Post processing effects?

[solidsnake2384 10]

Why does this even exist?! It makes everything look blurry, crappy and lags the game the higher the setting. Please tell me the point of this because I seriously think I'm missing something.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

* It enhances immersion.

* Blur is an effect to simulate loss of accurate eye input (ehh?) in certain conditions.

* Slight blur makes things look a little better if you can't afford AA.

* Provides SSAO at higher levels.

* Simulates not so perfect optics by giving them a hint of chromatic aberrations.

* Makes your vision go funny when you're tired. In real life it only happens when you get drunk, but hey, nobody's perfect ;)

* It provides glow, which doesn't look too good until you hit 0.5 on brightness.

It's all a matter of preference, and I use every bit of it (except the higher SSAO levels).

And, it's a matter of opinions.

[EDcase 87]

I have it on LOW

I like the glow and the motion blur makes it much smoother and more realistic.

It looks crap when turned off.

I like the depth effect on NORMAL but the distance blur is too high and the added SSAO kills fps.

[solidsnake2384 10]

I agree that slight blur looks good but teres no reason for it to have high settings.

[jw custom 56]

I have it turned off, even on low the blur effect is too much.

[NeMeSiS 11]

I have it on very high because i like the way it looks and my PC can afford it. Though the blur and the bloom may be somewhat overdone, i still think the game looks better than without them. Also, Chernarus with SSAO gives me moist panties.

I would prefer the bloom and blur to be turned down a bit, and the wave effect when you run for too long should just be removed. But i still wouldnt want to play without it on.

Edited November 4, 2010 by NeMeSiS

[CarlGustaffa 4]

The rotational blur is about the only thing I'm against, but it's mostly due to already low framerates.

@NeMeSiS: Try to set your ingame brightness all the way down. It tones the bloom down significantly. If you need to counter the reduction in brightness (I prefer it that way as I don't fully agree with the HDR aperture choice, but still I want to be blinded by the sun, and it gives me the darker moon nights that I want and think is realistic), you can turn up brightness settings slightly for your video card. Since bloom/pp only checks what the game produces, it will tone down bloom without causing a brightness change.

I had it on very high for Arma2. There wasn't a significant impact in frames (at my rather already low settings). In OA I choose Normal as the SSAO hit on higher is way too much for me.

[Steakslim 1]

Now that I have the hardware to handle the very high pp settings I have a hard time going back just because of the SSAO alone. I do think the blur is a bit much (not the motion blur, I hardly notice that) but like Carl said, at that point if you can run it smoothly, it looks much better than if you had it turned off.

[solidsnake2384 10]

High blur looks REALLY good in chernarus bit not in Takistan. It makes Chernarus look fresher actually. Also what's SSAO?

[Cookieeater 10]

* It enhances immersion.

* Blur is an effect to simulate loss of accurate eye input (ehh?) in certain conditions.

* Slight blur makes things look a little better if you can't afford AA.

* Provides SSAO at higher levels.

* Simulates not so perfect optics by giving them a hint of chromatic aberrations.

* Makes your vision go funny when you're tired. In real life it only happens when you get drunk, but hey, nobody's perfect ;)

* It provides glow, which doesn't look too good until you hit 0.5 on brightness.

It's all a matter of preference, and I use every bit of it (except the higher SSAO levels).

And, it's a matter of opinions.

It enhances immersion as much as the bloom that blinds everyone in Halo 3 and other bloomy games out there. Turning on Post processing to Very high is the equivalent of this:

http://static.vgcats.com/comics/images/070119.jpg

They really need to add in a separate option for SSAO. Combining it with post processing was a terrible idea IMO.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Bloom is activated on low. SSAO might impact the image bloom is operating on, I'm not sure what the rendering pipeline is. Ref. So this is a game image then? ;)

But it isn't the best bloom implementation I've seen. But it's hard to point a finger on exactly what's wrong too. Sometimes I get the impression its truly a post process effect, basing it's information on the rendered low dynamic image instead of the high dynamic buffer. Or that the diffuse reflection model is slightly wrong. Or the use of white typically too white.

