-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Why do games keep using chromatic aberration and vignetting?
- Thread starter KDR_11k
- Start date
ambar_hitman
Member
Both the effects are shit and I hate it.
Developers want to implement it, fine, just give us an option to disable it completely.
Developers want to implement it, fine, just give us an option to disable it completely.
Summer Haze
Banned
The only use of CA I like is when you're titan is getting fucked up in Titanfall. Makes sense then. Keeping it on all the time, when usually it's way too strong, just makes games look weirdly digitally blurry. I hate it.
Ryouji Gunblade
Member
I hate it more than filters in movies. It must be an option for the sake of our eyes.
Summer Haze
Banned
Played DOOM for the first time a couple days ago and it gives you the option for turning CA off, fortunately.
Really? Is there any proof of that?
I've seen this reasoning a lot, but I can't help but think that making everything look bad to "hide some imperfections" is a rather counter-productive approach.
Summer Haze
Banned
That's like using poo as make-up filler.
Nachtfalke
Member
I like CA and stuff. It gives you a certain mood if used right. What I don't like is oversharpening like in Deus Ex. It looks god awful.
It also looks awful on some old lazy blu-ray catalogue releases from Universal and Co. Trying to boost the image quality. It's not working guys, stop it!
It also looks awful on some old lazy blu-ray catalogue releases from Universal and Co. Trying to boost the image quality. It's not working guys, stop it!
The vast majority of the general public has no idea it's there, let alone that it has a name. I've brought it up to some more casual gaming friends and they don't even know what I'm talking about until I point it out. None of them have cared once they saw what it was, and one said it was fine because it made it look like it was really being shot with a lens.
The violent reaction to the CA effect in games is a tiny, tiny sliver of the consumer base, I'd wager. I generally don't care one way or the other. Didn't mind it in Bloodborne at all. I am considering using a mod to remove it in No Man's Sky just to get cleaner screenshots, though.
jediyoshi
Member
So you're saying something wholly artificial and not reflective of any aspect of real life visuals was embraced.
I don't mind CA as long I can't easily see it and in most games it's very visible. Then it bothers me as at that point it's way over done and is starting to mess with clarity of picture. I default toggling CA off always when given option through in-game, .ini or mod.
Vignetting I toggle off always, I hate those "black borders" creeping. Make FOV feel smaller and more claustrophobic while adds absolutely nothing to experience.
At the end these are very subjective things and I bet most of people don't mind those effects.
Vignetting I toggle off always, I hate those "black borders" creeping. Make FOV feel smaller and more claustrophobic while adds absolutely nothing to experience.
At the end these are very subjective things and I bet most of people don't mind those effects.
KojiKnight
Member
5 years from now, someone is going to disable all of the shitty post processing effects on a AAA title, and the critics will go wild, then every game will try and copy it for a generation, and it'll be glorious.
I don't mind Chromatic Aberration at all. The effect of looking through a lens because in all the games we play, the point-of-view is looking through a lens. Plus it makes games feel more cinematic or natural. from a digital media point-of-view.
I dislike clean IQ more...because everything looks false. No organic or natural look to clean IQ.
I dislike clean IQ more...because everything looks false. No organic or natural look to clean IQ.
This also.
Actually, no, in a great many games the point of view is looking through eyes, not a lens.
And even when it is a lens, modern lenses have reduced CA far below the level seen in most games where people complain about it. That's progress in lens technology. Because CA is an artifact.
Don't you just love it when game has CA, vignetting, lensflare effects and even water droplets on player characters "eyes"? Like... WTF one has to think in order to think that all somehow simulates how eyes work.
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
Well yeah, but we are looking at a screen, and the overwhelming majority of "real" footage we see on screens was recorded/captured via some sort of optical lens.
Even with VR, which sidesteps this argument a little-bit, you could make the case that the sensation of wearing a HMD justifies some sort of lens simulation such as you'd get wearing visored helmet or goggles.
Either way, some people find optical artifacts visually appealing, which kind of puts it on the same level level as colour grading/toning to me. Sometimes it works to enhance the mood, other times its distracting, but its just a minor creative choice
Almost the same. I immediately notice it, but tend to enjoy the effect. Especially when it is more subtly applied.
gamingPotato7
Member
Gladly I played through Bloodborne without ever noticing the chromatic aberration. Then I decided to sit closer to the TV due to my eye sight and I suddenly notice it. And sincerely, I did not enjoy it as much as I thought I would when I read people complaining about it. It is fairly annoying.
It's the same thing. But, obviously, simulated. Which is why it can often look horrible, and sometimes really good (Uncharted 4 uses CA very well).
Some people seem to discuss the effect on the merits of "it should simulate an eye, not a camera!" or "most people don't even notice it so what does it matter?". I think both these points are fundamentally wrong.
