3DFX Motion Blur In Action
Mr.Tweak writes: "TweakTown has some
"exclusive" pictures
of 3DFX's new Motion Blur effects on a 3DFX Voodoo5 in Quake 3
Arena @ 1280x980, 4X FSAA and oh boy - it looks absolutely
sensational and so futuristic! According to 3DFX, together the
Voodoo5 5000's support of the FXT1(tm) and DXTC(TM) texture
compression and textures as large as 2048 texels x 2048 texels, the
T-Buffer(TM) can render 3d landscapes with unparalleled realism and
with an impressive cinematic style which is Motion Blur. Their
article quickly explains Motion Blur and has lots of pictures of the
new feature which is currently unreleased by 3DFX, or should we now
say nVidiaFX?"
All they needed to do was use the T-Buffer in line with the way they use FSAA, and keep the last rendered frame to average with the current one. It'd only look (worse than) those awful screenshots at rotten framerates like 9fps, but as you went above 30fps it would start looking just like unblurred rendering _except_ that fast-moving detailed textures would be _softened_ dynamically. Combining that with 2X FSAA would be a fantastic effect with a great deal of 'you are thereness', but NOOOOO... can't these people check with other professionals other than just computer programmers? Ask any cinematographer if that's a normal cinematic level of photographic motion blur :P they'll look at you like you are _insane_. Almost nothing moves through the frame enough to produce _that_ much blur.
From FilePlanet:
Download the demo here.
------------
CitizenC
Isn't it odd that the submitter of the story is also the owner of the website where the page is hosted? It seems to me as if it is a quick attempt to generate some banner ad revenue. Especially since screenshots of this sort have been around since the initial introduction of the T-buffer.
Like the antialiasing that gets rid of jaggies, it can occasionally be a bad thing, but in general it's a good thing. At 9 fps, it's a bad thing; it's like rendering a picture at 1/4 resolution for the sake of removing jaggies. However, as hardware gets faster, and motion blur at 30fps becomes possible, it does improve the user experience. You don't really see the blurring, but the movement becomes smoother.
Is it really beneficial? Consider this. People start complaining about frame rates when they drop below 40fps or so for a first-person shooter (which I won't abbreviate to a TLA for obvious reasons). Movies, including the CG parts, are played at only 24fps, yet the motion looks smoother. This is because cameras naturally add motion blur (because of a finite shutter speed), and the folks who add CG elements take great pains to include motion blur effects.
I prefer the NATURAL motion blur induced by a few good beers. :-)
So this <fingerquote> motion blur technology </fingerquote> involves a kind of smearing technique? Kind of like you'd get from taking photos of monitors?
Oh wait, those are fingerprints on my monitor...
Sean