Support NeoGAF

[PaulloDEC]

Tough call.

60fps with Motion Blur is probably the most appealing to me, but some of the others are hard to split. Frame blended just reminds me of motion blur with too few samples, so both of those can go straight to hell. The speed of motion makes the 30fps with Motion Blur a little extreme. Both the 60fps and 30fps with no blur or blending look fine to me.

So I guess:

3
1
4
6
2
5

Monitor: Asus PA248Q

 

[orochi91]

I like 3 and 6.

Love motion blur.

 

[Pegasus Actual]

I like 60fps motion blur
then 30fps motion blur
then 60fps
then frame blended 60
then 30fps
then frame blended 30

Might be to do with the motion blur looking great though (30fps + motion blur being high up).

Correct answer right here.

 

[elfinke]

This is fun stuff. I'm using the work AIO Dell 24" monitor, which is an average monitor in many ways.

3 is the standout for sure, as it is both smooth to watch and the motion blur is a pleasing aesthetic to look at.

When the balls are small, I also like 1 and 4 about equally, in the context of looking at bouncing red balls.

The sharpness of 4 really stands out, however I have minimal interest in playing a game that behaves like that.

Spoiler

Going back to DSI after many hours in DSII:Scholar proved that to me already (christ the opening of DSI has aged poorly: the UI, the textures, the models, urgh), though I've always been a framerate > graphics person anyway

. Even Bloodborne, despite its magnificence in design, is such a bummer at ~30fps.

In that sense, 2 is pleasing also, though it is left in the shadows of 1 and 3.

5 is dreadful.

6 is a nice compromise, and I guess fits in between and 1 and 4 in terms of 'nice-to-look-atness' and I guess also actual usefulness as a rendering technique for games. Aside from a rock solid 30fps, does Driveclub use something like this? Its 30fps is pretty fucking agreeable.

So, in list form:

3 > 1 > 6 > 4 > 2 > 5.

I'd love to dig into this with my old 120hz+ Samsung CRT monitor, or one of the new 120/144hz monitors.

 

[Mazzo]

LG W2486L (LCD)

3, 1, 6, 2, 4, 5

 

[Head.spawn]

I'm in full agreement with you OP, in that specific order.

IPS LED

 

[xtradi]

Maybe because it's just a simple ball but here i don't see any differences between 60fps and 30fps. It's weird but in movie and game I prefer higher fps to see all those pretty texture and model moving clearly.
Between plain, blended, and blur I prefer plain. Blend just makes the object seems like teleporting rather than moving. Blur makes it hard to see the actual object and leaves only dominant color of the object and direction of movement.

So 1 and 4 is good, anything else is just unacceptable.

 

[jotun?]

3 is the best looking overall

1 is second-best

6 is third, but reminds me of effects in movies or TV where something is made to look like it's moving faster than it is, if that makes sense. It's super blurry, but it still looks kind of smooth for being 30fps.

4 seems to be the sharpest/clearest, but I don't like it

2 had too much caffeine

5 is just awful. Reminds me of getting bad judder in VR


60Hz IPS LCD (dell u2412m)

 

[abstract alien]

Circle 5 looks like a psp game. Good lord.

 

[DJ_Lae]

I don't think clicking it is doing anything for me, although if I swap the window between my monitors it cycles automatically down to 60 and up to 120.

3 looks the best, by far, and 5 feels like I'm going to have a seizure.

edit - I'm using a BenQ RL2455HM and a XL2420Z, though I'm sure they would look similarly pleasing/displeasing on my little laptop too or tablet.

 

[Orca]

3 then 6, then I'm not sure. I keep seeing a white circle inside the red on the rest.

 

[Skux]

Surprisingly there's little difference between 3 and 6 despite the frame rate being cut in half. Good motion blur can make a lot of stuttery action feel very fluid.

3 > 6 > 1 > 4 > 2 > 5

 

[PeskyToaster]

60 and 30 FPS with motion blur are pretty good. I would take either honestly. Speaks to the power of motion blur

 

[Falk]

5 looks like some idiot making a CoD montage and not knowing how to export a video with proper settings.

