What is your opinion on chromatic aberration?

What is your opinion on chromatic aberration?

Like it, when its subtile

Another version of 'Lets make the game look shit because that'll somehow make it more real'
See also: piss filters, lens flare

Its a buzz word that nu Sup Forums parrots in place of actual complaints about a game.

I actually am a fan of it when it actually is used properly. I'm a sucker for any kind of old vhs/tv looking aesthetic.

fucking hate it. it's probably the one effect i hate the most in games

It's perfect

>CoD

just like lens flares I turn or mod this shit off whenever I can

...

it's an aberration

Defend this

the next bloom

It's fucking garbage and I don't understand why anyone would use it in videogames or digital art. What the FUCK does it even DO? It just creates more 'visual noise' or whatever it's called in english, for no purpose whatsoever. I legitimately cannot imagine any human being liking it for any reason

It's great when well used. Usually it's shit.

Bloodborne uses it well, it gives an otherworldly vibe to everything. Now and then it abuses it and combined with the frame rate it can be "heavy" on the eyes.

>old vhs/tv looking aesthetic

That's not what chromatic aberration is. I don't know the exact theory behind camera lenses, but in humans chromatic aberration is corrected by your brain, if you're literally ill or very tired/stressed, your brain will say fuck it and draw blue and red borders on the left/right edge of objects. Because something something eyes, sunlight.

...

It's still the effect that it's used for in media such as video games. Such as a game like cuphead

It's great

Old tapes did sometimes suffer of severe chromatic aberration.

could you please delete this? thanks!

Its a natural effect of 2 eye sight. Each eye is slightly different and viewing a single object form 2 separate trajectories. Red and Blue 3d lenses are a thing for a reason.

Its used in games to "simulate" VR but does it either completely wrong or just mostly wrong. Your brain still knows and will always know it is looking at a flat screen. You cannot trick the brain into thinking its real 3d or real at all when doing it. Its literally a meme that makes games look worse because it doesn't work as intended.

Then you have shitters doing it for "artistic" value. If you ever encounter this be wary as the person doing it doesn't understand artistic value and sits in the camp of "if I can do thing, I should do thing." and the "thing" they CAN do is a lazy filter, not create something truly artistic. So be wary.

...

depends on the artistic direction of the game, if the art director is shit it will ruin the experience, if he knows what he's doing it can cause cool effects.

For me, It means turn off the feature or turn off the game.

The reason is that the refraction of light (how much it gets bent when it crosses a water surface, or through a lens, or through rising/falling air) depends on it's wavelength (i.e. color), so different colors get refracted slightly more strongly than others (see: rainbows). So that actual focal length of a lens differs ever so slightly depending on color.

That's a screenshot of a Youtube video

This.

Anyone notice it appearing in anime now?

I've been seeing alot of screengrabs of recent anime on Sup Forums and the ones with dark red line art instead of black is sickening.

There is a studio where the autistic directors use it for some reason

I have no idea why the fuck Bloodborne of all things had chromatic aberration. At least it's generally not noticeable, I only really see it when I'm not moving around

Underrated post. Joke went over my head the first time.

>now

Chromatic aberrations are a fundamental result of all lenses, because the refractive index of a lens is different for each wavelength of light that passes through it. It can be corrected for, but never perfectly.

Artificial lenses such as those used in cameras use sometimes use many different materials and designs to attempt to optically correct for the separation that occurs when light is passed though a lens. Pictured is an achromatic triplet, but you can also use different materials like fluoride which have higher refractive indexes, allowing you to still correct more complex lens designs.

Our eyes perform chromatic aberration correction to a certain extent optically, and a certain percent in the visual image processing center of our brain. Instead of having multiple different elements, our eye instead has one lens but the lens has variable density - performing all the light bending of several complementary lenses, but in one small space -
something that we can't yet do with artificial lenses.

Chromatic aberration appears strongest at high contrast borders. We don't notice this especially, because it's filtered by our visual processing, but our visual processing expects it. Because monitors have a reduced contrast ratio compared to the real world, it makes sense to add a little bit of chromatic aberration back in.

