4 ms·
The blur doesn't take distance into account at all, it simply blurs more at the top and bottom of the viewport. I don't blame the author though, depth-of-field
by McP 15y ago
The blur doesn't take distance into account at all, it simply blurs more at the top and bottom of the viewport. I don't blame the author though, depth-of-field blur is expensive to simulate accurately - look at any video game with DOF blur and before long you'll notice artefacts around the edges of foreground objects.
- bd 15y agoAuthor here ;) You are correct - it's not depth-of-field, it's fake "tilt-shift" effect that blurs screen non-uniformly based on vertical position of pixels, independently of content. And I chose it exactly because it's much cheaper than real depth-of-field while looking "good enough" for some type of scenes (it's the same trick many photographers use to get "miniature" feel, instead of using real tilt-shit lenses they apply such blur in Photoshop).
- smspence 15y agoJust wanted to let you know that it looks awesome. Great work! People on the internet will complain about ANYTHING. Hopefully you just ignore them. I wouldn't change a thing.
- lloeki 15y agoMaybe you can turn it quite a bit down: as is it effectively creates a very strong miniature effect, except with 'living' flying birds, which ends up generating massive cognitive dissonance. It's way over the top.