyes don't capture discrete strobing frames of arbitrarily short length, they constantly integrate information and suffer from motion blur. Cinema has had the exact blur games are emulating forever, controlled by how much of a shutter angle you use, as a technical necessity but also a pretty naturalistic way of presenting a scene. That famous opening scene in Saving Private Ryan was shot with a very narrow shutter angle to remove almost all blur and give it a jarring abruptness and high visual clarity, but the rest of the movie is shot with a more natural, wider, more-motion-blurred shutter angle.

 

Although in films it gives you a smoother result at any given frame rate (watch Public Enemies and boggle at what 24 frames per second looks like with a 360-degree shutter angle*) it's never been the sort of trick that's rolled out for games with poor frame rates in particular. That's a weird claim to make. Games that run at 60 fps use it as much as games that run at 30 fps and just about every truly technically shonky game I've ever seen never even bothered with it. Do you know what Uncharted's multiplayer frame rate is like? Is it even uneven?

 

I'm sure it's a hassle in certain types of games where you'd rather be able to just keep the camera in constant motion and receive 60 still images per second of the battlefield, but that's a creative decision, ultimately, to present a more realistic image.

*Of course with a film, each frame integrates the image information over the entire time it’s exposed, so the motion blur actually puts extra info in to the frame. In a game you just blur together the frames you already have. That tends to make it look quite bad a low frame rates.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, short version - motion blur is a poor band aid for frame rate issues that would probably just emphasise them, I’m not aware of it being anybody’s preferred fix for any technical issues, and there are lots of obvious creative reasons to use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alex W. said:

Of course with a film, each frame integrates the image information over the entire time it’s exposed, so the motion blur actually puts extra info in to the frame. In a game you just blur together the frames you already have.

 

It's true that game motion blur can be pretty low rent and over applied - resulting in quite smeary imagery, sometimes full of artifacts - perhaps that's what Escaped is reacting to.

 

As an aside, motion blur in modern games isn't a matter of blurring together existing frames. That would result in extremely steppy and unsatisfactory results, instead a basic vector map is generated then used to selectively blur each individual frame.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Motion blur makes me feel sick. Nearly as bad as Bloom. I turn both off if given the option.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloom I don't mind but motion blur always looks so bad to me. Move the camera around and suddenly the screen looks like it's covered in a thick layer of vaseline. I always turn it off.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate motion blur and am always puzzled by how much Digital Foundry like it. It looks absolutely terrible.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In good implementations it's quite hard to notice it I think, e.g. HL2 and the Portal games. It's not universally good of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Alex W. said:

In good implementations it's quite hard to notice it I think, e.g. HL2 and the Portal games. It's not universally good of course.

What I'd like to request from every developer everywhere: even if you personally LOVE motion blur and you're positive the blur in your game is the best blur ever, please still put the option in there to turn it off.

 

I just started Control on Xbox and in terms of customization options it's absolutely glorious and an example for every other development studio. Usually only the PC version gets the luxury of turning off any effects if so desired, but in the console version of Control you can adjust everything, from subtitles font and background, to motion blur and each individual button on the controller. When you start, you're presented with basic options like brightness, rumble, subs etcetera. But for those who want it all the other options are there in the menu. Fantastic stuff.

 

Oh and the game itself is pretty fucking great so far also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mr. Gerbik said:

Bloom I don't mind but motion blur always looks so bad to me. Move the camera around and suddenly the screen looks like it's covered in a thick layer of vaseline. I always turn it off.

 

Both hide bad textures or show the need for AA or AF if bloom/blur are turned off. Just as long as FXAA is turned off too....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Took advantage of the recent CDkeys £50 gift card offer and now my Microsoft account is loaded with £500 credit for the Series X at a cost of less than £420 (cashback pending).

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Escaped said:

 

Taken from the highest quality vid I could find, but why would you release an encode that badly misrepresents your motion? You can pause it almost anywhere before the final jump and it's horrendous, but then it eases off at the end...

 

Because it's YouTube and that's the best it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://vimeo.com/417882964

 

It doesn't blur during the slow bits.

 

17 hours ago, Alex W. said:

Your eyes don't capture discrete strobing frames of arbitrarily short length, they constantly integrate information and suffer from motion blur.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK545297/

 

VOR is exceptionally fast, and our brains hide blur from us during saccadic eye movements. When you say realistic you're comparing games to films and not reality.