- It's the developers intent to simulate either an eye or a camera, doing one or the other isn't inherently better or worse and the notion that it should be is kind of weird.
- Wether people notice an effect or not doesn't make it good or bad. The question should be if they would notice a difference between the game with the effect and the game without the effect. There's a lot of stuff in game that can be really important or really detrimental to the quality of the game without the player noticing it.
What you should discuss is the effect on its merits. CA can make a picture give off certain vibes, but it can also make it horribly jittery and unclear. Similarly vignetting can make the picture framed better but also makes seeing things in the peripheral of the screen harder.
As always, it's a tool that can be used in good and bad ways.
TylerDurden4321
Member
Devs should be free to evokevthe kind of style they want in their game and we should be free to like it or not and choose to buy it or not. The big AAA games usually know with how much stylizing they can get away with while keeping mainstream appeal and I absolutely don't want indie devs to child proof their games in the style department and lose their vision for the game.
It's the same reason Instagram became popular with all of its filters that reduce the visual fidelity of photographs.
You can take a scene that is boring because it has poor composition make it seem interesting with the filters by giving it an abstract, other-worldly look. You get a further bonus in that simulating the effects of out-dated film technology makes it seem like your image is from a past era. That not only triggers feelings of romanticism in people, but they also subconsciously associate it with importance - because prior to the era of ubiquitous filters, you would mainly see those old-timey photos when they were depicting important historic events (either in the world or in your family).
You can take a scene that is boring because it has poor composition make it seem interesting with the filters by giving it an abstract, other-worldly look. You get a further bonus in that simulating the effects of out-dated film technology makes it seem like your image is from a past era. That not only triggers feelings of romanticism in people, but they also subconsciously associate it with importance - because prior to the era of ubiquitous filters, you would mainly see those old-timey photos when they were depicting important historic events (either in the world or in your family).
Weltall Zero
Member
The "most people like/don't mind it" many seem to be brandishing is quite the statement. Do you have a peer reviewed case study about it or are you just extrapolating from, well, yourself?
I mean, as if "most people don't mind" was a fantastic defense anyway.
I mean, as if "most people don't mind" was a fantastic defense anyway.
Look at any professional camera review. They list Chromatic Aberration as a negative. This isn't something that camera makers want either. Why developers are adding an effect that shouldn't be there in the first place is just weird in my view.
If people like it, fine but make it optional.
Patrick Young
Member
I don't mind either feature.
I'm happy the option is there, but devs thinking they're hot shit for including a graphics option to turn CA off is the new appeasement promotional tickbox in video games. This is the same reason an all-female Ghostbusters exists.
I'm happy the option is there, but devs thinking they're hot shit for including a graphics option to turn CA off is the new appeasement promotional tickbox in video games. This is the same reason an all-female Ghostbusters exists.
Dictator93
Member
Pantaghana
Member
If used as a temporary effect to denote that something is "wrong," chromatic abberation is fine. Taking damage, getting drugged, transitioning into a dream sequence, etc... are all legitimate uses as far as I'm concerned.
But as a permanent on-screen effect, I have yet to see a good use of it. It makes the game look ugly, often clashes with the aesthetic (what sense does it make to have a game in a medieval setting to simulate camera defects?) and I personally get serious eye strain if I look at it long enough. Several examples in this thread literally make my eyes hurt.
I don't care that it's someones "vision," if it makes people uncomfortable to the point of causing physical pain, you should give players the option to switch it off.
But as a permanent on-screen effect, I have yet to see a good use of it. It makes the game look ugly, often clashes with the aesthetic (what sense does it make to have a game in a medieval setting to simulate camera defects?) and I personally get serious eye strain if I look at it long enough. Several examples in this thread literally make my eyes hurt.
I don't care that it's someones "vision," if it makes people uncomfortable to the point of causing physical pain, you should give players the option to switch it off.
BrainZEROX
Member
For me Chromatic Aberration is only an issue with screenshots. It strikes me in Bloodborne's screenshots but I never had a problem ingame. I think the hate is a little bit undeserved but devs should make it an opt-out if it's really that divisive.
Ultimadrago
Member
Is this a real screenshot?
CA is the worst thing in videogames right now for me. It gives me MASSIVE headaches.
I finally figured out how to turn it off in Street Fighter V and now I can actually play the game without having to take breaks from my eyes hurting.
I feel like developers use it as some cheap shitty form of AA to hide edges. It's so fucking bad.
That screen shot above me almost makes me throw up. It's not an exaggeration.
I finally figured out how to turn it off in Street Fighter V and now I can actually play the game without having to take breaks from my eyes hurting.
I feel like developers use it as some cheap shitty form of AA to hide edges. It's so fucking bad.
That screen shot above me almost makes me throw up. It's not an exaggeration.
Varies from game to game. In some you see it clearly during gameplay or standing still in-game while in others it's quite unnoticeable.