Try to lower the brightness, it helps a lot.

[Shadow NX 1]

Thank god BIS allows to set it to low and still get most of the effects like the blackouts when being wounded and all that since the last patch.

I have no idea who really plays on this set to full as it just looks plain silly with everything slightly blurry and objects like 10 meters away even more blurry.

I need new glasses soon but even i can see pretty sharp for a few hundred meters :p

[liquidpinky 11]

Bloom is activated on low. SSAO might impact the image bloom is operating on, I'm not sure what the rendering pipeline is. Ref. So this is a game image then? ;)

Nope, some smoggy place taken with a camera. therefore nothing like where I live while viewed through my own eyes. Bloom is shit and that photo is probably the only example of bloom in a real life situation.

Cookieeater's cartoon image pretty much sums up the games industries idea of realism perfectly.

[mrcash2009 0]

Why does this even exist?!

It just does, you have options ... end of.

Using it on low without any AA and upping render size to 1 (125%) up from screen render size = better fps with smooth visuals for me.

I like the "milky smooth" effect it has when upping render size combined, compared to matching res with screen and AA (which then hits fps more for me).

Try it out, put it to high or medium, turn AA off then set the render size 125% (or the percentage option that is +1 of your native res)... check out how it looks and your FPS comparison.

Edited November 5, 2010 by mrcash2009

[Shadow NX 1]

By that logic we dont need to discuss anything on this forum. ;)

Point is why add it if it looks horrible, eats lot of performance and so noone really uses it?

[mrcash2009 0]

Point is why add it if it looks horrible

As its been stated it has uses and the majority dont think that, and you dont have too use it.

eats lot of performance and so noone really uses it?

It doesn't as my example shows, and "noone" is not true simply based on this thread.

So as to why have it ... why not if you can turn it off.

By that logic we dont need to discuss anything on this forum.

Flipped logic, lets open loads of threads questioning every aspect of everything arma2 has that we dont personally like :) (That you can choose not to have anyway)

* Slight blur makes things look a little better if you can't afford AA.

If nothing else this one either way.

Edited November 5, 2010 by mrcash2009

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Nope, some smoggy place taken with a camera. therefore nothing like where I live while viewed through my own eyes. Bloom is shit and that photo is probably the only example of bloom in a real life situation.

Cookieeater's cartoon image pretty much sums up the games industries idea of realism perfectly.

On the contrary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom_(shader_effect)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HDRI-Example.jpg

And I have several (not uploaded because of the bloom) shots myself.

[Baff1 0]

Why does this even exist?! It makes everything look blurry, crappy and lags the game the higher the setting. Please tell me the point of this because I seriously think I'm missing something.

The blur is a console trick.

It is used to mask low framerates.

The more powerful your computer, the less you will wish to use this feature.

[mrcash2009 0]

I agree how it can be used for console trick, but isn't it simply an effect to immerse more like a film effect would be or a photo shop blur people use to make screen shots, just real time for no reason more than just that.

If you have a powerful computer and like that film effect to immerse I cant see that making people who like it use it less based on FPS being better. Only people who use it less will be people who like it less regardless.

[Baff1 0]

Personally I would describe it as something closer to the use of soft focus in films, if you have an old actress, you use it to mask her wrinkles, but if you have a sexy young actress, you don't need to.

It is an FX that serves a specific purpose.

Blur was the "big" game FX for that year, that all games must have. Predominantly because it masked the lower FPS rates achieved in console games. Since PC games can also suffer from low FPS, it's a good special effect to have in your arsenal too.

My only complaint with it is that it is so poorly implimented. It should be a GFX setting for low end PC's to enhance scaleability, but instead it is assigned to the maximum graphical setting only.

So that if I wish to run on full FX because my PC is powerful enough, I am forced to use blur also, while blur should actually be set to the lowest FX settings for more limited power PC's and completely absent from the higher end settings.