 

SKHf9Jy.gif

 

CRTs are bright enough to flash each frame for a short enough period that our eyes don't track over static images, causing blur.

 

10 hours ago, Mr. Gerbik said:

I just started Control on Xbox and in terms of customization options it's absolutely glorious and an example for every other development studio.

 

One of DF's examples:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8BVTHxc4LM&t=240

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Hitcher said:

Took advantage of the recent CDkeys £50 gift card offer and now my Microsoft account is loaded with £500 credit for the Series X at a cost of less than £420 (cashback pending).

I forgot to do that! :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Escaped said:

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK545297/

 

VOR is exceptionally fast, and our brains hide blur from us during saccadic eye movements. When you say realistic you're comparing games to films and not reality.

 

SKHf9Jy.gif

 

 

I'm not quite sure what the VOR has to do with this, and when your eyes saccade they don't "hide motion blur", they subtract the entire saccade from your conscious experience* precisely because the eye readily experiences motion blur with rapid movements. If you wanted to realistically capture that experience in something like Uncharted 2 you'd have to blank the screen entirely when you move the camera quickly.

 

I definitely don't know what that image about sample-and-hold blur has to do with anything to do with motion blur in games. Is sample-and-hold a limitation of particular display technologies? Yes. Does it have anything to do with why games, film, TV etc. retain or simulate motion blur? No. They're orthogonal.

 

I feel like maybe you're trying to piece together your own esoteric theory of vision to justify your pre-existing biases about particular display types and visual effects.

 

Outside of saccades - which, remember, we never consciously experience - when an object moves across our visual field (because it's moving or because we're in motion relative to it) the eye integrates visual information over finite time which we perceive as motion blur. (VOR lets you maintain a steady visual field, but if it's steadily tracking a moving object the background blurs; if you're keeping the background steady, a moving object blurs.) That's what (properly done) motion blur in games emulates and what almost every technique we use to capture moving images retains. It was once a technical requisite in film but even with the birth of digital cinema and arbitrarily short exposure times it's been retained because it's natural. Unblurred strobing frames have an obvious artificiality to them which is a perfectly valid creative choice, in games or anything else, but it's not the solution to depicting motion accurately, quite the opposite.

 

I think you're unlikely to pull up an example where technical limitations are the reason the feature was implemented. Like I said, in my experience with low or unsteady frame rates it makes both the blur and the poor technical performance all the more conspicuous so it would be counterproductive.

 

*This is why when you turn to look at a ticking clock, the first tick seems like it takes more than a second. You actually saw a tick before that one, but because it came too close to the saccade, when your brain deleted the whole blurry experience and "back-filled" the gap it was replaced with the image of the clock hand at its next position.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alex W. said:

I'm not quite sure what the VOR has to do with this, and when your eyes saccade they don't "hide motion blur", they subtract the entire saccade from your conscious experience* precisely because the eye readily experiences motion blur with rapid movements. If you wanted to realistically capture that experience in something like Uncharted 2 you'd have to blank the screen entirely when you move the camera quickly.

 

Couldn't you argue that a game not applying motion blur when you move the camera is a closer representation of the conscious experience of saccadic masking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, PK said:

 

Couldn't you argue that a game not applying motion blur when you move the camera is closer to the conscious experience of saccadic masking?


Saccades are quite long compared to the times between frames in games, so I’m not sure it gives a similar effect. And the movements that cause blur in games aren’t necessarily like the shift of focus on a saccade... unless you’re in an FPS and doing some pro-gamer mouse moves. Hmm, I wonder if this is perceived differently in first person versus third person games, and mouse versus stick?

 

Weird thought: Do people get a saccade like experience when a movie does a jump cut?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh, actually, now that I think about it, the back-fill effect of a saccade might explain why editors need to do J cuts at scene changes in films to make them feel natural. A viewer would mentally omit the last handful of frames of the previous scene and they’d be replaced with duplicates of the first frame of the next scene. So of course you’d want them to be underscored with the audio of the next scene.
 

Ha, who’s coming up with an esoteric personal theory of vision now.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Hitcher said:

Took advantage of the recent CDkeys £50 gift card offer and now my Microsoft account is loaded with £500 credit for the Series X at a cost of less than £420 (cashback pending).

Do microsoft tend to offer decent deals with games/accessories or everything is just rrp? (though with an immediate £80 saving it turns into an amazing deal already)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.