Also chromatic aberration is good at hiding flaws in an image in a digital render, although in photography it just looks shit. Absolute 0 CA in a render looks a bit crap, you always want at least a smidgen, in combination with a little bit of DoF too.

For most games it's a cheap way of making the game look "better". It enhances detail similarly to sharpening filters, while also hiding jaggies like a FXAA filter. Which is why I don't like it, it's usually supposed to fool dumbasses into thinking a mediocre game look better.

So it literally re-adds something our brains are designed to filter out thru normal processing? And thats a good thing because...

Burgers cost $58008.17 and .07th of a penny? Fucking hell America.

Because your brain is used to it and you will perceive something as unnatural if it does not have characteristics it has come to expect.

Flip it 180 degrees user.

Why does it cost that much to have an upside down burger? I don't get the appeal.

and this helps in a game in what way? The only genre that would benefit from it is horror games and only Alien Isolation has done it well. All others ruin their respective experiences more than add to them.

Why does GTA5 need to make me feel unnatural?

it's shit and should be turned off no matter what
also bloom and blur

I think object based motion blur can be okay to add emphasis to force on attacks like in dark souls. But camera motion blur is cancer, and most forms for depth of field

He's retarded anyway, there isn't a single medium in which chromatic abberation is accepted except for some reason videogames now.

And some extreme edge cases like psychological thriller movies.

A lot of effort and money was spent to make sure nothing has CA, and the kind you see in games aren't even realistic 99% of the time in the absolute off-chance that you have a really specific defect with your lens. CA hasn't been an issue since we stopped using a single lens in cameras which is a trillion years ago.

And this is coming from someone who can understand pretty much any other effect in videogames to date. CA however is literally eyecancer.

>image corruption that people remove on photography is added in videogames because everyone has cameras for eyes

and lens flare... and film grain.... motion blur....

seriously wtf is wrong with the industry, these developer morons are literally using processing power to make the graphics worse

>explains how CA works and why you would ever be motivated to add it
>with science
>retarded because I don't like/understand the reasoning

What even. Since his post apparently went over your head, I'll try to explain it more plainly. Computer monitors don't fall victim to CA as strongly as your vision of physical objects, so a little bit is added in to make digital images look more realistic, not less as you might think it would do based on the times that too much is added and you notice it.

80% of the time: awful
20% of the time: meh, ok I guess

It's fucking SHIT. The only time it managed not to look out of place was in Alien Isolation, because it was an explicit aspect of that game's aesthetics. Now you can see that eyecancer everywhere, and at least in games you can usually disable it, but when it worms its way into anime or even fucking 2D porn there's no fucking way around it.

...

Your post was fine until you thought that for some reason we still perceive CA unless it's captured digitally. Protip: We don't unless you wear glasses.

No amount of CA is acceptable.

Wendy's is easily the best fast food burger

What part of "our eyes are also imaging devices" do you not fucking understand? Or are you unaware that our eyes use lenses and fall to the same flaws as lenses because lens flaws like lens flare are due to the physics that affect everything?

Those effects are added because their realistic and the correctionary measures in our brains expect them to occur and cause their absense to make an image unnatural. You only notice when the developer uses too much because they're bad at it and/or are compensating for some flaw in the render.

Except film grain of course, but that's added for aesthetical preference really so shit on it if you want

It should only be used if the player character is a robot, or is looking through a remote camera.

>I don't know what science means

Are you well and truly unaware that there are lenses inside our eyes? Our eyes experience CA whether your have glasses or not.

I still to this day don't understand why anyone would want thier game to look like an out of focus lens.

It's the second worst post-processing effect in current video games. The first worst is vignetting.

It's physically correct because your eyes produce aberrations.

Thus if you're aiming for photorealism you need at least a slight amount.

Bloodborne overdoes it to the detriment of the graphics; everything outside the middle of the frame has a low-res look to it.

>The first worst is vignetting.

thats a profoundly strange way to spell film grain...

idiot blind retards who think that real humans see in 3D glasses vision.

