Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

What is up with DoF? And why 3D movies?

Declinator

Arbiter
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
542
In my mind, if you ask any movie director if he would want to use his current cameras, or new ones that are always sharp, from 0 to infinity, the only question he is going to ask is: "How much do they cost?" And unless that's a really exorbitant amount, he will buy and use them.

Simply, because focus depth is their main technical hurdle.
Are you just guessing stuff? Main technical hurdle? What the fuck. Even carrying equipment is a bigger hurdle than that.

Chances are that any time you see a shallow focus shot in a film it's a deliberate choice and not due to a "technical hurdle." Possible exceptions include shooting 70mm film or with some 28K digital monstrosity, low budget/natural light night scenes, longish telephoto close-ups, and general incompetence. Maybe you heard about Orson Welles, Citizen Kane, and deep focus and though that maybe people have the same difficulties more than 70 years later. They don't.

DoF is worse than cancer. It is a technical limitation of cameras
No. There was even a small industry (before modern DSLRs capable of shooting video with respectable quality) around deliberately making the focus more shallow (35mm adapters).

Games have no place for shallow focus though except for possibly an "I'm feeling woozy" effect etc.

3D movies suck because the 3D effect itself is pointless. (And because 24 fps is horrible in 3D but 48 fps on the other hand doesn't look like a movie anymore.)
 

Sodafish

Arcane
Joined
Dec 26, 2012
Messages
8,476
and general incompetence.

A bit harsh. Critical focus pulling is no easy task, especially in dark conditions without any digital focus aids. With the advent of 4K remasters of older films released on Bluray you can see how commonplace small inaccuracies actually were, but they were "good enough" for the intended viewing medium at the time.
 

Baron Dupek

Arcane
Joined
Jul 23, 2013
Messages
1,870,765
Why need side by side pictures/videos?
Just see Crysis1 vs Crysis2+3, where first game still looks ok while sequels are effect-bloated and ugly.
 

DraQ

Arcane
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
32,828
Location
Chrząszczyżewoszyce, powiat Łękołody
So, we have this medium where everything in the whole scene is sharp all the time. Something most movie directors would kill for. Games. And what do they do? They make most of the scene FUZZY.

Can we hit them on their head very hard until they understand?
:salute:

I would also add that while IRL DoF, regardless of whether it involves eye or camera, generally only involves shallow DoF when focusing on something close up, as otherwise close-up objects may be out of focus, but pretty much everything from moderate range to infinity will be sharp, the game DoF tends to inexplicably be shallow all the time whether you focus on the tip of your nose or a tree halfway to the horizon.

About the only exception to this rule so far has been Skyrim where, against all such idiotic trends, DoF is used for everything - including selectively blurring underwater view, adding *subtle* *slight* blur to fog and blurring menu backdrops - apart from actual depth of field emulation.
:salute:
 

DraQ

Arcane
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
32,828
Location
Chrząszczyżewoszyce, powiat Łękołody
The real headscratcher is Chromatic Abberation. Seriously wtf. Now we're not just imitating movies, we're imitating movies shot by a complete imbecile using low-quality equipment. At this rate we'll have games in 2017 using cellphone portrait aspect ratios so you can really believe you're watching a shitty youtube video of a game. And the camera will shake constantly just like it really is being held by someone with Parkinson's.
I don't really see the need for all the fuss - maybe it's because I wear glasses so I'm used to very mild CA IRL, or maybe it's because slight imperfections in the image - such as chromatic aberration or film grain - help mask its artificial nature and make tokenizing assets slightly more difficult which is a clear gameplay gain.
 
Self-Ejected

Excidium II

Self-Ejected
Joined
Jun 21, 2015
Messages
1,866,227
Location
Third World
I don't mind chromatic aberration or film grain. Doesn't work for everything but was fine in some games I've played.
 

DraQ

Arcane
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
32,828
Location
Chrząszczyżewoszyce, powiat Łękołody
Another "cinematic" influence, this time coming from directors who don't know anything about action.