It is.
ichtyander
Member
Even though this is conceptually true, games have pretty much always simulated a lens (as in, pretty much no game simulates afterimages after looking at the sun or bright light sources, show floaters, visual noise at night (although film grain does the same thing most of the time), blinking (although sure, the brain filters it out) etc.). It is an easy way to add visual flair though, so it's a bit of a cop-out. Not saying it's good or bad, just saying looking through a lens has become a part of the visual language of games, for better or worse.
The main reason though (apart from just blindly following a visual trend, which happens more often than it should) is creating imperfections and having a cheap-ish way of creating an association with a lens distortion, which in turn tricks the brain into thinking I must be looking at this through a lens, and lenses are real things (and I'm conditioned to notice certain visual details through film and video), so what I'm seeing is kinda more real than it should be. I mean, this isn't something exclusive to games, a lot of 2D concept artists add slight color channel separation in their artwork (which gives off a similar result) and of course CG graphics in general today (be it still renders, animated films or expensive summer blockbusters) is full of various approaches to creating imperfections (although one can argue it's not relevant in this discussion because it actually tries to mimic an image seen through a lens, but the idea of smudging an image a bit to make it look more real through imperfections is a valid thing and very present today).
The problem is, most devs seem to just add the popular fast and easy effect with low performance cost, lots of people seem to like the added visual flair so it's all good from that standpoint. Of course, most of those implementations are pretty terrible and too aggressive as a result, so it paints a bad picture to consumers that are more sensitive to it.
Anyway, I like the effect when done more subtly and correctly, and I think there's now a pretty much established visual language of looking at things kinda through a lens, and it's not something that's going away any time soon. Maybe VR will change things up a bit, so they'll render games in very broad HDR, without the need for automatic exposure (eye adaptation), lens flares, mud splashes, CA and whatnot, and your own eyes will naturally adapt to the image.
Sanctuary
Member
It's extremely noticeable. It's like looking through a very thick piece of glass.
-shadow-
Member
I liked the effect in ZombiU, it was one of the first games where I noticed the effect and kind of liked it. The whole game has a dirty image quality with dirt on the lens and lens flares makes it fit in. But this is really one of the few games I can think it fits.
I remember watching the blu-ray for the first time and thinking it must've been a remastering defect at first because it never happens again. I guess something went wrong during the filming and no one noticed it during editing.
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.
I remember watching the blu-ray for the first time and thinking it must've been a remastering defect at first because it never happens again. I guess something went wrong during the filming and no one noticed it during editing.
Sanctuary
Member
That's the only game that I have played where I felt that it actually enhanced the overall atmopshere. It really gave it an 80s zombie film look. It actually looks kind of bad in that screenshot though. It doesn't look quite that bad while in motion.
*looks around the image at other buildings*..
Correct me if i'm wrong, but I believe that white line is a result of how the buildings are being back-lit by the sun, and not an artifact of sharpening.
eot
Banned
I don't know but I hate both with a passion.
It's a god damn shame a game with such good art direction is burdened with one of the most egregious examples of CA I can think of.
It's a god damn shame a game with such good art direction is burdened with one of the most egregious examples of CA I can think of.
Some developers think they're being cinematic and shit.
The sharpening filter in DX is hideous, simply based on a few screenscaps that I've seen. Its use is incomprehensible to me.
Oh.
Ohhh.
Man, I guess Emmanuel Lubezki could learn a thing or two from videogames.
The sharpening filter in DX is hideous, simply based on a few screenscaps that I've seen. Its use is incomprehensible to me.
Look at all dat CA and vigneting in this year's Oscars winner for Best Cinematography.
Oh.
Ohhh.
Man, I guess Emmanuel Lubezki could learn a thing or two from videogames.
I don't like CA when it's overused just add some visual flair and doesn't add anything to the experience (e.g. Lords of the Fallen)
I do like CA when it's used sparingly and makes sense in the game-world.
Recent example: Mirror's Edge Catalyst. You wear an augmented reality plug-in that shows your runner's vision path through the game-world and has pop-up info about the city. When you get hit in the head or fall from a great height without properly rolling after landing, you get a brief moment of CA that gives you the sense that something's wrong with the camera of your augmented-reality device. It's very effective and a great use of CA.
I do like CA when it's used sparingly and makes sense in the game-world.
Recent example: Mirror's Edge Catalyst. You wear an augmented reality plug-in that shows your runner's vision path through the game-world and has pop-up info about the city. When you get hit in the head or fall from a great height without properly rolling after landing, you get a brief moment of CA that gives you the sense that something's wrong with the camera of your augmented-reality device. It's very effective and a great use of CA.
MrTroubleMaker
Gold Member
I don't like either, and having both at the same time really bugs me I'm glad (on PC) there are ways to remove this garbage.
I'm glad (on PC) there are ways to remove this garbage.