>Those effects are added because their realistic and the correctionary measures in our brains expect them to occur and cause their absense to make an image unnatural.
dumbest most made-up bullshit I have ever heard.

Do you actually believe that or are you just trying that desperately to be a contrarian? That argument is as convincing as the ones used by flat Earth fags.

It looks neat when used lightly in games with "lo-fi" looks like Alien Isolation. Other than that, nah I turn it off in most games play. Same with motion blur.

If your eyes experience CA, seek medical help. There's many reasons why we don't see CA in our daily lives and while the brain does 'filter out' some of it, our eyes aren't as simple as just a lens. It can be almost be considered a two-lens equivalent.

I'm very curious as to what part of that you think is made-up

hey guys have you ever looked at a drawing on a piece of paper. your eyes don't see it right because they artist didn't apply chromatic abberation to it.

ever looked at a wall? you don't see it right because the stonemason didn't apply CA

Damn, I finally understand now. We should totally double the chromatic aberration that's already filtered out with more chromatic aberration for realism.

Thanks modern videogame devs!

>something to avoid in any media dealing with lens
>it's considered artistic on video games
Only on this fucking industry.

>film grain
That's an odd way of spelling motion blur

It's in the same tier as motion blur, depth of field, and lens flare - FUCKING. DUMB.

They really ruined battlefield 3 with this shit

I wish I saved that one pic of the BF3 box art where they had flash lights and lens flare all everywhere and a soldier halfway into the ground, that was the best representation of what BF3 was.

Between the lens flare, all the flashlights and lasers and the blue filter that game was a real eyesore despite how technically impressive it was. It's amazing how they made such a good looking game and covered it up with post processed garbage

>depth of field
>chromatic abberation
>motion blur
Uncheck all of these boxes always.

They want to make it look captured with a camera because in an age of CGI additions people perceive that to be "more realistic" than actual realism. It's the same reason TV shows are still being shits about 60fps.

This. I turn all these off before I even set resolution in a game.

As other anons said, our eyes are actually equivalents of far more complex systems but whatever. Eyes always experience CA becaues it's an unavoidable problem of physics, but yes you shouldn't notice it in real life but the fact that our brain handles some of it is the root of the problem and necessity for a tiny bit of CA in digital images.

In order to speed up our visual processing (and thus allow us to process better images in real time) our brain-based corrective measures are applied proactively on the assumption that the flaw exists. This causes problems when the flaw in question isn't present, because the corrective measure is applied anyway (I wear modern bifocals, and my brain automatically corrects for the distortion they cause regardless of whether or not I"m wearing them, which immediately gives me a skull-splitting headache when I try to wear normal lenses)

Ok, so what's that got to do with adding chromatic aberration in digital images? Since CA separates colors like a prism, high-contrast images ("high-contrast" meaning there is more variety and difference in the colors of the image) get hit harder by CA than low-contrast. The kicker is that computer monitors can't perfectly replicate the contrast of real life, so their images dont get distorted by CA as heavily so if you aren't used to looking at them then your brain will overcorrect and make it look unnatural. Hence, a tiny bit of artifical CA is necessary to make digital images look as realistic as possible.

I'd image much of the complaints in this thread come from people noticing it because they're used to computers and their brains recognize the monitor and dial the corrective measures back, or the videogame in question is using it too much.

I don't want it. Ever. I hate it.

Nice story but none of that is relevant to any kind of digital CA you'll EVER see, because our receptors aren't fucking camera sensors and whatever CA left that's filtered by the cornea and crystalline lens wouldn't be RGB.

You realise that at this point you're arguing that real photographs look fake when you view them on a monitor, but not when you print them out?

>I'd image much of the complaints in this thread come from people noticing it because they're used to computers and their brains recognize the monitor and dial the corrective measures back
Why would our brains dial back an adjustment they made themselves in order to restore a visual glitch that the adjustment was specifically made to remove in the first place? Your argument doesn't make any sense.

it must be physically exhausting to be that fucking stupid

That part doesn't even make sense to begin with because it's not like we're viewing the monitor magically with our brains, it still goes through our eyes and has to be compensated for.

I mean, aside from the absurd assumption that we can 'dial back' corrective measures.

...Yes. because monitors can't perfectly replicate the optics of real life. this has been stated and explained multiple times in the thread.

Neck yourselves.

i dislike most if not all cheap effects.

becaue the glitch in question isn't as powerful with computer monitors so if our brains don't dial back, then they overcorrect and that's just swapping one glitch for another.

It doesn't need to recreate all optics genius, just the worldspace.

Do you think real-life objects have a physical fucking chromatic aberration hanging around them?

how about you prove you're smarter than me, and explain how and why I'm wrong? Saying "you're wrong and stupid" and nothing else only proves that you don't understand what I'm saying.

How could our brains know to dial back the image on the monitor, but somehow fail to do it enough to actually have the desired effect?
Why would game designers artificially include CA in games to compensate for our visual processing, but fail to do it in a way that actually has the desired effect?
Why is a monitor, which is a real-life object, immune to the effects of real-life CA? CA is based on how lenses refract light; it has nothing to do with depth, which is the only appreciable difference between an image displayed on a monitor and reality.

>Literally any thread i create on Sup Forums creates a shitstorm

Man this place is really assblasted about everything

Do you even know what CA is or where it comes from? no, they don't, it's an IMAGING FLAW based on lens physics. Since our eyes have lenses inside them, this means our natural vision expereinces CA as well. We just don't notice it because those lenses and our brains have correctionary measures in place.

How do you seriously think I've claimed even once that CA is a tangible object? Are you not reading my posts

Experience, mostly, since my eyes knew to correct for the distortions of progressive-prescription lenses based on an intuitive notion of what the world should look like. I theorize that the brain might make an exception for digital monitors based on a similar intuitive idea that CA or the results of overcorrection shouldn't be in our vision.

I really only intended the idea to be a theory as to why we're arguing over whether CA is necessary to an extent or cancer in all forms rather than an assertion of something that definitely actually happens

Aside from the fact that our eyes already correct for CA as explained before and that they are basically achromatic together with our brain, you realise we're viewing the fucking monitor with the same eyes right? You don't double up on fucking CA because your mental gymnastics somehow thinks that makes sense.

Let alone the fact that if your brains didn't account for the CA, it wouldn't look ANYWHERE NEAR digital CA that cameras experience.

Pretty garbage but as long as there's an option to disable it I don't give a fuck. Also it reminds me of Shadman so that's bad

You can "double up" on chromatic aberration because its intensity is not just a function of the imaging device's characteristics, but also of the chromatic contrast of the image in question. (colors that are farther apart from each other on the spectrum get split more extremely, like how prisms split green and yellow only a little but puts red and blue far apart). so images or regions of images that have more or less contrast to them are distorted more or less heavily by CA respectively.

Are you just trolling at this point because you are now admitting that real-life objects have chromatic aberration stuck to them.

OR, you are agreeing with me and are finally accepting that whatever chromatic aberration there would be already happens by viewing the screen through our fucking eyes. And yes, monitors do actually happen to have varying images on them! Just like real-life!

But you're just talking about colors. That has literally nothing to do with the post you quoted, which if you somehow didn't know is asking why monitors are a special case.

Monitors aren't actually a special case, nor did I ever say they were. Any object that has poor contrast (literally any black or grey object) also doesn't get distorted by CA.

>you are now admitting that real-life objects have chromatic aberration stuck to them
I would very much like to hear an explanation as to how or when I ever even implied that. Or do you just think I am because you don't understand that I'm talking about an imaging error, which is an imperfection of imaging and perception rather than a feature of physical reality.

It's not an imaging error though. It would be a sensory deficit if we would have it, but we don't. Neither on real-life or on the monitor unless you introduce it artificially which is not realistic since we don't experience it.

most terrible effect ever. It makes everything look blurry, dull and washed out.

*It would be a sensory deficit if we noticed it.

We do experience it, as do ALL imaging devices where refraction occurs since CA is a physical feature of refraction, but we correct for it and the sensory deficit to which you allude is the lack of those correctionary measures.