That actually happens to neatly mirror the difference between keeping a steady, consistent view of a scene - using static or otherwise predictable camera OR player controlled one - allowing for good situational awareness, and modern trend of constantly interrupting the flow and chopping into it with cinematic finishers, cutscenes and whatnot - all flash, no substance and all it really accomplishes is keeping player confused and unable to perform optimally or use their surroundings effectively.
:decline:
 

Sodafish

Arcane
Joined
Dec 26, 2012
Messages
8,476
I would also add that while IRL DoF, regardless of whether it involves eye or camera, generally only involves shallow DoF when focusing on something close up

Not at all: telephoto lenses with large maximum apertures can render images with a very limited DoF even at quite large distances.

For example:

Niki-Strbian-Nikkor-200mm-f2-review-1.jpg


It's just not something you can achieve with a phone camera or kit lens.
 

Cadmus

Arcane
Joined
Dec 28, 2013
Messages
4,264
I just remembered, you know what I hate even more than these effects? The modern shooter "looking at my hands while doing something" and the amazing "moving your camera/face to point at the things we want you to see" trope. I guess it's supposed to be immersive but nothing immerses me less in a game than disconnecting my input and having my character fuck around on his own because I can't be trusted to enjoy the cinematicness of the scene on my own.
 

SymbolicFrank

Magister
Joined
Mar 24, 2010
Messages
1,668
While your eyes do have the same problem, whatever you focus on is sharp. If you look out of the window from up high, everything is sharp and not fuzzy. And while it can be effectively used in some cases, like the picture above, for a movie or game it requires that everyone watches the same piece of the screen where the camera is focused.

I get a headache with 3D movies where two people are talking and the camera focus changes from one to the other all the time.
 

DraQ

Arcane
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
32,828
Location
Chrząszczyżewoszyce, powiat Łękołody
While your eyes do have the same problem, whatever you focus on is sharp. If you look out of the window from up high, everything is sharp and not fuzzy. And while it can be effectively used in some cases, like the picture above, for a movie or game it requires that everyone watches the same piece of the screen where the camera is focused.
If you look out of the window from up high, then you are also unlikely to need much refocusing when looking around.

I get a headache with 3D movies where two people are talking and the camera focus changes from one to the other all the time.
I don't have any physical issues but it's ultra-annoying to have your focus locked on a particular part of the scene.
 

Sodafish

Arcane
Joined
Dec 26, 2012
Messages
8,476
If you look out of the window from up high, everything is sharp and not fuzzy.

This is because your eyes are focused at infinity, or near enough, and they have a relatively short focal length and small aperture. Even a lens like the one used in the (admittedly extreme) example I posted above would do the same if focused far enough away. Here is another example shot with an 85mm lens at f1.4 on full frame:

30473592681_12a0cd2180_k.jpg


Everything is sharp, even at such a wide aperture, because the lens is focused at ~infinity.

Now here is the same lens at the same aperture, only focused close:

29177850951_9a59963afa_k.jpg


And while it can be effectively used in some cases, like the picture above, for a movie or game it requires that everyone watches the same piece of the screen where the camera is focused.

Deliberately narrow DoF is used all the time in films, as it is one of the most common ways of isolating a subject (typically an actor) from other elements in the frame. You probably just don't notice it because you are so accustomed to seeing it in films.

I get a headache with 3D movies where two people are talking and the camera focus changes from one to the other all the time.

This is because the means of reproducing the 3D effect (via polarised glasses etc) is generally crappy and imprecise. It's a bit like looking at one of those T-shirts with the deliberately fuzzy letters made up of loads of dispersed dots, only not as extreme.
 

Severian Silk

Guest
I would also add that while IRL DoF, regardless of whether it involves eye or camera, generally only involves shallow DoF when focusing on something close up
Yes, depth of field/focal blur mostly is an issue at close distances. From a camera lens' perspective, the difference between 1 inch and 10 inches is much greater than between 100 feet and 110 feet. Has something to do with the tangent of some angle.

This image doesn't have DoF but you can see how distance and angle are not 1:1 ratio.

Camera_focal_length_distance_house_animation.gif
 

DraQ

Arcane
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
32,828
Location
Chrząszczyżewoszyce, powiat Łękołody
This is because the means of reproducing the 3D effect (via polarised glasses etc) is generally crappy and imprecise. It's a bit like looking at one of those T-shirts with the deliberately fuzzy letters made up of loads of dispersed dots, only not as extreme.
The main problem is still that you feel like you should be able to choose what you focus on, but you can't.

