WHAT'S THE FUCKING POINT OF DEPTH OF FIELD IT'S SO FUCKING USELESS

WHAT'S THE FUCKING POINT OF DEPTH OF FIELD IT'S SO FUCKING USELESS

it's to make you buy a new gfx card because nothing shits up fps like a hamfisted depth of field except fully reflective surfaces

neckbeard devs with glasses think everyone has bad eyesights and try emulate their view not thinking that effect looks like shit on games

There is no point in it,the human eye does it by default when it is focusing on things.
Artificially added it does nothing but irritate because its so bury.
Proper implementation of DOF can cut some rendering performance in the near vicinity but most games dont use it like that.

It's pretty.

I don't know either

it's like they go through the trouble of making nice graphics and then they blur the shit out of it so you can't appreciate it

I turn that shit off every time because it makes assessing threats more difficult

So with eye tracking software it would be alright?

Yes in games where they play themselves.
Oh wait there are actually called interactive movies.

shut up nigger

>This is a movie because some shitter on the internet says so.
You know. Sometimes I really wonder if I'm missing out on something in life. Like, I will never know what its like to be as needlessly mad as you, and that makes me feel like I'm missing out.

>have bad sight
>buy 500$ pair of glasses to barely read
>get game
>need 800$ GPU setting to see as badly as I do without my glasses

There is no point to use it.
DOF is so GPU utilization heavy it is useless to use it in a role where it can be used to save performance.
The eyes does do all the work for you,instead of focusing on draw distances they focus on things that dont make sense.
Chromatic Aberration is another useless thing,and in some people actually causes physically obvious side effects like nausea.
I feel my stomach turning after 15 minutes looking at CA affected image.

>10fps

so... this is the power of the ps4.... woah

So this is the power 4daplayers.

hmmm....

really makes me think

>Webm verifiably running at 30FPS with no stuttering in the content shown

No. This is a video game.

It hides distance LOD changes that some players might find distracting.

CA is used as ghetto AA because turning it on heavy hides jaggies a bit for negligible performance loss. It's pretty clever in itself, but too bad it looks obnoxious and selling it as a cinematic thing is pure cancer.

>No. This is a animated movie.*

Well technically yes. That webm IS an animated movie, but the animation is a recording of real time gameplay from a video game.

CA is a broken lens effect in practice.
When I look at it my brain thinks there is something wrong with my eyes.
Side effect of it is AA but that is stupid because things like CMAA exist and have minimal impact on performance while looking good.
This is especially true on 4K resolutions so the need for CA is non existent and yet everyone keep pushing it.

Silky smooth 24fps,just like motion picture.

30, actually.

masking ugly edges
cant mask your meme tho

To make things more "cinematic' and consoles use it often for things like character close ups so they can lower the visual fidelity to N64 levels without you noticing to increase character model quality.

Hides the shitty aliasing in the distance.

There's literally nothing wrong with DoF and motion blur. You are just povertyfag bitter foxes mad you can't have the grapes.

I have 1600 USD PC and I play with DOF and motion blur off.

My PC will outperform 3 PS pros

especially in those two examples
really activates my almonds.

it obscures shitty console graphics

motion blur looks unrealistic in PC games

How is motion blur good when you already have 16ms lag on your monitor with ghosting on top of your eye not being able to track quick picture transition in 3D space?
You are already motion blured to shit when playing as it is.

*drools*

DoF can look great when a game doesn't require the player to look far ahead. Otherwise it's a hindrance for sure.

For decades, our visual media was captured by cameras. Cameras as our eyes, due to lenses, have depth of field. Since filmmakers had decades to practice the matter, they use this hindrance as a tool to focus attention on a specific part of the picture. Our eyes do it too, but unlike cameras they focus on anything we want to inspect "automatically", so that basically everything you look at is in focus.
Now, we have machines capable of rendering scenes digitally, and there's an attempt to make the output image look "good". What is good, then? It's comparing it to the only other visual benchmark: cinema.
When rendering a scene without depth of field, the wide focal range helps players focus on the entire image, which makes sense for the interactive aspect of the game. If I want to focus on the details on my gun in the first person view, I can, and if I want to focus on the details on a billboard in the distance, I can do so too. But it also looks flat. We know from life experience and from decades of using cameras, that things at different ranges can't be all in focus. Much like covering one eye and trying to pick something, you lack depth perception, and you can't tell what's closer and by how much at a glance.
So depth of field was put in place. It gives scenes a more "natural" look. If you take a static screenshot, you get a sense of depth, as the name implies. The downside is that you can't focus on things the game doesn't focus on. If the focus is on the gun's details, you cannot inspect the billboard.

It's not unlike the "cinematic 30fps" phenomenon. It's a fault in the old system that you can solve with practical solutions which look a bit more uncanny.

I have a $5000 pc and I still dont like it.

Both of those effects have very little impact on performance.