The current offered options are in this way counter intuative.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Baff1

[Cookieeater 10]

Bloom is activated on low. SSAO might impact the image bloom is operating on, I'm not sure what the rendering pipeline is. Ref. So this is a game image then? ;)

But it isn't the best bloom implementation I've seen. But it's hard to point a finger on exactly what's wrong too. Sometimes I get the impression its truly a post process effect, basing it's information on the rendered low dynamic image instead of the high dynamic buffer. Or that the diffuse reflection model is slightly wrong. Or the use of white typically too white.

Try to lower the brightness, it helps a lot.

Problem is, that is taken from a camera, a shitty one in fact. In real life, you would be able to see that without having the ungodly bloom there. Try getting your camera out, and then look at an area with very high contrast. Chances are, your camera can only focus at a certain light range and at other light ranges, you wouldn't be able to make out the features so it'll look like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Shutter_speed_in_Greenwich.jpg

Notice how you can make out each individual light on the picture all the way to the left, while you can't make out the pier. The picture all the way to the right is able to make out the pier, but the lights are all overexposed, and you can't see detail.

That is why they created HDRi photography, which is merging all the images taken at different exposures into 1 picture.

So something that could look like this in ArmA II:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:StLouisArchMultExpEV-1.82.JPG

or this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:StLouisArchMultExpEV%2B1.51.JPG

can be merged into this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:StLouisArchMultExpCDR.jpg

Notice how in the first 2 images, you can't make out the image properly while in the third image, you can.

ArmA II's post processing is incredibly unrealistic. Unless you were saying that ArmA II was trying to simulate a camera mounted on top of a persons head!

Edited November 5, 2010 by Cookieeater

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Only two viable HDR techniques are exposure control (used now in games) and simple contrast reduction (the one you showed, looks often horrible for obvious reasons). If you know any realtime tonemapping techniques, I'm sure BIS would be interested. But when doing tonemapping myself, I spend hours at the controls before I achieve the desired look.

Bad HDR (via tonemapping)

Good HDR (with bloom)

Searching google images for "awesome HDR" I only found crap, lol. I gave up but I've seen some extremely nice shots too.

Camera doesn't matter that much. You get more data in RAW than with a JPG, but the EV range is about the same. Doing bracketed shots with a decent camera is just more convenient.

But we can't cause the "blinding effect" that sometimes comes from viewing something very bright, in a game. Adding bloom helps that a little even if its fake. The price for a HDR screen is still unreachable for most ($50.000 for a Brightside display).

Unfortunately, it seems that very bright means white, and that's where the implementation fails. You wouldn't get blinded by looking at the compass because it has a white background color. Cows doesn't glow because they have white spots. For this to work you need to take into account the background. As more and more blacks is introduced, then it's time to up the amount of glow. If you're in a dark tunnel (pupil wide open), a white cow may start to "glow" simulating it's hurtful to look at. But in the cows enviroment (fully lit green meadow), the effect should be canceled out. In our game, that doesn't happen (I think, I haven't studied it in depth). Which is why we think it looks horrible.

But, I can live with it I guess. The effect is somewhat reduced at 0.5 brightness, and I still get to experience "bad lighting conditions", and that is to me important.

Unless you were saying that ArmA II was trying to simulate a camera mounted on top of a persons head!

I'm saying that is has to. Or rather, I believe that it has to (select an aperture and go with that). Our eyes can work with a much broader EV range at the same time than any camera can. Contrast reduction like the image you showed has very limited practical use (while still making it a good image), which is why most go with tone mapping, which isn't feasible to achieve in real time.

Edited November 6, 2010 by CarlGustaffa

[Cookieeater 10]

Only two viable HDR techniques are exposure control (used now in games) and simple contrast reduction (the one you showed, looks often horrible for obvious reasons). If you know any realtime tonemapping techniques, I'm sure BIS would be interested. But when doing tonemapping myself, I spend hours at the controls before I achieve the desired look.

Bad HDR (via tonemapping)

Good HDR (with bloom)

Searching google images for "awesome HDR" I only found crap, lol. I gave up but I've seen some extremely nice shots too.

Camera doesn't matter that much. You get more data in RAW than with a JPG, but the EV range is about the same. Doing bracketed shots with a decent camera is just more convenient.