Deliberate DoF in 3D is the highest form of fucktardry.
 

Sodafish

Arcane
Joined
Dec 26, 2012
Messages
8,476
I would also add that while IRL DoF, regardless of whether it involves eye or camera, generally only involves shallow DoF when focusing on something close up
Yes, depth of field/focal blur mostly is an issue at close distances. From a camera lens' perspective, the difference between 1 inch and 10 inches is much greater than between 100 feet and 110 feet. Has something to do with the tangent of some angle.

This image doesn't have DoF but you can see how distance and angle are not 1:1 ratio.

Camera_focal_length_distance_house_animation.gif

That animation is illustrating how the level of perspective distortion varies with focal length. Not really relevant to a discussion of DoF.
 

Sodafish

Arcane
Joined
Dec 26, 2012
Messages
8,476
Too subtle. The CA shit needs to be like 10 pixels minimum on every edge for tr00 nextgen luk.
 

SymbolicFrank

Magister
Joined
Mar 24, 2010
Messages
1,668
Disclaimer: I never watch TV and very rarely movies. Mostly because TV has become extremely boring, and movies today require both a very high suspension of disbelief as well as no independent thought. They're like the epitome of the highlights of streamlined games in a nutshell. If you have seen the trailer, you have seen all the interesting bits.
 

Severian Silk

Guest
I would also add that while IRL DoF, regardless of whether it involves eye or camera, generally only involves shallow DoF when focusing on something close up
Yes, depth of field/focal blur mostly is an issue at close distances. From a camera lens' perspective, the difference between 1 inch and 10 inches is much greater than between 100 feet and 110 feet. Has something to do with the tangent of some angle.

This image doesn't have DoF but you can see how distance and angle are not 1:1 ratio.

Camera_focal_length_distance_house_animation.gif

That animation is illustrating how the level of perspective distortion varies with focal length. Not really relevant to a discussion of DoF.
The ratio of distance/effect is the same though, for similar reasons.
 

DosBuster

Arcane
Patron
The Real Fanboy
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Messages
1,861
Location
God's Dumpster
Codex USB, 2014
God rays shouldn't blur the image nor be something considered "cinematic" they're a naturally occurring effect that look like this in real life:
redw40619.jpeg

The post-process ones are kinda meh though, the ones in Fallout 4 which were actual 3d rays of light that cast shadows and affected the overall lighting of the scene were good though, if expensive.

The problem with HDR is that the actual benefits of the effect is really only that great when you have the monitor that has that expanded color range. Recently, we've seen more of these appear on the market as they become commonplace so games have now begun to support true HDR.
 

Sodafish

Arcane
Joined
Dec 26, 2012
Messages
8,476
Strictly speaking HDR isn't about colour depth, it's about the range of brightnesses (contrast ratio) that can be displayed at any one time.
 

DraQ

Arcane
Joined
Oct 24, 2007
Messages
32,828
Location
Chrząszczyżewoszyce, powiat Łękołody
redw40619.jpeg

The post-process ones are kinda meh though, the ones in Fallout 4 which were actual 3d rays of light that cast shadows and affected the overall lighting of the scene were good though, if expensive.
Post-process god rays tend to be geometrically wrong, but it's not that you can't do honest volumetric ones.
STALKERs did starting from CS and they looked p. awesome.
 

Gerrard

Arcane
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
11,927
Most games do crepuscular rays wrong, they just add them anywhere because OOH SHINY, but in reality you need to have something in the air that will disrupt the light, so places like dusty interiors. I wonder why no game uses something like a "godray volume" where the rays would only be visible within the defined area, as that makes the most sense. They also often become invisible when facing away from the light source due to the way they are rendered, but that makes no sense either, that's not how fucking light works.

In Stalker's case, the way they are rendered flooded your scene with a color making everything appear flatter, which is why in the original game they are only visible during a short period of the day (though that does make sense, it just doesn't look good).
No rays
805v5fI.jpg


With rays enabled
AUSHri6.jpg
It can add some nice atmosphere if you ignore the issues though
MOQonj8.jpg
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom