4 ms·

Is looking at the examples giving anyone else a headache? It's like the software blur falls into some kind of uncanny valley for reality.

by themgt 13y ago

zippergz 13y ago
It doesn't give me a headache, but to my eyes it isn't remotely convincing. There's no way I'd look at any of those example pictures and not realize the blurring was done with postprocessing.
- JTon 13y ago
  I'm a photography layman and I really can't tell it was done with postprocessing. What gives it away for you?
  - bronson 13y ago
    The blur is far too uniform and boring. Actual bokeh has more intrigue to it: lens aberrations, crazy highlights, wonderful patterns, even when the depth of field isn't very extreme. Check out some real examples on google image search: https://www.google.com/search?q=bokeh+examples&espv=210&es_sm=91&tbm=isch&imgil=4yWA5_ormTgB0M%253A%253Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fencrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com%252Fimages%253Fq%253Dtbn%253AANd9GcRLNLx7njG3LMIaGPxX-biipqDXL1X8ayqBMerER-ru4kInUwuR%253B500%253B498%253B5PGfCFJ_2qPyJM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.slrphotographyguide.com%25252Ftips%25252Fbokeh-DOF.shtml&source=iu&usg=__4dcsDgtrRNOwCo3ZfbA8svWIPJM%3D&sa=X&ei=cNtOU8_UGIrn8gHHyYCYDA&ved=0CDEQ9QEwAw#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=4yWA5_ormTgB0M%253A%3B5PGfCFJ_2qPyJM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.slrphotographyguide.com%252Ftips%252Fimages%252Fcirclular-bokeh.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.slrphotographyguide.com%252Ftips%252Fbokeh-DOF.shtml%3B500%3B498 https://www.google.com/search?q=bokeh+examples&espv=210&es_s... I'm impressed! Looks like Google solved the hard problem. Implementing a more pleasing blur than plain gaussian doesn't sound too hard.
    - justincormack 13y ago
      Especially in large format petzval and similar lenses eg https://www.flickr.com/photos/richard314159/galleries/72157624453174055/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/richard314159/galleries/721576...
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
  - zippergz 13y ago
    I agree with bronson about the uniformity of the blur. Also, the amount of blurring doesn't change enough as the distance changes. It's better than previous techniques that have just blurred the entire background the same amount, but it still doesn't feel right. That's understandable; it's an incredibly hard problem to figure out how far away everything in the image is, and blur it the appropriate amount. I'm impressed by how well they've done so far. But there's definitely still work to be done.
Zigurd 13y ago
I agree that it irks me. But I find that irritation hard to justify: Shallow depth of field is artificial in all cases. Your vision doesn't really work that way. Even saying "Your eye is like a camera" is only partly true. You can't get at the unprocessed image. What you think you see isn't the image on your retina. So saying that the effect as a result of a wide-open aperture is more truthful than algorithmically blurring the background of a photo seems odd. Both are a photographic artifice that approximates what you think you see when your attention is on one object in your field of view. The same is true for the effects of focal length. A longer lens approximates, but can never actually reproduce, the effect of the brain trying to make same-sized things look the same size. A shorter focal length does the opposite, and puts more emphasis on foreground objects.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- blt 13y ago
  I do not understand what you mean by "Shallow depth of field is artificial in all cases. Your vision doesn't really work that way." If I hold my hand very close and focus on it, the background obviously becomes blurred.
  - Zigurd 13y ago
    Your eye has long-ish depth of field. Your brain also compensates for focus. So you perceive an in-focus area several inches to many feet deep. With an f1.2 lens, I can put objects just a few millimeters in the foreground and background of a subject out of focus. Photographers, consciously or otherwise, use a language of optics effects to suggest ways of seeing, but they never work the same way as your vision system, which also lacks the ability to introspectively show you the raw data from your eye. So the saying that "your eye is a camera" is true, but the camera image is not directly accessible to your own mind. So, somewhat ironically, this faux DoF effect might work more like your eye, putting a whole foreground object in sharp focus, and making the background uniformly "blurry."
dimatura 13y ago
It doesn't look that realistic, but it's way better than the awful tilt-shift effect (or whatever it's called) on instagram. Which, as far as I can tell from my facebook feed, is used 99% of the time as a poor man's bokeh.
byuu 13y ago
Yes, it's definitely causing me discomfort to look at them. I see the blurred area, and try and fail to focus on it. 3D effects really don't translate well to a 2D display. I get what they're going for, but I'm personally not a fan of the effect. I'd rather have the nuanced little details in the background, in case one day I want to see that too. The effect is lovely for extreme close-up pictures (of insects, flowers, water drops, ...), though. I like the idea of storing the depth information (and preferred focal point) inside the image, and allowing the viewer to decide whether they want depth of focus effects, and if so, how strongly they want them enabled.
ZoFreX 13y ago
Any form of blurriness can have this effect - I presume your eyes are interpreting the blurriness as something not being in focus, and are repeatedly trying to focus, causing strain. (I first observed this effect when watching someone playing World of Warcraft, when their character got drunk it made the whole screen blurry and gave me a headache)

Is looking at the examples giving anyone else a headache? It's like the software blur falls into some kind of uncanny valley for reality.

by themgt 13y ago

Is looking at the examples giving anyone else a headache? It's like the software blur falls into some kind of uncanny valley for reality.

zippergz 13y ago

It doesn't give me a headache, but to my eyes it isn't remotely convincing. There's no way I'd look at any of those example pictures and not realize the blurring was done with postprocessing.

