3 ms·

>Most people just want a shitload of bokeh (real or software) Software bokeh isn't really that good though. It's especially apparent with things like hair, whi

by Hamuko 5y ago

>Most people just want a shitload of bokeh (real or software) Software bokeh isn't really that good though. It's especially apparent with things like hair, which is unfortunately a lot of the edge area if you're taking portraits.

aparticulate 5y ago
It drives me crazy too. I think iPhone portrait mode has really rough results but people seem to use it. Honestly most DSLR bokeh photos were bad ten years ago too. (for different reasons) Take a look at Google image results for "bokeh". These are not exactly Kubrick-tier bokeh. https://www.google.com/search?q=bokeh&sxsrf=AOaemvIRaTBieq-lY6NFABUNu3ZIhB07ag:1642266074358&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiw6_PvnbT1AhVvDzQIHQCzCG4Q_AUoAXoECAEQAw&cshid=1642266095147926&biw=1920&bih=1089&dpr=1 https://www.google.com/search?q=bokeh&sxsrf=AOaemvIRaTBieq-l... ie hobbyists have very low standards.
dheera 5y ago
> Software bokeh isn't really that good though. I think one of the problems is they don't simulate it correctly. They segment the person with a neural net and then blur the rest by a constant arbitrary amount. Ideally it should estimate the depth map of the scene and simulate different amounts of blur outside the DOF. Here's a RealSense-based software bokeh I wrote that interpolates between 2 levels of computed bokeh. If I didn't have to render at 30fps I would actually just compute it on a per-pixel basis. https://github.com/dheera/bokeh-camera https://github.com/dheera/bokeh-camera
acquacow 5y ago
The thing is, the people who use software bokeh don't care about how bad it looks. They see a blurred background and they are happy.
- saiya-jin 5y ago
  And then people like me come along, point out how bad it looks and all the flaws present and their view on quality of software blur is changed (at least for some time).

3 ms·

>Most people just want a shitload of bokeh (real or software) Software bokeh isn't really that good though. It's especially apparent with things like hair, whi

by Hamuko 5y ago

aparticulate 5y ago
It drives me crazy too. I think iPhone portrait mode has really rough results but people seem to use it. Honestly most DSLR bokeh photos were bad ten years ago too. (for different reasons) Take a look at Google image results for "bokeh". These are not exactly Kubrick-tier bokeh. https://www.google.com/search?q=bokeh&sxsrf=AOaemvIRaTBieq-lY6NFABUNu3ZIhB07ag:1642266074358&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiw6_PvnbT1AhVvDzQIHQCzCG4Q_AUoAXoECAEQAw&cshid=1642266095147926&biw=1920&bih=1089&dpr=1 https://www.google.com/search?q=bokeh&sxsrf=AOaemvIRaTBieq-l... ie hobbyists have very low standards.
dheera 5y ago
> Software bokeh isn't really that good though. I think one of the problems is they don't simulate it correctly. They segment the person with a neural net and then blur the rest by a constant arbitrary amount. Ideally it should estimate the depth map of the scene and simulate different amounts of blur outside the DOF. Here's a RealSense-based software bokeh I wrote that interpolates between 2 levels of computed bokeh. If I didn't have to render at 30fps I would actually just compute it on a per-pixel basis. https://github.com/dheera/bokeh-camera https://github.com/dheera/bokeh-camera
acquacow 5y ago
The thing is, the people who use software bokeh don't care about how bad it looks. They see a blurred background and they are happy.
- saiya-jin 5y ago
  And then people like me come along, point out how bad it looks and all the flaws present and their view on quality of software blur is changed (at least for some time).