Just needs to be squashed to the wrong aspect ratio and it's ready to upload to YouTube.

Spoiler

3 then 1 da best

 

[copelandmaster]

3 and 1 are the only acceptable ones, in that order. 6 is borderline acceptable.
(I decided this before looking at what they are)

Pretty much what I was gonna say, minus 6 being borderline acceptable. Only if I was watching a movie.

VG248QE @120hz with Lightboost enabled for that CRT like motion clarity.

Add 120fps options to the test OP. You might not even need motion blur.

 

[Falk]

Add 120fps options to the test OP. You might not even need motion blur.

At the speeds the balls get to you'd still exhibit strobing. It'll definitely be better than 60fps, and probably will tip the 'acceptable' scale on a far larger fraction of people, but there's still a difference with/without motion blur at 120fps for that velocity.

 

[copelandmaster]

At the speeds the balls get to you'd still exhibit strobing. It'll definitely be better than 60fps, and probably will tip the 'acceptable' scale on a far larger fraction of people, but there's still a difference with/without motion blur at 120fps for that velocity.

Yeah, you'd get a little. But its so smooth, you won't care.

An example that I am prone to spamming. Do you have the right hardware to see the difference?

 

[QualityPixel]

1 60fps, no effect. Very Good
2 60fps, frame blended (exhibiting ghosting). Bad
3 60fps, motion blurred. BEST
4 30fps, no effect. Not good.
5 30fps, frame blended (exhibiting ghosting) TERRIBLE
6 30fps, motion blurred. Ok, depending on the game.

I play most of my games on PC and a locked 60fps is usually my requirement. Games like GTA5, and FPS shooters I pretty much require 60fps. But on occasion I'll live with less than 60fps to play Diablo 3 at a down sampled resolution (usually get 45-60 depending on how much action).

On consoles I'll live with 30fps if the game plays well enough at 30, like Destiny (Xbone) or Gears of War (360). I do love playing Halo at 60fps in the MCC though.

 

[Havel]

60 fps motion blur is god tier.

30 fps motion blur is decent, and can look pretty good depending on the game (looking at Killzone 2)

 

[Lebon14]

Asus VW246H 60Hz 24" monitor

60fps no effect > 60fps, motion blurred > 30fps, motion blurred > 60fps, frame blended (exhibiting ghosting) > 30fps, no effect. > 30fps, frame blended (exhibiting ghosting)

It's the order I prefer them in.

 

[gypsygib]

3
1/6

The rest were eyesore.

 

[Noobcraft]

3 and 6 looked the best to me. All the others looked bad.

 

[Despera]

Best: 3
Great: 1
Good: 6

The rest shouldn't exist.

Edit: Tested on company laptop (DELL LATITUDE E6430). So whatever display it uses.

 

[hesido]

Nice feedback, keep'em coming!

Those with 120hz monitors, even if your reported fps is 120fps under the window, the shader is time based (not frame based) so the test would still run at 60fps if you do not change the "maxfps" setting. That's what I'm guessing, because I can't test it

 

[brobban]

Interesting, the onces with frame blending are really a pita to look at.

1>3>>>>>4>6>>>2>>>5

 

[KKRT00]

3 and 1 are the only acceptable ones, in that order. 6 is borderline acceptable.
(I decided this before looking at what they are)

Basically. 6 is manageable, but doesnt compare to 1 and 3.

 

[sono]

Thanks for this.

For me all of the effects except 3 fail completety in improving anything in fact they look ridiculous 2 and 5 hurt my eyes.

1 is easiest on my eye, followed by 3 and then 4.

I assessed full screen on a w540 laptop should you care at all about the physical display

Is it possible to add switches to switch off each ball

 

[hesido]

Thanks for this.

For me all of the effects except 3 fail completety in improving anything in fact they look ridiculous 2 and 5 hurt my eyes.

1 is easiest on my eye, followed by 3 and then 4.

I assessed full screen on a w540 laptop should you care at all about the physical display

Is it possible to add switches to switch off each ball

I could disable all the rest when you click on a column, but used up clicking behaviour for the frame halving. I could branch from this for that functionality.

