3 ms·

Parent comment already mentions motion blur in movies. In animation (2d, 3d, stop motion) there are smear frames: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smear_frame htt

• eviks 4mo ago
  That was an analogy, and about art and artistic effect. What does it exploit in human vision?? Your example is even worse - it's a cost-driven degradation of quality > smear frames helped to reduce production costs > I'm not aware of any normal software Ok, but that was the question to shift from some generic theory about how human vision isn't perfect and dynamic vs static to a practical example we can see and evaluate - just like the examples in the blog, where you can clearly see the issues both dynamically and statically
  • bmacho 4mo ago
    ??? No, artists (of every animated media: 2d, 3d, stop motion, video game) intentionally put extra effort into creating ugly frames. Not based on theory, but based on taste (artists' personal taste, or measured). It's not a cost cutting method, not anymore. It actually requires extra effort, and it makes the product more expensive. Maybe in animated media it is an acquired taste/coconut effect and not a way to exploit our visual system. Either way this does not say much about whether youtube should have only sensible frames or not. But it points to the direction that (intentionally) broken, nonsensical frames in UI are worth exploring--they are everywhere in animated arts. As GP has said: "It's very possible".
    • eviks 4mo ago
      > As GP has said: "It's very possible". And as the reply asked: provide at least one example > Maybe in animated media it is an acquired taste/coconut effect and not a way to exploit our visual system. So not relevant to the original theory? Also, that'd be an example of extra effort into ugly frames that originated as cost saving measures, not quality/artistic expression methods.
      • ValdikSS 4mo ago
        You can read why people prefer 24 fps movies instead of high-fps ones. I'm quite puzzled by the article. Animations in software are transitions, it should not be perfect in UI sense, because it might look weird to the human eye in this case. I'd prefer motion blur to something crisp. This is the case of file picker example.
        • eviks 4mo ago
          You can also read why those people are misguided. But instead of doing the irrelevant art analogies again, go back to the article and cite a specific principle that is violated by blur. It has a list: > Now, what does it mean in practice? Also, blur doesn't even look weird statically! And again, provide at least one example where it looks weird to our eyes > This is the case of file picker example. You also don't seem to understand what that example shows, the "blur/crisp" is not at issue here, it's, for example, "textedit" jumping on top of "where". Now explain what non-artistic human vision benefit there is to 2 words being drawn on top of one another in a UI transition instead of the first word disappearing completely before the second moves to its place.
          • ValdikSS 4mo ago
            >You also don't seem to understand what that example shows I do understand, and this is exactly what I consider weird. Instead of repainting (in any way, even what is considered pleasant by you and Nikita), I'd prefer blur/mosaic/white window during the animation. Not the motion blur, but just not the actual contents of the window! This breaks "every frame is perfect", you can't make a meaningful screenshot of this transaction. In KDE's Kwin, I configure windows resizung using crude stretching algorithm. This means I see non-proportionally weirdly stretched window several frames, then it repaints. On screenshots that looks really weird, while in reality this is quite ok.
            • eviks 4mo ago
              > On screenshots that looks really weird, while in reality this is quite ok. That wasn't the criterion, which was "the best" > very possible that a "wrong" frame in isolation is the best looking one in a real-time context. So show your Kwin animation example and explain how it's the best due to "human vision" compared to a transition without the weird stretches. > I'd prefer blur/mosaic/white window during the animation You mean blur where no content is visible/readable (that's different from the animation examples where text is visible, is moving, just not crisp)??? That's another reason you should just answer the initial question directly and provide a UI animation example supporting the theory instead of keeping arguing with nothing to show for it. And again, what features of "the human visual system" does white window exploit that makes it the best?