But we can't cause the "blinding effect" that sometimes comes from viewing something very bright, in a game. Adding bloom helps that a little even if its fake. The price for a HDR screen is still unreachable for most ($50.000 for a Brightside display).

Unfortunately, it seems that very bright means white, and that's where the implementation fails. You wouldn't get blinded by looking at the compass because it has a white background color. Cows doesn't glow because they have white spots. For this to work you need to take into account the background. As more and more blacks is introduced, then it's time to up the amount of glow. If you're in a dark tunnel (pupil wide open), a white cow may start to "glow" simulating it's hurtful to look at. But in the cows enviroment (fully lit green meadow), the effect should be canceled out. In our game, that doesn't happen (I think, I haven't studied it in depth). Which is why we think it looks horrible.

But, I can live with it I guess. The effect is somewhat reduced at 0.5 brightness, and I still get to experience "bad lighting conditions", and that is to me important.

I'm saying that is has to. Or rather, I believe that it has to (select an aperture and go with that). Our eyes can work with a much broader EV range at the same time than any camera can. Contrast reduction like the image you showed has very limited practical use (while still making it a good image), which is why most go with tone mapping, which isn't feasible to achieve in real time.

Tone mapping is hardly realistic and uses HDR for more of an artistic effect. HDR is meant to reduce overexposure and allow full detail of everything that your eyes would see that your camera wouldn't. Linking that fairy cave is an example of why you have HDRi photography, because in real life, you would be able to see what is outside, and what is inside due to higher contrast ratio. Also, the reason why stuff doesn't really blind us because there is only a range of darkness to brightness that your monitor can show, which is 0 for pitch black, and 255 for pure white. This is a problem since how can you make something that is brighter than pure white in a monitor? You can't, thats why they created HDR rendering.

Edited November 6, 2010 by Cookieeater

[CarlGustaffa 4]

HDR is really merely a data storage method that allows full, high, or extended dynamic range compared to what you can with 8 bits of data (per channel). Photoshop can work with low dynamic range in 16 bits of data, it's only the accuracy of the same range that is increased. HDR I think (haven't done this in a while) is 32-48 bits per channel, floating point, full range.

You don't have many options on transfer high dynamic (more than the monitor can show) range to low dynamic range:

1) Select an exposure that suits what you want best.

2) Compression (like you showed). This is good when all the interesting parts are within limited ranges. But when there is a lot of detail to be preserved in all of the dynamic range, you're in big trouble, and the image will tend to look extremely flat.

3) Tone mapping and other local adaption techniques try to keep all the subtleties in all ranges, by varying the contrast between those ranges. That's why it's so easy to get those nasty halo effects.

To artists, 3D artists in particular, it's not so much about getting a HDR output (although it allows greater post editing flexibility), but how HDR images are used during the creative process. HDRi can be used as a source for lighting, source for specular reflections, and overcomes some major issues related to true DOF rendering (not simple distance buffer blurring like in all games and most renderers) and motion blur effects - both which looks horrible using a LDR source.

Not sure what came first actually, HDR or application of them. For the 3D artists at the time, most of us used stock HDR images (damn, anyone remember these? :D) and the results were awesome. Not sure how many actually tried setting up our own probe making equipment. Hmm, diversion down the memory lane...

Anyway, whether you choose tone mapping or contrast reduction is not only a matter of personal taste (tone mapping can look awesome, doesn't have to look like most "artistic" stuff at all), but also the source material. There is no solution that fits everything. For graphics artists and photographers, any kind of HDR technique is used as a means to make the image pop (often ending up with the opposite), but being completely locked up in this HDR hype forgetting there are other techniques. Personally I'm a great fan of Orton blending (reduced variant) to make colors pop, but like HDR, also that can be overused.

[Cookieeater 10]

I would still say though that ArmA II and bloom in general is hugely unrealistic. You don't really see bloom that much in real life, even on an extremely sunny day, and the light bleed in is very small at best.

EDIT:

Fixed

Edited November 7, 2010 by Cookieeater