I'd love to dig into this with my old 120hz+ Samsung CRT monitor, or one of the new 120/144hz monitors.

We're waiting

 

[SeeNoWeevil]

It would be good if you could use detailed images instead of plain balls to show the motion clarity (or lack of). Include a static version so people could compare.


http://www.testufo.com/#test=eyetracking

This is a pretty good test of motion clarity. As an interesting point, I ran this on my panel earlier and switched strobing on and off. Strobed 720p looked considerably more detailed in motion than 1080p non strobed.

 

[BY2K]

3, 1, 6, 4, 2, 5

The 30FPS with motion-blur looks great, but games with motion-blur that good are so rare. I think the closest to that I've seen is the batmobile segment in that one Arkham Knight trailer.

 

[elfinke]

We're waiting

Haha, oh I wish I still had my sammy, never mind one of the new ones! No such luck though. On my Dell Ultra Sharp at home, I think my order is much the same, though I'm not as enamoured with 4 as I was on the work monitor.

3 > 1 > 6, the rest not worth worrying about, I guess.

 

[hesido]

It would be good if you could use detailed images instead of plain balls to show the motion clarity (or lack of). Include a static version so people could compare.


http://www.testufo.com/#test=eyetracking

This is a pretty good test of motion clarity. As an interesting point, I ran this on my panel earlier and switched strobing on and off. Strobed 720p looked considerably more detailed in motion than 1080p non strobed.

I may add a "sprite" texture to represent traceable object moving on top of a texture for the next iteration. I'm aware of that test in question, it's indeed really nice.

I do have a textured "camera panning" (unlisted) version but the ready textures provided on shadertoy does not provide enough representation for high contrast objects. There's another version which shows varying somewhat-irregular block patterns based on a noise pattern but the simplicity of circles won over that one.

 

[Heichart]

3 is the Best for me, then 6. Can't stand the others.
Using mobile Sony Bravia IPS LCD Capacitive Touchscreen.

 

[Aceofspades]

1. 30 fps motion blur
2. 60 fps motion blur
3. 60 fps plain
4. 60 fps frame blended
5. 30 fps plain
6. 30 fps frame blended

My Xperia Z3 compact screen.

 

[Mascot]

Here's my take on the perceived smoothness of motion, on a laptop LCD:

Spoiler

60fps with motion blur >>> 60fps plain >> 30fps motion blur > 60fps blending >>> 30fps plain >>>>> 30 fps blending

Spoiler

I concur from a desktop LCD.

Good demo, thanks.

 

[Hazaro]

120Hz TN Desktop LCD
3,6,1
I'd take 1 in a game 100% of the time for accuracy and response time though which gives better feedback on feel, if there isn't a large input delay or momentum in controls or something.
Also most vertical refresh is different than horizontal so the test might get different results if the balls were moving left to right.

In your honest opinion, how do you rank circles with respect to motion clarity? Which one is easier on the eyes? Please answer with your display type. Those with different types of displays could test for different displays, because the display type seems to effect the results.

The test isn't meant to be a serious attempt in laying out a clear picture, but meant as a conversation starter and add bits to our knowledge. The test clearly doesn't represent a proper game scene with complex shapes (which may reduce the perceived negative effects of ghosting, for example).

Somehow I feel like I'm contributing towards the trend of 30FPS motion blurred games... They feel so bad.

 

[pottuvoi]

Yup, blending is not good.

 

[danowat]

Interesting test.

3 is leaps and bounds ahead, 4 and 5 are awful, then it gets tight, for me.

It's a toss up between 6 and 2 for 2nd place, I can see why someone would select the motion blurred one, however, I think that makes the edges a bit soft for me.

It's the same with 1st place, toss up between 3 or 1

 

[eso76]

Was planning to do the same in AE, but never got around to doing it.

Some people can't conceive how someone could like the look of motion blurred 30fps better, but i'll say it again:
I like the look of 30fps motion blur, and honestly actually prefer that to 60fps for certain kinds of graphics. Like in The Order or Driveclub, where motion blur is a huge part of the overall aesthetics.