JTon 13y ago
I'm a photography layman and I really can't tell it was done with postprocessing. What gives it away for you?
- bronson 13y ago
  The blur is far too uniform and boring. Actual bokeh has more intrigue to it: lens aberrations, crazy highlights, wonderful patterns, even when the depth of field isn't very extreme. Check out some real examples on google image search: https://www.google.com/search?q=bokeh+examples&espv=210&es_sm=91&tbm=isch&imgil=4yWA5_ormTgB0M%253A%253Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fencrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com%252Fimages%253Fq%253Dtbn%253AANd9GcRLNLx7njG3LMIaGPxX-biipqDXL1X8ayqBMerER-ru4kInUwuR%253B500%253B498%253B5PGfCFJ_2qPyJM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.slrphotographyguide.com%25252Ftips%25252Fbokeh-DOF.shtml&source=iu&usg=__4dcsDgtrRNOwCo3ZfbA8svWIPJM%3D&sa=X&ei=cNtOU8_UGIrn8gHHyYCYDA&ved=0CDEQ9QEwAw#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=4yWA5_ormTgB0M%253A%3B5PGfCFJ_2qPyJM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.slrphotographyguide.com%252Ftips%252Fimages%252Fcirclular-bokeh.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.slrphotographyguide.com%252Ftips%252Fbokeh-DOF.shtml%3B500%3B498 https://www.google.com/search?q=bokeh+examples&espv=210&es_s... I'm impressed! Looks like Google solved the hard problem. Implementing a more pleasing blur than plain gaussian doesn't sound too hard.
  - justincormack 13y ago
    Especially in large format petzval and similar lenses eg https://www.flickr.com/photos/richard314159/galleries/72157624453174055/ https://www.flickr.com/photos/richard314159/galleries/721576...
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
- zippergz 13y ago
  I agree with bronson about the uniformity of the blur. Also, the amount of blurring doesn't change enough as the distance changes. It's better than previous techniques that have just blurred the entire background the same amount, but it still doesn't feel right. That's understandable; it's an incredibly hard problem to figure out how far away everything in the image is, and blur it the appropriate amount. I'm impressed by how well they've done so far. But there's definitely still work to be done.

Zigurd 13y ago

I agree that it irks me. But I find that irritation hard to justify: Shallow depth of field is artificial in all cases. Your vision doesn't really work that way. Even saying "Your eye is like a camera" is only partly true. You can't get at the unprocessed image. What you think you see isn't the image on your retina. So saying that the effect as a result of a wide-open aperture is more truthful than algorithmically blurring the background of a photo seems odd. Both are a photographic artifice that approximates what you think you see when your attention is on one object in your field of view. The same is true for the effects of focal length. A longer lens approximates, but can never actually reproduce, the effect of the brain trying to make same-sized things look the same size. A shorter focal length does the opposite, and puts more emphasis on foreground objects.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
blt 13y ago
I do not understand what you mean by "Shallow depth of field is artificial in all cases. Your vision doesn't really work that way." If I hold my hand very close and focus on it, the background obviously becomes blurred.
- Zigurd 13y ago
  Your eye has long-ish depth of field. Your brain also compensates for focus. So you perceive an in-focus area several inches to many feet deep. With an f1.2 lens, I can put objects just a few millimeters in the foreground and background of a subject out of focus. Photographers, consciously or otherwise, use a language of optics effects to suggest ways of seeing, but they never work the same way as your vision system, which also lacks the ability to introspectively show you the raw data from your eye. So the saying that "your eye is a camera" is true, but the camera image is not directly accessible to your own mind. So, somewhat ironically, this faux DoF effect might work more like your eye, putting a whole foreground object in sharp focus, and making the background uniformly "blurry."

dimatura 13y ago

It doesn't look that realistic, but it's way better than the awful tilt-shift effect (or whatever it's called) on instagram. Which, as far as I can tell from my facebook feed, is used 99% of the time as a poor man's bokeh.

byuu 13y ago

Yes, it's definitely causing me discomfort to look at them. I see the blurred area, and try and fail to focus on it. 3D effects really don't translate well to a 2D display. I get what they're going for, but I'm personally not a fan of the effect. I'd rather have the nuanced little details in the background, in case one day I want to see that too. The effect is lovely for extreme close-up pictures (of insects, flowers, water drops, ...), though. I like the idea of storing the depth information (and preferred focal point) inside the image, and allowing the viewer to decide whether they want depth of focus effects, and if so, how strongly they want them enabled.

ZoFreX 13y ago

Any form of blurriness can have this effect - I presume your eyes are interpreting the blurriness as something not being in focus, and are repeatedly trying to focus, causing strain. (I first observed this effect when watching someone playing World of Warcraft, when their character got drunk it made the whole screen blurry and gave me a headache)