3 ms·

The motion blur is quite good here. Here is some light reading/watching on the subject. https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/latest/render/cycles/render_setting

The motion blur is quite good here. Here is some light reading/watching on the subject. https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/latest/render/cycles/render_settings/motion_blur.html https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/latest/render/cycles/rend... https://youtu.be/VXIrSTMgJ9s https://youtu.be/VXIrSTMgJ9s In my estimation of things: motion blur is only beneficial to try to work around sample and hold displays. If there were fully continuous (1000 Hz is close enough) or sub 1 ms strobed displays then motion blur would add nothing.

hortense 5y ago
To take advantage of a 1000 Hz monitor, you'd need to render 1000 different images per seconds! And if you can renderer 1000 images per seconds, then generating motion blur that work on a 100 fps monitor is as simple as displaying an average of 10 frames. The various motion blur techniques allow simulating higher frame rate without paying the full cost of rendering all the extra frames.
arximboldi 5y ago
Yes. Motion blur is temporal interpolation, this is, it's a way of representing what happens "in between frames". The shorter the time between frames, the more subtle the effects of interpolation (like the higher the resolution of an image, the less blurry it becomes in between pixels).
danuker 5y ago
I find the motion blur distracting :(
- codeflo 5y ago
  If you notice it, it’s not done correctly (which in games unfortunately seems to be always; presumably because it’s faked with a blur in post-processing). Few people complain about motion blur in movies, where cameras produce it through physics alone. It’s artificially added to CGI scenes so that they don’t stand out and distract the viewer.
  - beebeepka 5y ago
    What do you mean "if" you notice. I complain about it every single time. Of course, it's much worse in games. Only vsync is worse
codeflo 5y ago
Counter point: Motion blur is a simple form of low-pass filtering (in the time direction). You need some kind of filtering to prevent shutter artifacts (think video of a spinning wheel), and that stays true even at a million fps.
- willis936 5y ago
  I don't think this is how it works. We have a discrete number of rods and cones which work as a well behaved spatial sampler. Human visual system temporal sampling is smeared stochastically across the rods and cones rather than being clocked. If you truly displayed 1 million fps and there were no shutter artifacts (as there are none in any fixed-pixel displays that we are currently looking at), then the motion would be life-like. The human visual system doesn't take a temporally clocked set of frames then apply a low-pass filter to it and doing it as an approximation of actual perceived motion blur would look off (as many gamers lament). Blurbusters has a fair amount of literature on this topic. https://blurbusters.com/blur-busters-law-amazing-journey-to-future-1000hz-displays-with-blurfree-sample-and-hold/ https://blurbusters.com/blur-busters-law-amazing-journey-to-...
  - codeflo 5y ago
    This has nothing to do with biology, it's an argument from signal processing, which is well-understood theory (Nyquist's theorem and so on). If an object oscillates at 1 MHz, and you take 1 million still frames per second, it will rest in the same place in every frame, and thus look static. In reality, such an object would look blurred to the human eye.(+) It's this kind of artifact that motion blur (to be more precise, low-pass filtering) can avoid. Edit: The article you linked to is very confused about some basic terminology. It equates response time artifacts of an LCD monitor that display sharp, digital images with motion blur. That's so wildly wrong I'm not even sure where to start. Maybe here: When displaying video, motion blur is a property of the source, response time one of the output device. (+) Edit 2: To expand on this, the human vision system integrates arriving photons over time, and this way implicitly behaves a lot like a low-pass filter. A low-pass filter is different from a fixed-rate shutter, which is what people mean when they say the eye doesn't have a fixed framerate. However, there is a limited temporal resolution. A more everyday example of this effect would be a dimmed LED. You can pulse an LED at 1 MHz, it will look dimmed, not blinking. But when filming/rendering this LED at 1 million still images per second, it will either be all on or all off, both of which are wrong (i.e., an artifact of your chosen shutter speed).

hortense 5y ago

To take advantage of a 1000 Hz monitor, you'd need to render 1000 different images per seconds! And if you can renderer 1000 images per seconds, then generating motion blur that work on a 100 fps monitor is as simple as displaying an average of 10 frames. The various motion blur techniques allow simulating higher frame rate without paying the full cost of rendering all the extra frames.

arximboldi 5y ago

Yes. Motion blur is temporal interpolation, this is, it's a way of representing what happens "in between frames". The shorter the time between frames, the more subtle the effects of interpolation (like the higher the resolution of an image, the less blurry it becomes in between pixels).

danuker 5y ago

I find the motion blur distracting :(

codeflo 5y ago
If you notice it, it’s not done correctly (which in games unfortunately seems to be always; presumably because it’s faked with a blur in post-processing). Few people complain about motion blur in movies, where cameras produce it through physics alone. It’s artificially added to CGI scenes so that they don’t stand out and distract the viewer.
- beebeepka 5y ago
  What do you mean "if" you notice. I complain about it every single time. Of course, it's much worse in games. Only vsync is worse

codeflo 5y ago

Counter point: Motion blur is a simple form of low-pass filtering (in the time direction). You need some kind of filtering to prevent shutter artifacts (think video of a spinning wheel), and that stays true even at a million fps.

willis936 5y ago
I don't think this is how it works. We have a discrete number of rods and cones which work as a well behaved spatial sampler. Human visual system temporal sampling is smeared stochastically across the rods and cones rather than being clocked. If you truly displayed 1 million fps and there were no shutter artifacts (as there are none in any fixed-pixel displays that we are currently looking at), then the motion would be life-like. The human visual system doesn't take a temporally clocked set of frames then apply a low-pass filter to it and doing it as an approximation of actual perceived motion blur would look off (as many gamers lament). Blurbusters has a fair amount of literature on this topic. https://blurbusters.com/blur-busters-law-amazing-journey-to-future-1000hz-displays-with-blurfree-sample-and-hold/ https://blurbusters.com/blur-busters-law-amazing-journey-to-...
- codeflo 5y ago
  This has nothing to do with biology, it's an argument from signal processing, which is well-understood theory (Nyquist's theorem and so on). If an object oscillates at 1 MHz, and you take 1 million still frames per second, it will rest in the same place in every frame, and thus look static. In reality, such an object would look blurred to the human eye.(+) It's this kind of artifact that motion blur (to be more precise, low-pass filtering) can avoid. Edit: The article you linked to is very confused about some basic terminology. It equates response time artifacts of an LCD monitor that display sharp, digital images with motion blur. That's so wildly wrong I'm not even sure where to start. Maybe here: When displaying video, motion blur is a property of the source, response time one of the output device. (+) Edit 2: To expand on this, the human vision system integrates arriving photons over time, and this way implicitly behaves a lot like a low-pass filter. A low-pass filter is different from a fixed-rate shutter, which is what people mean when they say the eye doesn't have a fixed framerate. However, there is a limited temporal resolution. A more everyday example of this effect would be a dimmed LED. You can pulse an LED at 1 MHz, it will look dimmed, not blinking. But when filming/rendering this LED at 1 million still images per second, it will either be all on or all off, both of which are wrong (i.e., an artifact of your chosen shutter speed).