 

[Paertan]

#3 looks best here. Because motion blur on a red dot is easy. In games I sometimes turn of motion blur if it is bad.
So #1 takes seconds place.
Then on third place number #6. But that is waaaay behind the other two. On close fourth place is #2. The other two works on games like Telltale games and such.

 

[hesido]

120Hz TN Desktop LCD
3,6,1
I'd take 1 in a game 100% of the time for accuracy and response time though which gives better feedback on feel, if there isn't a large input delay or momentum in controls or something.
Also most vertical refresh is different than horizontal so the test might get different results if the balls were moving left to right.

Somehow I feel like I'm contributing towards the trend of 30FPS motion blurred games... They feel so bad.

Did you also try changing the max fps to fit your display? What is the frame rate displayed under the window? I'm assuming, if the frame rate is displayed as ~120fps, you'll also be able to test 120hz vs 60hz. (Currently it should try to display the motion at 60 fps without respecting the native refresh rate)

 

[kerotan_eater]

Not sure why anyone would like anything else, 60fps without motion blur is the most accurate to emulating real life.

 

[Joey Ravn]

3 > 1. The rest are garbage. 6 is barely acceptable, but I can't see myself playing a whole game with such a noticeable choppiness.

Not sure why anyone would like anything else, 60fps without motion blur is the most accurate to emulating real life.

I'm pretty sure that you can see "motion blur" in real life when things move quickly. Try flapping your hand up and down really quick and tell me if you can perfectly see each "frame" without any "motion blur". Maybe my eyes are bugged, though.

 

[kerotan_eater]

3 > 1. The rest are garbage. 6 is barely acceptable, but I can't see myself playing a whole game with such a noticeable choppiness.




I'm pretty sure that you can see "motion blur" in real life when things move quickly. Try flapping your hand up and down really quick and tell me if you can perfectly see each "frame" without any "motion blur". Maybe my eyes are bugged, though.

I do understand what you are saying but our eyes move at such a ridiculously high framerate, it doesn't lose detail like the red balls does in this demonstration. Follow your hands or ball number 1, they don't lose the sharpness, but anyhow it might be a trade off though now thinking about it.

 

[Jay Sosa]

Display: Acer X233H monitor

1/3/6/4/2/5

 

[Bjoern the Smexy]

60 fps motion blurred > 60 fps plain > 30 fps plain > 30 fps motion blurred > 30/60 fps ghosted

Seriously, ghosting is a very stupid thing to do.
I remember Pikmin 1 on GameCube, which ran at 30 fps (I think) and blended the last 2 or 3 frames together. It looked atrocious and extremely distracting.

60 fps motion blurred actually produces a realistic looking image, as long as the motion blur is not too extreme and overused.
If it's down to 30 fps motion blur should (in my opinion) not be used, since the blur is way more noticeable, thus way more distracting. If you opt for 30fps, do not use motion blur or just the tiniest amount of it.

In every case it stands that you should never, ever use interframe blending. It's badand you should feel bad for using it. Don't be bad. Be smart. Plain or motion blurred. No blending. Please.

 

[hesido]

Not sure why anyone would like anything else, 60fps without motion blur is the most accurate to emulating real life.

I'm quoting myself:

60fps is not enough to simulate motion on a continuous line, there's strobing because object jumps between positions due to limited number of temporal samples displayed. 60fps with motion blur fills those gaps and eliminates strobing.

As for the high quality motion blur implementation, indeed, this is a bit too much compared to typical implementations, but we have superb quality blur even on GodOfWar3 PS3, the Order and newer games seem to have very high quality motion blur (to the point that you can't make out the separate samples), since I'm not blurring along a path, the easiest way was to brute force it by exaggerating the number of samples.

 

[Kölsch Bloot]

1>3>2>4>6>5

 

[RSB]

3 > 1 > 6 > 2 > 4 >> 5

Yep, this for me as well. I'm watching it on my PC monitor (LED)

 

[Auto-Reply]

3 and 1, the motionblurred 30fps ones only look smooth in high velocity, when they are moving slowly they stutter. In fast motion they look smooth but completely blurred to hell. We need to go higher than 60fps. (panasonic plasma)