Modern monitor technology has more than enough technology that adding more is most certainly not my cup of tea. Made worse ironically by modern rendering techniques...

Though my understanding is that it helps hide shakier framerates in console land. Which sounds like it could be a thing...

▲

shmerl 4 days ago | parent [-]

If anything, high refresh rate displays are trying to reduce motion blur. Artificially adding it back sounds weird and counter intuitive.

▲

tjoff 4 days ago | parent [-]

It adds realism.

Your vision have motion blur. Staring at your screen at fixed distance and no movement is highly unrealistic and allows you to see crisp 4k images no matter the content. This results in a cartoonish experience because it mimics nothing in real life.

Now you do have the normal problem that the designers of the game/movie can't know for sure what part of the image you are focusing on (my pet peeve with 3D movies) since that affects where and how you would perceive the blur.

Also have the problem of overuse or using it to mask other issues, or just as an artistic choice.

But it makes total sense to invest in a high refresh display with quick pixel transitions to reduce blur, and then selectively add motion blur back artificially.

Turning it off is akin to cranking up the brightness to 400% because otherwise you can't make out details in the dark parts off the game ... thats the point.

But if you prefer it off then go ahead, games are meant to be enjoyed!

▲

oasisaimlessly 4 days ago | parent [-]

Your eyes do not have built-in motion blur. If they are accurately tracking a moving object, it will not be seen as blurry. Artifically adding motion blur breaks this.

▲

tjoff 3 days ago | parent [-]

Sure they do, the moving object in focus will not have motion blur but the surroundings will. Motion blur is not indiscriminately adding blur everywhere.

▲

theshackleford 3 days ago | parent [-]

> Motion blur is not indiscriminately adding blur everywhere.

Motion blur in games is inaccurate and exaggerated and isn’t close to presenting any kind of “realism.”

My surroundings might have blur, but I don’t move my vision in the same way a 3d camera is controlled in game, so in the “same” circumstances I do not see the blur you do when moving a camera in 3d space in a game. My eyes jump from point to point, meaning the image I see is clear and blur free. When I’m tracking a single point, that point remains perfectly clear whilst sure, outside of that the surroundings blur.

However motion blur in games does can literally not replicate either of these realities, it just adds a smear on top of a smear on top of a smear.

So given both are unrealistic, I’d appreciate the one that’s far closer to how I actually see which is the one without yet another layer of blur. Modern displays add blur, modern rendering techniques add more, I don't need EVEN more added on top with in-game blur on top of that.

	▲	tjoff 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, and that was exactly my point in my original post... With or without, neither is going to be perfect. At least when not even attempting eye-tracking. But there are still many reasons to do it.