So many games nowadays are using vignetting and chromatic aberration, often without an option to turn it off. Why? What are they trying to do? Make the sides of the screen blurrier and worse to look at?
It depends on the visual style the dev is trying to achieve. I for example love grain and motion blur, but it depends on the game. Of course it should always fit into the overall aesthetic and visual style of the game. You wouldn't put Chromatic Aberration on NBA 2k17, but I think adding some grain or vignetting could benefit the aesthetic of a horror game.
The thing is, bloom is a good thing when used carefully as the bleeding of light into the foreground is a real effect we see.It is this generation's bloom lighting.
Aesthetic? Style?
Visuals aren't just graphical fidelity
It is used a lot but I kinda like them if they fit the mood and its not too strong. Like NMS is kinda going for a retro scanline look, and it works there imo. Generally gives the image a more tangible, analog feel.
FWIW pretty much every film has a very subtle natural bit of CA, and even vignettinge. Its almost always matched and added in every CGI VFX shot. Makes things more PHOTOrealistic.
Anyways games generally really crank it up, a bit too much.
Aesthetic? Style?
Visuals aren't just graphical fidelity
No Man's Sky uses an obnoxious amount of CA and there's no way to turn it off without installing a mod which is ridiculous.
The vignetting in the game I don't mind as much since it gives off the vibe of wearing a space helmet.
Aesthetic? Style?
Visuals aren't just graphical fidelity
Vignetting frames the center part of the shot and chromatic aberration makes people fill in the blanks better. Both should lead to more immersion.
This is false.
It's a real effect but it's not necessary for photo realism. In fact, many photographers even try to buy specialized cameras that limit the effect or just remove it all together in post process.
Because a lot of video game art directors are hacks who don't know what they're doing so they copy everyone else's shitty ideas.
CA's style is "defective electronics", makes sense in a game where your camera is supposed to be junk but in games where you're not supposed to have a camera like most first person shooters?
Vignetting seems to me like it's either invoking those very rounded ancient CRTs or very old cinema projection tech, might fit for a game set in the early 20th century but anything else? I don't get how that fits the style.
Recent examples with both of these effects are Doom (fortunately optional) and No Man's Sky, neither of which seems like a thematic match.
Chromatic Abberation isn't an electrical defect, it's due to the physics of how light of different wavelengths (colors) bend by different amounts when passing through a lens (the same way you get a rainbow by passing white light through a prism). You can get rid of it either by software algorithms to detect and correct for it, or by using more (specialized) lenses to focus the light back together.
Chromatic Abberation isn't an electrical defect, it's due to the physics of how light of different wavelengths (colors) bend by different amounts when passing through a lens (the same way you get a rainbow by passing white light through a prism). You can get rid of it either by software algorithms to detect and correct for it, or by using more (specialized) lenses to focus the light back together.
This is false.
It's a real effect but it's not necessary for photo realism. In fact, many photographers even try to buy specialized cameras that limit the effect or just remove it all together in post process.
Chromatic aberration in any capacity is something actively fought against with camera lenses, and any amount of it makes the game look worse. Bloom is bad when overused, but any CA is bad. I don't get at all how it even took off.
Maybe that's more the environmental design though? The closer something mimics real life (mimesis) in general the more difficulty people have losing themselves in it. Then again, Arma 2 is nowhere near high fidelity in the first place, so what works there might not work so well anymore.I find camera effects reduce the immersion for me, it makes the difference between me and the game character much more pronounced, like there's a thick wall between me and the game world. Most immersive IMO is something like Arma 2, when you stand in a field it looks (style wise if not quality wise) like standing in a field does in real life. Makes you feel like an actual human doing a real thing instead of a mech with human hands shooting at animatronics.
Yeah I don't think it makes much sense for games either, because in general from research we know people don't look further away than a few centimeters from the center. If anything you need to draw people's attention away from the center, not have them focus on it.Also focusing on the center doesn't make much sense in a game where you move the camera around. Even more because moving the camera should be more like moving your head while your eyes focus on different things across the screen. Screens aren't big enough for the distorted areas to actually end up in your peripheral vision.
Not a fan of it in movies.
e.g.: Chromatic Aberration in this small sequence from T2 always sticks out for me.
Might be hard to see it in gif form though.
Lenses and coatings or using fluoride help minimise it, but I'm not sure if there's anything to completely remove it in optical equipment. My swarovski el 32 feature very little.
On my parent's old rear projection TV you could mess with the convergence and give everything chromatic abberation all the time!
Not that you would want to.
Yup.
Just because a niche of GAF is obsessed with sheer IQ doesn't mean that visual effects aren't appreciated by other subsets of a game's audience. I think when used well chromatic abberation is dope. I love it.